Topic: Who would harm America more?

[IronDioPriest]

As I watch these GOP primaries unfold in horror, I am struck by the realization that the GOP machine is about to spit out the most liberal Republican nominee of my lifetime, at just a moment when a Marxist President is in the White House creating a national existential crisis requiring the utmost adherence to conservative principles to save the nation.

Rick Perry ruined himself, apparently irreparably. I do not believe it is possible for Newt Gingrich to defeat Mitt Romney, nor do I believe Gingrich would be a superior nominee who is able to beat Obama. Nor do I believe it is possible for Jon Huntsman to suddenly rise and defeat Mitt Romney. While I could stomach Rick Santorum, I believe he has seen his high water mark in Iowa, because his national appeal is limited largely to social conservatives.

Of the four, only Gingrich and Perry have the resources to challenge Romney for the nomination. Neither has the ground game, and both are failing.

Is anyone enthusiastic about Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, or Huntsman? Anyone who would go to the wall for any of them, confident that they would be far superior to Romney? Anyone excited to throw their time and pocketbook behind one of them should they gain the nomination?

My thinking (or overthinking, of which I am certainly open to being accused) leads me to one conclusion. If our hope of stopping Romney rests in Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, or Huntsman, then Mitt Romney WILL be the GOP nominee. I left Ron Paul out of the above analysis because of all the remaining candidates who have a shot at stopping Romney, he is the only one who I believe has the potential to do it. There is only one remaining GOP candidate in the race with the ground game, financial resources, and enthusiastic support base needed to defeat the Romney juggernaut, and that candidate is Ron Paul.

His people will go to the wall. They do support his candidacy enthusiastically. They get in the street, go door-to-door, and get in people's faces. Young people are attracted to his message in almost Obama-like numbers. He is a proliferate fundraiser with a massive warchest.

He has been right about fiscal policy all along. Because of his foreign policy, I have previously found him unacceptable. I disagree vehemently with his foreign policy positions - and I have no doubt that he means every word of what he says in regard to foreign policy. I think he is someone with deep conviction to principles, for better or worse.

So, in conclusion, I believe that it is apparent now that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee unless he can be stopped, and the only candidate I see with the potential to do so is Ron Paul.

Let the firestorm begin.

Oh.... and there will be a part two to this poll....

[charlesoakwood]

Sen. DeMint: ‘I really don’t want Ron Paul to drop out’]

“I really don’t want Ron Paul to drop out until whoever our front-runner is is collecting some of the ideas that he’s talking about,” ...

“Ron Paul is right on the fact that we’ve got an out of control and unaccountable Federal Reserve that is eventually going to create a major crisis,” ... “He’s also right in the importance of individual liberty and the whole constitutional limited government. And more of our candidates need to incorporate that.”

[Libertas]

I selected Romney but I really see no difference...Romney would be better on foreign policy, but he would be a mixed bag on economy and fiscal issues and would only be less of a nightmare than Obama domestically...I would not see him adhering to conservative principles and would do a lot of "compromising" in order to "get things done".  And I am not certain he could do much to improve the bench.  Paul would be OK on economy and getting fiscal house in order, but his loony-tune libertarian domestic issues scare me and his foreign policy weakness/isolationism and leaving Israel to blow in the wind ala Obama scare me even more.  I shudder to think what kind of libertarian whack-jobs he would put on the bench.  I could have picked either one and would have done so if given the opportunity.  But Romney is a pretend conservative and that makes his betrayal when in office more egregious IMO, Paul is Paul.  Your outline I arrived at a while back, it is why I am praying for a brokered convention where neither is advanced.  But to be honest, I don't see any of them being a slam-dunk cinch to beat Obama.  So when I hear the "I'm the only one who can beat Obama" schtick I viscerally wince.

[charlesoakwood]

Is anyone enthusiastic about Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, or Huntsman?

Perry is the most conservative candidate, that is evidenced by the economic circumstance
of his state.  If he is the nominee he will beat Obama.  The results are the pudding regardless
the mess the chef has on his apron.  SC will decide his fate.  I'll vote for Paul if he is my option. 

Our opportunity is with Jim DeMint and the senate.

[Libertas]

The Senate!

That is one diseased outfit!

Electing drunks off the street would improve its character 200%!

[charlesoakwood]

If DeMint is successful and his picks are elected then he
is elected head of the senate and Mythy is on the back bench
and President Ramrod or President Reachacross are put on hold.
And that may be a minimum if we elect more Tea Party representatives.

[Predator Don]

Well...i voted paul in the poll.....I don't believe he would be necessarily bad for America, but I don't think America can survive if some of the rest of the earth is nuke waste.

[Glock32]

Back during W's second term, when the media narrative against him had solidified to such an extent that it was obvious he would taint (by mere association) almost any Republican in 2008, I recognized that the Democrats had a golden opportunity.  Because they were almost assured a win due to a knee jerk reaction against Bush, they had the opportunity to put up a true liberal, one who probably could not win under more normal circumstances. And that's exactly what they did.

Now we have the same opportunity, and a true conservative is exactly what we need. But the GOP again proves itself the Stupid Party. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity, it has to run against itself by conforming to the mythology about needing a moderate so as not to alienate the precious independents (the same independents who ushered in an historic Republican surge in Congress just last year!).

