We are still a long way from the 2012 GOP Convention in September of 2012, but primary season is fast closing upon us. See the 2012 primary calendar HERE.
Agree or disagree, you can view a Dick Morris video about the present GOP field of candidates below the fold:
More information about the GOP field HERE at the "Horserace" tag at RedState.com.
FEATURED QUESTION (in two parts): (1) Of all the candidates presently in the GOP field, which one do you like best? (2) Assuming that you are a voter who yearns for Obama to be voted out in 2012, what will you do if the GOP nominates and runs a candidate you cannot support in the 2012 National Election?
Rick Perry!
ReplyDeleteMy brain is with Ron Paul, and I'll vote for him in our straw poll, but I just don't see him getting the nod.
I would vote for a pencil over Barack Obama. If Romney gets the nod, he's my man. Anyone who refuses to vote for whoever the GOP nominates is an Obama lover.
The primaries are the time for fighting it out, the general election is the time to pull it together and beat the opposition
1. Michele Bachmann -- The reaction to dominionism should be strong enough to generate a progressive reaction and hobble most of her stupidity.
ReplyDelete2. Unless there is a third party alternative I'll leave the presidential vote blank.
I'm not sure that I'd classify Bachmann as a dominionist. She isn't a disciple of Rushdoony. See THIS.
ReplyDeleteNotice the following about Rushdoony:
First, Rushdoony argued for a position he called reconstructionism (not theocracy), which would have made biblical law the civil law of the land. However, neither Rushdoony nor his followers desired to impose this system through violence or illegal activity, but rather see it come to fruition through a long-term change of minds and institutions.
Second, Rushdoony’s devotees make up but an infinitesimal fraction of Christian conservatives. The vast majority of those who have been influenced by certain aspects of Rushdoony’s writings emphatically reject his understanding of biblical law
More information about the above.
ReplyDelete"Anyone who refuses to vote for whoever the GOP nominates is an Obama lover."
ReplyDelete[rolling eyes]
Of the current candidates I'm leanining toward Herman Cain. If Romney gets the nomination, I will vote against Obama.
ReplyDeleteRick Perry or Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain if he can make the cut. The rest would get a "write-in" vote for someone else from me.
ReplyDeleteDominionism? Any time I hear some obscure concept trotted out in public, I can be sure someone from the wackadoo wing of the democrat party is behind it.
ReplyDeleteIslamic influence is on the rise, Christian influence waning, but the leftwing wackadoos still scream about the imminent danger of a rightwingchristiantheocracy!
It's OK, Ducky. Go bury your head back in the sand...
Speedy:
ReplyDeleteWrite-In = Vote for Obama
I would vote for any GOP Nominee for obvious reasons. Having said that, Perry has friendly connections to Muslims and is for open borders-which leaves him just another typical candidate. I like Cain, but he can't win. Bachmann will be vilified by the media, just as Palin. As a result Bachmann can't win either.As for the rest, they are all worthless. Regardless who gets the GOP nomination, he/she will not say what needs to be said and therefore, Obama will be re-elected. Even Savage believes that due to the GOP's weakness they can't win. If Obama wins..we're screwed as a nation!!!! If I were in charge of the GOP, I would be pursuing Lt. Col. Allen West for Pres. As far as I'm concerned, he's the only one telling the truth about Islam!!!! He would not only have my vote, but my help as well on his campaign.
ReplyDelete@Silverfiddle, to be sure, a wasted vote is voting for someone who doesn't hold your values or principles and thus has no intention of pursuing them.
ReplyDeleteSteve, I'm with you. If I had my druthers it would be a West/Ryan ticket. Hands down
ReplyDeleteI think the reality is that unless a centrist candidate is found (or gives that image), then Obama will be a shoe-in. At present the only centrists are Romney and Huntsman and this brings the real problem within the Republican Party at present. The Tea-Party movement will scream, shout and make life miserable (if not curtail) any chances of a centrist like Romney or Huntsman from getting the nod. Thus, I do not think the Republicans will win the next election regardless of how much I would want it.
ReplyDeleteIt comes down to getting a candidate that represents the bulk of "the people" not a candidate that pleases certain factions within the Republican/Conservative movement. Obama did not represent many of the Democrat factions but at least they correctly understood that to get the Presidency you need a centrist who can pick up the votes of the swing-voting middle-American vote.
