Who are your favored GOP candidates?

[GenSeneca]

I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate for years (usually vote for the LP candidate) but I do like a few of the Conservatives that are in the running. Obviously Ron Paul is at the top of my list but I think he would need a VP with a reputation as being strong on national security before the Republican base would be willing to vote for him.

I also like Rick Santorum and Herman Cain, they strike me as being the least Progressive of all the "mainstream" Candidates. Romney and Perry stand out as being the most Progressive (Chris Cristy too if he gets in) so if any of them happen to win the nomination I'll have to vote LP again. I don't really have any strong opinions one way or the other about the rest of the candidates but, at this point, I don't think I'd vote for one of them over the LP candidate.

Who do you favor and why? Who would you like to see nominated as P and VP?

 

[dogtowner]

Romney has the chops for the job we need him to do (get us out of this hole). Perry, Cain and Paul would have to rely on others. At this point we cannot afford to hope for right decisions we require proven ability.

once we're out of the woods we can worry about ideological purity.

 

[Pandora]

I personally like Herman Cain best of the ones formally running but Dogtowner has some good points about Romney (who I supported last time around).

I wish Marco Rubio would jump in, I would be very excited to support him, but Christie.... not so much, but really I would support just about anyone, even hillary if it would get obama out of office.

I am not sure I could support Ron Paul. I like 90 percent of what he is for except I can not go with the "iran should be able to have nukes" and I don't like that he would not come to Israel's aid if they were attacked.

 

[PLC1]

Right now, I plan to vote for Romney in the primary.

1. He has a track record of bringing financially failing entities back into the black.

2. He has a better chance of beating Obama than any of the rest of them.

But, I voted for Romney last time around, and we still got the geezer and the airhead who couldn't even beat a freshman senator.

 

[GenSeneca]

Right now, I plan to vote for Romney in the primary.

I'm in Ohio... By the time the primary vote comes to my state, someone has already nailed the nomination and our primary is purely a case of going through the motions. I really think the nation should do the primaries the same way we do the general election, every state votes on the same day. That also cuts out all the early states, which sucks for them, but politicians have been pandering to those states for too long anyway, it's time that every state was put on equal footing.

 

[Openmind]

Right now, I plan to vote for Romney in the primary.

1. He has a track record of bringing financially failing entities back into the black.

2. He has a better chance of beating Obama than any of the rest of them.

But, I voted for Romney last time around, and we still got the geezer and the airhead who couldn't even beat a freshman senator.

I agree.

And I believe that it was intentional to elect McCain, and even more to assign Palin to be his running mate.

The "power behind the scene" in the GOP KNEW the real situation of the economy left by Bush and cronies, they knew there was no way to rectify that situation infourhyear, they knew it would get a lot worse before it got better, and thy didn't want that situation to fall on a REAL GOP candidate and destroy the party, not just for years, but for decade to come. So they made sure a charismatic new comer in the Democratic party could easily defeat the GOP candidate . . .

But to be CERTAIN the GOP candidate would be defeated, they needed a "dummy" GOP and an even more unlikely running mate.

 

[BigRob]

I agree.

And I believe that it was intentional to elect McCain, and even more to assign Palin to be his running mate.

The "power behind the scene" in the GOP KNEW the real situation of the economy left by Bush and cronies, they knew there was no way to rectify that situation infourhyear, they knew it would get a lot worse before it got better, and thy didn't want that situation to fall on a REAL GOP candidate and destroy the party, not just for years, but for decade to come. So they made sure a charismatic new comer in the Democratic party could easily defeat the GOP candidate . . .

But to be CERTAIN the GOP candidate would be defeated, they needed a "dummy" GOP and an even more unlikely running mate.

Do you seriously believe this?

You are so stuck on this argument that the GOP will do anything to make Obama fail, that your new assertion is that the GOP got him elected President....so he would fail.

Such a claim deserves a place in the wacko conspiracy world, but not in informed discourse.

 

[BigRob]

Right now, I plan to vote for Romney in the primary.

1. He has a track record of bringing financially failing entities back into the black.

2. He has a better chance of beating Obama than any of the rest of them.

But, I voted for Romney last time around, and we still got the geezer and the airhead who couldn't even beat a freshman senator.

2008 was a bad time to be a Republican, but as late as August (and into September) McCain was up in most polls.

What destroyed him was that the economy collapsed, while he arguing that the fundamentals were sound, and his response to the collapse was amateurish and frankly pathetic. That is what cost him the election for good.

