Republican Presidential Primary
Posted by Mike Sylvester - 1/8/12 @ 3:31 pm - Filed Under Featured, National Politics
The Republican primary has been a roller coaster. I truly think the rise and fall of so many candidates is historic.
I think there are only four candidates who really have any chance of winning: Romney (Most likely), Santorum (Unlikely), Gingrich (would take a miracle), and Paul (would take a miracle).
Out of those four I would vote for Paul. Paul is not perfect; however, his views align best with mine out of these four. My order of preference is: Paul, Romney, Santorum, and last Gingrich.
I can vote for Paul or Romney in 2012. If the Republicans candidate is Santorum or Gingrich I am not sure what I will do; I would likely vote third party.
Gingrich is way too liberal for me. His personal life is a mess and I do not want a serial womanizer as President of the United States.
Santorum is a big government Republican on fiscal matters. He seems to want to enlarge the US military and use it oven more often.
Where do you stand?
Mike
Comments
15 Responses to “Republican Presidential Primary”
Leave a Reply
Big government Republicans, Big government Democrats…all a problem for the United States. There is truth, in my opinion, that a continued incrementalism in fixing the United States will not work. I don’t agree with everything that Paul stands for but his radical approach (emergency surgery if you will) may have merit. The Lobbyists from all persuasions have bought and paid for Washington D.C. and true representation, small government is losing. Its like internal bleeding…how do you stop it in Government? I believe that Romney can beat Obama but does that mean the “hacks” in DC lose their jobs or just continue working for Romney? The same question for Santorum and for Gingrich. In a way, I would like to see Paul do strongly (not win frankly) and to be invited to the table to discuss what DC will look like a year from now. I would like to see some of his ideas as part of the discussion and strategic implementation. Additionally, I believe that Newt Gingrich has some valid ideas as well. Rick Santorum is a like-able guy and I certainly wants his social (not necessarily fiscal) views to be on the table. I want to see Obama and his Chicago gang go away. I think Romney can do that but I want Romney come to Washington DC with ideas not just “changing the color of the curtains ” in the Whitehouse.
I can’t do Ron Paul. Paul has pulled off the greatest con in the world, pretending he’s an outsider when he’s been in Washington for decades. Oh, that and the fact that he’s INSANE.
Mitt’s not perfect, but he’s not GW or McCain either. Romney 2012!
Choosing from these four alone, I would put them in the same order except switch Gingrich and Santorum. In the general election, I could easily support Paul, possibly Romney, and definitely not the other two.
As for Paul’s sanity, imagine you hand a baseball bat to some guy and ask him to hit himself in the head with it - and he does! Now, imagine the next several guys you ask do the same thing. Finally, you hand it to one guy who looks at you wide-eyed and says “Are you crazy, why would I want to harm myself? I refuse to do that.”
And you would be staring in disbelief, calling that man crazy because he doesn’t act like all the rest.
“Gingrich is way too liberal for me. His personal life is a mess and I do not want a serial womanizer as President of the United States.”
I agree but how can you NOT vote for Gingrich (if he were nominated) because he is too liberal… and vote 3rd party..which is the same as casting your vote for Obama.
There has NEVER been a president more liberal, anti-American, and anti liberty than Obama. The only way Obama wins is if a third party candidate gets enough traction to suck the life out of the Republican nominee.. a vote for any third party by a conservative has the exact same effect as a vote for Obama.
Gingrich is not my favorite, nor is Romney, but I sure as hell am not casting a vote for some Jackass that is running just to derail the nominated candidate.
Hate to burst your bubble Jon, but the latest polls show NONE of the GOP contenders can beat Obama.
http://pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm
Kevin - I dislike your bubble so much that I suggest that you withhold comments until AFTER the Republican Convention - when we will have a candidate that will “poll” the crap out of Obumber!
I don’t understand your analogy Phil…
John, No, you won’t. Romney will most likely be the pick, and Christian conservatives have proven they will not support him. In fact, none of the GOP contenders excite the voters, that is why the lead switches every week!
Obama may win in a CNN pole, problem is Kevin next November won’t be a CNN pole.
