Posted on 11/28/2011 12:25:30 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
If there is a brokered convention, Sarah will be the nominee.
I won’t like the nominee if anyone of the Top Three wins ( Paul, Romney and Gingrich). I just think Bachmann is the best one with Cain in second. And until they win and prove to us they suck, I can’t say I will change my mind. I think they not only won’t be bad choices, but that everyone hates them because they are going to shake up washington. So are dead set against them in Rino/ Obama land.
Not a chance -- too many religious conservatives who won't vote for a habitual adulterer.
I’m only going to make one prediction. I predict that any prediction I should make will be wrong. Therefore, I won’t make any predictions. Just a few months ago I would never have considered voting for Newt....but am strongly leaning that way now. If my, normally rigid, views can change...then there is no telling what will finally happen.
BTW - This Australian piece doesn’t take into account that Huntsman has the same “Mormon” problem as Romney. Of course, folks will say it doesn’t matter...but it realy does.
Yours is a very good idea...we indeed are doing it azzbackwards.
There isn’t really anyone I could imagine even becoming the nominee that isn’t already a candidate in a brokered scenario.
Maybe Bob McDonnell.
I got to mention this. I was looking at Americans Elect, a non biased national poll of popular candidates, not according to party affiliation.
John Huntsman comes out 99% on the economy. Obama comes out 9%
Why are we ignoring this man and playing up the maroons, when the economy is the Giant issue - and all Obama can do is listen to his puppeteer Goldman-Sachs Geithner, whose only mantra is “mo money for banksters”? All we hear about is Herman Cain - a buffoon. Newt - retread of questionable values. Perry - duhhh. Okay, there’s Romney, but a lot of people would rather vote for wallpaper.
Why is a really sensible candidate like Huntsman ignored, while the media focuses on the farces? They want a cartoon show, is why. Not a tough debate all all the real issues, like Huntsman would give.
A moderate Republican - there’s a thought. Better than the screaming meemies. EVERYONE respected Eisenhower, the moderate Republican. I think the strongest complaint I heard about him, even from Democrats, was that he golfed too much. He not only won WWII, he built the Interstate Highway System, the most enriching and beneficial thing the government has ever done. And probably the last.
Maybe “None of the above” will be a brilliant speaker, akin to Churchill, charismatic, totally honest, with rock solid, no-nonsense plans to get the nation right.
Nahh, politics always picks the chumps in the end.
As for the “Mormon” problem, Kennedy was elected at a time when there was serious doubt that a Catholic could become President.
There are at least five women who will vouch that Cain is not a homosexual.
Of course, there were forty-two who would have vouched that Clinton was not ;’)
That’s what I’ve been pondereing.
“As for the “Mormon” problem, Kennedy was elected at a time when there was serious doubt that a Catholic could become President.”
Folks keep bringing that up. One thing is that it was a very long time ago. Second, is that people aren’t as open in stating a religious “dislike” of someone as they used to be. The “media” condemned the Baptist Pastor in Texas for condeming Romney, but I saw little “real” negative reaction by conservative evangelicals (because they - in principle - agreed with the pastor). Nope the “Mormon” problem is real for both Romney or Huntsman. Bottom line is that Huntsman will not be picked in a “brokered” convention.
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.