Posted on 05/06/2014 5:01:09 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Uniparty Ping!
The RINO are already at work for their DemoRat overlords.
/johnny
This article relies on the premise that Cruz isn’t anti-Washington enough.
Oh Heck lets just run Mitt again. :-)
I no longer support Rand Paul at all. It would be like running Mitch McConnell for the presidency.
Marco Rubio made a mistake on amnesty. He withdrew his support for the comprehensive, compromise amnesty bill. I’m willing to give him another chance. My concern with Rubio is his relative youth and inexperience.
Ted Cruz is by far my favorite. He’s right on every issue important to me. Again, however, my concern with Cruz is his relative youth and inexperience. That was no issue with the democrats supporting Obama, so I will support Cruz to the hilt. However, being honest, I will admit that one of the issues for me with Obama (relatively minor compared to his communist belief system) was his inexperience.
I will support Jeff Sessions of Alabama for the presidency for the same reason I support Cruz. He is not inexperienced. He is not running.
Of all the governors, Governor Perry of Texas is by far my favorite, he is right on God, Life, Self Defense, and small government. He has some amnesty ideas I don’t share.
Next would be Scott Walker of Wisconsin(?). He is wrong on amnesty.
misleading headline as the criminal liberal media starts a campaign to pick the GOP rep in 2016...the quotes say that prefer a Washington outsider who can govern- not that they hate Cruz or Rubio....there’s nothing wrong with that opinion...
Experience won't help if you don't have good instincts and bedrock beliefs.
The usual GOP-E suspects.
It wasn't always that way...
Mike Pence and Scott Walker.
If you talk about the top tier, youre talking about Christie, Bush, Walker and the governor of Louisiana,
Christie and Bush are losers. Walker I'd support. Jindal isn't my first choice, but I'd vote for him over Christie and Bush.
The Democrats are probably going to nominate Hillary Clinton, the consumate Washington insider. So how could nominating someone from the Senate hurt the GOP by comparison?
Fearful of a third successive Democratic triumph, concerned Senate Republicans are turning against 2016 presidential bids by upstart hopefuls within their own ranks.In forceful comments to The Hill, GOP senators made it plain that they would much prefer their party nominate a current or former governor over Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Marco Rubio (Fla.) or Rand Paul (Ky.). Those senators have created a buzz among conservative activists, but their colleagues in the upper chamber are eager to support a nominee from outside Washington with a record of attracting independents and centrist Democrats.
Take a good hard look around America. These last 6 years and what you see around you from just down the street out to the Ukraine are the result what the liberals and democrats call a "triumph." Yeah. Ready for a real change? Me too.
Why do they (the RINOs quoted in the article) keep mentioning Rubio? Are they trying to rebuild his credibility with the base so he can be their “consolation” prize as the Veep candidate for Jeb?
Personally, I like the thought of a Scott Walker/Ted Cruz ticket.
I still think the GOP needs to run a woman; especially if Hillary gets the nod from the DNC.
My favorites are Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina and Suzannah Martinez, Governor of New Mexico.
They are seeking the next designated loser
Amnesty is a deal killer
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.