I'm pretty apprehensive about the effects a second Obama term may have on my abillity to keep my fathers company running. My father put his heart, soul and a lot of his income into his company, and didn't take much out of it. Like a retirement plan. He's going to be relying on me to keep the company going so that it can pay him back. I think that under "normal" circumstances I wouldn't have so much apprehension. The last three or four years have whittled away at the foundation of this company. I fear that an additional four years may cause a breach in the foundation. These are extraordinary times, with a lot of people being apprehensive.

There will be an alternative. The GOP is going to offer up someone who we are supposed to relax with. I'm not so pleased with the offerings. The guy I was hoping would gain favor with a majority of people is no longer in the race. The people who I believe would bring the climate closer to "normal" are not winning the popularity contest.

Our choices are once again, moldy bread or a moldy roll. I'd really like something fresh for a change, but I guess the American people don't like "change" as much as they led us to believe in '08.

A second term for the current Idol winner, to me, would push the cart over the top to the point where it cannot be stopped. I will vote for whoever is not the current occupier of the White House. Perhaps, in fact likely, reluctantly. I hope though that the nomination process at least gives us the lesser of the evils.

We might want to check this site out: http://www.newtcantwin.com/

A lot of us might like this guy. Believe that he is smart and savvy. There is enough on this site to lead one to belive that he may not be the lesser of the evils after all.

 

If the GOP nominates a candidate that doesn't appeal to you, perhaps a Third Party candidate will emerge that you can get excited about.

 

An interesting and enlightening read; thanks for posting.

 

I have no idea why the GOP field has bowed to the MSM trashing the candidates.

The typical strong arm Chicago politics took out any with real experience at the start. They knew they could use the real world experience against Obama's being in politics since 1997, and most of that time was spent campaigning, so out come the guns as soon as could be done. If you trash them before they get off the ground, 9 out of 10 times that cooks it for them.

The Mitt vs Newt conversation ( or any of the top 4 in the current crop ) is a non starter.

Neither have the appeal to get those voters that are middle of the road voters, or the bulk of those that would vote for a 3rd party, and steal votes from the side that could have won.
Look to 1992 for an example of a 3rd party splitting votes on the losing side.
So while the 3rd party did not get a single electoral vote, they changed where the electoral votes went in the end.

Sorry wittom, I do not feel good about this one. I see a lame field being put up for consideration. It all starts in earnest next month, so here it comes, hold on.

I think the results of the early primaries will be the bell weather.

If Newt has a strong showing, look to companies to rein in spending, I would even go as far to say reductions in workers will happen, adding another 0.5 %+ to the UE rolls.
If Mitt has more of a lead, they might not contract, but don't look for any expansion either, this would point to ~ 1.1% growth rate until the election time. After that, depends on the composition of the 113th congress, as to what things are going to look like economic wise.

 

I don't see things changing much if Romney or Gingrich get the nomination. Having said that, either one would be the lesser of two evils compared to Obama. Isn't it funny how elections always seem to end up that way?

Ron Paul would be the best choice as far as freedom and free market capitalism for all, but the media has a large section of America convinced he is a nut job, when his views are almost entirely in line with the founder' views.

 

I'm not much of a fan of Ron Paul. He has interesting ideas, but he either lacks foresight or he is pandering to the far right when he says things like he is going to get rid of DHS. All but one organization in DHS was around before DHS was developed. He can split up DHS back to the pre-911 organization and cut the pay of the workers, but in the long run that will cost more money, since he will have to hire more people to do the same job.

Romney I don't trust and is most definitely a RINO.

Gingrich is the most conservative, but unelectable, due to his Congressional record and personal life.

I liked Cain, but knew once the sex scandals came out he was done for. I didn't matter if they were true or not, they were going to keep coming out until he quit. He is a smart man and some of the stuff they claimed occurred would not have happened and he would have known would come out to bite him. Things like cutting off his "girlfriend" a few months before the campaign. Any idiot who has dealt with women knows that she will feel spurned and will do anything to get back.

I'm not really excited about any of the other candidates. Once Cain dropped out I really have lost interest in the GOP. I'll most likely be voting against Obama rather than for a GOP candidate.

 

Pretty much my feelings as well. Cain would have been my choice.