Bachmann & Cain may say the right things for many but represent only a loud fringe and would get Obama elected. Perry, Huntsman and Romney are more logical choices to get larger votes from swing-voters.
Now, if they can get their differences worked out, a Romney and Perry VP ticket would at present be the strongest chance because of the centrist Presidential image necessary and Perry's image as being more conservative and religous.
Of course that is my view and I am neither American nor living there.
D Charles,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting point:
I think the reality is that unless a centrist candidate is found (or gives that image), then Obama will be a shoe-in.
Usually, that would be true. Given the present economic situation, the usual may not be in play.
I think back to the 1990 Presidential election. If not for the failure of Jimmy Carter, I doubt that Reagan would have been elected. In fact, in that election, most of my usually-Dem friends pulled the lever for Reagan. These Dem friends of mine even surprised themselves!
Steve,
ReplyDeletePerry has friendly connections to Muslims and is for open borders-which leaves him just another typical candidate.
1. We all need to learn more about the Aga Khan and the Ismailis.
2 Perry's position on the borders issue is of great concern. Of course, we also need to remember that he doesn't have any problem signing an execution order for Mexican nationals who have committed crimes.
Caveat: The above is not an endorsement for Perry on my part.
In my view, splitting the vote will result in the re-election of Obama.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall correctly, the Ross Perot votes were largely responsible for getting Bill Clinton elected. Just sayin'.
Silverfiddle,
ReplyDeleteIslamic influence is on the rise, Christian influence waning, but the leftwing wackadoos still scream about the imminent danger of a rightwingchristiantheocracy!
Spot-on comment!
The fact: dominionism is not a major wave in Christianity. It's not even as strong as a ripple.
It's one thing to believe something spiritually and quite another to try to make that something happen politically.
I think one other factor has to be considered in all this. No matter who the Republican candidate is, the Democrat attack machine will go to work and fire on all cylinders.
ReplyDeleteThat is how Democrats win. Not on substance. Not on ideology. Not on issues. They pick a target (in this case, whoever the Republican nominee will be), they isolate it, and they throw every accusation they can find at it. It doesn't even matter if any of the allegations are true. It doesn't matter if they are guilty of the same things and more.
For that reason, I think Palin would be a very good candidate, although I don't think she should run, either. But she has already been through the fire and come out shining. Remember how the left tried to find dirt on her by picking through her e-mails? They found no skeletons in her closet.
The Democrat attack machine would have to stoop to new levels to besmirch her reputation.
And, if elected, we already know because of her record as a Governor, she would make sound policies.
I like Cain and Bachmann. I used to like Christie until I learned more about him. He is little more than a RINO. I don't know enough about Perry yet. But, I've heard enough negatives about him, even from Conservatives, that I have my doubts.
There is much more research that needs to be done on every candidate.
Also: If Obama would leave DC and return to Chicago (Please!), he would raise the aggregate I.Q. of both locations.
ReplyDeleteSoapster: I can think of no candidate the GOP nominates that I would not vote for over Obama.
ReplyDeleteYou? Are you serious about restoring liberty or not?
There's more than one way to skin a cat Silverfiddle.
ReplyDeleteIf Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination I don't care who wins.
Something few understand about the Ron Paul r3VOlution is the fact that the movement transcends Ron Paul and it transcends politics. The movement is growing and whether Ron Paul wins or not is irrelevant. This is not to say we don't want him to win (of course we do and we're working very very hard to make that happen) but if he doesn't it matters little because we are winning minds and converts every single day.
We're bringing people together not dividing them. These people are coming together and learning from one another and sharing ideas and information from Austrian economics, firearms, organic gardening, beekeeping, Agorism, Voluntaryism, safe encryption, Ham Radios and other means of communication, the true value of money, canning, history, and so on and so on.
We don't need rulers or leaders. Because you see...we understand what self government is all about and we'll prevail regardless.
That my friend is liberty. If you think any of those other GOP hopefuls save for Gary Johnson give one iota about Liberty, then I dare say you have a very narrow understanding of what individual liberty is all about.
