Article

2012-01-16 -Election 2012

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Jan 2012-01-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11125 views ] Top

#1 At the moment, Nobody.
I'll wait umtill they thin out.

BUT ANYBODY BUT OBAMA.
Except Ron Paul (Nuts)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2012-01-16 02:53|| 2012-01-16 02:53|| Front Page Top

#2 Mine was Cain, but the MSM smear maching put a stop to that.

Other than than, I'm with RJ.

Posted by Barbara 2012-01-16 03:44|| 2012-01-16 03:44|| Front Page Top

#3 None of the above..

Its not too late to start over. Or have a couple more jump in.

Paul is the only change from the status quo. The rest are SOSDD.

Romney was the people chosen governor of farking Massachusetts, 'nuf said.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2012-01-16 05:23|| 2012-01-16 05:23|| Front Page Top

#4 Ditto Redneck Jim.

Posted by Dale 2012-01-16 07:05|| 2012-01-16 07:05|| Front Page Top

#5 Succinct, RJ. Me three.

Posted by RandomJD 2012-01-16 08:14|| 2012-01-16 08:14|| Front Page Top

#6 None - I, and I believe most conservativies, won't be allowed to choose. It'll all be decided by the same few states that brought us McCain. As designed.

However personally mine used to be Cain but like Barbara said the MSM smeared him - they really hate to see a conservative cannidate. Newt has the couch incident with Pelosi, Mitt has Healthcare and looks more like another RINO, and I just don't know enough about the others.

Posted by CrazyFool 2012-01-16 08:14|| 2012-01-16 08:14|| Front Page Top

#7 I also agree with RJ.

We don't have a Reagan this go around, but you go to the election with the candidates you have and this election is about restoring the economy. Any of the Republican candidates would take at least some steps in that direction.

I also believe in Operation Counterweight. Get Republicans into the Senate and Congress who will fight the Republican President if/when he goes wobbly. We had lapdogs under Bush who allowed him to spend. We had lapdogs under Obama who allowed him to spend. The Congress needs some spine. I want it to be a Republican super-majority with spine.

Posted by rjschwarz 2012-01-16 08:49|| 2012-01-16 08:49|| Front Page Top

#8 The best bet is for conservatives to push for a deadlocked convention. Delegates are only required to vote loyalty once. If Romney doesn't get a majority, then it gives a dark horse the chance to jump in. And almost certainly, that dark horse would be more conservative.

Oddly enough, the "serious" candidates, like Perry and Gingrich, will fold for party loyalty, yet the ideologue Paul will never give up. So it may be best to support him, *knowing* that he will never get the nomination, but that he might be able to deny it to Romney where others wouldn't.

This is very different than splitting the Republican vote, and Paul has been adamant that he would never go for a third party.

My best guess is that Sarah Palin would step up to the plate, and would be hugely popular by acclimation. She could even throw a bone to the moderates by asking Romney to be VP. He would agree to this because it would align him to be Palin's successor.

Posted by Anonymoose 2012-01-16 08:58|| 2012-01-16 08:58|| Front Page Top

#9 Hold my nose and Romney. The role for grass roots tea party conservatives (for 2012 at least) is for downticket office holders. Build a new party wing from the base up.

The problem is the power of Washington is too concentrated. The solution cannot be Washington centric (top down). It needs to be done from the ground up: from dogcatcher to statehouses. Then congress and higher.

Run for office in a local election!

Posted by Chavish Unolung3238 2012-01-16 09:00|| 2012-01-16 09:00|| Front Page Top

#10 We had lapdogs under Bush who allowed him to spend.

Those 'lapdogs' were spending well without help from Bush. Some people forget the Porkbusters movement which predates the Tea Party. It's really a divide between the Beltway Party and the Homeland Party. Mitt and the others are largely just other members of the Beltway Party. You can tell a Homeland Party member by how vicious the attacks are upon him/her by the establishment.

Posted by Procopius2k 2012-01-16 09:34|| 2012-01-16 09:34|| Front Page Top

#11 I vote for gridlock, brokered convention, and Mitch Daniels.