 

Cain here too. Ron Paul would be awesome if he was elected but like above poster said the media controls the elections now. Sad sad state we are in as far as that goes.

 

I was also liking Cain.

Of the remainder, Hunstman just needs to hang it up. Maybe a nice guy, but not a conservative and no chance. Just taking up space.

Bachman is a conservative and continues to improve her composure, but I think she is a real long shot.

Santourm - I really like him and wish he was doing better, but unless he gets a huge boost from the early primaries, he needs to realize its not his time.

Perry - Used to like him when I knew little about him and he emerged as an alternative, but he just does not impress me anymore. Kind of wish he would drop out.

Paul - Bright guy, love most of his domestic agenda. HATE his foreign policy positions, as I truly believe he does not recognize the danger heading our way from the Islamic world. Therefore, he is out of the running for me. IMO, he does get heat from conservative media on his foreign policy, but the mainstream media is NOT demonizing him. I think the Dems secretly hope he will run as a 3rd party candidate and hand the election to Obama. He might just be crazy enough to do it, too.

Gingrich - Tons of baggage and not sure I really trust him. But on occasion I find him very impressive. Would be worlds better than Obama, and I do think he would eat Obama up in the debates.

Romney - Also not sure how conserative he really is, or if I like his balance between pragmatism and conservatism. He is pretty composed and would probably make a good president, but I don't like the feel that the GOP is shoving him down our throat. however, on occaision he does impress me, and he seems Presidential. Would also eat Obama alive in debates, IMO.

Bottom line is whoever gets selected will have $1 billion in attack ads waiting for them from the Dems, so they are all going to get beat up. Get ready for a smearfest. Newt is an easy target for the attacks, but so are Bachman and Paul. Romney a little less so, but he is not immune from the slander that will take place if he gets the nomination.

As for the Republicans, I am sick of the party nominating the McCain and Dole types, who are perceived to be middle of the road. They are bestowing this this mantle on Romney for 2012, which makes me not like Romney as much as I otherwise would.

I think either Gingrich or Romney will be the nominee, and either one will beat Obama unless they cripple each other first. While I see weaknesses in both, I FAR prefer either to John McCain.

 

After the debate last night I have to agree with one thing Ron Paul said. Earmarks are not all bad. Here's my logic: Say the DoD comes to Congress and lays out why they need a billion dollars. They go into great detail listing all of the programs they want to fund. Congress looks at everything and agrees the DoD needs a billion dollars, so they pass a budget giving the DoD a billion dollars. If they don't tell the DoD what to spend that billion dollars on, the DoD can spend it on anything they want. They can easily spend the hundred million dollars they asked for to buy F-22's on C-130's instead. By Congress earmarking the hundred million dollars for F-22's, the DoD can not spend it on C-130's. If they do, they go to jail. Unfortunately earmarks have gotten a bad name because they have been used for pork projects in critter's home districts.

 

I think this is more often the case with them versus the example you give. That is just my opinion, as I have been trained to think the worse of our congressional bodies.
Most of the time I see what I expected, the minor part I am pleasantly surprised.

Your example with the DoD, how hard is it to have a review process that the DoD no longer wants to buy the F-22s but use the same amount of money to purchase C-130s ? This could look like a cover page on the existing approved bill, that has the remove F-22s for X amount, and add C-130s for Y amount. Knowing our govt, this one page would look more like 35.

This way the tax payers know where the money is actually going, not where it should be going, before it is spent.

Look at what happened with the DoE.
If those loans had to be approved do you think the congressional budget committee would have let that massive amount go to Solyndra given the state of the company.
The loan to a company to do production in Europe ( think it was EU, Fisker where the money from the loan was put to capitol spending ).
The loans to Beacon Power to install flywheel plants that are worth a fraction of what they cost ( part regulation by the state, part over spending )

If these loans had to be approved outside the DoE, I think it would have been harder to just hand the company money for the heck of it, with not guarantees as to what it was going to be spent on.
- Put some strings on loans like this, if I get a loan from a bank for a house, I have to spend it on the house. I don't have discretion, why should the govt ?

More training of me, to expect the worst of the govt, don't know if it could be undone in my life time maybe they could correct their image in the next generation.

