Posted on 11/23/2011 6:38:16 AM PST by TheRobb7
Now That We've Crucified Every Candidate, who are we gonna support?
Take a step back and think about it for a moment:
Romney? No, for reasons stated on this site and encoded on our DNA.
Paul? No, unless you're an isolationist.
Perry? Apparently not, since my fellow FReepers appear ready to kill each other at the thought of a Perry nomination.
Santorum or Huntsman? No, because they apparently aren't pure enough either.
Cain? Maybe, but many consider 999 to be 666.
Newt? After last night's debate, FR will lynch the man and serve him on their tables tomorrow...so, no.
That leaves Bachmann, who again isn't pure enough for my fellow FReepers.
So since we insist on nominating a Priest instead of a POTUS, my question to all here is this:
SINCE YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED EVERYONE ON THAT STAGE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER.....WHO WILL YOU SUPPORT?
(or are we hoping that no one will have enough delegates heading into Tampa, thus giving us a nice little floor fight?)
Paul- I like his constitutional stands, Just plain wrong on Israel and Iranian threat.
Bachman- like a bad date that won't go away. Not ready for a woman POTUS. Crazy-eyed look on her face. Creeps me out.
Romney- Used car salesman! nuff said.
Gingrich- The monopoly game banker w/o the mustache. Flip flopper, major baggage, globalist.
Huntsman- Not so well scripted. Stars in his eyes. Doesn't truly believe what he speaks.
Perry- As a native Texan, hell no, we won't go! Perry's a political animal, self serving, Dem in Pub clothing.
Cain- Southern baptist preacher thang goin on. Like him, but not sure he'll stand up to the jive talker.
In the end, either would be better than O-freakin-bozo. I'm really no closer to a decision than a week ago, but if I had to throw it on the line....It would be Ron Paul.
Here is my reasoning. I am mucho concerned about the erosion of personal liberties in this country. I agree with Paul...we are broke!!! Let me repeat...broke, as a nation.
The major increase in spying on the American citizen is appalling. Almost feels like the citizens have become the suspects. I've always believed that you do not tread on the many to nab a few.
We cannot afford all the globe trotting. I also favor “America First”. Not understanding why this is isolationist. Haven't we given enough to the world? Our nation is hurting, it's time to get into bed, nurse ourselves back to health. A sinking lifeboat full to the brim cannot help anyone.
Paul's call for a 10% cut in government, cut federal agencies, cut over a trillion from the budget, turn over unconstitutional federal mandated programs to the states, cut off magnets for illegals....sounds good to me.
LOL. I was just fishing for compliments.
Yea, that’s it. Thanks.
Even if we take the senate (which I think will happen), the prez will have to strongarm congress into getting an agenda passed, and I think Newt is the best guy for that job.
I was for Cain until I saw how he handled the sex scandal flap...has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence...I just think he mishandled it and I wonder how much he would stumble during the first couple of years as prez.
As I said above, we can't afford someone who needs on the job training.
I’ve voted for Rick Perry before.
I’d vote for him again.
It’s Cain right now for me, although Paul is looking better.
Paul’s stupidity toward Islam and closeted anti-semitism are wrong, but those are not the biggest dangers our nation faces.
I have problems with all of them, but a big HECK NO for Willart, NOOT, Bachman, Santorum and Hunstsman.
As for your question: I'm Canadian, and thus I cannot vote in any Republican primary. So I might as well stay 'indecisive'.
Well, I fell for it hook, line and sinker.
I agree. We should let them keep their carp.
But we will take the women and children.
;o)
I've said the same thing, except I used Cain, Newt and Paul.
In this article Beck says : I never endorce
http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/11/22/glenn-beck-touts-exceptional-bachmann/
I honestly believe that if she were to throw her hat into the ring now, that she would quickly build enough momentum to carry her over the finish line to a win. Of course, she also has to want it, and as of right now, there's no indication from her that she does.
Ike was also a reluctant candidate. He finally had to be drafted at the convention to convince him to run.
Excellent point. While the caucus is six weeks away, at this point, I see no reason to abandon Perry. Perry has something none of the others have and that is a darned good RECORD of accomplishment in TX. I’ll take it. While Romney also has a record it does not come with the accomplishments of Perry.
I’ll go with Gingrich.
He is not the perfect candidate but do any of us doubt that he would go 3 for 3 in his debates with Obama? That claim cannot be made for any other GOP candidate.
And, at least at this point, his appeal to independent voters should be quite good. In fact I have anecdotal evidence (sample size is one, so margin of error is infinite) that he will appeal to Dems that have given up on Obama.
The”evidence”: My 90 year old lifelong Democrat and fanatical Obama supporter sister-in-law wants Newt to be elected in 2012.
Her reason: it is now finally clear to her that Obama simply doesn’t have the necessary experience to be President and, of the GOP candidates, Gingrich seems best qualified to pull us out of the economic mess we are in.
I think she is right.
Heh, heh.
ditto and ditto
Stop this war on drugs, we've not halted the flow of drugs into this country one iota!
Seal the border! Stop the drugs from entering. By the way, where have all these billions of dollars gone? No accountability...at all.
If Obama wins the next election, it might very well have been the last one we get to participate in.
Cain
Anybody but Cain, Huntsman or Romney.
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.