Paging Conservatives: The 2012 Republican POTUS Candidates

[Direckshun]

This is a thread specifically for Republicans and conservatives on this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that just about every one of you really don't like Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate against Obama. That may not be universally true of all of you folks, but I'd think it's true of much of you, if not nearly all of you.

At the same time, outside of the minority of you who were big on Ron Paul, Romney was unquestionably the best candidate for your party out of the primaries, was he not? At least among the people who were doing anything in the polls. Santorum led at one point, as did Michelle Bachmann but I think all the DC conservatives here hate both. I don't think a single one of you have an ounce of respect for Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain as POTUS candidates (my apologies if you actually do). And Rick Perry was... well, Rick Perry.

Yes, I know most of you would prefer almost all those folks to Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that this seemed like a particularly weak crop.

I am not a conservative or a Republican, but I think compared to previous primary fields for your party, this was a very weak cycle in terms of POTUS candidates.

My question is -- why do you think that is? Why do you think we had such a weak crop of POTUS candidates for your party?

Because right now, it really does seem like the GOP has a deeper bench of people that have Presidential timber than do the Democrats, who outside of Obama and Hillary Clinton, don't really have much of a bench at all. And yet... these candidates didn't seem to have their shit together.

I'm just interested in picking your brains. I'm not even remotely interested in debating or arguing, just wanted to see what your points of view on the subject might be.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by ChiTown

fyp

You think Obama is a U.S. apologist?

[Iowanian]

yes.

[ChiefaRoo]

Obama has got to go for the good of us all.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

yes.

Do you know what an apologist is? Have you ever heard of the term "Christian apologist?"

[Iowanian]

He was apologizing all over the middle east last week because of their own barbarism.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by LOCOChief

I think another thing that should be very telling is the differences in moral character between Obama supporters and Romney's.

Haha

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by headsnap

It says a lot when it's the Left that's claiming you picked the wrong candidate...

It seems that obvious this time around.

[Baby Lee]

We're in a really surreal time fiscally. It seems as if an exponentially expanding sector of the populace are realizing that our path is unsustainable, but are in turn scared to death that, since we put ourselves on this path long ago, continuing to go down it is the only way to survive.

We guiltily realize that we cannot continue to rely on government entitlements at the level we do. But we also fear that without entitlements there will be no source for our needs.

We're like that sad sack at the blackjack table who know's we lost our shirt, but if we don't continue to play we're going to have to walk out of the casino empty handed.

So we know deep down we need to eat our vegetables, but we're in no mood for the greengrocer president. Give us some more of those free government twinkies, just for a little while longer.

Plus, the liberal chattering class both hate and love the social issues. If a fiscally sound candidate is socially conservative as well, then he's a religious wingnut. AND if a fiscally sound candidate is socially liberal or even moderate in one aspect, then they liberal chattering class pound pound POUND how he's not a real conservative.

'Oh no, Giuliani has gay friends.'

'Oh no, Huntsman believes in global warming.'

'Oh no, Rubio is Mexican or something.'

'Oh no, Gingrich has been divorced!!'

Mind, these are not conservative complaints. THey are liberal taunts.

And the tragedy is that conservatives hear this and get cold feet.

'The cool kids are saying this guy isn't right for us. I don't see it. He seems like a great candidate. But what if I'm wrong? What if we lose with him on the ticket?'

Add to this the ever burgeoning factor that a presidential campaign is not something good people have the stomach to submit their family to, and the Giulianis, Christies, Hunstmans, et al staying out of the race or dropping out early on.

I'm fine with Romney. I've never been particularly enthusiastic about him, but that's more a function of optics. If elected I have faith that he'll do a good job. But getting there, I've seen long ago that his vulnerabilities would be exploited much as they have to date.

He's wealthy. The manner he created his wealth is legitimate but hard to explain to traditional wage earners.

He's a solidly charitable and compassionate man, but his faith structure mandates that he not publicize that fact. So the way is cleared to distribute the narrative that he hoards his wealth and only cares about the wealthy, when the truth is the polar opposite.

He believes that individual, local, community compassion is superior to faceless federal entitlement, but he also believes that those actual acts of individual, local community compassion are private matters. This leaves the conundrum of a powerful message that should be widely applauded, but should not be promoted, just somehow understood. People aren't mind-readers, though.

In sum, I freely admit that he's an unpopular candidate, but fully believe that, if elected, would become a highly popular leader.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

It might also be nice to have one who would meet world leaders during times of turmoil instead of sending the candidate who will run for the seat he's about to lose so he can go on The View.

I don't get this meeting world leaders thing that the right keeps bringing up. You act like we live in the stone age or something.

Ever heard of the phone, email, or web conferencing? Try it sometime.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

He was apologizing all over the middle east last week because of their own barbarism.

Well, not really. But if you insist on making that claim that he apologizes for the U.S., I think it's probably best to avoid using the term "Apologist" which is understood to mean "A person who defends with reason." I think the term "Apologizer" is better for those purposes, but it would be best to come up with a word that didn't risk deluting our Greek intellectual heritage. "Atoner," "Pardonee," "Deprecator," "Bewailer."

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I don't get this meeting world leaders thing that the right keeps bringing up. You act like we live in the stone age or something.

Ever heard of the phone, email, or web conferencing? Try it sometime.

I KNOW!!!

That RWNJ Jon Stewart did a full segment on it last night.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

I KNOW!!!

That RWNJ Jon Stewart did a full segment on it last night.

And then the King of Jordan said that the whole thing was probably being exaggerated and no actual country really cared that Obama didn't have personal meetings.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

AND if a fiscally sound candidate is socially liberal or even moderate in one aspect, then they liberal chattering class pound pound POUND how he's not a real conservative.

'Oh no, Giuliani has gay friends.'

'Oh no, Huntsman believes in global warming.'

'Oh no, Rubio is Mexican or something.'

'Oh no, Gingrich has been divorced!!'

Mind, these are not conservative complaints. THey are liberal taunts.

And the tragedy is that conservatives hear this and get cold feet.

And yet liberals can make do with the taunts of 'Oh no, Obama was born in Kenya and hates America or something.' You're giving a pretty weak narrative of how the Republican party decides who its candidates will be. Most of these are huge exaggerations. For instance, Guiliani was never attacked for having gay friends by anyone as far as I remember; he was attacked for running entirely on 9/11.

[CoMoChief]

Ron Paul would put a clown suit on Obama in a debate

[ChiTown]

Originally Posted by Literature

Well, not really. But if you insist on making that claim that he apologizes for the U.S., I think it's probably best to avoid using the term "Apologist" which is understood to mean "A person who defends with reason." I think the term "Apologizer" is better for those purposes, but it would be best to come up with a word that didn't risk deluting our Greek intellectual heritage. "Atoner," "Pardonee," "Deprecator," "Bewailer."