Gingrich - The junkyard dog we need to tear up Washington. He's been there, done that, knows where the bodies are buried, and is a deep and eloquent student of American history and the Constitution. Flawed? Yes. (Aren't we all?) Fatally flawed? No. (That's spin) We need strong medicine to cure the cancer in Washington - not GHW Bush Lite. Newt can bring that.
Perry - Great executive experience, strong record of achievement, good core values, tough. He could and would get the job done as well.
Santorum - Strong core values and knows Washington. He could do the job too. He has grown in this campaign. His weak point is executive experience but he is miles ahead of the fraud currently in the White Hut,... plus he is not a Communist nor an Islamist sympathizer.
Jon Huntsman - Not the absolute worst, but he hasn't a prayer of getting nominated. Maybe Newt can make him ambassador to China?
Romney - Weak Willard talks a good game, smiles a lot, and has nice hair. But in the end, he will get rolled by our enemies, foreign and domestic. The fact he is loved by McLame and the GOP establishment tells you all you need to know about him being an "outsider". If nominated, he will get creamed by Obama and will end up defeated and weeping in the snow like Ed Muskie. He will go down in the Gerald Ford/Bob Doe/John McCain Hall Off Fame For GOP Losers.
Ron Paul - 70% correct but the remainder 30% (foreign and military policy) makes him the crazy aunt in the attic. He might stop our economic slide and eviscerate the FED (both worthy goals) but in the end he would probably throw the overall game to our enemies. I would love to see Newt make him Fed Chairman.
Frankly, I'm not sure which of the previous two should be last place.
That said, any of the above are miles ahead of Obama and the sure destruction of America if we lose in 2012!
I’m not sure about the “anybody’s better than Obama” part, at least not when you think about what happens BEYOND the next 4 years. Although Islamofascists and Democrats often seem to engage in long-term thinking, for some unfortunate reason I rarely see conservatives doing it.
Hilary Clinton can beat Obama. So what is the argument against letting her switch parties if she wanted to and become our candidate? Destroying our party brand. Putting policies into place that we think will hurt the country. But what if she got up there and said she’s changed her mind on all those liberal policies, except she still kind of likes Hilarycare and wants to keep taxes high on the rich, but she’s become pro-life, pro-gun, is a hawk on Iran, etc.
Would that be enough for you? Would you believe her? Would you trust her? If not, then how can we trust Romney when he has done the exact same thing as described above? Just because he’s had an “R” by his name for longer than her?
If we nominate a candidate who doesn’t stand up for our party’s values, then how much longer can we expect the party to represent our values? Not to mention, what if our candidate enacts these liberal policies, they fail, and the public votes us out and votes in a far-left liberal again in 4 years, maybe even Barack Obama back for a do-over. We cannot afford to elect a candidate who will fail in our name and destroy our brand.
There is a strong argument that it’s better to let Obama keep ruining the country for 4 years if our only other option becomes electing a liberal or squishy “moderate.” We will never fix our country long-term unless we can change the hearts and minds of the voters, or even just strengthen their common sense convictions so that they can’t be swayed away by charlatans like Obama.
If we nominate a conservative who articulates the conservative message very clearly, but the public rejects it and elects Obama again, then something good can happen in the long run. When Obama’s policies fail and the country does not improve, we will be able to come back in 2 years and 4 years and tell them they made a mistake by rejecting conservatism and should give it a real try. On the other hand, if we promote our party as a liberal or moderate option and win election on that basis, we will get liberal government, it will fail, and we will have destroyed our brand name. Even if we wanted to get a conservative elected after that, the voters wouldn’t trust us again.
Voting in someone like Hilary or Romney just because they say they’ve changed some of their views risks destroying the party. It would probably force us to spend a lot of time and effort building up a third party just so we could convince voters that we would stick to conservative principles consistently.
Best post in this thread!