Most Republicans happy with GOP field

-Huntsman's negative rankings crept upward during the first few months of his campaign, and he was the only GOP candidate viewed unfavorably by as many Republicans as view him positively.topsemag55

Yeah, how dare someone reasonable run for President.

Put me in the category of not satisfied.

looking good in the democrat field - 0

looking good in the republican field - 1

players in the game - over 9000

Bo Bo the Clown would be a better choice than anyone in that field.

2012 is going to be an easy vicotry for the Democrats. The Republican candidates suck overall. I would rather have 4 more years of a guy who has repeatedly shown to not change much at all than one who is at near radical levels.

We need the old conservatives in this country to just go away. Their radical right wing approach to everything today only furthers our problems.

2012 is going to be an easy vicotry for the Democrats. The Republican candidates suck overall. I would rather have 4 more years of a guy who has repeatedly shown to not change much at all than one who is at near radical levels.

We need the old conservatives in this country to just go away. Their radical right wing approach to everything today only furthers our problems.

Wasdie

Bo Bo the Clown would be a better choice than anyone in that field.

SUD123456

Romney is my least favorite. Bachman/Palin too polarizing Huntsman has no chance in he*l Perry is overall good but sounds too much like Bush (voice) I did like Pawlenty Ron Paul My ideal candidate would be Marco Rubio/Paul RyamDevilMightCry

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Bo Bo the Clown would be a better choice than anyone in that field.

jshaas

Nah, that's Mickey the Mime, but I understand the confusion since they belong to the same circus family :D

I'm happy. I'll be voting for either Bachman or Perry. :DThe-Apostle

I am so sorry to hear that. I will pray for your soul.

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]I'm happy. I'll be voting for either Bachman or Perry. :Dcoolbeans90

I am so sorry to hear that. I will pray for your soul.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]I'm happy. I'll be voting for either Bachman or Perry. :DDevilMightCry

I am so sorry to hear that. I will pray for your soul.

and see that they are both still big government only with a crazy religious twist?i dont see how more of the same only with the added bonus of different social manipulation will change the direction this country is going

surrealnumber5

2012 is going to be an easy vicotry for the Democrats. The Republican candidates suck overall. I would rather have 4 more years of a guy who has repeatedly shown to not change much at all than one who is at near radical levels.

We need the old conservatives in this country to just go away. Their radical right wing approach to everything today only furthers our problems.

Wasdie

Not so fast, while many on this board percive this field to be weak, Obama polls neck to neck with all of the GOP candidates.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

(GS you're unbelievable :roll:)

If the election were today, Obama would actually lose Florida to Romney, Perry, and even Bachmann if you can believe it. The guy's approval ratings are down to 38%. At this point, nearly all GOP candidates can reasonably challenge Obama right now. Which in Bachmann's case is pretty scary.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2011/08/magellan-poll-obama-in-trouble-but-no-republicans-alighting-florida.html

and see that they are both still big government only with a crazy religious twist?i dont see how more of the same only with the added bonus of different social manipulation will change the direction this country is goingsurrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

and see that they are both still big government only with a crazy religious twist?i dont see how more of the same only with the added bonus of different social manipulation will change the direction this country is going

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]and see that they are both still big government only with a crazy religious twist?i dont see how more of the same only with the added bonus of different social manipulation will change the direction this country is goingtopsemag55

what the president has power over they and obama dont want to cut... current war spending. what other cuts can the president unilaterally make? and do you think these hawks will let the patriot act expire? or do you think they will end the war time powers that the president has had since nam? yea talking points and plans are great but only when applicable, if you dont have the power your words are empty.surrealnumber5

but that aside, if they do what they say.topsemag55

Hold up there. These are politicians. Their words are deep, and sometimes not meant to be taken literally. The loudest ones tend to be most subject to personal interpretation.

I think their experience of holding public office would be a better place to start looking in terms of how they will govern. (obviously, it's easier to critique/analyze a governor than a legislator in this regard) Perry's record seems to conflict a bit with his rhetoric on fiscal matters. Just sayin'. Bush ran as a small-government, non-interventionist conservative in a similar fashion and I can't think of a single way in which he ever cut back. (sans taxes) I don't think Perry will be anything like a fiscal hawk. Bachmann voted against the debt deal, so she may actually spend less. There are other concerns I have with her, but that is a different conversation.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] what the president has power over they and obama dont want to cut... current war spending. what other cuts can the president unilaterally make? and do you think these hawks will let the patriot act expire? or do you think they will end the war time powers that the president has had since nam? yea talking points and plans are great but only when applicable, if you dont have the power your words are empty.topsemag55

