Poll: Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin or Pawlenty?

[Avatar4321]

btw, since when are we occupying Spain?

 

[Maple]

There is any interesting discussion going on over at Mitt Romney Central; the poll posted there proposes the following hypothetical:

Romney does not run in 2012. There are four candidates who have composed formal campaigns to win the GOP nomination – Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, and Pawlenty. You are standing in the booth, ballot in hand. Who do you cast it for? Sorry no write-ins here. (Of course this poll is aimed at Romney supporters, but if you are not among them feel free to vote up your candidate.)

I wanted to see what y'all thought about this hypothetical... please reply with sound reasons why or why not a particular candidate would be good or bad for a run against Obama in 2012 (2011)

Romney can't win now, he really has screwed up the health care system in Massachuchetts and that would haunt him. Really bad is that the feds have not paid attention to this major screw up and are following his plan in writing a national one.

I like Palin, Newt and Pawlente. Newt and Palin I know are conservatives, Pawlente, I don't know enough about yet. So it would have to come down to Palin and Newt. Hmmmmm, How about a Newt and Palin team???? Or a Palin- Newt team???? Who knows, I do know by the end of Obama's first term this country will be sooooooooooooooo glad to get rid of him, that you could run your local garbage collector and he would win.

 

[Nemo Securus]

Agreed.
My Favorite Martian er, I mean Ron Paul would be a disaster.
His idea of closing overseas military bases is as asinine as it gets. And would only lead to complete chaos.

Really? So you would agree that a US occupation of Spain and Germany is a good idea? Ever talked to people in the military that get stationed at these places? They are over there partying their butts off. They admit themselves there is no reason to be in these countries. We are wasting money putting up bases in countries that offer no threat to the US. THAT is why Ron Paul wants to pull out of Countries like those in Europe. Because he cares what happens to our tax dollars. Not very asinine to me. He isn't for pulling out of the middle east immediately, but he does know that it is completely impossible to win that "war". History and common sense will tell you the same thing. Ask Russia. How silly he is for wanting to hold the government accountable for freely printing money and spending worthless dollars where THEY choose. Yea what a real nutjob. Oh and he believes in securing our borders and doing what he can to bring jobs back to America. Gosh he is insane someone stop him now!!!

Do you see my avatar?
Believe me, I know far more about what the "military that get stationed at these places" think, than you do.
And you say that having bases in foreign countries is tantamount to a "US OCCUPATION"?
LMAO!
And you wonder why Paul could get very little support?
Try looking in the mirror. Or at the very least, read what you post.

When I said occupation I didn't mean control. I never claimed to have the greatest vocabulary. How about presence? Can you deny now that there are now US military bases in Spain and Germany? Two of my closest friends are both Marines and have both been sent to bases Spain and Germany and Dubai. Why? Thats all I ask. Why are we spending money sending troops to these places when we could use them else where like our borders. I appologize for using the wrong word but to get to the real purpose of my post...Why are we in countries that do not threaten us. I have two friends that will go on record as saying that all they did in those countries was drink and hang out and talk about how great those countries are. All it really accomplishes is pissing off the rest of the world at America. But then again who am I to say?

 

[JW Frogen]

I have never understood one thing about the Republicans; they always claim God is on their side.

Why don’t they nominate him to run for President?

Maybe because God is not every good with foreign policy? The last time the Jews nominated him he sent them to the only place in the Middle East without oil.

 

[THE LIGHT]

With all the spending Romney did during the primaries you woulda thought he could have baild out the economy single handedly.


Huckabee and Newt have the most experience but I think Palin would make a great candidate as well. I like all three. Can't we have multiple VP's like they do in Iraq?

 

[Nemo Securus]

Wouldn't you say he couldn't win a state though because he isn't the poster child for the RNC? And he doesn't have big money behind him. The GOP is not the biggest fan of Ron Paul, so why would they try to help him win the nomination, when they have such great right wingers like Romney that can be manipulated like a puppet? Most people don't know who Ron Paul even is because he can't get help from the right. Doesn't make him stupid or a bad choice. It makes him an underdog in a world where what color your flag is, is more important than what you are fighting for.

No, I say he couldnt win a state because he didn't win a state. Huckabee didnt have big money behind him. He had some ground support in a few states and won.

In fact, what candidate did get money from the GOP? And if Ron cant get support from the right, what chance in hell does he have of winning? Do you even listen to yourself? "Ron Paul is the only one who could have united all people to beat Obama." and "Ron just lost because the right won't support him." I mean can you get more blatantly wrong?

Now saying that, he still ranked higher on my list than both McCain and Huckabee. I didnt like either of them.