 

When it comes to spending my tax money I agree, Congress can micro-manage as much as they want. They control the purse strings the amount of "discretionary" spending needs to be limited. I can understand discretionary for emergency situations, but everything else needs to be strictly controlled. Emergency money could just as easily be used like a signature loan. Don't actually give the agency the money (take the loan) until it is needed.

 

I saw much of the debate last night, and thought most performed pretty well.

In terms of politics and world view, I think I line up most closely with Santorum, and it would make me happy if he started getting some traction. Probably not going to happen. I think he needs a little more spark to appeal to a wider range. The ideas are there, though.

Bachman has game and I like her, but my concern is the left and media will go ballistic if she were to be nominated, and ultimately she would be ineffective as President.

Romney and Newt have a lot of differences, and my mood changes frequently on how I veiw them. I'm going to give Romney the slight edge today in my preferences, and I hope he is more conservative than parts of his record.

Perry had a good debate (for him) last night and elevated himself, but I just don't see him crossing the finish line. His record in Texas on jobs is good, but that's just not enough for me.

Hunstman also improved in my eyes last night, but nowhere near enough to be a contender. Being a good ambassador to China and knowing how to deal with the Chinese is great, but we've got more important issues to deal with.

Paul again proved he would be detrimental to national security. Brilliant guy in many respects, but he is way off on his view of the Middle East. In a post debate interiview, he would not rule out running as a 3rd party. If he gets Obama re-elected, I will be distraught.

IMO, Romney will eventually win this nomination and the presidency. I'm OK with that, but my first choice as a conservative would be Santorum.

 

The thread indicates that Cain did help the economy, with regard to razor blade & bumper scrapper sales.

At this point I'd vote for Paul and if he does decide to run Third Party he'd get this vote away from Obama.

 

We have NO REASON to be afraid of Iran. What are we scared of? Death? Are we afraid of Iran because we believe they will kill us? Invade the US? Launch tons of nukes and blow up our Wal-Marts?

First of all, since when did we become a nation of fearful lambs? We are Americans and should never act out foolishly and shout provocations from on our heels as we cower in fear at the thought of a nuclear Iran.

Secondly, Iran has a misfit navy of very few vessels that are all second hand and outdated. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic...c_of_Iran_Navy... )

Also, Iran has no long range intercontinental ballistic missiles. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_For...Missile_forces... ) They couldn't deliver a missile to the US if they wanted to. Unless their navy were sitting right in the Gulf of Mexico. Do you think the Iranian misfit navy would be allowed to get to the gulf without being smothered by our HUMONGOUS and overpowering navy? No chance. They would be obliterated.

And then there's this. Iran is surrounded by hundreds of nukes. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_...uclear_weapons... ) Israel, who has around 200 nukes, would drop the hammer on them in a second if they EVER launched a missle. Iran may be led by a kooky government, but they are not a suicidal country. Another reason why Israel can take care of themselves from now on.

Also, They can't even refine enough gasoline for themselves. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...y#Fuel_imports... ) They couldn't fuel a naval assault.

Plus, WE MADE THIS MESS! We assisted in overthrowing a democratically elected Prime Minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh) to install the authoritarian Shah (Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi) in the 1953 coup d'etat. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir..._d%27%C3%A9tat... ) He was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution which opened the doors for Islamic insurgents all over the middle east. Particularly in its early years, it triggered enormous enthusiasm and redoubled opposition to western intervention and influence. Islamist insurgents rose in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Impact... )

Bottom line is, DON'T BE SCARED! Iran is not the "imminent threat" that it is being made out to be by the MSM. THEY DON'T HAVE A NUKE! It is war propaganda to get the people to blindly follow into ANOTHER occupation so that big money military contracts can continue to be doled out to the corporations that have entangled themselves in the money making war machine. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pro..._United_States... ) They don't want it to stop, so it is in their best interest to ensure you don't want it to stop either!

The only way that Iran could possibly attack the US with a nuclear weapon would be getting it across the border and detonating it, but if Ron Paul is elected, that would be very unlikely to happen, because the troops that are no longer in occupation over seas could be utilized by the border patrol to protect us from illegal aliens coming into the country.