ReplyDeleteI should have added you can put Dick Morris on the list as well as he doesn't know a thing about liberty either. This is a man who told Peter Schiff that all high school students should be drug tested.
ReplyDeleteRick Perry at age 22 vs Barry Obama at age 22
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the Texas State School Board under Rick Perry in 2009 started cracking down hard on the Islamic component of the Social Studies program which earned Rick the wrath of CAIR. But Rick didn't back down. Just sayin...
If only Perry had the cajones to stand up to the NAFTA Superhighway project.
ReplyDeleteRG,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that information.
I know that, on some sites, there has been much discussion of Rick Perry's affiliation with the Aga Khan and of the curricular material regarding Islam.
FYI TO ALL COMMENTERS:
ReplyDeleteWe're having bad thunderstorms today in the DC area.
Tomorrow, I'll be dealing with hurricane preparedness after I get Mr. AOW home from his doctor's appointment.
What a week! Earthquake, t'storms, and Hurricane Irene!
Soapster,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the present status of the NAFTA Superhighway Project?
I guess Alive and Well.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/3313-the-nafta-superhighway-is-alive-and-well
I don't care about his stance on Islam. Islam isn't as big a threat to me as are banksters.
RG,
ReplyDeleteGreat graphic! And a great comment underneath it too.
Quite a contrast between Perry and Obama, huh?
AOW, as far as I am aware the Agha Khan and his family are about as westernised and moderate as they get. His mother was a British peer and his step-mother was Rita Hayworth. Both his first and second wife were westerners.
ReplyDeleteSure he is the head of a religion (hereditary) and takes his leadership probably very seriously as does the Moroccan and Jordanian Kings do in their roles as leaders of their community's faiths.
With his budget, he certainly will be putting money in organisations based on charity and community support. Sure that could be linked to those with more conservative or radical views but then when you spread your money around, even politicians on all sides in your country and mine end up giving to groups with questionable links (in one form or another).
Obviously I have not studied him and his actions other than cursory but evidence puts him and the Ismailis as the least molevenant groups and if anything, among the persucuted in thier countries of origin. Of course I would guess some others will read about 17th and 18th century history and believe it represents today....
Soapster,
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of Dick Morris -- for numerous reasons.
But sometimes I do watch his videos to get his perspective.
Thanks for the link about the NAFTA Superhighway.
I'm blogging right now in between severe storms, BTW. Getting my "blog fix," so to speak.
D Charles,
ReplyDeleteWhat I've learned about the Aga Khan is in line with what you mentioned in your comment.
I usually follow the William F. Buckley Jr. rule that we support the most conservative candidate WHO CAN WIN. And I think that is Rick Perry though we still need to learn more about him. I have noted that the smear machine is doing the Palin treatment on Perry and not all the slime is coming from Obama. Some of it is coming from disgruntled sources on the right who are willing to spread disinformation about Perry that they got from the Obama folks.
ReplyDeleteI have another rule and it's my own: If you want people to take the time to consider YOUR prefered candidate you MUST be willing to pledge to vote for the eventual nominee. If anyone tells me they will stay home on election day if candidate X doesn't get the GOP nomination I refuse to listen to their arguments in support of that candidate.
There is NOTHING more dangerous to this country's future than four more years of Obama. And if that means I have to vote for a nominee that I am personally less than thrilled about so be it.
NOT voting because you are upset with some relatively MINOR (and every disagreement with a Republican candidate IS minor compared to Obama) means that an Obama voter in your state basically has his vote count twice since you are not there to cast yours against it.
And since we all know that Obama's union buddies and progressive pals will pull out the stops to commit massive vote fraud we are already at a disadvantage.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to weigh in with such a cogent comment!
the William F. Buckley Jr. rule that we support the most conservative candidate WHO CAN WIN
I guess that there's where I am on this issue too.
I heartily agree with the following statement from you, and I hope that in November 2012, enough of us -- even though we be disgruntled with the candidate -- recognize that reality:
There is NOTHING more dangerous to this country's future than four more years of Obama.
Write-In = Vote for Obama
ReplyDeleteActually, it's a vote FOR somebody else. It doesn't count FOR Obama or FOR the Republican. At worst, it's neutral. And a vote FOR Romney is the same to me as a vote FOR Obama. Both are appeasement power-seeking money-grubbing a-holes not worth a drop of sweat off my b*lls.
