Why no decent Republican candidates?

[Yoder777]

Why can't there be a Republican presidential candidate who is strongly pro-life without just paying lip service to the religious right, who cares about fiscal responsibility while also protecting the poor and vulnerable, who doesn't want to start more needless wars, and who doesn't show contempt for minorities, young people, and women? Such a candidate would have easily had my vote. If you think Romney deserved your vote, Google "Romney" and "Stericycle."

 

[Received]

IOW, why can't we have a Republican from the mid-twentieth century?

Dunno. I know I would vote for Ike in four milliseconds over so-called liberal Bamster.

 

[Marius27]

Because Republicans can't win without pandering to the religious right. And when they do so, they alienate the intelligent, independent voters with their extreme 16th century views.

 

[Yoder777]

I honestly believe that there may have been a conspiracy in the Republican primaries that prevented better candidates like Ron Paul from receiving the nomination.

Either way, they should have offered a better alternative to Obama rather than just expecting that anyone could win against him, no matter how bad.

 

[HalfoffSale]

I honestly believe that there may have been a conspiracy in the Republican primaries that prevented better candidates like Ron Paul from receiving the nomination.

Either way, they should have offered a better alternative to Obama rather than just expecting that anyone could win against him, no matter how bad.

Speaking of the primaries, why can't we have any candidates that vary on anything? Those debates went on for 17 months, yet the candidates views were almost identical so we learned nothing and had no debate and had no real choice. Of course, when a party member does have a differing opinion, like being for gay marriage, he's literally kicked out of the GOP party. It feels like they're trying to sell people a brand rather than creating a brand appealing to people.

 

[Savior2006]

I honestly believe that there may have been a conspiracy in the Republican primaries that prevented better candidates like Ron Paul from receiving the nomination.

Of all the conspiracies in the world, I could probably believe that one.

Either way, they should have offered a better alternative to Obama rather than just expecting that anyone could win against him, no matter how bad.

Yes.

 

[stamperben]

Speaking of the primaries, why can't we have any candidates that vary on anything? Those debates went on for 17 months, yet the candidates views were almost identical so we learned nothing and had no debate and had no real choice. Of course, when a party member does have a differing opinion, like being for gay marriage, he's literally kicked out of the GOP party. It feels like they're trying to sell people a brand rather than creating a brand appealing to people.

Bingo!

 

[Yoder777]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0glY_OBkRA

Like Nixon, Clinton and Bush before him, Obama's second term will likely be derailed by scandals.

 

[abysmul]

The Republican Party leaders are an establishment party, they are a big government party only interested in their status-quo of remaining personally in power.

Outsiders, non-establishment types, are a threat and the Party treats them like so.

 

[Yoder777]

Richard Nixon was a very charismatic president who won re-election by a landslide. He knew very well how to appeal to the average voter. The facade didn't crumble until after his involvement in Watergate became undeniable. I think Obama will suffer the same fate. It's so depressing that Romney was the best the Republicans had to offer against Obama.

 

[variant]

It's so depressing that Romney was the best the Republicans had to offer against Obama.

He wasn't, he was the best that they had out of the people who wanted to run against Obama's second term. A lot of good candidates didn't join in because it's not the best opportunity.

Although the hard right social conservative folks that might appeal to you probably don't have a great chance at winning.

Bush Jr did some damage to the idea and he is the best you could possibly hope for, but it's not the direction the country is going in.

 

[Savior2006]

It feels like they're trying to sell people a brand rather than creating a brand appealing to people.

It's exactly what they are doing. I look forward to it costing them elections in the future.

 

[GarfieldJL]

I honestly believe that there may have been a conspiracy in the Republican primaries that prevented better candidates like Ron Paul from receiving the nomination.

Either way, they should have offered a better alternative to Obama rather than just expecting that anyone could win against him, no matter how bad.

Ron Paul was not a good candidate, however I will agree that there was a lot of funny stuff that went on to give Romney the nomination...

Ron Paul had some good points on the domestic front, but was even worse on foreign policy than Obama.

I do think Newt Gingrich could have done substancially better in the general election than Romney did.

 

[Savior2006]

Ron Paul was not a good candidate, however I will agree that there was a lot of funny stuff that went on to give Romney the nomination...

Ron Paul had some good points on the domestic front, but was even worse on foreign policy than Obama.

I do think Newt Gingrich could have done substancially better in the general election than Romney did.

So would you pick Gingrich? People seem to be talking about Ted Cruz and Chris Christie (albeit a tad prematurely). Honestly, I'd prefer Christie.

 

[morningstar2651]

Speaking of the primaries, why can't we have any candidates that vary on anything? Those debates went on for 17 months, yet the candidates views were almost identical so we learned nothing and had no debate and had no real choice. Of course, when a party member does have a differing opinion, like being for gay marriage, he's literally kicked out of the GOP party. It feels like they're trying to sell people a brand rather than creating a brand appealing to people.

^^This.

