GOP POTUS Candidate Shinola Sandwich: Mustard or Ketchup?

[Blakenzy]

Ah, fooey. If the Republicans aren't capable of nominating someone decent this time around, that's it. I am not going to support the GOP douchebaggery any longer, even if it means Obama again. The "you have to vote for some one you can't stand or the bad man will win" rhetoric has run it's course. Screw it, it's time to vote with some integrity. Go Third party... or write in someone you actually like.

[MechAg94]

Electability is NOT a good reason to pick a candidate.  Why don't we recruit Obama to switch sides and run as a Republican?  He is electable after all.  His positions don't matter and it apparently doesn't matter if anyone likes him or not.

I think Romney looks electable about like John Kerry did, only on the surface.  The more you look at the details, the more you don't like it.  I agree with the above comment that Romney will not draw a good turnout from Republicans or conservative minded independents.  I don't think he can win without that. 

I have heard it pointed out that while Romney looks good in national polling, he looks a lot worse in state by state polling which is how the election goes.  The national polling includes a lot of liberal Republicans in states that Republicans won't win anyway. 

I don't know how much I really like Santorum, but I think I prefer him over Romney or Obama, but I could that about any of the other candidates.  If nothing else, it would stick it in the eye of the Repub establishment that seems hell bent to select Romney as the nominee.

[longeyes]

Romney, after the beating about the ribs he's taken, may not be able to win either now, that's true, but if we see Obama re-elected and we do not take control of Congress, all of us here had better go to Plan C because people like ourselves will be on the "hunt and bag" list sooner than we wish to believe. 

Those who want to stand back and be "neutral" or make a protest vote need to understand that they are voting for nothing less than civil war or self-imposed serfdom.  Does it not make more sense to buy time and build the awareness that, realistically, is still lacking in our ranks?

[Balog]

I don't think either of the candidates listed in the OP have a realistic chance of beating Obama. Romney because he's near universally despised by all parts of the conservative base and "Anyone but X" is not a generally succesful strategy. Santorum because he's despised by the libertarian-ish parts of the conservative base, and because he could actually energize the Democratic base. Most D's right now are pretty dispirited with Obama. The hardline socialist types because he hasn't brought as radical leftward movement as they want, the squishy center types because he's continued the policies of the person they voted for him to be the "Anybody But" of...

For me, I can't see supporting Romney or Santorum. They are both so repugnant that no matter how awful the alternative choice is I can't in good conscience support them. I think I'll be writing in zombie Calvin Coolidge. Of course there's no way in hell WA is going R anyway, so it's not going to make a difference.

[Balog]

I also don't agree with point the third in the OP. If it comes down to a two man race in the primary, most people will vote (albeit in historically low numbers) for one of the two. It's easy to see a candidate not even paying insincere lip service to Tea Party ideals but still securing the nomination.

I think the best possible outcome is Obama winning by razor thin margins with lots of voter fraud. Bush Gore all over again but even more acrimonious. Balance of power in the Congress stays the same or shifts R-ward in a backlash to perceptions Obama stole the election. If we can deadlock fed.gov for four years, stack Congress with actually fiscal conservative types, and run someone who isn't a horrific abomination to freedom and is actually a persuasive poli-critter (cough cough Rand Paul cough cough) there is a small glimmer of hope America won't descend into a 2nd world socialist craphole then collapse into a banana republic dictatorship. But I wouldn't bet on it.

[TommyGunn]

.....I think the best possible outcome is Obama winning by razor thin margins with lots of voter fraud. Bush Gore all over again but even more acrimonious. Balance of power in the Congress stays the same or shifts R-ward in a backlash to perceptions Obama stole the election. If we can deadlock fed.gov for four years, stack Congress with actually fiscal conservative types, and run someone who isn't a horrific abomination to freedom and is actually a persuasive poli-critter (cough cough Rand Paul cough cough) there is a small glimmer of hope America won't descend into a 2nd world socialist craphole then collapse into a banana republic dictatorship. But I wouldn't bet on it.

 Really??!!?!?!   Really??!!?!?!
Obama wins => "...collapse into a banana republic dictatorship."

[Balog]

Neither Romney nor Santorum are significantly different than Obama on fiscal issues. Romney would try to manage our collapse better, and Santorum would spend the money differently but neither are willing to even make empty campaign promises about fixing the deficit.

[longeyes]

These scenarios always imply the poster sitting on the sidelines paring his fingernails...

I think not.

[roo_ster]

These scenarios always imply the poster sitting on the sidelines paring his fingernails...

I think not.

Recently, it has been toenails.  Got a real gnarly situation after whacking my wife's backpack with my big toe and killing part of the nail, while it keeps growing in from the nail bed.  I won't include pics for the sake of y'all's lunches.

Besides, I already wrote my intent: Vote for Paul in the primary and then Syphilitic Camel (R) Rick Romney (R) in the general.