I never claimed any of them got actual money from the GOP. But anybody can see the disregard the party has for Paul when it comes election time. I don't think I could ever be quoted as saying anythign about uniting people to beat Obama. I dont think anyone had a chance at beating him this last election actually. All I am saying is that until the party recognizes him as a legitimate candidate, then he doesn't have a chance, because the everyday America will never hear about him. Glenn Beck blows him off everytime he is mentioned on his show. And why is it such an absurd claim that if the corrupt republicans won't let him into their little club, that he can't win the nomination? I never even said all the other candidates had big money behind them, but Romney and McCain sure as hell do.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Really? So you would agree that a US occupation of Spain and Germany is a good idea? Ever talked to people in the military that get stationed at these places? They are over there partying their butts off. They admit themselves there is no reason to be in these countries. We are wasting money putting up bases in countries that offer no threat to the US. THAT is why Ron Paul wants to pull out of Countries like those in Europe. Because he cares what happens to our tax dollars. Not very asinine to me. He isn't for pulling out of the middle east immediately, but he does know that it is completely impossible to win that "war". History and common sense will tell you the same thing. Ask Russia. How silly he is for wanting to hold the government accountable for freely printing money and spending worthless dollars where THEY choose. Yea what a real nutjob. Oh and he believes in securing our borders and doing what he can to bring jobs back to America. Gosh he is insane someone stop him now!!!

Do you see my avatar?
Believe me, I know far more about what the "military that get stationed at these places" think, than you do.
And you say that having bases in foreign countries is tantamount to a "US OCCUPATION"?
LMAO!
And you wonder why Paul could get very little support?
Try looking in the mirror. Or at the very least, read what you post.

When I said occupation I didn't mean control. I never claimed to have the greatest vocabulary. How about presence? Can you deny now that there are now US military bases in Spain and Germany? Two of my closest friends are both Marines and have both been sent to bases Spain and Germany and Dubai. Why? Thats all I ask. Why are we spending money sending troops to these places when we could use them else where like our borders. I appologize for using the wrong word but to get to the real purpose of my post...Why are we in countries that do not threaten us. I have two friends that will go on record as saying that all they did in those countries was drink and hang out and talk about how great those countries are. All it really accomplishes is pissing off the rest of the world at America. But then again who am I to say?

No need to aplologize.
Now, Spain and Germany are strategic allies. We are there for many reasons. 2 of those reasons being they accept us there, and they are logistically feasible for operations if the shit hits the fan. Be glad your friends are partying there. Because when the shit hits the fan, there is no opportunity for partying.
Also, if you think they're partying hard over there, you should see how hard they are partying over here!
I have no problem putting troops on the border. But that would be a national guard issue. Using regular army troops and such is a total waste of money. Having said that. I believe a well trained security force on the border, a much bigger and better equipped border patrol if you will, is the solution. Along with more fences and technological aids. This will create jobs, and it won't put any further burden on our military forces.

 

[Nemo Securus]

Do you see my avatar?
Believe me, I know far more about what the "military that get stationed at these places" think, than you do.
And you say that having bases in foreign countries is tantamount to a "US OCCUPATION"?
LMAO!
And you wonder why Paul could get very little support?
Try looking in the mirror. Or at the very least, read what you post.

When I said occupation I didn't mean control. I never claimed to have the greatest vocabulary. How about presence? Can you deny now that there are now US military bases in Spain and Germany? Two of my closest friends are both Marines and have both been sent to bases Spain and Germany and Dubai. Why? Thats all I ask. Why are we spending money sending troops to these places when we could use them else where like our borders. I appologize for using the wrong word but to get to the real purpose of my post...Why are we in countries that do not threaten us. I have two friends that will go on record as saying that all they did in those countries was drink and hang out and talk about how great those countries are. All it really accomplishes is pissing off the rest of the world at America. But then again who am I to say?

No need to aplologize.
Now, Spain and Germany are strategic allies. We are there for many reasons. 2 of those reasons being they accept us there, and they are logistically feasible for operations if the shit hits the fan. Be glad your friends are partying there. Because when the shit hits the fan, there is no opportunity for partying.
Also, if you think they're partying hard over there, you should see how hard they are partying over here!
I have no problem putting troops on the border. But that would be a national guard issue. Using regular army troops and such is a total waste of money. Having said that. I believe a well trained security force on the border, a much bigger and better equipped border patrol if you will, is the solution. Along with more fences and technological aids. This will create jobs, and it won't put any further burden on our military forces.

Well that puts it in a better perspective for me, thanks. The National Guard is a whole other problem I think though because of this; one of those same friends after doing his time in the marines, and yet never going to the middle east...joined the National Guard and a couple of months later is sent to Baghdad. He has now been there for 8 months, in what he says is the closest thing to hell he could ever imagine. I guess my point of view is skewed because I just don't understand why its ok to send Marines to Spain to stand by and send the National Guard to Baghdad to fight. I can only assume the Marines would be better prepared for that kind of fighting.

 

[Nemo Securus]

Oh and I totally agree with the border issue. Train citizens to protect our borders and create jobs. That works for me.

