2012 Pres. Election.

[AmPat]

Santorum at this point must place 1st or 2nd in SC and do well in Florida or he's done. And I doubt he will.

Newt has a good chance, but it depends on if he survives what his ex's have said and how the lame-stream media twist it.

Romney could still win this out of default do to the others just having too much baggage.

IOW's, the establishment and liberal media have succeeded in selecting our "acceptable" candidate again.:mad:

[Odysseus]

IOW's, the establishment and liberal media have succeeded in selecting our "acceptable" candidate again.:mad:

No, but they've certainly helped. Let's face it, if Cain hadn't been taken down by the affair (and, let's face it, the last woman who came out was credible), then his foreign policy ignorance would have been a serious problem. Perry failed to bone up for the debates and got mauled in his first showings. After that, he couldn't regain what he'd lost. Huntsman was never much of a threat, and Bachmann had serious problems with her campaign staff. In every case, these wounds were self-inflicted, although I'll agree that the media and the establishment acted like a good dose of staph infection after the fact, but if the candidates had been more disciplined or prepared, they'd have done better. And, let's face it, wouldn't you rather cull them now than have them self-destruct in the general election?

Now that it's down to Gingrich, Paul and Romney, my choices are, in order, Gingrich, Romney and then (:eek:) Paul, but they are all better than Obama.

[NJCardFan]

Basically the GOP is handing the election to Obama on a silver platter. They have no guts.

[Odysseus]

Basically the GOP is handing the election to Obama on a silver platter. They have no guts.

Not necessarily. Romney can beat Obama, but he'd have to really understand the current problems that we are mired in to do it. He has to understand the primacy of Constitutional principles and know where we've gone off of the rails. He's got to be what he was at Bain, a turnaround manager, who knows how to eliminate unproductive (or in this case, unconstitutional) departments and levels of bureaucracy, as opposed to the Massachussetts governor who tried to fix a health care system that wasn't broken (but was badly distorted) by creating a whole new system that doesn't work as well as what it replaced.

Here's the thing: If Romney were to suddenly have a Road-to-Damascus moment, he'd be a great candidate. He's an excellent manager, with solid private and public sector experience, and he understands finance like nobody else running. In fact, he's the anti-Obama, a skilled businessman with experience far beyond DC, and someone of significant accomplishment who doesn't inspire through charismatic BS, but just does the job at hand, usually very well. The downside of this is that without knowing his philosophy of government, we could be electing a technocrat whose approach to our major crises is to try to fix it around the edges, rather than to rip out gaping chunks of useless government. I don't hate the guy, I just don't trust him to be more than the sum of his parts.

This, BTW, sums up the Republican field. Newt used to be an extremely effective back-bencher and speaker, but his post congressional-career has been a series of policy reverses and zigzags that weaken our trust in his commitment to fixing DC. Paul, OTOH, has been consistent throughout his career, and where he's right, he's right with a vengeance, but where he's wrong, he's so wrong that it's a deal-breaker. So, what it comes down to is that we can vote for two candidates of proven accomplishment but who we don't trust to do the job because of their policy outlooks, or a candidate with very little executive experience who can be trusted to do the right thing 90% of the time, but is guaranteed to do the wrong thing on the remaining 10%. Since that 10% is national defense, he's lost me.

[Adam Wood]

Not necessarily. Romney can beat Obama, but he'd have to really understand the current problems that we are mired in to do it. He has to understand the primacy of Constitutional principles and know where we've gone off of the rails. He's got to be what he was at Bain, a turnaround manager, who knows how to eliminate unproductive (or in this case, unconstitutional) departments and levels of bureaucracy, as opposed to the Massachussetts governor who tried to fix a health care system that wasn't broken (but was badly distorted) by creating a whole new system that doesn't work as well as what it replaced.

Here's the thing: If Romney were to suddenly have a Road-to-Damascus moment, he'd be a great candidate. He's an excellent manager, with solid private and public sector experience, and he understands finance like nobody else running. In fact, he's the anti-Obama, a skilled businessman with experience far beyond DC, and someone of significant accomplishment who doesn't inspire through charismatic BS, but just does the job at hand, usually very well. The downside of this is that without knowing his philosophy of government, we could be electing a technocrat whose approach to our major crises is to try to fix it around the edges, rather than to rip out gaping chunks of useless government. I don't hate the guy, I just don't trust him to be more than the sum of his parts.

This, BTW, sums up the Republican field. Newt used to be an extremely effective back-bencher and speaker, but his post congressional-career has been a series of policy reverses and zigzags that weaken our trust in his commitment to fixing DC. Paul, OTOH, has been consistent throughout his career, and where he's right, he's right with a vengeance, but where he's wrong, he's so wrong that it's a deal-breaker. So, what it comes down to is that we can vote for two candidates of proven accomplishment but who we don't trust to do the job because of their policy outlooks, or a candidate with very little executive experience who can be trusted to do the right thing 90% of the time, but is guaranteed to do the wrong thing on the remaining 10%. Since that 10% is national defense, he's lost me.

I still miss Herman Cain more and more each day. :(

[Rockntractor]

I still miss Herman Cain more and more each day. :(

I am sure with you there!

[fettpett]

I still miss Herman Cain more and more each day. :(

me too :( :mad:

[NJCardFan]

Cain was the best candidate to challenge Obama but the GOP decided not to circle the wagons when the allegations started coming out and decided to go with a younger version of McCain...as if that turned out swimmingly. The truth is, the difference between the GOP and the Dems is that the Dems, for what it's worth, sticks to their principles. The GOP will never back a true conservative even though most polls show that a majority of the country considers itself conservative.

[Hawkgirl]

Romney reminds me of John Edwards, only more polished...but I would vote for him.

He has private sector experience and is proud of being successful. I can stand behind that.

[AmPat]

Romney reminds me of John Edwards, only more polished...but I would vote for him.

He has private sector experience and is proud of being successful. I can stand behind that.

I too will vote for him if it is between him and the Marxist. I just don't believe he is a true Conservative. He doesn't seem to grasp the reality or enormity of the progressive disease in Washington. I believe he will accept the progressives as patriotic Americans with a different viewpoint instead of what they truly are; The greatest threat to our Republic ever.