Why no decent Republican candidates?

[GarfieldJL]

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.

Gingrich left congress far enough back that he isn't tied to some things like the housing crisis, and he knows how congress operates.

Also Gingrich's "ethics violation" stemmed from the fact he was teaching a college class on the side (plus his lawyer screwed up on some paperwork), and he later ended up being cleared after he left office.

The person that headed the investigation was Nancy Pelosi, she and others have gotten away with things like Insider Trading.

Teaching a college class vs. insider trading, the public is more likely to side with Gingrich.

Chris Christie is unlikely to win the Republican Primary (and for good reason), he also is unlikely to win in the general.

Ted Cruz is a good senator, but I'm not sure if he would be a good President (though that may change by 2016).

 

[stamperben]

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!!!

And when Texas goes blue there's no way they can ever take the White House. Not as they are now.

 

[SnowCal]

Herman Cain sunk his own battleship. I realize that he, like every other candidate in that primary who wasn't named Huntsman, had his 2 weeks of fame. But the guy sunk as it became more than apparent that he had no clue what he was talking about. Foreign policy in particular, but the domestic stuff was a minefield for him too.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

And when Texas goes blue there's no way they can ever take the White House. Not as they are now.

1984.

 

[Savior2006]

Gingrich left congress far enough back that he isn't tied to some things like the housing crisis, and he knows how congress operates.

Also Gingrich's "ethics violation" stemmed from the fact he was teaching a college class on the side (plus his lawyer screwed up on some paperwork), and he later ended up being cleared after he left office.

The person that headed the investigation was Nancy Pelosi, she and others have gotten away with things like Insider Trading.

Teaching a college class vs. insider trading, the public is more likely to side with Gingrich.

Chris Christie is unlikely to win the Republican Primary (and for good reason), he also is unlikely to win in the general.

Ted Cruz is a good senator, but I'm not sure if he would be a good President (though that may change by 2016).

I didn't really know about any of Newt's "ethics violations" but people stumble on those every once in a while.. Why is Christie unlikely to win the Republican primary?

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

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.

I'm not American, but....
If I were, I would have voted for Obama before voting for Paul. And that's coming from a guy who from the beginning has always believed that Obama was the wrong choice.

 

[[serious]]

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."

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.

On both sides it's a product of our political system. I'm not sure it can be resolved without addressing the system that gave rise to it.

The issue is that the parties need both people and money, but not entirely at the same time. During the primary, they are pandering to the base, but not even all the base. They are pandering to the die hard fringe of the base. This is why you get on the right a mix of people crazy fringe enough to actually believe the nonsense and those who are forced to pay lip service to it. When faced with that unfortunate choice, the guy who is sane but will say whatever he needs to say wins out. At the same time, politicians need to serve their other masters, those who fund their campaigns.

Christie might actually be an outlier here. He appears to have a willingness to say what he actually thinks without holding any out and out crazy notions. As long as he doesn't try and fringe it up for the primary like I think McCain did, he could be a VERY solid republican candidate.

What we need to do is stop buying the line that every election is this emergency and if the other guy is elected the world will end. We need to stop voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for who we want.

 

[technofox]

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.

Ditto here.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I didn't really know about any of Newt's "ethics violations" but people stumble on those every once in a while.. Why is Christie unlikely to win the Republican primary?

Because in the wake of Sandy, Christie committed the two unpardonable sins of praising Obama for his speedy aid and blasting the Party for dragging their feet -- to the point where some Conservatives actually blamed him for Romney's loss.

Conservatives Blaming Chris Christie For Romney’s Loss

 

[technofox]

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!!

Are you serious or sarcastic?

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Are you serious or sarcastic?

Probably serious, which means that her knowledge about....basically anything isn't all that extensive.
Heck, I'm not American, and even I know better than that...

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I'm fairly sure that the GOP in its current phase isn't focused on satisfying the Christian Right/the Evangelicals at all. They are a bloc that will vote straight Republican no matter what and every step in their direction (anti-abortion, anti-gay rights etc.) is a major turn-off for the 20-30 crowd as a whole, who at the moment sympathize with the Democratic Party on these issues by a wide margin.

 

[Thunder Peel]

Are you serious or sarcastic?

I thought the same thing. Someone seriously needs to get out more and actually talk to Republicans about what they believe instead of just drawing on talking points and stereotypes.

The GOP has some great candidates but many of them are up-and-coming, not the current batch. Most of the current party has gone too moderate and has failed to stand on the pillars that used to define the party (low taxes, smaller government, controlled spending, etc.). Moderates are unelectable because conservatives won't vote for them, preferring to stay home or vote third party. I find it funny that Democrats keep saying we need to run a moderate in order to win. Why? Moderates lost the last two elections and Dems will always vote for each other. They're not going to vote for a moderate Republican so it's a moot point anyway.

Republicans MUST run a real, proven conservative in 2016 in order to have any chance of winning. They've been crushed in two elections with moderate candidates and they will lose again by following that same strategy. I think many Democrats want moderates to keep running because they know they're easy to beat. Why would the GOP take their advice when they're against them every step of the way? They'd be better off actually listening to what their voters want.

 

[jayem]

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.

There was one in the last election. But Repub primary voters wouldn't give him the time of day:

And there's another outstanding and accomplished Republican who could be a terrific candidate for national office:

 

[Yoder777]

There are two things I have against Rice:
Did she do enough to respond to the intelligence warnings before 9/11? And why was she buying shoes during Hurricane Katrina?

 

[Yoder777]

The most compelling argument for supporting pro-life candidates is that if an elected official can't be trusted on defending the rights of the unborn, how can they be trusted in defending anyone's rights?

 

[Received]

The problem here, Yoder777, is that you're using a tactic that's incommensurate with hyper-conservative (Republican) tactics.

Rationality.

 

[Savior2006]

Because in the wake of Sandy, Christie committed the two unpardonable sins of praising Obama for his speedy aid and blasting the Party for dragging their feet -- to the point where some Conservatives actually blamed him for Romney's loss.

Conservatives Blaming Chris Christie For Romney’s Loss

Hmmmm...I remember Sistrin saying that Christie should shut up but I suppose I underestimated the conservative negativity.

 

[Savior2006]

There was one in the last election. But Repub primary voters wouldn't give him the time of day:

And there's another outstanding and accomplished Republican who could be a terrific candidate for national office:

Whose the first one?

 

[Boondock_Saint]

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.

The Libertarian was the best Candidate. It is just that most Republicans are afraid to vote anything other than Republican. To do so would give Democrats landslide victories. There are better candidates. They just aren't in our party. :o