Now That We've Crucified Every Candidate.... (Here's Your Chance FReeper Nation)

Personal Thoughts | 11-23-11 | TheRobb7

[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?)

[Lakeshark]

I believe several states had their registrations for their primaries pass by.

It's a done deal, unless there is an impasse for the nomination.

[altura]

I actually respect Newt more after last night. He knew he would take heat for his position but he made a reasonable statement about illegals.

There is so much hate on this forum for illegals that some of us would vote for a ‘kill on sight’ candidate.

That will not happen. We should look at this problem reasonably and figure out a way to handle it that’s possible and (sorry) humane and practical.

The current administration has shot down every state that tried to do something on its own. That’s why Perry stayed out of that for now.

I cannot stand Cain. He’s just not capable and not totally a nice person imo.

[Elle Bee]

I support a brokered convention

.

[ixtl]

Reminds me of the way things were when I was in colleged (late 50s, early 60s). Democrats would beat the Hell out of each other in the primaries, then all pull together behind the wimmer. Republicans would beat the Hell out of each other in the primaries, then the losers would all go homeand sulk.

Since we can’t resurrect or clone Ronald Reagan, right now I am leaning towards Cain. Perry has some good ideas, but he has been our governor for 12 years, and I just can’t trust him. Bachman and Santorum are good, but don’t have the support. Gingrich has too much baggage. Romney and Huntsman, no.

I would support Palin if she ran, but am not counting on it.

[Vigilanteman]

Interesting that I would pick the same three.

Yeah, I have reservations about Santorum, but not for the reasons which people think. Backing Specter was a terrible choice and we all know it now. But, at the time, Santorum was chairman of the Senate reelection committee and Specter was the guy arguably the most responsible for getting Judge Clarence Thomas confirmed. So I can forgive him for this rather than pile on.

My reservations about him have to do with electability. Not only is he focused on focused on issues of social conservatism when the economy is the main issue, but he couldn't even crack 40% in his last reelection bid against an empty suit who is arguably the dumbest guy in the U.S. Senate with a penis.

Herman and Michelle, I believe, are much stronger in the likability and electability departments.

[suijuris]

I second that emotion.

[RichInOC]

The one person who really should be on that stage was encouraged to drop out in order to give the people up there the opportunity to prove they belonged up there.

Oops.

[montag813]

“Let the truth come out.” OK, cool. Now that it has, who has your support?

Cain, Bachmann, Limbaugh, Palin, Zombie Reagan, in that order.

[joe fonebone]

Cain....... he has handled all the crap flung at him with dignity and intellegence.... he was not afraid to call out those that accused him, and then moved on... a businessman is what is needed in dc, someone who will make a decision when it is needed, not a waffler or politician looking for favors....... the rest of the field are either socialists, socialist lite, or professional politicans. We do not need any of the above....

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Looks like we’ve settled for Perry for pretty much the same reasons. Perry has proven he can govern effectively.

[Pollster1]

While we might not agree with every candidates opinion, we would all agree that it’s better than what we have now.

"Better than what we have now" would be a long list, and that includes:

Personally, I would have preferred a former Alaskan governor or a current South Carolina US Senator, but they are not running. I would be more than happy with Cain or with Bachmann, who are in the race. I would accept any conservative, and reluctantly almost any republican, even Newt (but not the leftie "front runner" from Massachusetts). I will be voting for the US House and Senate, no matter what, but I will not under any circumstances support Mitt Romney or anyone else that I can't trust to repeal ObamaCare.

[Grunthor]

“Perry? Apparently not, since my fellow FReepers appear ready to kill each other at the thought of a Perry nomination.”

It’s more like “kill themselves at the thought of a Perry/Obama debate.” It would be downright embarrassing for our side.

I support Cain.

[jagusafr]

“Speaker Gingrich is standing even more strongly on my list. Perry and Cain are there too.”

I like all three names, but “existentially”, I have a problem trusting a guy two wives couldn’t trust. Seems to me Gingrich is too much “out for Number One”. That said, my gut is that I’d vote for him if he was the nominee, which I can’t say for Romney [yeah, yeah, “guarantees O will serve 4 more years”, yadda yadda yadda.] I’m still analyzing my own reactions.

