2012 thoughts?

**Hawkgirl** · 05-11-2011, 08:35 PM

You heard it here first...

Cain/Bauchman:)

I can dream, can't I?

**fettpett** · 05-12-2011, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

I meant in terms of people wanting him to run. Fred Thompson was "convinced" to get in the race.

um...no...I followed and supported Thompson, the reason he waited so long to get in was he was just being dumb, he thought that he could wait while the other candidates beat each other up and jump in. It didn't work

I don't know that much about him but if his thing is the so-called Fair Tax, he hasn't got a chance.

he's got far more than the Fair tax, which is something he supports. Many people support it and hell the Government's own tax panel said it would work but they weren't allowed to recommend it.

**txradioguy** · 05-12-2011, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Hawkgirl

You heard it here first...

Cain/Bauchman:)

I can dream, can't I?

And then let the Republicans pull a page from the Dem playbook and accuse anyone who criticizes them as being either racist or a woman hater.

:D

**Hawkgirl** · 05-12-2011, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by txradioguy

And then let the Republicans pull a page from the Dem playbook and accuse anyone who criticizes them as being either racist or a woman hater.

:D

yeh, a black president and a woman vice president....as an R nominee?

The libs would crap their pants.:D

**Odysseus** · 05-12-2011, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

I don't know that much about him but if his thing is the so-called Fair Tax, he hasn't got a chance.

Not everyone thinks that the money in our pockets belongs to the government and is just waiting for them to decide how much to leave us.

Originally Posted by Madisonian

If Romney was smart he would do 2 things regarding the plan put in place while he was governor.
1) Go on the offense that this was a states rights issue, not a federal one. The feds are not chartered by the Constitution to enact national health care policy, nor is it prohibited by the states in the Constitution.
AS a governor, he had the authority. As a Federally elected official, he doesn't.

2) This is the hard part. ADMIT YOU MADE A BIG FUCKING MISTAKE!!! Point out in every way how what was done in Massachusetts has failed or not met expectations and use that ammo to explain why trying at a federal level would be worse by magnitudes of order. We tried, we failed. Trying on a larger scale will only result in a larger failure.

1) Too weak an argument for most voters. He needs to make the second argument first, and then explain that he had legal authority to do so.

2) Except that when he does that, he's opening himself up to all sorts of attacks. "Governor, what made you think that it would work in the first place?" "Why would a conservative impose a massive entitlement on a state?" "What in your core philosophical approach to government led you to believe that this was a conservative position?" "How do we know that you won't do it again?"

The problem with offering a choice between a faux Democrat and a real Democrat, is that the conservatives will be tepid about supporting him and the liberals will already have a candidate.

**Adam Wood** · 05-26-2011, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by patriot45

You started out right! Cain has said what needs to be said! I know he is a big FairTax guy, bonus for that!

Cain / Christie!!!

No to romney.:(

Absolutely NO on Christie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-qMoqAfViM

Anyone who buys into the Global Warming Alarmist Cult is absolutely not qualified to be President.

**lacarnut** · 05-26-2011, 10:38 PM

No to Christie and Romney. Any politician from that part of the country is a RINO at best. Most of the states in the northeast have a self imposed cap and trade tax that purchase carbon credits. What a farce global warming is, and will result in lost jobs and revenues. One state in that area pulled out.

**Rcd** · 05-27-2011, 03:07 PM

No to Christie, Romney, West and Paul.

Yes to Cain, Palin, Bachman, hell, the field isn't even settled yet.

**Odysseus** · 05-27-2011, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rcd

No to Christie, Romney, West and Paul.

Yes to Cain, Palin, Bachman, hell, the field isn't even settled yet.

My only objection to West is that he's too new to the house, but he is intensely knowledgeable on issues related to the global jihad. He'd make a great Secretary of State or Defense in a Cain, Palin other Republican administration, though. As for the no votes, Newt is another no-go.

**SaintLouieWoman** · 05-27-2011, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by Odysseus

My only objection to West is that he's too new to the house, but he is intensely knowledgeable on issues related to the global jihad. He'd make a great Secretary of State or Defense in a Cain, Palin other Republican administration, though. As for the no votes, Newt is another no-go.

Agree with you, but would like to add Gary Johnson of New Mexico to the no list.