My list of GOP candidates who aren't mortally injured yet

[whitehall]

My list of democrat candidates who aren't mortally injured..........

 

[Chris]

None of the above are named Reagan or Bush. Try to focus on the actual question and subject matter.

Same policies, same party, same old bullshit.

Nice try at changing the subject.

Your failed attempt to change the subject was addressed and you have the gall to post that?
Answer the question, Chris, if you have the intestinal fortitude to do so.

Same policies, different candidates.

The Republican Party hasn't changed since Reagan.

 

[candycorn]

Same policies, same party, same old bullshit.

Nice try at changing the subject.

Your failed attempt to change the subject was addressed and you have the gall to post that?
Answer the question, Chris, if you have the intestinal fortitude to do so.

Same policies, different candidates.

The Republican Party hasn't changed since Reagan.

I disagree; I don't think Reagan would be proud of what the Party has become. I really don't think Bush Sr. would be all that proud of it.

 

[freedombecki]

So far, I think Rick Perry has the best case for not only getting the nomination but also for beating Hillary Clinton in 2012. Biden seems to have clear and present confusion issues on a daily basis, Obama's Marxist policies turn 80% of the American population totally off, and his smoothe-talking fibbies are no longer novel in people who just want America to be America, not some everybody-gets-the-same-pot-and-chicken shit.

That's why I think Hillary will run and win if we don't get our best foot forward out there pretty quickly.

And I'd like to kick Brit Hume and Carl Rove just as hard as I possibly could on the playground someday when they aren't looking for the last few months of unparalleled on-air idiocy. It's one thing to be opinionated. It's quite another to take the best conservative candidate with the best jobs-getting resume out there and insure that he is permanently disabled by badmouthing him to death with haughty hubris.

People are still contributing for Rick Perry. But Brit Hume and Carl Rove are sewing up victory for the Dems, whom I am sure will put Hillary out there if she isn't "too tired."

If you vaguely think Obama could be a Commie by the stunts that he pulls, you ain't seen nothin' yet if Hillary 'heroically' takes the reins, which will tingle Chris Matthews in all his appendages.

When the press constantly undresses every aspect of every republican candidate and their families, too, it's enough to make free people wish for lifelong monarchies in their countries to just shut them up.

Meanwhile, the left just chats up the Republican candidate who will be the easiest to whip in November 2012, and they're taking notes when the big guns at Fox news take swipes at good candidates for every reason under the sun except ability for example, to take out unemployment.

 

[alan1]

Same policies, same party, same old bullshit.

Nice try at changing the subject.

Your failed attempt to change the subject was addressed and you have the gall to post that?
Answer the question, Chris, if you have the intestinal fortitude to do so.

Same policies, different candidates.

The Republican Party hasn't changed since Reagan.

Still dodging,

The problem with the Republicans is that the guys who are smart enough to be president, Gingrich, Romney, Huntsman, etc.. are not stupid enough to appeal to the base.

And the people who are stupid enough to appeal to the base, Perry, Cain, Bachman, Palin, etc... are too stupid to be president.

So tell me Chris,
Would you vote for any of the above over the democrat parties chosen candidate (Mr Obama)?
Or are you just pretending to be open-minded?

A simple question and yet you refuse to answer it. A simple yes or no will suffice.
Your failure to answer has earned you a neg rep. May others offer the same for your cowardice.

 

[Amelia]

Same policies, same party, same old bullshit.

Nice try at changing the subject.

Your failed attempt to change the subject was addressed and you have the gall to post that?
Answer the question, Chris, if you have the intestinal fortitude to do so.

Same policies, different candidates.

The Republican Party hasn't changed since Reagan.

You don't get around much, do you?

The Republican Party has changed almost beyond recognition in just the last four years.

In 2008, Rushbo called Romney a conservative. Now he swears he isn't.

 

[Chris]

your failed attempt to change the subject was addressed and you have the gall to post that?
Answer the question, chris, if you have the intestinal fortitude to do so.

same policies, different candidates.

The republican party hasn't changed since reagan.

still dodging,

the problem with the republicans is that the guys who are smart enough to be president, gingrich, romney, huntsman, etc.. Are not stupid enough to appeal to the base.

