Who's Your GOP Nominee?

[scott715]

This actually scares me.

[jvquarterback]

Chris Christie is a statist in the same vein as Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. Things would actually be worse with him as a Republican president than with Clinton or any other Democrat. Remember all the increased spending under Bush - it would be even worse with Christie.

It doesn't matter because Christie can't win Iowa or SC so there is no way he will be the Republican nominee. And no one should vote for him if he somehow buys enough Iowa or NH politicians to pull it off.

[nuk13]

This actually scares me.

That makes a pair of us.

I backed and voted for Romney but he came here to campaign for M. Simpson who has been too long in Washington and has not proven to me to be a "proven conservative". I also didn't like him telling Brewer of Arizona, to veto the bill giving businesses the right to serve who they choose. Having said that, I think Rice would have made the cause stronger, maybe much stronger. I would like Paul, Cruz, Walker or Perry. I don't know if any of them could win however. I would vote for Romney and Rice.

JV, I find myself agreeing with you until you say any republican, even Christie, who may be my last republican choice, is worse than clinton or obama.

[jvquarterback]

Christie with a Republican majority in congress (which is almost guaranteed at this point) would be worse than Clinton, Obama or any other Democrat. He wouldn't be worse than any other Republican -I can only imagine John McCain declaring war on Russia - but he would be close.

[Metal Bubba]

I still like Huntsman, but nobody's going to beat Hilary anyway so why bother?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Ddawg]

I still like Huntsman, but nobody's going to beat Hilary anyway so why bother?

The most respected political pundits all said the exact same thing in 2008.

[imuakahuku]

I say Col. Alan West. I think it's about time we had someone (a warrior) other than a lawyer in the white house.

As for Ted Cruz I would strongly disagree. He is in no way a moron. He, like Mike Lee are amoung the few that continue to fight for the people that elected them. The libaral press has painted them (and Palin) in these colors to get you to think that. I suggest anyone thinking he and Palin are morons needs to look into the facts. They have been proven to the the ones who are right and the press has ALWAYS gotten it wrong but I think they know it but still do it. And the reason is clear, they are afraid of lawmakers like Curz, Lee, and Palin. Why do you think McCain won the nomination in 08? Because the media made him out to be this great person because they know he would be the easiest target. But when Palin was chosen, the press went bonkers. Thats why stories like "I can see Russia from my balcony" were headlines.

And as for Obama. He is a statist, a communist, and an African Colonialist. If you don't know what that means look it up. Alan Keys wansn't just trying to win points when he said "Obama is a communist"

I did hear Holder thown around for a few days but I think that was the end of it Because he has no chance so they quickly moved on. The has been some speculation of a Hillary/Michelle ticket but the way those two hate each other I doubt it could ever even work. The "new" golden child is Rahm but hopefully as he continues to take Chicago down the toilet, America will see him for what he truly is. BTW, Hillary would be worse then Christie (I don't like him) because she is a Ailinskite just like Obama. She's just not as bad as Obama and not an African Colonial.

I was good with Romney because of what I had gleamed from his personal life. He lived the gospel and so I think that would have led to a lot of good to very good decisions. I think he would have been more on the conservative side than liberal but would have worked with Dems to get things passed - which I would not like because working with Dems means you give in and they get what they want or they will go to the press and blame everything on you - kind of how Harry Reid is now blaming Russia's actions on the republicans in the press.

As for Libarals vs Progressives, back in Wilson's admin they called themselves progressives. They pushed their idiology until the work progressive became a negative word. They then hijacked the work liberal. Now that has a negative connotation to people who truely understand it and are returning to the term progressive. But today they are one and the same. The Liberals of FDR and such are now mostly the RINO's.

One thing to add to a facist is that they leave private ownership alone (for the most part) but they regulate ad nosuim and demand specific things of the companies. They also choose winners and losers (usually the winners are private business owners that supported them).

All in all, fascism, socialism, communism, etc are all evil. And they all lead down the same road. To the stifling of liberty and the consolidation of power in a centralized group or person.

[Brayden Green]

Screw the GOP, and screw the Dems. Today they are basically two sides of the same coin, enslaving future generations with an unpayable debt, and adding to it each and every year. The Libertarian Republicans will hopefully take themselves out of the GOP party, and we can get another party into the mix, and for one of the first times in history have an actual debate and a little bit of competition, where the winner might actually matter.

I have always been Independent but sympathised heavily with republicans almost always, but I stopped caring about the Repubs a couple years ago when Mitt Romney (who I think would be a better candidate than the guy currently in office, hands down) campaigned telling that we needed to make cuts and sacrifices, and then his VP ended up submitting a "spending reform" that ONLY grows to 6 Trillion dollars GDP in the next decade, versus Barracks 8 trillion. Cutting the future growth won't cut it. Only making **some** token cuts won't cut it. Everything has to shrink, and some things need to go away entirely..

I'd either want Gary "Governor Veto" Johnson and/or Justin Amash. Either of them would balance the budget within their term. Gary Johnson got the nickname Governor Veto because as Gov. in New Mexico (as a republican) he vetoed 200 times in 6 months, because he didn't want to increase spending. There is also something to be said for the only politician in Congress that facebooks every vote of his on every bill (Amash).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Amash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;