[Sergeant Bob]

If those are the only choices on the GOP menu, I'll be going to a different restaurant....

I'll save you a seat.

[MicroBalrog]

 Really??!!?!?!   Really??!!?!?!
Obama wins => "...collapse into a banana republic dictatorship."

Yeah, that's pretty much out there.

[RevDisk]

Trying to look on the upside, I think, hold on, <cough-retch-shudder> that the better of the two is probably Santorum.

Santorum has actually governed and defended conservative positions while in elective office.  He's won more than one political race.  He has never run to the left of Teddy Kennedy.  He can speak conservative-ese.  (Romney speaks conservative-ese like it is a second language.)  He might be bright enough to understand that just like the GOP isn't going anywhere if it jettisons the social conservatives, the social conservatives aren't going anywhere without the fiscally and constitutional conservatives.

Given a Tea-Party-tinged Congress, Santorum might be the better choice.

Except Santorum actively dislikes Tea Party types. He is socially conservative. He views fiscal conservatives as on par with gays, women's rights or birth control. If he wins the GOP nomination, I wouldn't count on PA going to him in the election. He's fairly actively disliked here. Again, we voted him out for a reason. I'm also not sure that he wouldn't hold a grudge against PA for throwing him out on his fourth point of contact. Dude is old school GOP, he regarded that office as his entitlement for being loyal to the party.

Romney, I'm pretty sure is a badly programmed robot, possibly an early android prototype found in MIT's basement?


Looks like I'll not be voting for a Presidential candidate, or write in whomever. I cannot vote for Santorum, Romney or Obama. I'm half tempted to vote for Obama, and then all GOP for congress if they promise to veto anything Obama puts on the table.

[TommyGunn]

So I take it everyone is pleased as punch with the idea of Obama getting a second term and America falling into third world despotism that much faster??   

Hey, it's fine with me.  I have my preps & my gunz.
It should be very entertaining.
Especially for those of us with less to live for than some others out there.

[SADShooter]

So I take it everyone is pleased as punch with the idea of Obama getting a second term and America falling into third world despotism that much faster??   

Hey, it's fine with me.  I have my preps & my gunz.
It should be very entertaining.
Especially for those of us with less to live for than some others out there.

No, not pleased at all, rather becoming resigned to the prospect that there is no viable, meaningful alternate path.

[RevDisk]

So I take it everyone is pleased as punch with the idea of Obama getting a second term and America falling into third world despotism that much faster??   

Hey, it's fine with me.  I have my preps & my gunz.
It should be very entertaining.
Especially for those of us with less to live for than some others out there.

Please cite one of the Republican candidates that will turn things around?  (Ignoring the obvious, but sadly unrealistic, answer of "Either Paul")

An R behind their name is not automatically better.  Santorum would be vastly different than Obama, but not better.  Worse in some respects, better in others. Balances out nicely to "about the bloody same in the end". Romney is loaded with the same firmware as Obama, with a different body kit.

[Ben]

So I take it everyone is pleased as punch with the idea of Obama getting a second term and America falling into third world despotism that much faster??   

There comes a time when rooting for the Shadow philosophy is better than rooting for the Vorlon philosophy. The GOP candidates will only make the slide into socialism a little slower, and voters simply become frogs in water, happily sitting in the pot on the stove while the heat is turned up. Sometimes the only way to get real change (and not the Obama kind) is to get shoved into the boiling water. That'll wake you up right quick.

[MechAg94]

So what you are saying is that if you can't Save the Country in the next 4 years, we might as well give up and stay home (for as long as you have it).  Sounds like you really care.

FACT:  Even your perfect candidate cannot Save the Country all by himself. 
The best option is a Republican win whoever that is.  That would indicate to me that the Repubs got out the vote and it would also mean the Repubs make gains in Congress.  It is the gains in Congress that are the most important to changing things and rolling back what Obama has done and more.  As far as the Candidates, I personally think Santorum is the one of the two that is more likely to support spending cuts.


Giving up because you cannot have perfection is foolish and really just means you are supporting liberal Democrats.  Fight for what you can get in the primaries, but make sure you support the best candidate you can get in the general election.  Throwing in the towel before the race is over is nuts.

[Balog]

Vote for whoever is the R is what got us Obama in the first place. Obama + a R/Tea Party Congress will do far less damage to the country than squishy R + a R Congress. Remember Bush? Think Medicare Part D (to use just one example) would have been pushed through with a Congress eager to get re-elected by opposing the potus?

But nice insults for those who have a different policy choice than yourself. Obviously we just don't care. Only possible reason to not bend over and take it from whichever progressive with an R in front of his name gets nominated.