And the people who are stupid enough to appeal to the base, perry, cain, bachman, palin, etc... Are too stupid to be president.

so tell me chris,
would you vote for any of the above over the democrat parties chosen candidate (mr obama)?
or are you just pretending to be open-minded?

a simple question and yet you refuse to answer it. A simple yes or no will suffice.

hell no!!!

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Romney
Cain
Huntsman
On the fence about Gingrich (I thought he was fatally injured but Foxfyre made me look again)
And I'll add Gary Johnson by default because he hasn't gotten enough attention for me to know one way or the other about him.
The only one so far whom I think could lead me to vote for Obama if they won the nomination would be Bachmann.
What's your list?

I would probably vote for Romney, Huntsman and maybe Gingrich (Whom I believe is actually campaigning for the VP slot) over Obama.

If Perry, Paul or Bachmann are even near the GOP ticket, I will probably hold my nose and vote Obama. I have friends who are Conservative, Liberal and Independent all over the country. This seems to be their view as well - although some of them seem very put off by Cain as well.

Really, Obama should have been SO easy to beat. WTF? THis is the best the GOP has to offer? Two whackjobs, the reincarnation of Bush and the rest of the field already showing major chinks in the armor before the primaries are halfway done?
Disappointing.

I'm independant and you nailed it pretty close for me. I would vote for Gingrich first, then Romney, and if I absolutely had to MAYBE Perry. Cain, Paul and Bachmann make my decision easily for Obama.
Gingrich I think stands a good chance of beating Obama, despite his skeletons.
Romney could cause a third party to run and split the republican and independant vote and could cause Obama to win.
Perry, well I'm from Texas, and other then his willigness to allow mining and drilling, I don't really know what he has going for him. Although I do believe that would be a good start for getting the economy in the right direction.
Paul - what I don't think a lot of people understand is that libertarians believe in open borders. Hence Paul's joke in the first primary "A fence would keep us in". It was deflection, because had he said we should have open borders he would have been booed offstage.
Bachmann - a dumber version of Palin, no thanks.
Cain - seriously people flip-flop in politics too much, Cain seems to take this to the ultimate extreme. I think he is trying to run his campaign like a company, "If this add doesn't work, lets try this one"

 

[Chris]

So far, I think Rick Perry has the best case for not only getting the nomination but also for beating Hillary Clinton in 2012. Biden seems to have clear and present confusion issues on a daily basis, Obama's Marxist policies turn 80% of the American population totally off, and his smoothe-talking fibbies are no longer novel in people who just want America to be America, not some everybody-gets-the-same-pot-and-chicken shit.

That's why I think Hillary will run and win if we don't get our best foot forward out there pretty quickly.

And I'd like to kick Brit Hume and Carl Rove just as hard as I possibly could on the playground someday when they aren't looking for the last few months of unparalleled on-air idiocy. It's one thing to be opinionated. It's quite another to take the best conservative candidate with the best jobs-getting resume out there and insure that he is permanently disabled by badmouthing him to death with haughty hubris.

People are still contributing for Rick Perry. But Brit Hume and Carl Rove are sewing up victory for the Dems, whom I am sure will put Hillary out there if she isn't "too tired."

If you vaguely think Obama could be a Commie by the stunts that he pulls, you ain't seen nothin' yet if Hillary 'heroically' takes the reins, which will tingle Chris Matthews in all his appendages.

When the press constantly undresses every aspect of every republican candidate and their families, too, it's enough to make free people wish for lifelong monarchies in their countries to just shut them up.

Meanwhile, the left just chats up the Republican candidate who will be the easiest to whip in November 2012, and they're taking notes when the big guns at Fox news take swipes at good candidates for every reason under the sun except ability for example, to take out unemployment.

There is nothing marxist about Obama. That's just silly shit.

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, created 19 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

Obama deserves to be re-elected.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't think Reagan would be proud of what the Party has become. I really don't think Bush Sr. would be all that proud of it.

Agreed.

Just as Goldwater rejected the social conservatives of Reagan’s time. The GOP has been going downhill for the last 40 years.

 

[candycorn]

I don't think Reagan would be proud of what the Party has become. I really don't think Bush Sr. would be all that proud of it.

Agreed.

