Who's Your GOP Nominee?

If you could have your way (other than Mitt Romney), who would you put up in 2016 for the GOP nominee?

+1. Scott Walker is the real deal. He's smart and tough. He gets my vote. He is grounded in how to control spending, reduce debt, balance a budget and improve an economy. The single biggest challenge facing the USA is the economy and our massive debt.



1. Marco Rubio is too young and immature. Perhaps another time - in the distant future.



2. Michele Bachmann - no way. Had her moment in the sun. Next.



3. Jeb Bush - a contender. Not my cup of tea. He is a definite player though.



4. Chris Christie - not for me. He is too self serving. He threw Mitt under the bus. Lacks integrity. I could care less about the whole Bridgegate mess. I do that every day in L.A. Who cares.



5. Ted Cruz - the real deal. He is smart - very principled. Grounded in the Constitution. I would vote for Ted Cruz. I don't think Ted is electable on a national stage. He's very bright, but an easy target for the left to demean and brand an extremist.



6. Jon Huntsman - nope. Not conservative enough. Next. He's the next sellout GOP guy.



7. Bobby Jindal. I don't think he has a chance. Stay in state politics.



8. Sarah Palin. Had her shot. Too polarizing. She should move to Az. and run for McCain's Senate seat. Focus on a spot in Congress. Not presidential timber.



9. Rand Paul. I like him. Grounded in the Constitution. Media savvy. Has integrity. I think I prefer Ted Cruz over Rand Paul by a skosh. Still like and respect Rand. I wonder if he's electable on a national stage.



10. Rick Perry - I like him. But, Rick is not quick enough on his feet to handle the attacks and barbs that will come his way. He stumbles easily. The Dem's will eat him alive.



11. Condoleeza Rice - my pick for VP. I believe that if Condi agreed to be Mitt's VP running mate, Mitt would have beaten Obama. I hope she will sign on with Scott Walker as his VP, then run for president herself. I'm a huge Condi fan.



12. Rick Santorum - nope. Had his day in the sun. Not a hit. A miss. Too niche in appeal. Retire with Palin and Bachmann. Next.



13. Paul Ryan. I like Paul. But, he does not generate enough broad based interest. Not a big enough appeal to a wide spectrum of folks. Won't win the nomination, or the presidency. Run for the Senate. Be brilliant and a force in Congress.



There are more possibilities. That's it off the top of my head. If Mitt changes his mind, and Condi was his VP nominee, they would be unbeatable. That's right, Mitt and Condi would stomp the guts out of Hillary and whoever.

I like Walker, but he won't carry his own state. That actually matters. GOP looked ridiculous last time when both men lost their own state.



Jeb's biggest problem is his last name. He'd be the best candidate by far if he was Jeb Smith.



Rick Perry is an idiot.



I like Rubio right where he is.



Rand Paul is more electable than his father, but not by much.



Cruz is also a moron.



Christie wouldn't carry his own state, plus he dropped the ball last time on Romney.



Bachmann is a moron.



Personally, I like Huntsman, almost as much as I like Jeb Bush. But then again, I'm not an ultra social conservative.



I agree Jindal should stay in Lousiana



Palin...next.



Love Condi, but she won't run.



Santorum is the biggest idiot.



Paul Ryan is great right where he's at.



I like Portman from Ohio as a darkhorse. Also Like Kasich, but even with the economic turnaround he oversaw in Ohio, he couldn't get people to vote for Romney.



I'm not sure I see Hilary as the opponent on the other side either, unless the Dems really don't think they have a shot to win after this President. She may end up being their Bob Dole. Run for it enough, we'll let you be the nominee in a year where we're going to get blown out.



I expect the Obama political machine will get behind someone else (I've heard Holder, but he'd have to step down almost immediately to start running). I don't see them getting behind the VP fully, either.



The key for the GOP this time around will be to shorten the primaries, get behind a real candidate, and move forward. Had people just dropped out when it was obvious Romney was going to win, he'd probably be president right now.

stuckinbig10country wrote:

Cruz is also a moron.

I find your assessment of Ted Cruz interesting. You don't just disagree with his politics, or his techniques in making a stand. You dismiss him as a moron.