Amazing how the fish swim with the current and the cattle get herded.
ReplyDeleteA conservative who can win...
Rick Perry???
If your premise is a candidate whom you think can win fine. Go with it.
But, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Only in an abstract world where up is down and black is white could Rick Perry be considered a conservative.
What's more, while seemingly the die has been cast with respect to William Buckley and conservatism, it is rather clear that on a number of occasions the heir apparent Mr. Buckley is want to waver on principle to such an extent that at times it borders on progressivism.
As I've said before I am biased towards Ron Paul. However, that said, it is not at all difficult to see the aforementioned on display in this vintage video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VIvqyrxbL8
I like Bachmann and Perry and could vote for either. I like Cain and Paul on domestic issues, but Cain won't make it and doesn't have a real grasp on foreign affairs. Paul is a kook when it comes to foreign affairs.
ReplyDeleteDebbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
I see the argument from intimidation is alive and well.
ReplyDeleteCare to elaborate on "kook"?
The irony in all of the charges about Ron Paul's foreign policy positions being "kook" or what have you is this.
You will witness the candidates laud the greatness of the Constitution and Ronald Reagan all the while dismissing the reminders from the very founders who drafted the Constitution about not getting involved in the affairs of other nations. Then of course there's Reagan who pulled the troops out of Beirut and stated that we don't and never will understand the politics of the Middle East.
Apparently we don't seem to learn our lessons very well.
Non-intervention is the conservative position (well unless you're a Hamiltonian).
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/6YpP80_J5N8
I will not vote for "the lesser of two evils who actually has a chance of winning" ever again.
ReplyDeleteI like both Ron Paul and Rick Perry, though neither is perfect, of course.
Speedy G: I don't care for Romney would would vote for him in a heartbeat over Obama. To suggest there is no difference between the two is unreal!
ReplyDeleteSoapster: Back Ron Paul if you want, but are you willing to pledge that you will vote for the eventual nominee? If not, don't bother me with any more guff about R.P.
And yes, I agree with Debbie. Ron Paul's stand on Iran getting nuclear weapons is not only kookie but dangerous and stupid.
Karen: Does this mean if Paul or Perry don't get nominated you won't vote?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI think your two rules are not only logical but admirable. Also I would like to add support to your second personal rule and I have a personal loathing for "spoilers" who either chose not to participate or worse, chose to sabotage the entire effort because their view was not the majority - sound familiar?
No I won't support the nominee. I'm not a boot licker. I don't fall in line because people tell me to.
ReplyDeleteLots of countries have nukes. Israel has nukes. A whole lot more nukes than Iran.
But I digress...if you want to support preemptive military action that is perfectly fine but then out of courtesy, just as I will spare you Ron Paul talk, you should spare your readers from any such talk about the Constitution or Obama's wrongheaded direction or bankrupting this country and the like mmm kay. ;-)
"I have a personal loathing for "spoilers" who either chose not to participate or worse, chose to sabotage the entire effort because their view was not the majority - sound familiar?"
ReplyDeleteSuch is a rather perverse "logic" when one considers many of the founders who opted to break free from the tyranny of the King were themselves "spoilers".
Thank you D Charles QC.
ReplyDeleteSoapster: You'll understand now why I pay your comments no further consideration. You have made yourself and your prefered candidate irrelevant to the nominating process.
Mike, no, I will never not vote. I suppose I should have added "if I can help it."
ReplyDeleteIf you don't vote, you have no right to complain.
Actually Mike you're quite wrong about that. You see I need no marching orders from on high. While you and the rest of your ilk are sitting on your asses listening to Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, and whoever else tell you who is a top tier candidate, myself and others like me are donating our time and money towards calling people to locate supporters, coordinating transportation to get them to the Ames straw poll and the like because as you might not have realized, our candidate doesn't have a plethora of special interests in his back pocket. That's why the corporate media doesn't give two shits about him. He isn't in bed with them. He can't offer them any special perks. Whereas your flury of GOP choices get huge special interest dollars in the hopes that when their candidate of choice wins they can reap the perks. Ron Paul is a candidate for the people. He gets his contributions in many small doses from hard working grassroots individuals. So take your establishment options and suck it. And when the dollar crashes and you need a wheel barrel of cash for a loaf of bread, don't bitch to me cuz I'm not sharing my goods.
