The GOP candidates this election year remind me of the democrats in '04. There isn't really anybody to get excited about. If things stay the way they are, Obama shouldn't have a problem getting reelected, for better or for worse.

 

Paul's the only one worth a ----, and well, we know how well he's doing.

 

Paul is the only candidate who stands up for things that should never be in question. (e.g. civil liberties). While I don't agree with him totally on things like the federal reserve, I really love that he has a budget that will actually CUT the deficit. All the other candidates want to do a lot of bush era fiscal policy, i.e. cut revenues and increase spending.

TLR Ron Paul has my vote, he get's the fundamentals right.

 

And what do you know. As a result, the GOP and sponsors do their best to sink Paul.

Blah.

 

Not sure if someone has already posted this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-...s-the-unbound/

For those of you who haven't watched the West Wing, I'll tell you a little story: The democrats went to the convention without a nominee, and with three people with large numbers of delegates. After the first fairly symbolic vote, the delegates became unbound and free to vote for whomever they wished. So the guy who was chosen did not have the most delegates.

Here's to hoping for a brokered convention, because RP is the only candidate paying attention to the fact that votes in primaries don't win you the nomination. The delegates win the nomination.

 

So long as it's not Santorum or Gingrich, I'm fine with whoever becomes president.

Those two are....

Romney's to the left of Obama, Paul's actually pro-civil liberties (And is the best of all of our options), and Obama isn't crazy. Gingrich and Santorum? Full on insanity. As in if they become president, we're gonna be looking longingly at the Bush years for the wars we'll get into.

Goddamn, it's sad how much the bar has been lowered. "Which president won't get us into a massive amount of wars" as a criteria? wtf?

 

i have no reason to think that any of the potential candidates will do anything different from one another other that Ron Paul.

what i mean is that a sell out is a sell out. if a sell out is in office his actions are according to the highest bidder

 

I'm glad we can agree on something. I don't know who is worse, Santorum, Palin or Trump.

 

More Santorum:

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-says-...164307440.html

 

You forgot the worst part, Gearhead.

Let me reiterate. Santorum is sickened that Kennedy said he would not impose his Catholic faith on Baptists.

(Edit) You know what? I take it back. I hope Santorum becomes President now. It will take that much to get America to wake the ---- up.

 

Santorum as president would send us into the dark ages, I can't believe that somebody would say something like that. I wonder how much the Catholic Church has/will donate to his campaign.

That being said I don't think he'll be president. I think don't think moderates will vote for him, and therefor he will not get the nomination. I think Romney is the safe bet for GOP nominee.

 

But that's the thing, Gearhead. At this point, I'm starting to think it'll take dark ages to get people to wake the hell up.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...ative-rhetoric

Jon Stewart successfully made me lol in this.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...bruce-bartlett

I'm shocked. People who are closely tied to Ronald Reagan are calling the current Republicans insane?

 

peace in the middle east:

 

Win their hearts and minds? Mission accomplished!

 

I tried a quick search but I can't find a primary source quote for that (i.e. the exact words in which he says he is "sickened"). The closest I could find was this:

 

So, saying he'd throw up isn't close enough to sickened for your taste mang?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/op...pagewanted=all

Girding my loins for massive flamewar on this.

 

Why? Who are you expecting to argue that point?