James Carville, a well known Democratic strategist, and highly respected for his political insight and keen, accurate, political assessments. He would disagree with you regarding Ted Cruz.



"In an interview with ABC's "This Week," longitme Democratic strategist James Carville lauded Cruz for his attitude since taking office in January.



“I think he is the most talented and fearless Republican politician I’ve seen in the last 30 years,” Carville said. “I further think that he is going to run for president, and he is going to create something.”



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/james-carville-ted-cruz_n_3219572.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





"James Carville said Monday on the "Hannity" Fox News show. Cruz is talented, "whip smart," "as educated a guy as you can be," and very good on his feet, the Democratic strategist said.



If he were a conservative "watching Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain is actually painful," he said. "Ted Cruz to a lot of people says what they're thinking in a very articulate way. He has great command of the language."



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/James-Carville-Ted-Cruz-election-Hannity/2014/02/25/id/554533/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





No doubt Ted Cruz is a polarizing figure. He stakes out a distinct position and does not waffle. I completely understand folks not agreeing with him. But, to dismiss him as a moron reflects on a misunderstanding of Ted Cruz's accomplishments and the man himself.



Quite frankly, the filibuster he made against Obamacare and calling for a 1 year delay for Obamacare, in light of the disastrous roll-out, massive problems in the exchanges, lackluster enrollees, and Obama using Executive Action, after Executive Action, over and over to avoid impending disasters for his signature legislation; Ted Cruz looks more than prescient. He looks like a genius with hindsight.

I like Rand Paul. Someone who's overarching philosophy seems to be freedom could be a welcome one to the office of the president.



But I do think he could probably use a little more seasoning.



I honestly don't think the GOP nominee matters. The democrats haven't gotten fewer than 250 electoral votes since 1992. When you have a built-in base that brings you one swing state away from the presidency it leaves the GOP very little room for error (the GOP basically has to win every swing state).

I'm not a republican, so my vote probably means even less. I'm not a dem either but whatever. I've always liked Huntsman, Powell, and Rice, in that order. On the dem side, there's no one I like right now. I want someone who is a practical problem solver, not an ideologue. We got too many of those in Washington.

The only guys with a chance now are Walker, Paul, Cruz and Bush and maybe Nikki Haley or Jim Demint.



No one else has a shot at Iowa, NH and SC (including Romney). And by SC the nomination is over.



I'd order them:

1. Paul

2. Cruz

3. Demint - He isn't running but he could win Iowa and SC if he did



These guys actually care about the Constitution and putting limits on government - I think. Paul is easily better than Cruz on foreign policy, but Cruz isn't that bad. It'll be Cruz or Paul in Iowa as Cruz already has Huckabee's guys and Paul has his father's. Walker might have a chance. I don't think Cruz can win NH, but that's just conjecture. As far as ideological purity I'd rather someone like Thomas Massie or Justin Amash win but Paul would be good and I'd actually vote for Cruz or Demint in a general though I'm almost certain I'd come to regret it just like I did after falling for Bush II in 2000.



4.Walker - if he can win in Iowa, he could win NH. I wouldn't hold your breath though. I see him as Tim Pawlenty of this cycle. I don't see a ground game for him in Iowa and if he doesn't win there it's over for him.

5. Haley - She's woman in a field of men but she has some real negatives - TARP and some personal issues which damage women more than men for whatever reason.

6. Bush - I don't see it. I really don't.

As long as they can beat Hillary they get my vote. Elections are about winning. Democrats get this and support their clown candidate no matter what every cycle. Republicans actually have principles and values, which causes problems attempting to find the perfect candidate. Folks need to wake up to reality. Trying to find the perfect candidate is how Obamas get elected. I don't care if it's Paul, Cruz, Christie, or Walker.



No matter what though the GOP needs to take over the Senate in November. If Hillary wins the WH she should be neutralized for a little while. If a Republican wins the WH they might be able to repeal Obamacare, which would save this country for the time being.

+1 Mizzoucoug. If I may add a bit to your thought. The important thing IS to win. But why? The Democratic party of today is NOT our fathers Democratic party. My father was a Truman Democrat. His party is dead and gone.