[Tredegar]

Jon Huntsman, by some distance. He is the most qualified candidate in the field. His record is a superb one. It is a record FAR more conservative than many give him credit for.

Those who call him a ‘liberal’ obviously haven’t checked out his record. How many pro-life, pro-gun, tax-cutting, Ryan Plan supporting liberals, do you know?

Huntsman 2012

[ScottinVA]

Cain — Still my top choice. His 9-9-9 plan has gaps and flaws, but it at least sparked a dialog about revamping the tax system. He seems to have fended off the lying liars who alleged sexual harassment. They’ve been rather silent since his attorney Lin Wood advised them to “think twice.” Apparently they are indeed re-engaging the brain cells accordingly. I hope he rebounds.

Santorum — I’d be quite happy with a Santorum presidency, but the country is too far left now. It simply won’t elect him.

Bachmann — Ditto here. I’d support her, but she isn’t going to go the distance. America — and the GOP — aren’t that conservative anymore.

Gingrich — Intellectually brilliant, but too prone to “wildcat” acts... that imagery of him sitting on the couch with that witch Pelosi, shilling for an Al Gore-backed organization (”WE”) — along with the rather “moderate” views on resolving the “what-to-do” question vis-a-vis illegals.. tells me he has an innate squishiness on issues that matter. That said.. if he’s the last man standing, vs. a Romney nomination.. I’ll support him.

Paul — Hell no. He and Huntsman will NEVER get my vote. The guy’s a nutcase whose pollyannaish views on foreign policy would get Americans killed. How GOPers in any state would give him more than 1% support is beyond me. WTH are you thinking, IOWA???

Huntsman — Like Paul, Huntsman will never get my vote. Please tell me again what would be the difference between a Huntsman presidency and four more years of Obama? I’m not seeing the distinction.

Perry — His stance in immigration gets me under the craw, but, like Newt, if he’s the last man standing vs. Romney, I’ll vote for him.

Romney — Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up... and leave the room?

The ones I WISH were in the race: Jim DeMint, Mike Pence, Bob McDonnell.

[jagusafr]

I don’t hear him saying “can’t we all get along” at all. I hear a sincere question that deserves sincere input. I feel the same way he does - there’s got to be more analysis for me before I commit, because nobody’s a clear voice yet.

[Yaelle]

But you have influence now. You can donate to your favorite and you can make calls for his campaign in Iowa, for example. That’s really all those of us with late primaries can do. So many drop out before our states get to vote.

[cumbo78]

As long as we continue to let the media pick the nominee, this is what you are going to get. You had talented newcomers like Thad McCotter of Michigan who were blackballed from the debates. He could have really shaken things up and gotten rid of the pretenders a lot more quickly. Smarter than Newt, better conservative record, great debater, no personal baggage. Gets left out of the polls cited to gain access to the debates. No way to select your flag bearer. As far as Gingrich, he’s done after last night’s amnesty support. Unless something extraordinary happens, it will be Romney, as he has the organization and the money behind him.

[Mr. K]

I love the 9-9-9 plan because of the OTHER things it does- it removes the IRS and all power from the senators and congress critters to make new tax law to favor one business over another

combine 9-9-9 with Perry’s plan of half time washington offices

and gingrichs plans

And we got the perfect storm for democraps- by holding so many debates they have allowed us to see and pick from ALL these great ideas- we just need one candidate to decide he is going to implement the best of all of the plans-

I think if Cain did that, and selected Gingrich we have a good one!

I think Cain would lean toward picking Gingrich- by his VP candidate question

[Mr. K]

Gingrich is not perfect and he is being HONEST about the immigration issue.

As much as we would like purity and for a candidate to say “throw them all out” - it really is not practical.

The biggest problem with illegal immigration is that the government has ignored it for 40 years. Now to suddenly start enforcing it is GOING TO HAVE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

There are people who have lived their whole life here illegally- Mexcio was never their home.

So, loick donw the border, toss out those who hold more allegiance to Mexico than to USA and we will then need to think of a way to deal with people who are illegal, but lived here for their whole life- and it WILL require immediate registration as illegal resident alien, and no welfare