Well Cain is gone, who's next

mad_machine wrote: Romney will fail due to flip flopping. His medical insurance bill he put into effect in Mass has a LOT of similarities to what President Obama pushed through.. and now Romney is decrying Obama's plan? Newt also scares me.. and I really wonder how he can run as an "outsider" after being speaker of the house?!?

Am I the only one who sees the difference in a state plan and a federal plan?

DILYSI Dave wrote: Am I the only one who sees the difference in a state plan and a federal plan?

No.

But there are those who are obtuse enough or not willing to concede the point and will continue to define themselves.

As an independent voter who often votes Democratic, I cannot understand why Huntsman can't get anyone's attention?

I might not vote for him myself, but he seems like a decent, smart guy who would give Obama a run for his money. I'm leaning to Obama but I think he would be a better president if he had to battle it out with a smart, thoughtful opponent. I wouldn't mind Bloomberg as a third party candidate either (but I know it'll never happen).

To me, the rest of them belong here .

If it is Romney vs Obama, I am voting third party.

Curmudgeon wrote: My stepdad is a sorta liberal guy, we get along great despite that. He made the comment this morning that the monitoring the Republican Presidential candidate field is like watching a clown car empty itself and I had to agree.

I think I mentioned a few weeks ago that it looks like the republican party is NOT interested in winning this election.

In reply to aeronca65t:

Huntsman doesn't get any attention from the Republican party, but I think he would bet tons of attention from swing voters.

Without comment as to whether I think it would be good, bad or indifferent, I've got a feeling that Republicans will decide (correctly) that Romney is the most electable and that he will, indeed, win handily.

Edit: "Win" means beat Obama. I know the nomination is still up in the air.

Gingrich has as much baggage as Cain. Probably more. I guess people don't mind because it is old baggage.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to aeronca65t: Huntsman doesn't get any attention from the Republican party, but I think he would bet tons of attention from swing voters.

I agree.

chuckles: even in the recent Fox News interview Romney looks weak. I honestly think Huntsman would have handled that better.

It's funny how most all the critical observances are posted by self-identified left leaners.

WTF, guys? You're commenting on a field of candidates campaigning for their party's votes. That means they are pandering to the base, not the general electorate. When the nominee is finally selected, the rhetoric will moderate like it did with Obama in 2008.

The 2012 election may well be a contest between Obama and Obama-lite but who ever becomes the Republican candidate won't be there without first winning the party primaries.

In reply to oldsaw:

I think it is much harder for the Republican candidates to pander to the base since the advent of the tea party and libertarian types. You can't really be a true libertarian and appeal to the religious right. You can't be a tea partier and appeal to the corporate right. And appealing to one faction gets you nowhere (Ron Paul).

93EXCivic wrote: If it is Romney vs Obama, I am voting third party.

Why not consider that under normal circumstances?

Anybody voting either Red or Blue is just prolonging the agony.

Otto Maddox wrote: Gingrich has as much baggage as Cain. Probably more. I guess people don't mind because it is old baggage.

The way I've heard it explained, which made some amount of sense, is that Cain's support came from his personality and his honesty. So suspicion of infidelity cut to the core of his chief attributes. Gingrich's support comes from his intellect and his political acumen. Infidelity doesn't reflect poorly on those.

I still think Cain was railroaded, and this whole episode is a sad commentary on us.

In reply to Otto Maddox:

Regardless of your logic, Otto, Republicans will still select a candidate.

Some of them may be disappointed that the choice doesn't fit their definition of "perfect" but if the alternative is to "not vote", I'm thinking their disapproval of the current POTUS will get them to the polls.

Any Republican candidate will be focused on creating a business-friendly environment, addressing out-of-control spending, and an increasing deficit. Obama's response to these issues have generally deferred to taxation, regulation and crony-reward initiatives - all with relatively little positive effect for the taxpayers who are funding him.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: I think it is much harder for the Republican candidates to pander to the base since the advent of the tea party and libertarian types. You can't really be a true libertarian and appeal to the religious right. You can't be a tea partier and appeal to the corporate right. And appealing to one faction gets you nowhere (Ron Paul).

Exactly what faction do you feel he is appealing to only?

mad_machine wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: My stepdad is a sorta liberal guy, we get along great despite that. He made the comment this morning that the monitoring the Republican Presidential candidate field is like watching a clown car empty itself and I had to agree.