ReplyDeleteSoapster, I would like to suggest three points to you.
ReplyDeleteFirst, to compare party unity to a capacity to "break free from the tyranny of the King" seems illogical, I would think we all know the difference.
Secondly, your nation was not founded on being "spoilers" for descenting on a majority or democracy. It was about freedom from tyranny and autocracy, and I should point out if you do not know, this is coming from a Brit. Your national identity enscribes democracy which means supporting the choice of the majority. Spoilers that I have refered to are those that within the Republican Party who are unable to accept the vote by the majority and thus in reality are questionably actually Republicans and will only benefit the Democrats in the election.
Lastly, taking note my not being American, I am a centrist and am not much of a supporter or in fact listen to Hannity, Limbaugh or Beck and my original comment (if you actually bothered to read) is that in the end, the subject is winning the election and history has a proven track record of mostly centrist candidates winning.
My feeling is that the best combination is a Romney-Perry ticket. Ron Paul is simply to old to be considered and has a reputation (real or not) of being past-it and prone to wild remarks.
Soapster and Karen,
ReplyDeleteI've been reading your comments here in this thread -- all comments here, in fact.
What of "real politic"?
We can have our strongly-held views as to the kind of candidate we want -- I certainly do. But if that candidate isn't electable, then Obama gets another term.
What's worse? Not having a candidate we can really and heartily support -- or the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama? Yes, that is the lesser-of-two-evils argument. But many choice in life do follow that scenario.
In my view, the GOP has wasted decades in searching for and hoping for another Ronald Reagan. While all that searching and hoping were going on, the GOP became something far afield from the party of Reagan.
ReplyDeleteLet's think back for a minute.
After the debacle of Richard Nixon, everyone knew that the GOP would not gain the White House for years. Indeed, I am every surprised that only 6 years transpired between the resignation of Nixon in 1974 to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Then, along came Jimmy Carter -- a debacle of a different sort.
In my view, Carter got the 1976 nomination because the Dems were cocksure that they had a lock on the White House after the Nixon debacle.
Obama is Jimmy Carter on crack. Obama's adherents are falling away like flies sprayed with Raid.
Now, this means, IMO, that the GOP has a serious decision to make: RINO or real conservative. That said, just any "real conservative" is not necessarily electable. Since the election of Ronald Reagan some 30 years ago, our voting population has moved to the Left. Real politic again.
Honestly, it has been a long, long time since I've actually VOTED FOR any candidate -- federal, state, or local. Usually, I find myself voting against a particular candidate. A sorry commentary on the state of our nation's politics!
It's worth reminding some of the readers herein the degree with which Reagan was vilified, written off, deemed the pariah within the party for a great many years prior to winning.
ReplyDeleteIt is exactly what is happening to Ron Paul, a man who himself had a heavy hand in the Reagan revolution.
America wants a centrist? really this is based on what factual evidence? The 2008 election results?The 2010 election results? The rise of the Tea Partty movement? Perry sudden rise to the front of the GOP field?
ReplyDeleteAs to candidates look at who Democrats go after and you know who they fear. They fear Perry and Bachman. Almost no effort toward Romney or Newt for they know us better than us we do and we not want these centrists as you can call them....
Having said that I agree with one of the first posts...Pencil for President over a Obama at least a pencil has a point and it can make a statement without a teleprompter
Soapster,
ReplyDeleteIt's worth reminding some of the readers herein the degree with which Reagan was vilified, written off, deemed the pariah within the party for a great many years prior to winning.
I agree with that statement.
However, I do not believe that Ron Paul is electable. Just my opinion, of course.
And I cannot imagine that Ron Paul will get the GOP nomination. If he runs as a third-party candidate, the election will be won by Obama.
Blogginator,
ReplyDeleteAs to candidates look at who Democrats go after and you know who they fear.
I agree.
Pencil for President over a Obama at least a pencil has a point and it can make a statement without a teleprompter
LOL!
That teleprompter drives me up the wall! Obama's head goes back and forth, back and forth, so that he can read the two teleprompters.