Conservatives: Who would you support for Prez?

[echo4747]

I wouldn't mind Scott Walker... because the labor unions have spent millions trying to dig up all/any dirt or crap on him from his past.... and they have nothing on him

 

[schmuckley]

I believe he was bumped to make room for Dr. Ben Carson.

I believe I did not see his name before posting.

NOT Jeb Bush..no sir.

He threw the election for his brother;then hung his henchwoman out to dry.

No to mention the $4+ gallon gas while Bushes were in power.

Oh yeah..and the "Patriot Act"
which really should be called the "Usurp the Constitution and turn America into a slave nation" act.

 

[werepossum]

I believe I did not see his name before posting.

NOT Jeb Bush..no sir.

He threw the election for his brother;then hung his henchwoman out to dry.

No to mention the $4+ gallon gas while Bushes were in power.

Oh yeah..and the "Patriot Act"
which really should be called the "Usurp the Constitution and turn America into a slave nation" act.

Unfortunately we're highly unlikely to get a Republican nominee who would overturn the Patriot Act, or even gut the worst excesses. Or such a nominee from the Democrats. And in the off chance we did, it's highly unlikely she would be able to get that through Congress, controlled by either party.

 

[Zorkorist]

We have a good chance of finding the next Ronald Reagan, if we will avoid the pandering to the left, or the middle of previous failed runs.

Stick to your guns, Republicans, and ask for social freedom, and fiscal conservatism.

-John

 

[nickqt]

I'd vote for Huntsman because he isn't crazy.

I'd also vote for Ron Paul, because his foreign policy is sensible, and paired with his economic policy, Empire would finally be forced into retreat. I don't think it would be the most stable time, but we have our defense all locked up. It's time to let some other country destroy itself trying to play Empire (China).

The best part of letting someone else play Empire while we turn inward ( like Greece to Rome; or Rome to Northern Europe; or Europe to the US) is that our markets and culture are dominant so that we're still reaping the economic benefits while we can focus on improving our culture and improving our overall cognitive abilities. (Take a look at a map, over time, and study how Empires sprang up, and then a more-western power became the new Empire while the older power builds infrastructure and improves their lot. China is next, and we all know it. It's right there to our west).

And for those of you who think immigrants are terrible, they'll be heading towards ol' China. Woohoo, jobs!

Of course, Huntsman and Ron Paul have no chance, at all, whatsoever, in plucking the nomination from the C̶l̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶C̶a̶r̶ Republican Primaries we're about to see.

 

[brycejones]

We have a good chance of finding the next Ronald Reagan, if we will avoid the pandering to the left, or the middle of previous failed runs.

Stick to your guns, Republicans, and ask for social freedom, and fiscal conservatism.

-John

Reagan for social freedom and fiscal conservatism? really?

 

[Sonikku]

I'd vote for Huntsman.

No scandal riddled past or lack of brains. A rarity for the party unfortunately.

He's smart enough not to run against Hillary though. All yours Jeb.

Hunstman was willing to work with Obama.

With. Obama. :\

A true Republican would never cave/compromise on anything, instead insisting on an all or nothing approach to getting their agenda passed. It hasn't worked for six years so far, and there's still no super majority in the Senate. And The pres still has Veto power. But I have a good feeling about this year.

 

[Bock]

You really should ask the question of which republican candidate would moderates or liberals vote for{cause that's who's going to win the primaries}. Appealing to the people who already vote R regardless and getting beat in the general is pointless.

That being said,
Jeb Bush - would be a clear favorite if his last name wasn't Bush.
Marco Rubio - note sure about 2016, would be a shoe in 2020 if R loses 2016
Rand Paul - if he wins the primaries, he's a lock for the general.

No chance & would delight the Dems if they won the primary,
Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan - their past would sabotage them in the general.

 

[pcgeek11]

Condoleezza Rice. She is by far the most qualified in that entire list IMO.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't know most of those guys but of the ones I do know, only jon huntsman stands out as being someone I'd support.

 

[Bock]

Condoleezza Rice. She is by far the most qualified in that entire list IMO.

Condi has repeated turned down the opportunity to run for office. I do think that if Jeb won the primary & called her for the VP spot, it would happen.


Bush - Rice 2016 would be the only force formidable enough to take down "She We Await" 2016's run.

 

[werepossum]

Condi has repeated turned down the opportunity to run for office. I do think that if Jeb won the primary & called her for the VP spot, it would happen.


Bush - Rice 2016 would be the only force formidable enough to take down "She We Await" 2016's run.

Screw that, let her win it and call his no-child-services-fixin' cracker ass for the VP spot.

 

[bradley]

Not a conservative. No Bachmann, Bush, Graham, Huckabee, King, Perry, Trump ever.

Based on their voting record, I like: Paul, Cruz and Rubio isn't bad. Cruz is the brightest of the bunch, but Rubio is the most marketable.

 

[schneiderguy]

Dr. Paul.

 

[kage69]

Not a conservative. No Bachmann, Bush, Graham, Huckabee, King, Perry, Trump ever.

Based on their voting record, I like: Paul, Cruz and Rubio isn't bad. Cruz is the brightest of the bunch, but Rubio is the most marketable.

lol wow


I guess that makes Christie the most athletic of the bunch then?

 

[brycejones]

Huntsman is a very interesting candidate but I don't see him throwing enough red meat out there to the base to have any chance of making it through the primary.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I support Dr Ben Carson getting the GOP nomination.

 

[bradley]

lol wow


I guess that makes Christie the most athletic of the bunch then?