Point - It's really not accurate to call Democrats Liberals. There are Liberal Democrats, but they are not running Washington DC. If you evaluate Obama, his administration, and what they have done - they really are a blend of Statist's, Fascist's, and Socialist's. That is correct. They call themselves Progressive. But what is a Progressive? It's a blend of Statism and Fascism.



What is a "Statist?" It is a political belief that the govt, or the state should control economic and social policy. The "welfare state" is part of statism. It's all about bigger govt. Govt. controlling more, more invasive. Statism grows until it becomes totalitarianism.



What is a "Fascist?" Fascism, according to Merriam-Webster, is a way of organizing society in which a govt. is ruled by a dictator who controls the lives of the people in which the people are not allowed to disagree with the govt. It stands for a heavily centralized, autocratic, dictatorial leader.



Is Obama a dictator. No. Just know that there are many forms and degrees of Statism and Fascism. Rarely does one find perfect "pigeon hole" examples. But, if you look at what Obama has done in the last 5 years - he has grown the size of govt. massively, increased invasive regulation tremendously, raised taxes, hired 13,000+ new IRS agents, used the DOJ to go after our Press in an unprecedented way (tapping phone lines, hacking into journalists computers, seizing journalists phone records.) The DOJ even seized the phone records of Fox News journalist James Rosen's parents phones! Very aggressive.



Supposedly, according to Obama, his presidency would be the most transparent in history. In reality, it's been the most secretive and most invasive. Jill Abramson of the NYT said the Obama administration was the most secretive she had ever dealt with. And her experience goes way back.



NY Times' Jill Abramson: 'This Is The Most Secretive White House...I Have Ever Dealt With'



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/jill-abramson-white-house-secret-ny-times_n_4653014.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





It is critical to take the Senate away from the Statist Democrats in Nov. 2014, and hopefully deny them the White House in 2016. The forward movement of the Statist Progressive Democrats must be halted. The Constitution hangs in the balance.



Statist Progressive Democrats WILL do the following -

1. Always hide and obscure the true intent of their agenda. Their rhetoric spreads sunshine. It's not the truth. If the Statist Dem's were hones about their true agenda, the majority of Americans would reject them - and they know it.



2. When they cannot promote their agenda by winning elections - and legislating their agenda. They will pursue it thru litigation and the courts. The will also keep pushing their ball forward thru regulation (Executive Order - I have a pen and a phone).



3. Statist Dem's will muzzle and quiet their political opponents. Using the weight and power of the govt. to crush them (Example -IRS and the Tea Party). Labeling people as extremists - to marginalize them. (Example: Obama admin having the FCC going into newsrooms to conduct studies and question journalists.) Another example: When Conservatives or a member of the GOP is invited to speak at a University, petitions are circulated attempting to ban them from the campus. Or, at the presentation, shouting the guess speaker down - not allowing them to speak (very common). Most recent - Rutgers faculty and students protesting Condoleezza Rice's invite to speak at their commencement and rescind the invitation.



#3 is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. But, to a Statist Progressive Fascist Democrat President - what's a Constitutionally guaranteed right like free speech? Nothing if it criticizes his agenda.



That's just a few things.

This actually scares me.

Chris Christie is a statist in the same vein as Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. Things would actually be worse with him as a Republican president than with Clinton or any other Democrat. Remember all the increased spending under Bush - it would be even worse with Christie.



It doesn't matter because Christie can't win Iowa or SC so there is no way he will be the Republican nominee. And no one should vote for him if he somehow buys enough Iowa or NH politicians to pull it off.

scott715 wrote:
This actually scares me.

That makes a pair of us.



I backed and voted for Romney but he came here to campaign for M. Simpson who has been too long in Washington and has not proven to me to be a "proven conservative". I also didn't like him telling Brewer of Arizona, to veto the bill giving businesses the right to serve who they choose. Having said that, I think Rice would have made the cause stronger, maybe much stronger. I would like Paul, Cruz, Walker or Perry. I don't know if any of them could win however. I would vote for Romney and Rice.



JV, I find myself agreeing with you until you say any republican, even Christie, who may be my last republican choice, is worse than clinton or obama.