Hold up there. These are politicians. I think their experience of holding public office would be a better place to start looking in terms of how they wil govern. (obviously, it's easier to critique/analyze a governor than a legislator in this regard) Perry's record seems to conflict a bit with his rhetoric. Just sayin'. Bush ran as a small-government, non-interventionist conservative in a similar fashion and I can't think of a single way in which he ever cut back. (sans taxes) I don't think Perry will be anything like a fiscal hawk. Bachmann voted against the debt deal, so she may actually spend less. There are other concerns I have with her, but that is a different conversation.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] what the president has power over they and obama dont want to cut... current war spending. what other cuts can the president unilaterally make? and do you think these hawks will let the patriot act expire? or do you think they will end the war time powers that the president has had since nam? yea talking points and plans are great but only when applicable, if you dont have the power your words are empty.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] The president can do a lot through executive orders, and I've heard Obama has signed a ton of them. I think the War Powers Act is wrong in the sense that it limits the power of the Commander-in-Chief too much. I think that Congress needs to rework that piece of legislation, as they could be stomping on separation of powers a little bit.topsemag55

I don't disagree, but there have been some presidents that have done a somewhat decent job while they were in office. Sure, all of them have made mistakes, but all have done some good things as well. Let's take Reagan, for instance. I know the left doesn't like him, but he did restore the military after Carter gutted it. He restored the Navy to an 80-ship fleet, for starters. His first meeting with Gorbachev of Russia went like this - Reagan looked him square in the eyes and said, "You want an arms race? Fine, you'll lose.":lol:topsemag55

I recognize that some presidents govern well. Nonetheless, I do think Perry's past experience is cause for concern rather than comfort.

wars are declared in congress not by the president..... and we have not had a defensive war since WWII but yet we keep on jumping into them because the president was granted powers he never should have had. if you give one megalomaniac the power to kill things he does not like, many of them will, and what kind of people run for office?

surrealnumber5

pacifists

wars are declared in congress not by the president..... and we have not had a defensive war since WWII but yet we keep on jumping into them because the president was granted powers he never should have had. if you give one megalomaniac the power to kill things he does not like, many of them will, and what kind of people run for office?surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] wars are declared in congress not by the president..... and we have not had a defensive war since WWII but yet we keep on jumping into them because the president was granted powers he never should have had. if you give one megalomaniac the power to kill things he does not like, many of them will, and what kind of people run for office?topsemag55

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

wars are declared in congress not by the president..... and we have not had a defensive war since WWII but yet we keep on jumping into them because the president was granted powers he never should have had. if you give one megalomaniac the power to kill things he does not like, many of them will, and what kind of people run for office?

coolbeans90

pacifists

As nutty as Perry seems, he does make the field more exciting and he does give the party a good political performer without coming across as flawed as Bachmann. He's flawed in his own ways, but I think he's more electable than Bachmann.

Palin is getting stupid with her "announcement". She said that she was going to announce in August and now she's gonna announce September? :roll:

It's getting pretty obvious that she's just trying to tease the media for coverage.

I'm not surprised that Hunstman's negatives crept upward. He has essentially antagonized the Tea Party by pretty much calling them out their lunacy and irresponsibility, which is awesome from some of our perspectives, but not for many voters in the Republican party, voters that Hunstman needs to win.

However, if Hunstman starts trying to court these voters, he's going to have to flip flop and he'll lose his appeal instantly and will simply become a less politically seasoned Romney. Hustman is pretty much in a lose-lose position IMO and I think people who still think he'll win are not living in political reality.

it also only lasted 100 days, but it was still a war against a non-threat to us. it is one of the few wars i did not mind because we were there to defend a friend from an outside invasion, so in that case it was not so bad. all of the countries we are killing people in now we are doing so without provocation or threat and these actions are backed by both perry and bachmann (SP?)surrealnumber5

To be honest, he should have pulled all troops out of Iraq by now.topsemag55

You can't walk in....invade a country....topple the government.....and leave the country to insurgents. Granted Iraq should be stable by now.....but you can't just unilaterally leave until that is assured.LJS9502_basic

As nutty as Perry seems, he does make the field more exciting and he does give the party a good political performer without coming across as flawed as Bachmann. He's flawed in his own ways, but I think he's more electable than Bachmann.

Palin is getting stupid with her "announcement". She said that she was going to announce in August and now she's gonna announce September? :roll:

It's getting pretty obvious that she's just trying to tease the media for coverage.

I'm not surprised that Hunstman's negatives crept upward. He has essentially antagonized the Tea Party by pretty much calling them out their lunacy and irresponsibility, which is awesome for some of our perspectives, but not for many voters in the Republican party, voters that Hunstman needs to win.

However, if Hunstman starts trying to court these voters, he's going to have to flip flop and he'll lose his appeal instantly and will simply become a less politically seasoned Romney. Hustman is pretty much in a lose-lose position IMO and I think people who still think he'll win are not living in political reality.