I'm talking about a non-CINO who at least pretends to believe in the US Constitution and is a good debater, can speak extemporaneously with a semi-shot in winning. Or I suppose you also believe you are a better businessman (corporate raider) than Mitt Romney and can outeat Christie.

All that matters anyway is name recognition, relatability and marketing as evidenced by the last several decades, of which Cruz has very little... so please don't kid yourself. Personally I will only vote for a President who signs his name in blood to at least 50% of my list, especially the first one.

01. Repeal Dodd/Frank and replace it with proven legislation in the Glass Steagall Act.
02. Either repeal or renegotiate NAFTA, GATT and CAFTA.
03. Put an end to fascistic Presidential Executive Orders and Memoranda. Only Congress can enact legislation. Repeal any unconstitutional orders starting with the most troublesome.
04. Repeal the Affordable Care Act and encourage health care insurance competition over state lines
05. Eliminate the revolving K-Street door with Congress
06 Prosecute Wall St. precipitants of the 2008 financial collapse
07. Break up a media monopoly where 90% ownership is allowed to six corporations
08. Institute term limits for Congress
09. Confront China on trade relations
10. Pull the US out of the WTO

 

[cubby1223]

Definitely Scott Walker. He gets things done that need to be done, while in comparison my state of Illinois continues circling the financial drain inching closer to disaster knowing they must do many of the same things Walker did in Wisconsin to reduce expenses but are too chicken to get anything accomplished.

 

[kage69]

I'm talking about a non-CINO who at least pretends to believe in the US Constitution and is a good debater, can speak extemporaneously with a semi-shot in winning.

And somehow that means "the brightest of the bunch" to you, or have you forgotten your own statement already? Cruz is far from a intellectual, and if you need links demonstrating that just holler. His take on net neutrality ALONE proves you wrong. Sorry.

Or I suppose you also believe you are a better businessman (corporate raider) than Mitt Romney and can outeat Christie.

You might not be aware of this, but I'm not running to represent the GOP in 2016. No idea why you are trying to make this about me other than you are now trying to wiggle out of an opinion you just stated. Cruz is not a brainiac. Christie is not a star athlete. Neither of these facts are contingent on anything about you or me. You sure you're not a teapublican? I'm starting to notice similarities here...

All that matters anyway is name recognition, relatability and marketing as evidenced by the last several decades, of which Cruz has very little... so please don't kid yourself. Personally I will only vote for a President who signs his name in blood to at least 50% of my list, especially the first one.

I'm not kidding myself at all, you're the one pretending Cruz is some kind of beacon of intellect, despite years of him giving you evidence to the contrary. The obsession with image over merit in today's GOP does nothing to prove your point, or invalidate my amusement over that confusing statement of yours. Physician, heal thyself.

01. Repeal Dodd/Frank and replace it with proven legislation in the Glass Steagall Act.
02. Either repeal or renegotiate NAFTA, GATT and CAFTA.

Not sure what any of that has to do with supporting your assertion that Cruz "is the brightest of the bunch," so I'll take this to your giving up on that. Which is shame, I thought I may have somehow missed out on an occasion where Cruz shows himself to be knowledgeable on an important topic, or displays fluency in a foreign language a la Huntsman.

Anyway. Totally with you on the need to prosecute for the 2008 skulldoggery though. That's been a real disappoint for me with Obama.

 

[kage69]

Definitely Scott Walker. He gets things done that need to be done, while in comparison my state of Illinois continues circling the financial drain inching closer to disaster knowing they must do many of the same things Walker did in Wisconsin to reduce expenses but are too chicken to get anything accomplished.

No such certainty here. He wasn't exactly an honorable negotiator back then in Wisconsin, and after hearing him get punked on the phone when he thought he was talking to one of his Koch overlords he strikes me as another candidate in the W mold. More of a signature provider and cheerleader than a leader behind the wheel.

We've had enough of that already IMO. No thanks.

 

[soundforbjt]

Well, IF the poll that was taken a few months ago holds true to history, The person who comes in second in that poll has won the nomination for the last 3-4 cycles, the person that came in second this last time was Cruz, Romney came in second the last time as did McCain the time before. Wish I could remember the name of the poll.

C. Rice would never run.
Huntsman would be my choice though he has no chance.
For those praising S. Walker, how's his state actually doing money wise?

 

[cubby1223]

No such certainty here. He wasn't exactly an honorable negotiator back then in Wisconsin, and after hearing him get punked on the phone when he thought he was talking to one of his Koch overlords he strikes me as another candidate in the W mold. More of a signature provider and cheerleader than a leader behind the wheel.

We've had enough of that already IMO. No thanks.

So you instead prefer to back a guy who was a part of Bush's administration for a few years?

Huntsman was governor of the state of Mormons and polygamists. Sorry, but I live right next to Wisconsin, within a state that has absolutely no leadership capable of doing what Wisconsin was able to do (our governor even line-item vetoed legislature salaries because they were not making some of the same cuts Walker got passed... the veto later ruled unconstitutional... and the state gov't still hasn't accomplished a damn thing to reign in union pensions that are helping destroy the state's finances...). I don't live near Utah. What has he done?

 

[CZroe]

I'd vote for Newt if her were running.

From that list, Cruz or Walker.

 

[raildogg]

Why would anybody narrow himself down to such a petty little term such as a "Conservative?" Or a "liberal?"

Please don't bring up "independent" or "moderate." They're another term that people box themselves into. Why are you defined by these terms?