Christie with a Republican majority in congress (which is almost guaranteed at this point) would be worse than Clinton, Obama or any other Democrat. He wouldn't be worse than any other Republican -I can only imagine John McCain declaring war on Russia - but he would be close.

I still like Huntsman, but nobody's going to beat Hilary anyway so why bother?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Metal Bubba wrote:

I still like Huntsman, but nobody's going to beat Hilary anyway so why bother?

The most respected political pundits all said the exact same thing in 2008.

I say Col. Alan West. I think it's about time we had someone (a warrior) other than a lawyer in the white house.



As for Ted Cruz I would strongly disagree. He is in no way a moron. He, like Mike Lee are amoung the few that continue to fight for the people that elected them. The libaral press has painted them (and Palin) in these colors to get you to think that. I suggest anyone thinking he and Palin are morons needs to look into the facts. They have been proven to the the ones who are right and the press has ALWAYS gotten it wrong but I think they know it but still do it. And the reason is clear, they are afraid of lawmakers like Curz, Lee, and Palin. Why do you think McCain won the nomination in 08? Because the media made him out to be this great person because they know he would be the easiest target. But when Palin was chosen, the press went bonkers. Thats why stories like "I can see Russia from my balcony" were headlines.



And as for Obama. He is a statist, a communist, and an African Colonialist. If you don't know what that means look it up. Alan Keys wansn't just trying to win points when he said "Obama is a communist"



I did hear Holder thown around for a few days but I think that was the end of it Because he has no chance so they quickly moved on. The has been some speculation of a Hillary/Michelle ticket but the way those two hate each other I doubt it could ever even work. The "new" golden child is Rahm but hopefully as he continues to take Chicago down the toilet, America will see him for what he truly is. BTW, Hillary would be worse then Christie (I don't like him) because she is a Ailinskite just like Obama. She's just not as bad as Obama and not an African Colonial.



I was good with Romney because of what I had gleamed from his personal life. He lived the gospel and so I think that would have led to a lot of good to very good decisions. I think he would have been more on the conservative side than liberal but would have worked with Dems to get things passed - which I would not like because working with Dems means you give in and they get what they want or they will go to the press and blame everything on you - kind of how Harry Reid is now blaming Russia's actions on the republicans in the press.



As for Libarals vs Progressives, back in Wilson's admin they called themselves progressives. They pushed their idiology until the work progressive became a negative word. They then hijacked the work liberal. Now that has a negative connotation to people who truely understand it and are returning to the term progressive. But today they are one and the same. The Liberals of FDR and such are now mostly the RINO's.



One thing to add to a facist is that they leave private ownership alone (for the most part) but they regulate ad nosuim and demand specific things of the companies. They also choose winners and losers (usually the winners are private business owners that supported them).



All in all, fascism, socialism, communism, etc are all evil. And they all lead down the same road. To the stifling of liberty and the consolidation of power in a centralized group or person.

Screw the GOP, and screw the Dems. Today they are basically two sides of the same coin, enslaving future generations with an unpayable debt, and adding to it each and every year. The Libertarian Republicans will hopefully take themselves out of the GOP party, and we can get another party into the mix, and for one of the first times in history have an actual debate and a little bit of competition, where the winner might actually matter.



I have always been Independent but sympathised heavily with republicans almost always, but I stopped caring about the Repubs a couple years ago when Mitt Romney (who I think would be a better candidate than the guy currently in office, hands down) campaigned telling that we needed to make cuts and sacrifices, and then his VP ended up submitting a "spending reform" that ONLY grows to 6 Trillion dollars GDP in the next decade, versus Barracks 8 trillion. Cutting the future growth won't cut it. Only making **some** token cuts won't cut it. Everything has to shrink, and some things need to go away entirely..



I'd either want Gary "Governor Veto" Johnson and/or Justin Amash. Either of them would balance the budget within their term. Gary Johnson got the nickname Governor Veto because as Gov. in New Mexico (as a republican) he vetoed 200 times in 6 months, because he didn't want to increase spending. There is also something to be said for the only politician in Congress that facebooks every vote of his on every bill (Amash).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Amash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;