Per Rasmussen Obama’s approval ratings are in the tank and have been so for a long time. Only 23% of voters strongly approve of Obama’s job… 42% strongly dissapprove… here is the link.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com
Truth is there is no real point in polling untill both candidates are established and the campaigns of both candidates are in action.
but
Obama will not win unless there is a conservative 3rd party candidate on the ticket.
I have not seen anywhere in Newt vs Mitt agendas wise where Newt is more liberal than Mitt.
Newt seems to commit to one lady at a time. Neither law nor his religion prohibited him doing that. Three marriages during lifetime is not so unusual even if this may not be the case in some states. Personal matter should be of a concern unless it interferes with ability to do the job. I’d more concerned with his management skills and efficiency than with what have been mischarecterised as womanizing.
Have Mitt denounced a polygamy by any chance? Can he explained how his dad got promoted so fast and what his marriage to his mom had to do with it? And what had he done in France for so long without any success? A hint: trying to convinced french not to drink wine ;). And what about all that trouble with GM, MI and MA? And what part of it were his and his dads faults? And how come Sanunu is his best friend and what role he is going to have to setting agenda and what does it have to do with first Bush and Carlisle folks aganda with consulting saudies after their term was over for a nice profit?
Has Ron entered that bedroom with Bruno character(youtube) to sit on the bed waiting for something unconsciously only to run away when realizing to be on camera? [Not that there is anything wrong with that]. How about his alleged stance on 9/11 that CIA may have done? Does he really believe that CIA can do it that well? Should have blamed Mossad to be consistent. How about his alleged reluctance to be compassionate to victims of 9/11 or to those millions parishes in Holocaust? Or to those millions that can parish here and there if Iran succeed with getting a nuclear bomb? How come he is the only one in the Congress meeting with CAIR? How come he seem to always sticks to the side that is anti-jewish, no matter left, right or center politically? Smells pat to me. Would he be as wise driving his beemer to meet UAW voters too with rotten eggs all over it?
How about Santorum’s wife aborting a baby and showing dead baby to their children sleeping with a dead baby body? Is this choice less weird in your view than having three wives in 40 years? Why a PAC called “Ethic” is paying him so much? And who are contributes to this PAC? Could there be millions of foreign schoolchildren as allegedly contributing to Omaba PACs. What is his record besides getting elected? Who are his friends and buddies? Do they still call him a rooster? Would he be able to be reasonable when it is in the interest of the country even when being personally displeased?
Why Huntsmen had stayed in China for so long and what his current affiliation are besides having two Chinese foster daughters and speaking a fluent Mandarin? Could he got plausibly compromised while there and be kept on hook by some foreign interests? How did his dad become so rich so fast and why it resembles so much Mitts dad’s quick rise and who can be behind it?
Not that I personally vote for any of them.
I’d vote only for an unaffiliated write-in candidate with a clear agenda to dismantle the current repressive illegal regime in its entirety to stick with constitutional values as they have been originally conceived by the Founding Fathers.
I think Newt could be a less evil, since he has some semblance of grey matter, a dignity to admit his faults, and be poor enough to deny a suspicion on being on a payroll, which may be indicative that investors, ..oops.., election campaign contributors, are not confident to get their returns.
I think Obama has a comfortable lead and his campaign contributors can take it easy. No need to throw money at him…he has got this in the bag, hands down, easy sneezy. Go to Hawaii, take a break. Don’t bother yourself with this election stuff.
As I have said here before, my support is for Dr. Paul. He is the only one being honest about the fiscal mess the country is in and the only one with a REAL solution to attacking the deficit.
Kevin, how well do you think Obama would fare running against Paul while marching towards a war in Iran? Hope & Change?
Brad S
Iran’s war is coming to our living room. It is a fiction to suggest that somehow we can walk away from the Straits of Hormuz and a nuclear arms race in the middle east. That is where Dr. Paul and I disagree.
However, I don’t think I have been specific enough on that last comment. Our job is not to create American style democracies everywhere but to protect American security. The Straits of Hormuz are about oil and American security. The idea of managing a regime change in Iran is reprehensible to me. Iranians need to do what they need to do with their own government. It is not the US’ to manage. The US will fail if it tries to manage it. So maybe Dr. Paul and I don’t disagree.
A race between Ron Paul and Obama will be a race based on race - it will be Obama versus Ron Paul’s racist newsletter, and the Republicans lose that race 10 out of 10 times.