Being a teenager, Qin understands all too well that Santorum’s views don’t exactly lead to popularity.
I support Obama; I wouldn’t spit on the current republican candidates if they were on fire.
I support Gary Johnson. He dropped out of the GOP primary to run for the Libertarian primary.
Former Gov. Huntsman
Former Gov. Romney
The rest of them, with the exception of Rep. Paul, are just auditioning for a full time gig on NRO or Fox News.
That about sums it up for me.
Paul could make a good bit of dough on FOX, and they would be wise to offer him a job. He’s got a very dedicated following. Or maybe he’d be a good fit on MSNBC as a non-progressive voice that is often at odds with the GOP.
Because a lot could happen between the primaries and the general election. If the economy goes back into the tank, Obama may have a very hard time getting re-elected, regardless of who the GOP runs.
Of those listed, and if tortured, I would choose Huntsman first, then Romney. They’re more moderate and Huntsman has a realistic notion of what it takes to govern. Romney is too much of a rich boy wannabe, but his biggest problem seems to be a lack of personality; he’s the Republican equivalent of Al Gore. He also seems more than willing to spout platitudes that he thinks the right wants to hear. Huntsman has refused all requests to sign those bullshit pledges about taxes or anything else, which makes him more of a realist than Romney is.
Ron Paul’s scorched earth ideas of doing away with taxes and most of the government is not only unrealistic, but not possible unless by some magic congress is suddenly taken over by libertarians; it’s pure demagoguery. Rick Perry is George Bush redux. The others have extremist and unrealistic views of governance that would go nowhere, basically wasting four more years of White House occupancy.
He’s like Bush without the brains. :eek:
See, I separate the candidates into three categories: those I’m okay with, those I have a problem with but see redeeming qualities in, and those whom I just plain don’t like.
Those I Don’t Have a Problem With
Those I Have a Problem With, But Have Some Redeeming Qualities
Romney (mostly okay, but too militant for my tastes)
Gingrich (obnoxious, but fiercely intelligent)
Those I Don’t Like At All
Just out of curiosity, what do you find “too militant” about Romney? I mean, I’m no fan, but the man is a human weathervane. He has no deeply held principles at all except for the conviction that he deserves to hold public office.
I hear good things about Gary Johnson.
Too nationalist, maybe. The man does have some overtones of Manifest Destiny in his rhetoric.
A big part of his rhetoric seems to be that we need to build up a big national defense, and intimidate everyone else by being the biggest and baddest. Admittedly, this viewpoint is not exclusive to Romney, but among the candidates, some seem to be more open to the idea of intelligent discussion and diplomacy with other countries than others. Santorum comes across as the most war-mongering of the bunch (to me), but Romney is right after.
Why would I support any of them? I’ve already got a candidate of my own party that I’m unhappy with; I’m supposed to consider supporting a candidate of the opposing party that would make me even more unhappy?
A few months ago, I was attempting to make a case that Obama should not be depending on the liberal vote to get re-elected. The more I watch the Seven Dwarves, the more Obama can count on my vote. What a bunch of numbskulls!
If I was an American, I would gladly vote for either Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul. I like Huntsman, and I like Paul’s position on war, torture and habeas corpus.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. I’d rather have a President whose bad ideas are so bad that they’re impossible to advance than a President whose bad ideas actually have a chance of success.
Both are a waste of time. The former never gets anything done. The latter gets things done that then need to be undone, or at least modified. Ron Paul is a crackpot and a racist, and I believe he’s on the verge of full-on dementia.
Anybody other than Ron Paul would have approved killing Bin Laden.
He seems to think focusing on social issues will win him the election. Other than typical GOP platitudes, he hasn’t said really any word on economic policy. From what I have seen he will be the left’s caricature of George W Bush (which Bush really wasn’t)-divisive social reactionary, Islamophobic and ultraaggressive foreign policy, and no real reform of the economy.
Well, McCain said he wouldn’t, and Bush considered bin Laden to not be a priority at all. But I think you’re missing the point BobLibDem was making.