What say you, and why?
Thursday, August 8, 2013
It's Never Too Early....
Ok friends, who will the GOP nominee be in 2016? The rule here is that just because you make a pick does not mean that is who you are supporting.
My guess? Chris Christie. He'll be a media favorite, but after a bruising primary, he'll be the guy the Party turns to in order to give Hillary the best run for her money.
What say you, and why?
What say you, and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Rand Paul all the Way Baby!
Why, Anonymous?
You asked who would be there, not who should be there. The electorate is tired of the triangulation that produced Dole, McCain and Romney. They will not choose Christie, they will pivot to the Right, and probably lose.
And you think Rand Paul is a "pivot to the right"?
Lee Irby
Marco Rubio. Democratic nomination is HRC's for the taking. In my mind he's the only viable Republican opponent to her candidacy.
Christie won't be the nominee. Despite their current love affair with him post-Sandy, the unions in Jersey will turn on him (next contract renewal for NJ aligns rather well with the primary schedule). I am convinced it was one of the reasons he didn't run last time. I would like to see a Governor be the nominee since they have administrative experience (something lacking these days). I think Bobby Jindal would have a better shot than Christie. My dark horse is John Thune. Met him at the RNC last year. Great guy and seems to have a good head on his shoulders. This time last cycle, no one even considered Obama. I think you will see something similar next time.
Christie has no shot whatsoever. NJ has high taxes and unemployment. He has not made one attempt as Governor to restrict abortion access. And he is pro civil union for gay couples. He'll get killed in the primaries.
How about Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman as a dark horse. He is done closing out his second full term as governor, and he is up against a term limit. Solid conservative. He cut taxes, signed an abortion restriction law into place, and as far as I know he carries no baggage.
Rand Paul
Christie - he has the recognition and "big" voice the GOP needs.
Chris Christie will get crushed in the primaries. I say Rick Perry: (1) He will benefit from Republican Buggins turn predilections (2) Rand Paul will actually make him look not crazy by comparison (3) He will spend 2 years and untold millions preparing for it.
Rick Perry is very high on my list. Very high.
When is the last time the GoP lost a Presidential election because their candidate was too conservative? Goldwater?
With one foot in the left camp and another foot in the right, we've had too many candidates who leave the same base who handed John Boehner his speakership with the 2010 election, feeling unenthused about hitting the polling booth on election day. I used to love Christie, used to.
But whether it is Chris Christie or Christie Brinkely, Rand Paul or Rupaul, Rick Perry or Katy Perry, I have this dreaded fear that the electorate will once again choose PC over substance and elect "What Difference at this Point Does It Make" Clinton whose singular accomplishment as SECSTATE was that she accumulated more frequent flier miles than her predecessors.
Good Lord. Everyone used to wet themselves talking about how qualified she was just for having been FLOTUS (and a particularly shitty one at that). Now that she's punched a couple tickets with the most magnificently underwhelming SECSTATE performance in recent history, I can just imagine how worshipful the faithful legions will be. God help us all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324136204578642003851557518.html?KEYWORDS=Medved
Mudge--Michael Medved takes on the "we lose because our guy isn't conservative enough" meme. I tend to agree with him.
Governor Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina. By the time the primaries come about the others will be battered and bruised with all their warts, pimples and failings made known to the public.
Phillip Jennings A former colleague wrote; ‘A Moral Obscenity’
Editorial of The New York Sun | August 26, 2013
“What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable. And despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.”
* * *
So said Secretary of State Kerry today in summoning us to war in Syria. We kept expecting him to say that they had “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war . . .”
It turns out that the business about rape and ears and heads and genitals, that was Young Kerry, then still a lieutenant junior grade in the Navy Reserve, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about what he said we did. He was dressed in the remnant of his fatigues, on which were mounted the medals he failed to throw away. He had already been to Paris, to meet with enemy agents and to return to spout their talking points in the American political debate.
We would never urge an American GI to refuse lawful orders of an American president, and we do not do so here. We simply note that Mr. Kerry wants to rouse the country in a war where the slaughter has been, in its tens or hundreds of thousands, but a fraction of the numbers that perished in Indochina once Mr. Kerry did his part in winning our retreat from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. He did so by casting his own comrades in arms as the war criminals, his own country as the villain.
Moral obscenity, indeed. We carry no brief for Bashir al-Assad. We carry no brief for the Islamists who are in arms against the Syrian regime. What we do is predict that if the President takes us into this war and if there is an escalation — if, say, Russia or Iran enters the lists — then neither Mr. Obama nor the next president nor America itself will be able to count on Mr. Kerry. If the going gets rough, he’ll prove to be a summer soldier and fall away, maybe to go treat with the enemy at a future parley at Paris. We’ve always said that history has a way of playing its tricks.
PEJ: As I have written in books and lectured for years--Kerry is a dangerous dope. He has proved himself to be a coward and liar. Forget where Obama was born or what he learned at the feet of his communist teachers and mentors, when he nominated Kerry for Sec State we knew what kind of "change" he wanted. There is nothing good that can result from Kerry bumbling around in foreign lands.
I agree w/ those above who indicated that Chris Christie will not be so popular come Republican Primary time. Though I think Marco Rubio would've been a favorite, I don't think folks will forget that he got duped by "Chuck You" Schumer on "comprehensive" immigration reform.
I agree w/ the earlier sentiment that it should be a Governor for the executive experience. What about Mitch Daniels? Also, don't forget about Scott Walker.
Finally, right now, I tend to agree w/ Mudge's sentiments that the same folks who voted for Obama because they "wanted to give a black guy a chance" will do the same "give a woman a chance" thing for HRC. That said, wasn't the 2008 primary supposed to be the HRC "coronation" and look how that turned out.
Post a Comment