GreySeal9

Actually, I don't think that a change in tune for Huntsman w/ respect to simply rhetoric would necessarily mark him as a "flip-flopper". Huntsman doesn't need to flip on actual issues the way Romney did. However, it's kinda late for him to change things up this late into the election. He may be setting himself up to fill Romney's shoes in 2016. (if Romney doesn't win this round, he's done)

Actually, I don't think that a change in tune for Huntsman w/ respect to simply rhetoric would necessarily mark him as a "flip-flopper". Huntsman doesn't need to flip on actual issues the way Romney did. However, it's kinda late for him to change things up this late into the election. He may be setting himself up to fill Romney's shoes in 2016. (if Romney doesn't win this round, he's done)

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

As nutty as Perry seems, he does make the field more exciting and he does give the party a good political performer without coming across as flawed as Bachmann. He's flawed in his own ways, but I think he's more electable than Bachmann.

Palin is getting stupid with her "announcement". She said that she was going to announce in August and now she's gonna announce September? :roll:

It's getting pretty obvious that she's just trying to tease the media for coverage.

I'm not surprised that Hunstman's negatives crept upward. He has essentially antagonized the Tea Party by pretty much calling them out their lunacy and irresponsibility, which is awesome for some of our perspectives, but not for many voters in the Republican party, voters that Hunstman needs to win.

However, if Hunstman starts trying to court these voters, he's going to have to flip flop and he'll lose his appeal instantly and will simply become a less politically seasoned Romney. Hustman is pretty much in a lose-lose position IMO and I think people who still think he'll win are not living in political reality.

coolbeans90

Actually, I don't think that a change in tune for Huntsman w/ respect to simply rhetoric would necessarily mark him as a "flip-flopper". Huntsman doesn't need to flip on actual issues the way Romney did. However, it's kinda late for him to change things up this late into the election. He may be setting himself up to fill Romney's shoes in 2016. (if Romney doesn't win this round, he's done)

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

As nutty as Perry seems, he does make the field more exciting and he does give the party a good political performer without coming across as flawed as Bachmann. He's flawed in his own ways, but I think he's more electable than Bachmann.

Palin is getting stupid with her "announcement". She said that she was going to announce in August and now she's gonna announce September? :roll:

It's getting pretty obvious that she's just trying to tease the media for coverage.

I'm not surprised that Hunstman's negatives crept upward. He has essentially antagonized the Tea Party by pretty much calling them out their lunacy and irresponsibility, which is awesome for some of our perspectives, but not for many voters in the Republican party, voters that Hunstman needs to win.

However, if Hunstman starts trying to court these voters, he's going to have to flip flop and he'll lose his appeal instantly and will simply become a less politically seasoned Romney. Hustman is pretty much in a lose-lose position IMO and I think people who still think he'll win are not living in political reality.

coolbeans90

Actually, I don't think that a change in tune for Huntsman w/ respect to simply rhetoric would necessarily mark him as a "flip-flopper". Huntsman doesn't need to flip on actual issues the way Romney did. However, it's kinda late for him to change things up this late into the election. He may be setting himself up to fill Romney's shoes in 2016. (if Romney doesn't win this round, he's done)

Yeah, you're probably right, but I do think that he'd lose his appeal. That he stays away from the base-pleasing rhetoric is pretty much the reason that some people support the guy. If he turned into get another Tea Party pleaser, those people would probably be disgusted.

If he's trying to set himself up for 2016, I don't know that he's doing a good job of that. To set himself up, he needs to get more notice even if he doesn't win.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]it also only lasted 100 days, but it was still a war against a non-threat to us. it is one of the few wars i did not mind because we were there to defend a friend from an outside invasion, so in that case it was not so bad. all of the countries we are killing people in now we are doing so without provocation or threat and these actions are backed by both perry and bachmann (SP?)topsemag55

i wish only one party played these games, but much like expanding the government, both parties do it but only one party champions it.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] To be honest, he should have pulled all troops out of Iraq by now.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Actually, I don't think that a change in tune for Huntsman w/ respect to simply rhetoric would necessarily mark him as a "flip-flopper". Huntsman doesn't need to flip on actual issues the way Romney did. However, it's kinda late for him to change things up this late into the election. He may be setting himself up to fill Romney's shoes in 2016. (if Romney doesn't win this round, he's done)

topsemag55

Yeah, but governors in general don't have much experience with foreign affairs, and they tend to be elected. I somehow doubt that will be key on the election. Economy will. The only issue Romney flipped (abortion, gay marriage) on that really matters in this election is health care -- and states rights provides a legitimate defense. A point of weakness, absolutely. But, Gallup's poll the other day put Romney ahead of the other two candidates in a head-to-head with Obama. I can only see Perry or Bachmann performing worse in the future, as I can see them alienating a portion of the voting block as time goes on. People pretty much know Romney by now, and I don't see his numbers changing much unless he drastically alters his public perception.

In my opinion, he's the best option we have. (at least of the three)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] To be honest, he should have pulled all troops out of Iraq by now.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]it also only lasted 100 days, but it was still a war against a non-threat to us. it is one of the few wars i did not mind because we were there to defend a friend from an outside invasion, so in that case it was not so bad. all of the countries we are killing people in now we are doing so without provocation or threat and these actions are backed by both perry and bachmann (SP?)surrealnumber5

i wish only one party played these games, but much like expanding the government, both parties do it but only one party champions it.