Posted by Glenmore 2012-01-16 09:39|| 2012-01-16 09:39|| Front Page Top

#12 Perry.

He would govern well. He has proven that.

Posted by Iblis 2012-01-16 09:44|| 2012-01-16 09:44|| Front Page Top

#13 I support Romney. He's not perfect (under-statement) but he's competant, can organize and lead and would be tougher than some might expect when dealing with frenemies overseas.

The Tea Party pushed into the Presidential level of politics without a mature movement and experience at the local and state levels. This matters because the result has been some campaigns with national level visibility that have been ... amateurish ... at best.

Take Cain, for instance. Great guy (if a horndog), was apparently good in his role as a Federal Reserve bank president. (Y'all do remember he made his mark at the Fed, right????) But he never took the Presidency seriously enough to move beyond off the cuff comments on key policy areas that are central to the office - military and foreign relations, for example. Nor did he even play up and draw upon that Fed experience to make a compelling analysis for economic policy in our situation today.

Perry sounds good (well, he does in scripted ads anyway) but in reality his state level track record isn't as fiscally and policy-level conservative as his social conservative supporters might wish to suggest. It's true that the state had job growth and has business - friendly climate by and large. How much of that was his doing? And frankly the 'vulture capital' comment stank not only of desperation but also of a lack of understanding that pretty much reflects the fact he himself has never run, built or turned around a business himself.

The Tea Party for a while turned to Gingrich, who not only is a career politician with zero real understanding of business and economic matters, but who at present is acting like a combination of catty prom queen runner up (high school level) and suicide bomber.

Rick Santorum is a nice guy. He's never managed anything or led any organization bigger than his small staff. Moreover I personally have some problems with several of his key policy statements. He's a big government kind of social conservative.

Bachman on vaccines and mental retardation - need I add more?

Sarah Palin caught a lot of nasty flack she didn't deserve. She was and is also, IMNSHO, way in over her head at the national level. Even in Alaska - a state with a very small population, limited industries, lots of governmental subsidies and retail level politics - she had at best a thin level of experience and accomplishments.

There are no quick fixes for the mess we're in. Slogans along won't do it and whoever is elected will need to bring along enough Americans across a variety of opinions to actually get legislation passed and implemented.

Posted by lotp 2012-01-16 09:46|| 2012-01-16 09:46|| Front Page Top

#14 It doesn't matter at this point.

It will be Romney vs Obama.

Posted by Lord Garth 2012-01-16 09:54|| 2012-01-16 09:54|| Front Page Top

#15 One problem the Republicans have is raiding the minor leagues for candidates and throwing these folks into the limelight before they are seasoned (Palin). Or grabbing overly seasoned foggies because somehow we owe them (Dole, McCain). The RNC needs to pick promising folk and mentor them. Plan a course of elections and experience that will get them ready (state senator, House, US Senate, Governor). Something like that). Don't stay in any position too long but make the connections, get the experience, then move up.

Also then need to create a shadow government when they are not in control of the executive branch. Elect one of their members as psuedo Secretary of state and demand that member gets oncommities, etc, that provide experience when the actual position is out of their hands. This builds up experience and expertise.

Republicans should also create a alternative to Answr. A group that has chapters in each state and that works to put voter registration issues on the ballot. Go to old folks homes and make sure absentee ballots aren't filled out by staff. Get out to old people and convince them voter fraud takes away their vote so the codgers put the Dems feet to the fire with these scams to steel votes.

Republicans act as if each election is the first and that's pretty short sided. They are getting better but still need so much work.

Posted by Rjschwarz 2012-01-16 10:05|| 2012-01-16 10:05|| Front Page Top

#16 I will vote straight Republican.

I will not give A SINGLE CENT to the RNC and other organizations that have proven by their actions that they are not militant *fiscal* conservatives.

My district is not competitive. I will make small direct donations to candidates on the Operation-Counterweight list.