Watching the Republican debates, I watched a bunch of people disagree to agree. They all had strikingly similar platforms, and they all criticized eachother's strikingly similar platforms. It was weird. It was like watching a sports game where everyone wants to be the star player, so they backstab their teammates so they look better, but the team loses horribly in the process.

The whole "Anybody but Obama" attitude of the last election reeked of the "Anybody but Bush" of the 2004 election, and we all know how that strategy worked for the Democrats.

I'd like to see a good moderate Republican candidate in the next election. Someone who won't alienate the moderates that sit on the fence between Democrat and Republican.

I've said it before: The people that are far left or far right will always vote for their party - be it Republican or Democrat. It's not their vote the party needs to win by campaigning. It's the moderates - the liberal Republicans, the conservative Democrats, and the moderate independents. These people are the ones to appeal to.

 

[morningstar2651]

So would you pick Gingrich? People seem to be talking about Ted Cruz and Chris Christie (albeit a tad prematurely). Honestly, I'd prefer Christie.

I haven't researched Christie in-depth yet, but I like what I've heard.

 

[SnowCal]

Why can't there be a Republican presidential candidate who is strongly pro-life without just paying lip service to the religious right, who cares about fiscal responsibility while also protecting the poor and vulnerable, who doesn't want to start more needless wars, and who doesn't show contempt for minorities, young people, and women? Such a candidate would have easily had my vote. If you think Romney deserved your vote, Google "Romney" and "Stericycle."

They're called Democrats. There's a respectable pro-life wing in the party. The most prominent member I can think of was Tom Daschle though he left those views prior to his political height. Most are Catholic. You may not have one on your ballot but they do have presence in the legislature.

 

[Christian7PraiseJesus]

Why can't there be a Republican presidential candidate who is strongly pro-life without just paying lip service to the religious right, who cares about fiscal responsibility while also protecting the poor and vulnerable, who doesn't want to start more needless wars, and who doesn't show contempt for minorities, young people, and women? Such a candidate would have easily had my vote. If you think Romney deserved your vote, Google "Romney" and "Stericycle."

Because being against abortion is against women controlling their bodies...

and 'fiscal responsibility' is a euphemism for let the poor, the sick, and the needy die... they need MORE help desperately!! It also is against affirmative action and opportunistic programs to aid being lifted up.

I'll never vote Republican ever!! I disagree with them 99.9% of the time and no way can they do such a switch to agree with me so much in a short amount of time! They'll just have to disappear or go LEFT/Liberal.

It'll be easy to take them out, California has most of the electorate and NO way are we going to vote against progress and aid to the poor, sick, and minorities, women!! The Northeast is also liberal/left mostly and they'll vote for the next democrat, Ohio and Indiana will easily be Democrat. Washington, Oregon, will easily be Democrat... and that sews up the election right there!!!

Democrats for progress, unions, aid to the poor sick, equality, public/college education, technology, space program, universal healthcare, environment, improvement and hope win!!!!! And will win again. They're also anti-war and anti-death penalty and for guns to disappear. International communication with United Nations and aid during disasters, also immigration!!

What's not to love about the Democrats? Only .01% I disagree with! And the majority of the country agrees, the next win in 2014 and 2016 is a sure win. Can't wait!!

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

We have a good group of up and coming Republicans for the 2016 election, hopefully more aligned with Ronald Reagan than Mitt Romney. After Obama, I'll probably never vote for another Democrat. Hillary will get crushed if she wins the primaries. Hopefully they will all be pro-life. Liberals are a minority, and conservatives outnumber them by 2:1, so all we need is a decent GOP candidate and the election is over before the campaigning begins! But, we need some diversity, which is why I support Rubio and possibly the conservative black pediatric neurosurgeon.

 

[Wolseley]

Why can't there be a Republican presidential candidate who is strongly pro-life without just paying lip service to the religious right, who cares about fiscal responsibility while also protecting the poor and vulnerable, who doesn't want to start more needless wars, and who doesn't show contempt for minorities, young people, and women? Such a candidate would have easily had my vote. If you think Romney deserved your vote, Google "Romney" and "Stericycle."

You won't get decent candidates from either party any more, because any candidate who actually gets the nomination has to come up through one of the two party machines.

Every so often somebody who's outside the machine comes along with enough money to launch a viable campaign; Ross Perot and Herman Cain are a couple of good examples----and when that happens, the media and the parties kick into overdrive to discredit that outsider by whatever means they have to, because the idea of somebody outside of their control in high office quite frankly terrifies them. They attack the outsider's family, they dig up sexual peccadilloes from thirty years ago that they would never think of digging into with one of their own. It's nasty, gangster-style politics, but that's what you get with the two major parties, who will do whatever it takes to make sure that they remain in power.

I sense, however, that we may be seeing a breakdown in the two major parties, and their system. We're seeing more people who identify themselves as Independants than ever before, and popular trust and support of both Congress and the White House are very, very low. Yes, you're aways going to have your party loyalists who swallow all the propaganda fed to them by the media, and puke it back up at appropriate moments, but I sense that Joe Sixpack and his relatives pretty much have a "pox on both their houses" attitude that's healthy and growing when it comes to the two major parties.