[seeker_two]

There comes a time when rooting for the Shadow philosophy is better than rooting for the Vorlon philosophy. The GOP candidates will only make the slide into socialism a little slower, and voters simply become frogs in water, happily sitting in the pot on the stove while the heat is turned up. Sometimes the only way to get real change (and not the Obama kind) is to get shoved into the boiling water. That'll wake you up right quick.

If you remember the series properly, BOTH philosophies were sent packing in the end.....maybe we need to do the same....

[roo_ster]

A thief was on trial before the King and sentenced to death. The thief asked the King to spare his life. "You don't know it, but I am the greatest teacher in your land. If you spare my life, I promise to teach your horse to sing." The King smirked but accepted the offer. You have a year, and if the horse cannot sing, you will be killed.

Daily, after that, the thief spent his entire day singing hymns to the horse. His friends laughed as they saw him and asked what he hoped to accomplish. "Many things can happen in a year," the thief told them. "The King may die, the horse may die, I may even die. Or, ... maybe the horse will learn how to sing."

Time & space.  The more we can put between us and the threat the better.

Besides, who knows? A Tea Party GOP Congress may teach the horse's ass Mitt Santorum to sing.  

[MicroBalrog]

So what you are saying is that if you can't Save the Country in the next 4 years, we might as well give up and stay home (for as long as you have it).  Sounds like you really care.

No, what everybody seems to be saying is that if we elect a failcandidate that has an R next to his name, that will actually make Saving the Country [or whatever] harder in the long run.

[TommyGunn]

No, not pleased at all, rather becoming resigned to the prospect that there is no viable, meaningful alternate path.

Please cite one of the Republican candidates that will turn things around?  (Ignoring the obvious, but sadly unrealistic, answer of "Either Paul")

An R behind their name is not automatically better.  Santorum would be vastly different than Obama, but not better.  Worse in some respects, better in others. Balances out nicely to "about the bloody same in the end". Romney is loaded with the same firmware as Obama, with a different body kit.

There comes a time when rooting for the Shadow philosophy is better than rooting for the Vorlon philosophy. The GOP candidates will only make the slide into socialism a little slower, and voters simply become frogs in water, happily sitting in the pot on the stove while the heat is turned up. Sometimes the only way to get real change (and not the Obama kind) is to get shoved into the boiling water. That'll wake you up right quick.

It seems to me reducing the size and spending of the govt. has been a major point of debate in past months.
Santorum seems to be a little ahead of the game compared to Romney on this, but his recent surge is apparantly cooling off.  Gingrich had been promising on more than one occasion but he has his own demons.
Some people appear to think that the best republicans (conservatives) can hope for is to "make the slide into socialism a little slower, ...(making the) voters simply ... frogs in water, happily sitting in the pot on the stove while the heat is turned up."
Even if that is all that can be done would it not be more moral to delay a process that leads to an evil outcome than hasten it?

Normally I am not so glum about things .... but I will admit after visiting this site I usually leave in a blue funk.

[Balog]

Romney and Santorum talk about fiscal preservation with the same seriousness that Obama talked about increased fed.gov transparency. Santorum wants to increase fed.gov involvement he just wants to do it in a different way. Romney has flatly stated he won't touch Medicare or Social Security, and that he'll expand the "social safety net" if he feels it's needed.

Of course any GOP candidate will say "I want to reduce spending!" But if you look at their actual proposals, and compare them to both what is needed and what they would likely do...

[TommyGunn]

You convinced me.
I admit it:  WE'RE DOOMED.

[erictank]

So I take it everyone is pleased as punch with the idea of Obama getting a second term and America falling into third world despotism that much faster??   

Hey, it's fine with me.  I have my preps & my gunz.
It should be very entertaining.
Especially for those of us with less to live for than some others out there.

Happy?  I think you know better. However, if the choice is faster (during our lifetimes) or slower (leaving it to our kids), I'd say yeah, there're probably quite a few who say, "If it's inevitable, then bring it on, let's get this over with."

If the choice for the (R) wing of the Modern American Political Machine is Romney or Santorum, the direction we're headed will remain essentially the same (a few particulars will swing one way or the other, based on the prejudices of the particular candidate and the liberties he wants to see infringed) while the brakes might get tapped once, maybe twice.  Headed to hell in a handbasket is no better at 110 than it is at 120-130.  Count me out.

If the (R) wing nominates Romney or Santorum, I'll write in Paul or vote for Johnson (L). I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THE (so-called) LESSER OF TWO EVILS. All a vote for either of the two leading (R) candidates tells the Republican wing is that you *LIKE* those choices - so we'll get MORE of those types.  If you truly believe those jackwagons will be the best possible choice for our country, go ahead and vote for them.  If you believe that they won't do jack to actually fix things, then vote for someone else, for God's sake!  Send the (R)'s an unmistakable message - "Give us better candidates, NOW." Voting for more-of-the-same has gotten us, unsurprisingly, more of the same.  We need a REAL change.