Posted by Free Radical 2012-01-16 10:24|| 2012-01-16 10:24|| Front Page Top

#17 The only one not a tool of some special interest clique or a predator in his own right is Ron Paul. Now Ron has a lot of nutty ideas but he is his own man.
If it ends up Obama Romney I may well vote for Micky Mouse.

Posted by Water Modem 2012-01-16 10:28|| 2012-01-16 10:28|| Front Page Top

#18 I will vote Republican. My comments are along the lines of RJ. I liked Cain but the MSM did a hatchet job on him. Romney is not perfect but then no one is. We don't have a Reagan this go around Even Reagan was a liberal Democrat early in his career until he saw the light and left the dark side. Romney is not the ideologue that BHO is and he is far more competent. I believe he will listen to the voters and he will change when things are not working.

Posted by JohnQC 2012-01-16 10:49|| 2012-01-16 10:49|| Front Page Top

#19 1st choice: Cain
2nd choice: Perry
3rd choice: Romney
Last choice: Paul. I would vote for OBAMA over Paul. Paul is insane. I am serious! Obama > Paul.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2012-01-16 11:03|| 2012-01-16 11:03|| Front Page Top

#20 As so many here have already said:

1) None of the above. Mrs. Palin's not running.
2) Not Ron Paul.
3) NOT OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

If the choice was Paul v. Obama I'd vote for Paul.

Posted by AlanC 2012-01-16 11:07|| 2012-01-16 11:07|| Front Page Top

#21 Now that Cain is out and Perry is too damaged, I'll vote for anyone that has a change of beating Obama. I will no longed give any money to the RNC until I see some change in fiscal policy, but will support Issa's reelection.

Posted by usmc6743 2012-01-16 11:15|| 2012-01-16 11:15|| Front Page Top

#22 Palin

Posted by rammer 2012-01-16 11:16|| 2012-01-16 11:16|| Front Page Top

#23 I should point out that since we are turning into a pauper state.... Ron's views might be the only affordable ones.
I see Obama and Romney both leading us deeper and deeper into indentured servitude as a people.

Posted by Water Modem 2012-01-16 11:19|| 2012-01-16 11:19|| Front Page Top

#24 If the GOP put up a ham sandwich for the presidency, I'd vote for that over Obama.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-01-16 11:36|| 2012-01-16 11:36|| Front Page Top

#25 Our form of democracy does not guarantee that you can vote for the person you want. It does, however, guarantee that you can vote against the person you don't want.

A.B.O.

Posted by Mercutio 2012-01-16 11:40|| 2012-01-16 11:40|| Front Page Top

#26 We need more than a ham sandwich. We need to be able to fix things.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-01-16 11:50|| 2012-01-16 11:50|| Front Page Top

#27 I too would prefer the ham sandwich or syphillitic camel to Obama.

But still, Obama > Paul.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2012-01-16 12:00|| 2012-01-16 12:00|| Front Page Top

#28 My first choice was Cain (before he was slandered).
My second choice is Santorum.

My rel choices would be Palin or Ann Coulter. Anyone who makes the leftists' heads explode gets my vote.

Posted by Frozen Al 2012-01-16 12:10|| 2012-01-16 12:10|| Front Page Top

#29 The biggest argument I can make against Romney is that Obama might actually be better than Romney. It is an evil choice.

The likely assumption is a Republican congress. If Obama is reelected, they will be unified to stop him doing anything else malevolent, and will work to overturn much of what he has done. But if Romney is elected, he will *cement* everything Obama has already done.

To make things even more repulsive, whoever is elected will likely nominate two supreme court justices. Obama has selected two already, but Romney's track record for judges are almost all liberal Democrats. So it's a lose-lose.

And this becomes truly *awful* if one of the conservative justices retires or more likely, dies as well. That could turn the "one-heartbeat" court liberal.

This is why I am so hoping for a deadlocked convention.

Posted by Anonymoose 2012-01-16 12:21|| 2012-01-16 12:21|| Front Page Top

#30 Anybody but Obama. His management of the government (or lack-thereof, actually) has been a catastrophy. His appointees are seriously f**king up the government.