 

[Qball]

I think, of the four people mentioned, the one with the best shot is Romney. If the economy is still the biggest issue, I can see him winning the GOP nomination. Conversely, if it's social issues, Huckabee might do well. Pawlenty isn't particularly inspiring, and is sort of an uninspiring figure not unlike John Kerry. I don't know why people keep throwing out Palin's name. She's never said she was running for President...in fact, she's said the exact opposite. Her running is just wishful thinking on the part of the Democrats, who want Obama's mistakes overlooked because of the potential Presidency of Sarah Palin.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

With only those four options? I wouldn't vote.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What about Ron? Honestly, why does the GOP keep overlooking him? None of those candidates have the slightest chance at beating Obama in 2012, don't kid yourselves. Ron Paul can win all the votes of the morons that vote straight ticket repub, steal some left of center voters form Obama and very possibly some more hardcore Dems. Sure, the more religious Republican voters may not agree with him, but do most of them really pay attention to the real issues anyway? They will vote for him just because he is Republican. Ron Paul is the only chance at a Republican White House in 2012, these other guys are just future forgottens. IMO

If I had to choose from this list, though, I pick Huckabee. He is a stand up guy. he may not be a genius, and I think he isn't smart enough to run the country, but hey, neither are any of the others. Maybe Gingrich. I just love the guys personality.

Ron Paul couldnt even win a state last year, and while he does have some decent ideas, i think you place much too much faith in him.

And for every supposed good idea he has, he has many more nutjob stances and bullshit beliefs.... IMHO he is literally on the lunatic fringe

What "nutjob stances and bullshit beliefs" would those be, again?

 

[elvis]

I don't like any of them, including Romney.

Any of them would make a fine VP choice, but at this point none have shown me any indication that they are ready for the big chair.

If I had to choose one, it would be Gingrich.

Hopefully someone else will rise to the challenge.

He is the biggest partisan hack of the bunch. He is a self-serving media whore.

Don't talk about the current president like that.

 

[Fatality]

palin is the only one of the bunch that would have no problem tearing down the socialist policies liberals have spunked all over America for decades.

 

[Polk]

I would have liked to have seen Petraeus as an option, as well.... Heaven knows that most these other guys don't know much about the conflict overseas. However, since he hasn't formally launched a PAC to start any sort of fundraising, I'm not sure he intends on running for any office.

Doing so would be against the law.

 

[Wicked Jester]

When I said occupation I didn't mean control. I never claimed to have the greatest vocabulary. How about presence? Can you deny now that there are now US military bases in Spain and Germany? Two of my closest friends are both Marines and have both been sent to bases Spain and Germany and Dubai. Why? Thats all I ask. Why are we spending money sending troops to these places when we could use them else where like our borders. I appologize for using the wrong word but to get to the real purpose of my post...Why are we in countries that do not threaten us. I have two friends that will go on record as saying that all they did in those countries was drink and hang out and talk about how great those countries are. All it really accomplishes is pissing off the rest of the world at America. But then again who am I to say?

No need to aplologize.
Now, Spain and Germany are strategic allies. We are there for many reasons. 2 of those reasons being they accept us there, and they are logistically feasible for operations if the shit hits the fan. Be glad your friends are partying there. Because when the shit hits the fan, there is no opportunity for partying.
Also, if you think they're partying hard over there, you should see how hard they are partying over here!
I have no problem putting troops on the border. But that would be a national guard issue. Using regular army troops and such is a total waste of money. Having said that. I believe a well trained security force on the border, a much bigger and better equipped border patrol if you will, is the solution. Along with more fences and technological aids. This will create jobs, and it won't put any further burden on our military forces.

Well that puts it in a better perspective for me, thanks. The National Guard is a whole other problem I think though because of this; one of those same friends after doing his time in the marines, and yet never going to the middle east...joined the National Guard and a couple of months later is sent to Baghdad. He has now been there for 8 months, in what he says is the closest thing to hell he could ever imagine. I guess my point of view is skewed because I just don't understand why its ok to send Marines to Spain to stand by and send the National Guard to Baghdad to fight. I can only assume the Marines would be better prepared for that kind of fighting.

Your friend should have known full well that joining the guard would mean he still stood a good chance of being deployed. If he had no desire to be deployed whatsoever, he shouldn't have joined, Period.
If he actually thinks it's hell now, he'd be going stark raving bonkers if he had been there when I was there.
I fail to see how he considers it hell when we are no longer involved in combat ops. Is he just homesick and tired of sweatin'?
He should be counting his lucky stars he's not over in Afghanistan right now.

 

[Polk]

What "nutjob stances and bullshit beliefs" would those be, again?

Complete withdrawn from our military bases abroad.
Leaving all international organizations.
Disbanding the Fed.
Supports jury nullification.
Wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What "nutjob stances and bullshit beliefs" would those be, again?

Complete withdrawn from our military bases abroad.
Leaving all international organizations.
Disbanding the Fed.
Supports jury nullification.
Wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Well the first four sound good to me, I'll need you to back up the fifth however. I've never heard him call for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Polk]

What "nutjob stances and bullshit beliefs" would those be, again?

Complete withdrawn from our military bases abroad.
Leaving all international organizations.
Disbanding the Fed.
Supports jury nullification.
Wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Well the first four sound good to me, I'll need you to back up the fifth however. I've never heard him call for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act.

He did so on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

...

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

The Trouble With Forced Integration by Rep. Ron Paul

 

[Big Black Dog]

I think they are all worthy candidates but I would favor Gingrich. I would also support Palin for VP. I don't believe Palin hurt the ticket in the last Presidential election. She's a smart cookie. McCain was not a strong candidate and couldn't close the deal.