Has a major party ever had a weaker field of presidential candidates than the 2012 GOP in a year when its prospects for victory seemed so great? Michael Barone says, “Yeah, the 1932 Democrats!” He makes the case that Obama is the new Herbert Hoover rather than the new FDR. Well, not totally: Hoover played volleyball with a medicine ball. Let’s see King Putt try that one.
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (29)
Newt is the only candidate, goofey as may seem, that turned the economy around once. He's the only one with the intellect capable of turning Obama into a pretzel. Whatever negatives Newt has, they don't compare with our past 4 years of damage and I cringe to think of our future 4 years under Obama.
Well then, let's have Santorum as President and Newt as VP and really embarass Obama by having Santorum send Newt to debate Obama!
write in Sarah Palin and keep your powder dry.
What's the problem with "Dear Leader" playing with balls? I hear he like them.
But at least they do say Titleist on them.
Man! You have to really love golf to have your 'nads tattooed with Titleist!
Yeah, I bet Moochelle went through a lot of pain there.
Well the field is full of flip-flopper's and homophobes. I can't vote for Romney if he is the nominee, a Massachusetts Liberal who can't get his story straight. I like Santorum, but I could care less about gay marriage. I think the way the liberals use "gay rights" as propaganda for their cause, the way they want to force it down the throats of children in the schools, and they way they want to push it on the churches is disgusting. If he said that I'd agree with him, but otherwise I don't care.
I don't want to watch Perry take 45 minutes to come up with the answer to a question for 4 years. Newt should not even be in this race. Bachmann, she never got me excited. I think I've seen Huntsman once.
I like Paul the most because he just tells you his views. He does not poll test them and change them to get votes. He doesn't come up with things like "fair share" and "yes we can." I don't agree with everything he believes, but I appreciate the honesty. The only honest thing Obama has told us is that he's lazy, and Romney will take any side to get elected.
Well the field is full of flip-flopper’s and homophobes. I can’t vote for Romney if he is the nominee, a Massachusetts Liberal who can’t get his story straight. I like Santorum, but I could care less about gay marriage. I think the way the liberals use “gay rights” as propaganda for their cause, the way they want to force it down the throats of children in the schools, and they way they want to push it on the churches is disgusting.
***********************
Exactly who is "forcing" homosexuality "down the throats of children in the schools"? And who's "push(ing) it on the churches"?
There's a huge difference between refusing to marginalize gay people, and forcing them down people's throats. But the former doesn't make for as exciting right wing propaganda as the latter. ;)
Come on Ollie! This post is even dumber than your usual rants.
"Exactly who is “forcing” homosexuality “down the throats of children in the schools”?":
Well lets see here, the state of California is teaching gay and lesbian history. The Obama administration had a safe schools czar who started an organization aimed at teaching gay and lesbian studies in schools. He just resigned. But if you want to research him and learn about the kind of materials he taught 14 year old kids, there are plenty of links from this big government article.
http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2011/06/21/good-riddance-obamas-radical-safe-schools-czar-hits-the-skids/
"And who’s “push(ing) it on the churches”?":
Oh please, the left is constantly crying bigotry against churches for not allowing gay marriage, just like they cried racism for not supporting Obama, for the purpose of using political correctness to sway the argument and actions of others in their favor. It's a classic liberal tactic. Then they push their agenda on children in school and leave the church out of the argument for the purpose of undermining the church and the Judeo-Christian values which founded this country.
the way the liberals use “gay rights” as propaganda for their cause
You know, the left has been screaming for decades that if a Republican is elected he will overturn Roe v Wade and make it illegal to be gay. Well, we have had Republican Presidents for 20 of the last 32 years, and there hasn't been even one bill proposed to do anything to restrict the rights of gays and there have been no court fights initiated to overturn RvW. It's all a big smokescreen put up to disguise the real issues.
As long as the sheeple worry about the little things that mean nothing in the long run the easier it is for the politicians to keep screwing us.
So what are your plans? Write in Ron? Might as well just vote for Sock Puppet.
At this juncture, ANY Republican is better then them. Even Romney.
I don't think any Republican is better. I hear people saying this, but I don't buy it. We are 15 trillion dollars in debt, our Constitution is being dismantled, all of our freedoms are being taken away, and you think "any Republican" will change this. All we'll get from generic, nice hair, Republican is Obama light. Instead of being 21 trillion in debt 4 years from now we will be 20.5 trillion under generic Republican. Instead of conservatives fighting against the loss of freedoms under Obama, they will be championing them just like they did with the Patriot Act. All because the guy has an (R) after his name.