Posted by Spot 2012-01-16 12:27|| 2012-01-16 12:27|| Front Page Top

#31 Anyone but Ron Paul.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-01-16 12:35|| 2012-01-16 12:35|| Front Page Top

#32 Anyone who'd
(i) Drill.
(ii) Ignore "middle east peace process"

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2012-01-16 12:37|| 2012-01-16 12:37|| Front Page Top

#33 Romney. Ham sandwich. Sack of hammers. A waitress named Helen who has occasional car troubles. Doesn't matter.

I'd like the next president to fill the hole but I think the best we can hope for is that he'll put down the shovel. And that may be enough in the short term.

Posted by Matt 2012-01-16 12:44|| 2012-01-16 12:44|| Front Page Top

#34 p.s.
(iii) No nation-building.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2012-01-16 12:52|| 2012-01-16 12:52|| Front Page Top

#35 Rick Perry. In the 2010 state level elections, he crushed the opponents. People liked the fact that when Obama landed at a Texas airport and walked out of the door of Airforce One, Rick Perry was standing at the exit stairs waiting for him to personally hand him a demand to control the border.

People liked the fact that when the EPA demanded full power of the Texas energy sector, Rick Perry took them to court.

Texans now like the fact that when the Virginia GOP decided that many of the candidates were ineligible, Rick Perry fought back and the rest of the Ineligible candidates then signed on for the fight with him. NOW THAT IS LEADERSHIP. And when he lost that case, he took it to a higher level. And by the way, he is the only candidate who immediately defended the marines last week regarding the dead taliban.

I like how he took on MSM, face to face, for spreading "un-substantiated" sources as a basis for a smear report against him and his staff. On camera.

At high noon when a big fight is on he will be there to do the right thing for the whole town. The rest of the time he will leave the rest of us alone so we can live free. And then who is happy to get out of our way so we can get on with our freedom.

You can have your debates to decide who is the best talker but I can guarantee you the best talkers need to stop winning elections. The last President was elected because he could read a speech from a teleprompter better than anyone else.

If America doesnt want him then thank you. We will be glad to have him continue to make Texas great.

Posted by Unush Panda7572 2012-01-16 13:13|| 2012-01-16 13:13|| Front Page Top

#36 Unush Panda7572, hear hear! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2012-01-16 13:18|| 2012-01-16 13:18|| Front Page Top

#37 it's gonna be Romney, but I'd like to see Perry at least as VP to balance out Romney's squishiness

Posted by Frank G 2012-01-16 13:22|| 2012-01-16 13:22|| Front Page Top

#38 Since it is of the utmost importance we unseat bambi I will vote for whatever poor candidate runs against him. Full stop. Given my personal choice of the republicans - meh - they all suck - Palin? Bachmann? How about Paul Ryan? I'd even support Paul because at least he would shrink government - but his foreign policy thoughts are nuts.

Posted by Hellfish 2012-01-16 14:01|| 2012-01-16 14:01|| Front Page Top

#39 That second Paul is Ron Paul.

Posted by Hellfish 2012-01-16 14:02|| 2012-01-16 14:02|| Front Page Top

#40 I have no problems with Romney.

I have no problem voting for the proverbial syphilitic camel versus Obama: you can always cure syphilis.

As for VP: I like McDonnell (Gov. VA), Pawlenty, Rubio, Jindal. Haley is not yet experienced enough, Palin has too much baggage (most of that not her fault but still), Hutchinson is too much a squish, Daniels has family issues best not brought back up, Perry is inarticulate in an era that demands adroit speech, and Huntsman is damaged goods in the party.

I'd love to see Scott Walker as the VP nominee just to watch liberal heads explode.

Posted by Steve White 2012-01-16 14:10|| 2012-01-16 14:10|| Front Page Top

#41 Well said, Matt.

It seems we are splitting into two camps. ABO (anyone but Obama) and ABP (anyone but Paul).

