Posted on 12/31/2011 6:36:09 AM PST by no dems
Just read on another thread where "American Idol" winner and recording artist, Kelly Clarkson has endorsed Ron Paul (spiking her CD sales 442%). He's also liked by Barry Manilow, White Supremacists, anti-Semites, the "Occupy" protesters, the anti-war crowd, and tons of other Liberals. So, I'm thinking....
Let Ron Paul run as a Third Party candidate. He is more like Dennish Kucinich than he is Rick Santorum. There are a lot of ultra-Liberals who are very disappointed with their "Hope and Change" President, but they'd never vote for a Republican. That would give them an outlet for a "protest vote" against Obozo and would actually probably help the GOP candidate. Am I right or am I crazy? Anybody???
Any chance we could get Herman Cain back in the race?
______________________________________________________________
See my Post #98
Newt is the one that can defeat Obama. Unless Paul runs a third party, then we are screwed.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I fear a 3rd Party run by Trump more than I fear a 3rd Party run by Paul.
A TRUE conservative is the only way to go
______________________________________________________________
Rick Santorum comes to my mind.
Man , I thought people on FR had some common sense about politics
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry to disappoint you. We FReepers have been some of the worst for destroying the candidates on the GOP team one by one. We’ve tried to “out conservative” each other and in so doing we have bullied, beaten and bloodied our field to the point that we will send the ultimate nominee into the General Election as damaged goods. I’m afraid that we have pulled defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama could have been beaten but we decided to beat ourselves. So sad.....
The thread should end at your post since it is the correct call.
________________________________________________________________________________
In this instance, it would have been good if you’d have given us the Post number.
Gary Johnson is not a well-known or well-like as Pauly-wally. He’s about as exciting as a footstool.
Consider what a vote for Paul would mean, in actuality.
Is it not a vote for "none of the above"?
And wasn't that the meaning of Iowa's vote in 2008? Wasn't Huckabee a proxy for "none of the above"?
And wouldn't that constitute an incisive and perceptive vote both times around: None of the above?
If only the GOP Establishment would listen more closely to the message being sent by Iowans...
Ron Paul will not peel away any significant number of conservative or republican votes. But there is a more likely chance of mopping up a consideral number of younger dissatisfied ex-Obama voters and even a lot of dissatisfied died in the wool Libs who would never vote republican.
Not even close. I've talked to a bunch of Ron Paul fanatics, and nowhere near 6/10 would vote for a Republican.
I doubt that 1/10 Ron Paul supporters would vote for Ronald Reagan, were he running today. They are either barking moonbats or Democrat mischief-makers (yeah, I do recognize the redundancy).
On the other hand, if Romney is the Republican candidate, Romney and Obama will have to split the commie vote, and a conservative Republican running as a third-party, TEA Party candidate would walk away with 50% or better of the total votes.
I think ALL primary elections should be the same day. That keeps the snowbirds from voting in more than one primary. Same as the general. I've heard people brag about voting absentee in their home state and voting here in Texas.
Well, give them a little credit. All Dems are not stupid. They are willfully ignorant but not stupid. And a lot of them are mad as hell at Obozo and would vote for someone else if given a choice.
I gree with you at #11.
This is the Moronic Assertion of the MONTH. Anyone who that takes votes away from Obama’s GOP opponent helps to re-elect Obama.
Here it is 19 years later, and people are still blaming Perot for the collapse of Bush the Elder. There is one person to blame for that collapse and it is Bush Senior himself.
He was McCains first time, who famously broke his promise on raising taxes, but also supported and signed one liberal law after another. He ignored the pleas of the conservative grassroots. He knew better. Bush was smarter than the rest of us. Bush I gave us Clinton and Bush II gave us Obama with their 'know it all' big government plans.
I cringe when I know hear folks calling for Jeb Bush to step in. God No!. What would Bush III bring us? Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini?
George H. W. Bush managed the greatest political collapse in American History, going from 90% approval to getting 37% of the vote. That's a 53% drop.
Also, in voter analysis just after that election showed that Perot pulled equally from the Dem's as from the Rep's. Arguably, Perot made the difference is states that cost Bush the electoral vote. I don't know. The question is why was Bush so bad to lose such support, that people would even vote for the hand grenade with the bad haircut.
Bush lost it. Embrace the truth.
Anderson, 1980's Jon Huntsman, ran independent and got 6.6% of the vote. Reagan still beat Carter like a rug.
The Tea Partiers and the base aren't gonna vote 3rd Party this time, who will? Which is actually a good question to ask. Who's likelier to vote 3rd party this year, it'll be the squishes and country clubbers and the hard left. Go figure.
See the clickable blue links at the bottom of each and every post?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
The [To 8] will tell which number post I was responding to. (ie. Post #8)
I fact, if you click on it you will go right to post. After I post this, you will see [To 105] which will take you back to your post to me.
“Yeah; Sarah, Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan..... the good ones decided, for whatever reason, not to run”
There wasn’t anything for them to gain by doing so. Paul Ryan is in the catbird seat in the house, the same could be said for Jim DeMint in the Senate. So why deal with the grief of running for President?
Sarah Palin had a less obvious rationale. I think she came to the opinion that being flayed alive in the media for 10-12 months for the dubious privilege of cleaning up barky’s messes just wasn’t all that appealing. Although I do think she agonized over it for awhile and still isn’t completely sure about the choice. She’ll be a good Senator for AZ and she’s still a relatively young woman.
“Yes, I know I did not include Santorum and Gingrich in the RINOs, wackos and dummies.”
Neither really has the ability to win in my view. Rick Santorum couldn’t hold his own Senate seat in PA and has the charisma of a rock. I like his political views and might support him if I thought he had a ghost of a chance, but I just don’t see him as a contender.
Newt has too much baggage and is a beltway retread. Smart guy who says some awful dumb things. And he has zero ground game.
While it’s certainly not popular on this website, I’m supporting Ron Paul as my third choice. He’s got the ground game, is the remaining candidate who will reduce the scope and size of the Federal government by the most, and actually has the ability to draw non-gop folks into the fold. While I disagree with him on some things, foreign policy being on the top of the list (which is why I think a lot of folks characterize him as “nuts”), I also think that having a particularly active foreign policy going into the future is something that we’re no longer able to afford.
I don’t think they did. I think they read ‘3rd party’ and knee jerked out a standard response. As if every vote for Ross Perot would have went for Bush, where is the sanity in that?
But it wasn’t even a debatable argument. It was “Obama would win if that happened... cause I said so.” and it seemed a tad insulting to the thought that the original poster put into the the vanity.
Thanks no dems...
I’m supporting Ron Paul as my third choice.
____________________________________________________________
Who are the candidates that are your first and second choices? You never said.
“Who are the candidates that are your first and second choices? You never said.”
1. Sarah Palin
1A. Sarah Palin
1B. Sarah Palin
1C. Sarah Palin
(But alas she decided not to run.)
2. Herman Cain.
Well, I love Sarah, but the media has so poisoned the minds of the “simple” Americans against her that she will probably be better off running for the Senate from AK or AZ. Herman Cain..............
God help us!!! That man is such a disappointment. If you’re innocent of the accusations people are bringing against your character and morals, you STAND AND FIGHT.... HE RAN AND HID behind his wife and God. He let down a lot of people. Glad he got vetted out BEFORE he got the nomination. When I found out he was giving that broad money behind his wife’s back, I KNEW HE WAS GUILTY OF THE ACCUSATIONS. As for his accusers? They’re silent now; I wonder how much campaign money, that people like me sent to him, was used to make them go away? It’s a sin the way I feel about that whoremonger.
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.