We are in some serious s*** right now, and "anybody but Obama" is not going to fix it. Sure a generic Republican may slow it down (I'm not convinced Romney will btw) but what about the election after that.
Both parties are tearing apart the Constitution (remember the NDAA got through with a Republican congress). No one is talking seriously about ending the welfare state. No one is talking seriously about enforcing our borders. No one is talking seriously about no longer throwing the lives of our troops away for nothing. No one is talking seriously about balancing the budget and paying off the debt.
If Obama wins or Romney wins, in 2016 nothing will have changed and we will have big government as usual. We will have more debt, more people on welfare, more dead troops, and for what? For "any Republican but Obama?" I would rather see Obama win now, because I really believe another 4 years of soft tyranny under him will wake up enough Americans to elect a candidate who will actually restore the Constitution. Generic Republican Number 1 is going to produce the same crap Obama has, just a little slower, which may keep enough people asleep about the affairs of our country that there might not be any turning back. We are at a historic moment in our country, I think the next 10-20 years are make or break for us and I don't think a generic Republican is the answer.
That is why I think all this hoorah over who will be in the Whitehouse is so silly. There are 535 other fools in Washinton, 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen, who are putting policies and spending bills on the Presidents desk. All the President can do is sign what hits the desk and where do these bills come from?
We need more than a fool in charge, we need to get rid of the career politicians who draft and push the laws that hit the fools desk. Until the voters in this country get rid of the Pelosi's and Reid's in both chambers nothing much will ever change. Real change comes from home and it's time people got the message.
I don't think any of the assholes we have in DC, or the ones we want to replace them will fix things. I think we need to get our states to assert our rights, and start protecting their citizens for a change. Tired of subsidizing welfare states,
Yeah, Romney *does* tend to come down firmly on *both* sides of every issue. Heh. Still better than Barry.
You pegged Mitt spot on with that comment. And because you are correct - tell me the difference between Mitt and Barry. In my opinion it is 0. There is NO difference in noBama 2012 and the Mittster.
Well, I look at it this way: Barry is *actively* destroying the nation as we speak. Mitt might or might not do it. I'd take a potential arsonist over an actual one in the act -- but would definitely prefer someone else.
No, the weakest presidential candidate field in the year when they had the greatest possibility of winning was 2008, when it was Hillary vs Barry, and the loser won.
...and then *we* lost.
None of the ones in this year's GOP field are all that weak -- only the talking heads think so, and that's because nobody *wuvs* their Mitt. I'd take *any* of them over King Putt any day. Even Romney's taken dumps more qualified than Barry.
I was just over at Drudge, and they had a poll at the top of the page: "Pick a GOP presidential candidate." I went down the list, shook my head, curled up in the corner and cried.
Not me. Love them, or hate them, none of these candidates made a career out of sealing their past off from scrutiny and voting "present". Barry was the present nobody wants -- like getting an enema bag for Christmas -- something only the Obloviator could love.
Not me. Love them, or hate them, none of these candidates made a career out of sealing their past off from scrutiny and voting “present”.
**********************
Neither did Obama. But, hey, when your party's list of possibilities is essentially a clown parade, I can understand your need to repeat lies about the opposition. ;)
You have already admitted that you'd vote for what you feel is the best candidate, but only if it's a donk. So what the hell would you know about Republicans? You're so biased, you wouldn't vote for one even if, say, the Mittster was Barry's identical twin, separated at birth, but not by one bit of ideology -- so your point of view is invalid. It'd be like me voting on the new robes in your Klan Klavern or whatever the hell it is that you skinheads call it these days.
I'd say your opinion was unwanted, but it doesn't even have that much sanity behind it.
Kudos on being able to click on "REPLY TO THIS SPECIFIC COMMENT" -- did you have mommy help you?
So, My Dear Sweet Olivia. Maybe you can show us where we can find Mr. Obama's college transcripts?
flashingscotsman:"where we can find Mr. Obama's college transcripts?"
I've heard such inquiries should be made to Hawaii's Department of Births. Or was it Indonesia's Department of Births?
More like the Photoshop Department of Fake Documents!
***when your party’s list of possibilities is essentially a clown parade, I can understand your need to repeat lies about the opposition. ;)***
So that's your excuses huh? Finally felt the spirit of truth eh Olivia?