So, honestly people, the best choice is to take a RINO Republican OUT of the Senate in a state where a conservative governor (SC? AZ?) can replace that person with a conservative senator. It's a Two-Fer. We gain a conservative in the senate and remove an obstacle. Then hope Mitt doesn't croak.
Gov Martinez of NM would be the best. And yes, her parents are natural born, in case anyone is wondering.
Senators make terrible Presidents (Harding, JFK, LBJ, Obama) and worse candidates (Stevenson, McGovern, Dole, Kerry, McCain - I'm sure there are others).
There is no Senator - and there is unlikely to be one in the future - who should be seriously considered for POTUS or VP.
The VP is the “president” of the senate. He breaks the ties.
Rubio would be a good choice tactically.
“Then hope Mitt doesn’t croak.”
LOL, Why? Because romney is “severely conservative”? hahahahahahahaha... No... stop.... hahahahahaah... your killing me....
Romney is a socialist. He has declared himself a “progressive” and he has proven it through his deeds as Gov of Mass.
It doesn’t matter who the prick picks as his VP candidate, Im not going to support the SOB, Im not going to vote for him and Ill most likely work against him in the general.
Our ONLY hope here is that the folks that THINK people like me are going to fold and support the bastard because hes not obama, wise the hell up and understand the when we say NO MORE RINOS. THAT is EXACTLY what we mean. The romneybots can pretend to be the “majority” all they want just like the Bolsheviks did, but folks like me are done with socialists in the GOP.
I used to be a “team” player, until I realized that the “teams” were not what I thought they were. I used to think that it was Democrat -vs- Republican but what a lot of us came to realize is that is not the case. The real “teams” are socialist/statists -vs- freedom/limited government. We allowed the GOP to be coopted by the socialists because we were blind to anything other than D -vs- R anything with an “R” after its name was deemed “good” and we followed blindly. How do I know this is true? Because we are on the verge of nominating a SOCIALIST as our candidate for president.
What is the greater danger here?
- The socialists maintaining control of the presidency but losing their foothold on the republican party and losing control of congress.
or
- The socialists maintaining control of the presidency (via their guy with an “R” after his name) and STRENGTHENING their lock on the republican party AND (because of the “team” mentality) short circuiting any opposition from the GOP in congress. Plus, this has the value added benefit of making the socialists true enemy (folks like me) HOMELESS. What homeless army ever won a war?
Understanding the nature of this war and the nature of the enemy I will take the option where socialism is dealt the most damage. This means denying them control of the GOP, strengthening the anti-socialist control within the GOP. Strengthening GOP control of congress and enabling them to oppose everything the socialists attempt to inflict upon us. This also means defeating romney if he is the GOP candidate.
>> we cannot even consider taking a swing-state conservative Gov (Kasich or Walker). <<
I don’t quite follow your logic with regard to Walker. Seems to me that with him on the ticket, the GOP’s chances of carrying “West Consin” would increase substantially.
Mitt should, truly, become a small conservative Republican RIGHT NOW, or Mitt should quit the ‘12 POTUS race and let a small government conservative take over!-Like that’s, ever, going to happen. This was Sarah Palin’s best chance of becoming POTUS, and she decided not to run, thanks to the MSM/”left, in all of its forms” assiduous attacks upon Sarah. If the ‘12 GOP Convention becomes a “kissyfest for Mitt Romney”, then how does that not end up making things much worse for Mitt Romney, among most conservative voters and among most very conservative voters, for the November general election?