I think I mentioned a few weeks ago that it looks like the republican party is NOT interested in winning this election.

I've been saying this for months... With such strong anti-Obama sentiment, I would have expected a more cohesive front.

Ron Paul seems to come across as more Libertarian... I mentioned him to my mother (way over on the religious right side...) and she was not enthusiastic.

oldsaw wrote: Any Republican candidate will be focused on creating a business-friendly environment, addressing out-of-control spending, and an increasing deficit.

I disagree. I think only the first of those is even partially true (if you change "business" to "large corporation".

Ian F wrote: Ron Paul seems to come across as more Libertarian... I mentioned him to my mother (way over on the religious right side...) and she was not enthusiastic.

Real Libertarians (and libertarians) are worried he might be too religious right. I think it could be an issue, but I'm strongly considering writing him in, since the media is going to continue stonewalling him until he inevitably loses the Republican nomination.

Duke wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: If it is Romney vs Obama, I am voting third party.

Why not consider that under normal circumstances? Anybody voting either Red or Blue is just prolonging the agony.

Well this is only the second election I will be old enough to vote in.

Duke wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Any Republican candidate will be focused on creating a business-friendly environment, addressing out-of-control spending, and an increasing deficit.

I disagree. I think only the first of those is even partially true (if you change "business" to "large corporation".

Ian F wrote: Ron Paul seems to come across as more Libertarian... I mentioned him to my mother (way over on the religious right side...) and she was not enthusiastic.

Real Libertarians (and libertarians) are worried he might be too religious right. I think it could be an issue, but I'm strongly considering writing him in, since the media is going to continue stonewalling him until he inevitably loses the Republican nomination.

Paul's personal views are more religious right than me as well, but he feels those sorts of things should not be legislated at the national level. The big key is that when he says that he doesn't want to do anything with it at the national level, he's actually been consistent so at to be believed.

I'm having a write in campaign for Elmer Fudd or Dick Cheney. Neither can shoot straight and Cheney is scary enough to make the guy shot apologize for it.

Take that terrorists!

Ian F wrote: Ron Paul seems to come across as more Libertarian... I mentioned him to my mother (way over on the religious right side...) and she was not enthusiastic.

Nothing against your mom (sounds like the start of a bad joke) but people like her need to consider what is BEST for the country, not just what appeals to her narrow religious view.

That goes for all with narrow views. There comes a time when you have to think of the needs of the many over the needs of the few

bluej wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: I think it is much harder for the Republican candidates to pander to the base since the advent of the tea party and libertarian types. You can't really be a true libertarian and appeal to the religious right. You can't be a tea partier and appeal to the corporate right. And appealing to one faction gets you nowhere (Ron Paul).

Exactly what faction do you feel he is appealing to only?

Libertarians.

I agree, but you are failing to recognize that most people with narrow views are very confident that their views ARE best for the country.

...it's kinda what makes the views narrow.

From that perspective, there is really no difference between the "religion is best for us" view and the "entitlements are best for us" view (or any other "best for us" view you might suggest).

When I pull a lever in the primary I will be voting for what I believe is best for the country. As much as I like Ron Paul (I do), there is the possibility I will not vote for him if voting for him means someone else wins (because of a divided party) who I think is worse.

That came out weird. What I am saying is that some people (not me, yet) will think the WORST thing for the country would be another term with Mr. Obama. A vote for a candidate that can win would therefore be the best thing for the country. Since Mr. Paul is AT BEST an extremely long shot, voting for the candidate who can beat Mr. Obama might be BETTER for the country (even if it included voting for the candidate who did not alienate the religious right, or whatever other group you want to consider important for the win)

Otto Maddox wrote:

bluej wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: I think it is much harder for the Republican candidates to pander to the base since the advent of the tea party and libertarian types. You can't really be a true libertarian and appeal to the religious right. You can't be a tea partier and appeal to the corporate right. And appealing to one faction gets you nowhere (Ron Paul).

Exactly what faction do you feel he is appealing to only?

Libertarians.

and tea baggers

In reply to FlightService:

You might be right. Tea partiers think they are libertarians. But they aren't. They just think they are better qualified than others to determine what liberties we don't deserve.

Ron Paul is closer to Libertarian than tea party, I think.