Replies

"“Paul is a major distraction in the debates.”

I agree, and at the risk of annoying some, I think the same thing about Herman Caine."

So using the same criteria no one on the stage needed to be there then. Sadly I agree when give a choice between all those on the stage and most of those hovering over the stage I find them all very flawed and wanting and If I have to make a choice between any of them or 'Bammy' I just might have to get good and drunk before I go vote this election. The way I see it right now its like giving me mulitple choices to commit sucide. I hardly matters the choice because the result will be just the same.

“I just might have to get good and drunk before I go vote this election.”

Are you the same poster who is getting drunk election day over on the NRO/Corner thread on Perry?

But seriously, Paul and Caine, they are non-starters. Paul’s views on foreign policy are nuts and Caine seems to know absolutely nothing about it.

And that is the one area that the President is responsible for. If there were no other countries we wouldn’t even need a pres, we could get by with some kind of national mayor.

Romney, Bachmann, Pawlenty, Santorum, love them or hate them, are all plausible candidates who have views (flexible though those might be in some cases) and who have given thought and effort to foreign policy as well as other issues.

This is America, where any little boy or girl can indeed grow up to be President. We are self-governing. We aren’t going to get a Washington or a Churchill or a Charlemagne every time.

But, we need to avoid the Carters of both parties.

We didn’t do that last time, we need to do a lot better in 2012. I honestly think any of the 4 I named would be better. Palin, Perry, many others would be better also.

Hey, at least none of them are communists!