 

[BigRob]

I'm in Ohio... By the time the primary vote comes to my state, someone has already nailed the nomination and our primary is purely a case of going through the motions. I really think the nation should do the primaries the same way we do the general election, every state votes on the same day. That also cuts out all the early states, which sucks for them, but politicians have been pandering to those states for too long anyway, it's time that every state was put on equal footing.

I would be more in favor of regional primaries. Let's face it, even in the general election, there are states that simply do not matter. A national primary does not really fix that, it just picks new winners and losers for who matters.

I would say a regional primary is best (or even like four voting days, and the states randomly selected for which date they will vote).

 

[BigRob]

As to who I like, I am behind Romney at this point.

 

[dogtowner]

I would be more in favor of regional primaries. Let's face it, even in the general election, there are states that simply do not matter. A national primary does not really fix that, it just picks new winners and losers for who matters.

I would say a regional primary is best (or even like four voting days, and the states randomly selected for which date they will vote).

bag primaries do conventions. if you care then you work to earn your say.

 

[Apathy]

I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate for years (usually vote for the LP candidate) but I do like a few of the Conservatives that are in the running. Obviously Ron Paul is at the top of my list but I think he would need a VP with a reputation as being strong on national security before the Republican base would be willing to vote for him.

Strong on national security? Is he not already? I dont see anything more detrimental to our national security than running multiple wars.

I also like Rick Santorum and Herman Cain, they strike me as being the least Progressive of all the "mainstream" Candidates. Romney and Perry stand out as being the most Progressive (Chris Cristy too if he gets in) so if any of them happen to win the nomination I'll have to vote LP again. I don't really have any strong opinions one way or the other about the rest of the candidates but, at this point, I don't think I'd vote for one of them over the LP candidate.

Rick is a theocrat and Cain is an illiterate theocrat who has no clue what he would be doing as president. Any "Libertarian" who has either of them on their shortlist for the presidency has a lot of explaining to do.

Who do you favor and why? Who would you like to see nominated as P and VP?

Out of the GOP probably Gary Johnson he is like Ron Paul minus the crazy bits.

 

[GenSeneca]

I would say a regional primary is best (or even like four voting days, and the states randomly selected for which date they will vote).

Whatever it takes to stop the pandering to the first few states... Because Iowa is so important, just as an example, politicians offer huge farm subsidies to "buy" votes and you can bet that anyone who promises to cut, or end, the subsidies can kiss his chances of winning that primary, and therefore the nomination, goodbye.

 

[GenSeneca]

Strong on national security? Is he not already? I dont see anything more detrimental to our national security than running multiple wars.

Most people see isolationism as being weak on nat sec.

Rick is a theocrat and Cain is an illiterate theocrat who has no clue what he would be doing as president.

Clearly none of that has any basis in fact.

Any "Libertarian" who has either of them on their shortlist for the presidency has a lot of explaining to do.

Least Progressive...

Out of the GOP probably Gary Johnson he is like Ron Paul minus the crazy bits.

Democrat party supporters always think the worst GOP candidate is the one who should be nominated... *cough* McCain *cough*

 

[Openmind]

Do you seriously believe this?

You are so stuck on this argument that the GOP will do anything to make Obama fail, that your new assertion is that the GOP got him elected President....so he would fail.

Such a claim deserves a place in the wacko conspiracy world, but not in informed discourse.

No, Bob, this is NOT what I said!
I didn't say that the GOP got Obama elected to MAKE HIM FAIL. . .

What I said was, that the GOP KNEW that NO PRESIDENT could take the horrible (much deeper than it even looked at that time to most people) fiasco that Bush left behind and turn the economy around in less than 4 years. . .AND they didn't want to have the GOP name attached to another 4 years of disastrous economy!

So, they elected McCain as presidential candidate, because he was very unlikely to win. . .and when he (surprisingly) showed signs of MAYBE not losing, they stuck him with Palin. . .which was the fool proof way of losing the presidency!

But when Obama got elected, and they realized that he had SO MUCH Support, and that people actually believed in him, Obama became "ennemy #1" for the GOP, who IMMEDIATELY set out to make him fail. . .just in case the economy wasn't enough!

And, the fact that the GOP wanted Obama to fail from the beginning is CERTAINLY not a secret, or a "democrat" view point! That goal was CLEARLY stated by several top GOP leaders. . .

You can take my opinion as "wacko," but show me where YOU can prove that it is "wacko?"