If it somehow comes down to Zero vs. RuPaul, I respectfully disagree with Scooter. I say ABO. (And sorry BP, Brits don't count because you don't get to vote).

If that's the choice in Nov., I'll throw up a little in my mouth and vote for Paul, because he's the strongest on our most pressing domestic issue, while our foreign policy is already FUBB and can't be made much worse. Paul > Obama.

Posted by RandomJD 2012-01-16 14:41|| 2012-01-16 14:41|| Front Page Top

#42 I live in Kansas, we do not vote in the primary, and I will write in Palin in the general because she did not go to harvard, is hated by the media, despised by national review online, has a son that is a grunt, did not abort Trig, likes to hunt and fish, first coined the phrase drill baby drill, fought government corruption while governor, etc..........

Posted by bman 2012-01-16 14:45|| 2012-01-16 14:45|| Front Page Top

#43 Eh - I like Perry, a lot. Did like Cain, too. In the long run, I'll vote for whomever, on the grounds that even if they are establishment GOP, they're an improvement on the Obummer.
Should the Obummer be relected by hook or crook, I'm looking to see a sweep of the House and Senate for strict constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives.

Posted by Sgt. Mom 2012-01-16 15:05|| 2012-01-16 15:05|| Front Page Top

#44 If they run a piece of plywood or a sharp stick, I'll vote for it.

Posted by tu3031 2012-01-16 15:15|| 2012-01-16 15:15|| Front Page Top

#45 ANYONE(_|_)OBAMA

I will hold my nose and vote Repubican establishment.

Posted by Airandee 2012-01-16 15:36|| 2012-01-16 15:36|| Front Page Top

#46 I'm rather glad I don't have to vote.

But basically it boils down to this:

1) Who is better (even marginally) than Obama. I guess Ronmey is.

2) Who is most likely to have a chance against Obama? Again, that should be Romney.

Ron Paul has 30% interesting ideas. Unfortunately the remaining range from nutty to batshit crazy. No way.

Santorum? He's frankly to obsessed with people's private lives. Also foreign policy is a bit more complicated than bombing stuff. No.

Palin? Sorry, no. You don't quit the office people elected you to just to write a more lucrative book. No.

Bachmann? Please, let's be serious.

Cain? Might have been interesting although I don't think his 9-9-9 plan was really thought through.

Perry? The national level seems to be over his head.

Huntman? Might have been interesting but he already quit.

My current prediction: Obama might just win but he'll be offset by a Republican Congress UNLESS Republicans really start to rally around Romney. If they "support" him like they did McCain he won't make it.

If Obama picks Hillary as VP, he'll win anyway..

Posted by European Conservative 2012-01-16 16:32|| 2012-01-16 16:32|| Front Page Top

#47 Every time I have any doubt, I remember the current record of behavior is that of a candidate attempting re-election, knowing that at some point he will be judged upon those actions. Then I imagine, especially in light of the non-recess appointments and his statement of future actions with or without Congress, is an expansion of the Executive power and precident which cannot be rolled back. Also, his handling of the Libya action..not that there was the need to justify military action but the lack of want to state his case. That is, he felt he did not have to explain why the USA is engaging in a major military action. And the health care waiver program is nothing more than the Executive giving permission to select groups to break the law. Again, he has himself said he will engage in more of this extra-Congressional activity next term.

His behavior is abhorrant and should transcend party affiliation.

Hillarity! has some bad spots on her as well and is not invulnerable, never mind the bad blood between the two of them already, they got some big egos contending with each other, some of which Hillarity! was shown to hold the bag on purpose to discourage a primary run. The winner of the Rs should pick a VP with Mrs. Bill in mind, so hopefully somebody is reminding the candidates of this.

None of that matters unless the Pubs control both the House and Senate, and with enough of the right people to get our fat ship through some lean channels.

Posted by swksvolFF 2012-01-16 17:31|| 2012-01-16 17:31|| Front Page Top

#48 Perry based on record of performance, and his stated policies. Too bad he has nto gotten a good campaign team to get his message out. But I'm pulling the lever for GOP regardless, even if it is Romney. Obama must be stopped.

