Posted on 04/13/2015 6:14:44 AM PDT by fred4prez
It's been a while since I've been on here, but decided to check back in to see what FR thinks of the potential Republican field for 2016. Frankly, I'm pretty excited:
Ted Cruz - A+ conservative pick
Rand Paul - named after Ayn Rand, and son of Ron Paul, what could go wrong? :) Would definitely love to see the country move more in the libertarian direction.
Marco Rubio - B+ due to immigration stance, but still a strong republican
Scott Walker - A+ union buster.
Rick Perry - A+ Good guy from a good state with executive experience
Chris Christy - B+ but none of us can say we wouldn't love to see him debate a lib!
Jeb Bush - C - I dislike him but due to his last name, really doubt he'd be nominated
Ben Carson - B+ great guy but little executive experience, but worlds better than current prez.
Overall, with the exception of Jeb, I'd be thrilled to see any of the above with the Republican nomination. And who else is there who could possibly win the nomination than someone I've listed?
jebbush needs to go. He is sucking up all the money and will use it to take shots at the best candidates during the primary. jebbush is a NWO globalist that will support common core, open borders, 0-care, banker bailouts if needed, more civil rights incursions and on and on.
If he wins, he’s an automatic loser in the general. At that point we need to get behind a 3rd party candidate to destroy the lesser of two evils. Getting rid of one devil is better that letting two devils get away.
Rand Paul is NOT named after Ayn Rand. His name is Randall.
From your screen name I’d guess you were one who thought Fred Thompson was actually running to be President. He was a blocker for McCain. Same role is being played this time by Graham, Rubio, probably Huckabee and Santorum too. This time they’re blocking for Bush.
Agree 100%
No.
For once, I think the Republican field needs to be examined not based on personalities or promises, but on the *strategy* to accomplish those promises.
Granted parts of a strategy must remain hidden, but the overall concept of the strategy should be made public, that is, if a given candidate actually intends to deliver on their promises. If they are lying, they won’t have a strategy.
In the last election, now congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC) lied like a dog while pretending to be a conservative. As soon as she was elected, she turned 180 degrees and proclaimed support for all the major liberal issues. (She is already facing a primary challenge for the next election, by a *real* conservative.) But the point is that *nobody* demanded a strategy from her on how she planned to accomplish her “by the numbers” supposed embrace of conservative issues.
In the upcoming presidential race, Jeb Bush is for one, so incredibly arrogant that he actually proclaims policies that he knows conservatives will totally reject. In mental health care, an indicator that someone is mentally ill is that they tell you what they “really think”. And this rule is doubly so for politics. Bush has made zero effort to pretend he is a conservative, even though this seems politically suicidal.
This doesn’t mean he hasn’t lied and tried to pretend to be conservative. It’s that he doesn’t think he *has* to appeal to conservatives to win.
Truthfully, even Ted Cruz needs to express an unusual strategy: to explain *not* how he will “guide the ship of state”, but how he will *disassemble* much of it. Because that is the strategy that America desperately needs right now.
I have and continue to propose that if Ted Cruz was appointed and confirmed as a justice of the Supreme Court, (creating a mostly 6-3 majority, or if necessary a guaranteed 5-4 majority) he might actually be *more* able to carry out this agenda better than if he were president.
No president has ever significantly reduced the size and power of government. Even Reagan admitted that he just “slowed the rate of growth”, but even that is not entirely true. Even if the president was willing, congress could stop him cold.
But neither the president or congress could quickly stop a Supreme Court determined to severely prune the government.
So that is not just a strategy, but a strong way to achieve that strategy.
Walker, Paul, and Perry have many good qualities, but they've all talked out of both sides of their mouths on illegal immigration, which I think is the most important issue facing this country. Rubio seems completely two-faced on a whole host of issues, while Carson simply isn't a plausible candidate (he's basically the Herman Cain of 2016, minus the sex scandals). Of course, I'd vote for any one of these in the general election against Hillary.
If Christie or Jeb are nominated, however, I'll probably either stay home or vote third party. A liberal with an "R" next to his name is still a liberal.
I’m ok with the field. I don’t think there’s anyone who hits 100% of my ideal measures (strongly conservative/limited government, proven ability to lead, proven ability to win, and executive experience), but there are a few who fall short by very little.
As of the moment, I’d say that Cruz is the best conservative running, but that Walker might be the best candidate in terms of a) actually winning, and b) will get a conservative agenda enacted when elected. But it’s early, and things will almost certainly change.
My brother is a big Ben Carson supporter. I don’t get it. He is obviously an intelligent, principled man, but nothing in his resume gives him the experience to be President.
If Carson had the exact same credentials and were white, would anybody be taking him seriously as a plausible Presidential candidate? The fact that his candidacy or Herman Cain's was treated as anything other than a fringe phenomenon has more to do with the GOP's own form a affirmative action than political correctness. They're so desperate to prove how "inclusive" and non-racist they are that they'll showcase any minority candidate, no matter how dubious his qualifications (.
Case in point: in 1992, a software engineer and small business owner named Jim Lenane ran for the GOP Presidential nomination. He had about the same qualifications for the job as Carson and Cain. Smart and decent guy by all accounts (like Carson), but how many people noticed him then, or remember him today? Had Lenane been black, different story. He would have at least gotten his 15 minutes of fame like Cain.
Shouldn't his name be, "Ayn Paul" ??
The fact that his candidacy or Herman Cain's was treated as anything other than a fringe phenomenon has more to do with the GOP's own form a affirmative action than political correctness
Should be :
"The fact that his candidacy or Herman Cain's was treated as anything other than a fringe phenomenon has more to do with the GOP's own form of affirmative action and political correctness."
Well that should give you something to do for the next 6 years.
BTW Know why Mitch attacked the Tea Party? Might it have something to do with many Tea Partiers calling him everything but late for dinner for years have something to do with it?
The thing is too many people confuse (or don’t understand) Politics & Ideology.
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.