Just as Goldwater rejected the social conservatives of Reagan’s time. The GOP has been going downhill for the last 40 years.

Definitely evolving (or devolving) from their origins...but shit look at the Win Column in the Oval office. Can't argue they haven't been successful.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

So far, I think Rick Perry has the best case for not only getting the nomination but also for beating Hillary Clinton in 2012.

I stopped reading right there. Hillary isn't running in 2012. If that's part of your calculus, then the rest is just going to be a waste of time.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Obama deserves to be re-elected.

I don't agree. Most of his success has come from continuing Bush policy or backing other folks plays. When he tries to take the lead, he tends to fail. He's just not a good leader.

However, the point could be moot. The GOP seems intent on finding their own version of John Kerry to run. C'est la vie.

 

[Chris]

Obama deserves to be re-elected.

I don't agree. Most of his success has come from continuing Bush policy or backing other folks plays. When he tries to take the lead, he tends to fail. He's just not a good leader.

However, the point could be moot. The GOP seems intent on finding their own version of John Kerry to run. C'est la vie.

Wrong.

Bush said he didn't care about catching Bin Laden. Obama made it his goal and succeeded.

Bush did nothing in Libya. Obama got Ghadafi.

Bush created the financial crisis by allowing Wall Street to run a Ponzi scheme. Obama saved the country from another Great Depression with the stimulus.

Obama reformed healthcare and Wall Street, both of which Bush opposed.

Obama repealed DADT, which Bush favored.

Obama did everything right, that Bush did wrong.

 

[candycorn]

Obama deserves to be re-elected.

I don't agree. Most of his success has come from continuing Bush policy or backing other folks plays. When he tries to take the lead, he tends to fail. He's just not a good leader.

However, the point could be moot. The GOP seems intent on finding their own version of John Kerry to run. C'est la vie.

Wrong.

Bush said he didn't care about catching Bin Laden. Obama made it his goal and succeeded.

Bush did nothing in Libya. Obama got Ghadafi.

Bush created the financial crisis by allowing Wall Street to run a Ponzi scheme. Obama saved the country from another Great Depression with the stimulus.

Obama reformed healthcare and Wall Street, both of which Bush opposed.

Obama repealed DADT, which Bush favored.

Obama did everything right, that Bush did wrong.

I disagree that he did everything right but you're on the money (mostly).

 

[Amelia]

My list of democrat candidates who aren't mortally injured..........

Obama's been hit but maybe only winged.

 

[JoeB131]

These pre-primary battles are working out the way they should - the way they SHOULD have worked for the Dems last year. If the media and the people had done their due diligence and exposed John Edwards for the slime he is and said "maybe some other time" to BO, you guys could have had Hillary.

But anyway, they're working for us. People who seemed so popular that I started to be worried they could win have shown themselves and been found wanting. Particularly Bachmann. I'm glad her star has faded. I'm glad this pre-primary process has worked so well in that regard.

Not sure what you mean here. Edwards made no progress even without people digging through his dirty laundry.

As for Hillary, Democrats rejected her for a pretty good reason. They believed that if she got in, it would be another eight years of the kind of trench warfare they would have had with the Republicans, and at least Obama was a fresh face. There was no idealogical difference between the three. It was just a matter of who they found most appealing.

As opposed to the GOP, where you have the establishment trying to foist a liberal onto a party that is idealogically pretty conservative, because the Beltway Establishment has been in Washington for so long, they've gone native.

They stop believing that government is the problem, and start thinking it's the answer.

 

[JoeB131]

You guys should give Huntsman a chance.

Why? The guy's a liberal. He went to work for Obama, for Christ's sake.

I have to ask, why do you think we need to liberal parties in this country?

So the debate is how much government is going to stick its nose into our lives?

 

[JoeB131]

One of the reasons I like Huntsman is because he's not afraid of science.

Wasn't aware we are electing Mr. Science.

I'm still waiting for the "Second Ice Age" the "science" types told me was imminent when I was growing up in the 1970's.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Joe....do you think the Democratic party is more likely to poke its nose into our lives than the Republican party? Think before responding.

And....who told you that when you were growing up? I grew up during the same time and I don't remember ever being told that a second ice age was coming.