Posted by OldSpook 2012-01-16 17:36|| 2012-01-16 17:36|| Front Page Top

#49 #46 EC, I take nothing for granted when it comes to elections but you may be underestimating the extent to which support for BO has fallen off. I spend some time in Multnomah County, Oregon, which defines the term "blue." In 2008 there was an Obama sticker on every car bumper and basically every flat surface in the county. Two weeks ago there was nothing. It was like one of those Soviet-era photos in which the person out of favor has been deleted. Now that doesn't mean that Romney will carry Oregon, but the people who vote for BO this year are not going to be people who enthusiastically support him for idealistic reasons, but people he's ~~bribed~~ obtained financial benefits for. That's a totally different election.

Posted by Matt 2012-01-16 18:48|| 2012-01-16 18:48|| Front Page Top

#50 OWG-NWO + "GLOBALISM" = "BIRTHER" ISSUE = are mainstream Americans ready + willing to adhere to the "BINDING" "EXTRA-SOVEREIGN/NATIONALIST" Political, Econ, + Cultural Decisions + Policies, etc. of higher OWG Leaders whom are Non-American andor Anti-American in interest.

And, iff current practice holds true, TO DO SO WIDOUT BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON IT - OR AT LEAST TO NOT VOTE ON IT UNTIL TIME TIME AFTER ITS ALREADY EMPLACED???

Until the WH + Congresscritters are willing to answer the above questions widout fear of hurting their electoral chances, THERE WILL BE LITTLE TO NO HOPE OF EVAR RESTORING THE US ECONOMY FOR A LONG LONG TIME BECAUSE THE POLITICOS WILL CONTINUE TO FOCII ON OWG + "GLOBALIST" SPENDING ASAP AMAP ALAP ABOVE + BEYOND THE US MAINSTREAM.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-01-16 20:05|| 2012-01-16 20:05|| Front Page Top

#51 I'd vote in a bent sh!tcan over Bambi, but if it were up to me to write the Pub ticket, it would be Christie and Perry. Palin would get a cabinet post, along with Cheney and Rowe.
Paul and Mittens suck, but that is with a little s, unlike Bammy who SUCKS.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2012-01-16 22:10|| 2012-01-16 22:10|| Front Page Top

#52 ION NEWSMAX > [McLaughlin Group = prediction] MICHELLE OBAMA FOR US SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS [2016?]? STAY TUNED.

Senator Mark Kirk's seat.

Actually, IMO this would be more in line wid Michelle's youthful Radicalism = Activism than her current FLOTUS thingy promoting anti-obesity healthy diets.

SORRY, BUT ITS JUST TOO WEIRD FOR ME TO SEE HER GO FROM LE CHIC CHICK WID A FIREBOMB TO FASHION-TROUBLED FIRST MOM/HOMEMAKER PROMOTING PEAS.

Iff the rumors are true that her + Bammer are having marital tifts [MSM-Net = separate spousal vacations], it won't surprise me at all iff its because she wants to be the Afro-Babe equivalent of Eleanor Roosevelt or better, or at least throw a grenade or three at the US Congress, but the Bammer won't let her???

D *** NG IT BAMMER, ALLOW MICHELLE TO THROW ONE GRENADE, JUST ONE!

Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-01-16 22:18|| 2012-01-16 22:18|| Front Page Top

#53 ION NEWSMAX > [McLaughlin Group = prediction] MICHELLE OBAMA FOR US SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS [2016?]? STAY TUNED.

Senator Mark Kirk's seat.

Actually, IMO this would be more in line wid Michelle's youthful Radicalism = Activism than her current FLOTUS thingy promoting anti-obesity healthy diets.

SORRY, BUT ITS JUST TOO WEIRD FOR ME TO SEE HER GO FROM LE CHIC CHICK WID A FIREBOMB TO FASHION-TROUBLED FIRST MOM/HOMEMAKER PROMOTING PEAS.

