Establishment revenge? Jeb Bush, Romney lead GOP field for ’16

McClatchy DC ^ | 12/16/2014 | BY DAVID LIGHTMAN

[SeekAndFind]

WASHINGTON

[navyguy]

I agree! We’re at a point where the deciding factor is: Who will do less damage to the nation and my Liberty?

Pathetic.

[gdani]

Out of curiosity, which one were you, gdani? Did you vote for Romney in 2012, or did you vote (or not vote) such as to tell both leftists, Obama and Romney, to go to hell?

I had no use for the GOP after they thought it was a good idea to nominate Dole to take on Clinton.

Since then, I've advocated for 3rd parties. (And, yes, I'm well aware of the challenges, especially the Electoral College).

[lostboy61]

The blind leading the stupid!

[Finny]

Amen! Thanks for replying! Even better, since I agree with you 100 percent!

[Finny]

I am grateful to every red-blooded, God-fearing, Constitution-loving, American patriot who had the good sense and unwaivering conscience to cast a vote for a genuine conservative on the ballot instead of Romney or Obama.

AMEN, Fellow FReeper!!! We are in good company! :^)

[Finny]

Thank you, dgani -- your answer is appreciated. I was still loyally "pragmatic" (ha ha) back when Dole took on Clinton, and voted Republican as a means to vote "against" the Democrat (I have since figured out that voting "against" is like chasing unicorns).

America and all limited-government conservatives OWE A DEBT OF GRATITUDE to the likes of you who had the courage to vote for Perot and split the vote into a plurality. A very clear majority of voters REJECTED Clinton at the ballot box BOTH times he was elected, and that made him WEAK and aided conservatism.

For those who still think Perot wasn't a good thing for conservatism, ask yourselves two questions:

1. If Clinton had won with a mandate-majority, do you think the Republican Revolution would ever have happened?

2. If Dole or HW Bush had won with a mandate-majority, do you think the Republican Revolution would ever have happened?

Voting "against" is pretend. You can only vote FOR something, or decline to vote; the option to vote "against" is purely imaginary. In 2012 I voted FOR depriving a mandate to the next president who was going to be a leftist whether it was a Republican or a Democrat. I will do the same in 2016 if necessary.

[voicereason]

I understand wanting to stick to your principles. I just have a hard time believing that Romney (wasn't even in my top-10 choices that year) would rape the country as bad as Obama, Jarrett, and Holder have.

So what is the difference between a little rape and a lot of rape? Seems to be a desperate argument, and I'd bet the victim wouldn't feel much different either way.

The GOPee only plays to conservatives when they feel they need us. Once we get them elected there is no kiss, no reach around; just big screw you tI'll the next election cycle. Just at how many embrace conservative principles leading up to an election, only to run fast and hard once they are back in power. So what exactly do you gain by holding your nose and voting RINO? Because the destination between a liberal and a RINO is one and the same.

[Finny]

Well said.

[Colonel_Flagg]

You really should stop posting common sense here, Finny. The establishment stooges’ heads will explode.

[Finny]

{^)

Thanks ... I'll take it as a compliment!

And anyway, their heads will either explode or they get steamrolled, one or the other. I'm here to tell you that the balance is now on the side of folks who reject tyranny at the ballot box regardless of party affiliation. It's why Romney lost; Obama "won" by default only. The establishment stooges have access now only to a minority.

[highball]

If these clowns are the best we can do, then we’ll get clobbered by Hillary in 2016. And we’ll deserve it.

[tomkat]

NEVER
AGAIN

It can all crash and burn first.
If anarchy ensues, it'll mean open season on freedom's enemies.

[Monorprise]

Not interested in supporting a RINO. Half measures will at best only prolong our suffering while giving time to the forces of tyranny to consolidated their hold.

This country is fucked with out someone willing to strip Washington of its lawless authority. That is not and never will be Bush or Mitt, and so i am convinced we would be better off with a Socialist democrat that will at least unite us in revolution against her.

[Monorprise]

“If these clowns are the best we can do, then we’ll get clobbered by Hillary in 2016. And we’ll deserve it.”

If theses clowns are all they offer, we would be better off with Hillary than a more competent administrator of tyranny to fully consolidate the Federal leviathans hold on power.

It is better to plunge towards revolution at this point than to build up and secure a better hold on the present tyranny that Mitt and Bush Offer. And So i could not vote for or support eyther of them. The Romibust proved beyond the shadow of a doupt the debts of the corruption of the so called “moderate GOP”.

Theses people would only make us slaves in a more competently managed way. We would be FAR better off with an enemy that is open and less competed, and therefore more easy resisted. That would better enable us to at least rely upon our other state level revolutions to save us.

[ek_hornbeck]

The best case scenario would be for Jeb, Mitt, and Chris to all be in the race against a single conservative opponent, so that the establishment vote would split between the three of them while conservative votes consolidate around a single candidate.

The worst-case scenario would be Jeb Bush (and no other RINOS) against a field of primary candidates who divide the conservative vote.

[kiryandil]

Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney?

Oh, man - I just checked my calendar, and I'm washing my hair that day in November 2016!

I should have just enough time to sneak down to the polls and vote against my GOPe congressthief, who voted for illegal immigration like a good little Establishment Demopublican/Republicrat.

I won't have time to fill out the rest of the ballot, so I guess Jeb & Mitt will just have to make up that vote somewhere else...

Got hablo? LOL! :)

[kiryandil]

McCain me once, shame on you.

Jeb-Mitt me twice, shame on me...

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

“The Bushs have cut a deal with their heros the Clinton’s to run and lose..thus defeating conservatives which is more important to their gravy train”

That’s about the best summation I’ve heard yet.

[Pining_4_TX]

Don’t feel bad. It’s over before the primaries start. The Republican establishment decides who the nominee is and pulls all sorts of shenanigans at the county and state level to make sure their boy (or gal) wins. The primaries are for hopeless suckers who think they have a say in the matter.

[x]

Name recognition - of course they lead the field.

Very true. People just go with the name they recognize in these early polls.

But being governor of a sizeable state isn't the worst preparation for running for president and governing from the White House. Governors actually have to administer things. They have to make appointments and monitor the work of their subordinates and take the responsibility or blame when things go wrong. They actually have to make and balance budgets and convince legislatures to pass them, which is harder than just voting for or against a budget or holding up the process.

I'm not crazy about Christie or Romney and don't think I could vote for Bush, but if you really don't like them and want to beat them, you have to come up with a candidate who may be more like them than Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann or Ben Carson or Rick Santorum. You have to have somebody who has actually run something. The irony is that Ronald Reagan was very much in that old tradition of governors as presidential candidates -- he was governor of the largest and wealthiest state for 8 years -- but his name survives now as an example of the ideological tribune as presidential candidate, rather than as someone who had extensive experience governing a major state.