Iff the rumors are true that her + Bammer are having marital tifts [MSM-Net = separate spousal vacations], it won't surprise me at all iff its because she wants to be the Afro-Babe equivalent of Eleanor Roosevelt or better, or at least throw a grenade or three at the US Congress, but the Bammer won't let her???

D *** NG IT BAMMER, ALLOW MICHELLE TO THROW ONE GRENADE, JUST ONE!

Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-01-16 22:19|| 2012-01-16 22:19|| Front Page Top

#54 OOOOOOOOONNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE ............!

Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-01-16 22:22|| 2012-01-16 22:22|| Front Page Top

#55 Rick Perry
John Bolton
Sarah Palin
GEN John J. Pershing

Posted by Ebboluling Theamp7972 2012-01-16 22:59|| 2012-01-16 22:59|| Front Page Top

#56 you guys are awesome, thanks so much, it's really appreciated. I almost didn't post thinking it wasn't worthy for Rantburg.
Agreed anyone but Obama.

Posted by Jan 2012-01-16 23:19|| 2012-01-16 23:19|| Front Page Top

#57 Rick Perry
John Bolton
Sarah Palin
GEN John J. Pershing.

It's a Freedom thing; Pharaoh wouldn't understand. And just who might you be, Pilgrim? Please provide.

Posted by Ebboluling Theamp7972 2012-01-16 23:29|| 2012-01-16 23:29|| Front Page Top

#58 Romney: Will likely be the nominee. I like what he says when he says it, then I forget what he said. He's got all the excitement of a long nap.

Perry: My current favorite, barely. He's got a record in Texas that should be common knowledge but isn't and he goofs up on things he should know. I think he's a good executive but doesn't come across to the voters as one.

Gingrich: Kept going up in the polls when he was the one candidate who didn't fight with the other Pubs. Then he started fighting, turned nasty, and he's sinking. He's probably my preference as VP, if only to see him wipe the floor with Sheriff Joe.

Santorum: To much social conservative. This election's about the economy and economics. He lost big time in Pennsylvania to a machine Dem.

Paul: Gets me on domestic policy and economic, loses men entirely on foreign policy. He's the reincarnation of Jeanette Rankin.

I liked Cain, but he's out.

Huntsman was B.O.'s ambassador to China so he's tainted as a Publican. He was the "favorite" Publican at CNN, so that sealed it. And now he's out, no great loss.

Bachmann: Nice Tea Party lady until she started picking fights with the other candidates. A minor leaguer and she'll stay there.

Palin is out of the running. She'll maybe remain a major figure within the Tea Party, but I think she's given up electoral politix.

I would rather see somebody with some charisma as the Pub candidate, but if we found one he wouldn't be a Pub. We are boring by definition. We're not Fortune's Children, we have jobs. We don't Cast Our Fate to the Wind, we plan and achieve. We're not Free Spirits, we're bound by our obligations to family, friends and community.

B.O. has to be defeated this election. Last election Gloria commented "how much damage can he do in four years?" This year she doesn't say such silly things. If they ran the rotted corpse of Nikita S. Khrushchev I'd vote for him over B.O.

Posted by Fred 2012-01-16 23:40|| 2012-01-16 23:40|| Front Page Top

#59 I liked the Mickey Mouse with a ham sandwich ticket to beat the Chicago con man! (Fred's analysis is spot on as usual..) Brokered convention is probable, so let's get through May.

Posted by Muggsy Glink 2012-01-17 00:04|| 2012-01-17 00:04|| Front Page Top

00:04 Muggsy Glink
00:00 JosephMendiola
23:40 Fred
23:34 Cromert
23:29 Ebboluling Theamp7972
23:27 Redneck Jim
23:19 Jan
23:01 Frank G
22:59 Ebboluling Theamp7972
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:33 OldSpook
22:31 OldSpook
22:30 OldSpook
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:19 JosephMendiola
22:18 JosephMendiola
22:10 USN, Ret.
22:07 junkiron
21:47 Frank G
21:44 gromky
21:32 trailing wife
21:21 Squinty Angarong8068
21:11 Angie Schultz