Could this whole thing be any more screwed up?  For so long we've been rewarding the GOP for merely being "not the Democrats" that it's led us to this. To the point that it is almost institutionally impossible for it to produce a conservative candidate, at a time when one is so desperately needed.

[charlesoakwood]

Hey, I too voted Paul in the poll . 
The machine is rigged. 
This poll is rigged for Mittens
I tell ya.

[Weisshaupt]

He has been right about fiscal policy all along. Because of his foreign policy, I have previously found him unacceptable. I disagree vehemently with his foreign policy positions - and I have no doubt that he means every word of what he says in regard to foreign policy. I think he is someone with deep conviction to principles, for better or worse.

 His foreign policy would be better than Obama's in that it would be isolationist - rather than actively promoting the interests of our enemies by giving them missle secrets and letting them backward engineer our drones. You can only choose from the choices available. And those are "power hungry", "stupid", or "crazy" - Paul is crazy, but unlike the power hungry and stupid, he does have principles, and I believe he will stick by them.  I sure would rather pull the lever for Paul than any of the establishment  RINO traitors.
 
Paul's domestic policy is straight Founder's style  constitutionalist, and quite frankly we need our internal house in order before we CAN help the rest of the world. Add that  at this point I am not sure the rest of  world is worth helping.  Its a triage decision, but WWIII is inevitable now. We already saved the world from its self many times over , and all we hear form them now is how lousy Americans are. Well, let them be overrun by barbarian islamists, or brought into the new Chinese  or Russian dynasty. Israel would be the only casualty of the policy I would regret,  and even cut off form the United States, I am not sure they WILL be a casualty.  God does seem to favor them when the chips are down. Bottom line, they don't want us to the be the World's policeman, and maybe this time we should show them what happens when we sit it out.  Libertas is right- the only cure for this is cold hard reality, so our votes should be for the candidate that will bring that collision about sooner rather than later (even if that Canidate is Obama. )  If we ever want our country back, things need to get bad, otherwise the pressure will never build, and a slow socalist decline into slavery is all we have to leave to our children .
 

[michelleo]

You're right about the nomination now being a two man race - Romney vs. Paul.

I can't answer the poll.  I really can't face the prospect of either being our President, nor can I face another 4 years of Obama.  So I'm firmly in the hopeless category.

[IronDioPriest]

You're right about the nomination now being a two man race - Romney vs. Paul.

I don't know if I'm suggesting that it is a two man race, although maybe I am by default. After all, as it stands, Paul is not threatening Romney any more than the others.

But I am suggesting that no one besides Paul has what it takes to rise up and beat Romney. The rest have "blown their wad" and flamed out. Resurgence is unlikely, and the public support, enthusiasm, money, and infrastructure are not there.

All the candidates have underperformed compared to Romney, including Paul. But he alone has not peaked and flamed out. He alone has an enthusiastic support base, willing to go to the wall and do the grunt campaign work. He alone has grassroots campaign infrastructure to match his warchest.

The only way to defeat Romney is for conservatives to coalesce behind one of his challengers. I am suggesting that if defeating Romney is the goal, there is only one candidate remaining behind whom such a coalescence could be effective.

Hence, the poll question. If our choice to challenge Obama is really between Mitt Romney and someone else, and everyone but Paul cannot challenge Romney, who would be the worse choice between Romney and Paul?

I hate this.

[Glock32]

You're right about the nomination now being a two man race - Romney vs. Paul.

I can't answer the poll.  I really can't face the prospect of either being our President, nor can I face another 4 years of Obama.  So I'm firmly in the hopeless category.

You describe my own sentiment perfectly.  I feel like we are reaping the consequences of failing to do anything years ago, when the stakes didn't seem as profound.  We have, in effect, continuously rewarded the GOP simply for being marginally better than the Democrats. And look where it's led us.

[ToddF]

Honestly, we can't have a robust foreign policy if we're bankrupt anyway.  So no matter how isolationist he is (and Johnson who I would vote for today) we can always get back into the world, after our finances are put in order.

Face it.  We're left with Paul and Johnson as the only two candidates who will even attempt to get our finances in order.  What a sad state of affairs.

[Alphabet Soup]

You're right about the nomination now being a two man race - Romney vs. Paul.

I can't answer the poll.  I really can't face the prospect of either being our President, nor can I face another 4 years of Obama.  So I'm firmly in the hopeless category.

I share your sentiment michelleo. This may be the first time in over 30 years of voting where I sit it out in disgust. How is one supposed to get enthused when the choices range from mediocre to a common criminal (Øbongo)?

[Pandora]

You're right about the nomination now being a two man race - Romney vs. Paul.

I can't answer the poll.  I really can't face the prospect of either being our President, nor can I face another 4 years of Obama.  So I'm firmly in the hopeless category.

...

I hate this.

Exactly where I am, in both respects.

I am counting on Gunsmith to drag me, kicking/screaming/pouting/depressed or sedated, to the polls when the time comes, clothespin at the ready.

[Alphabet Soup]

I'm one of those who hold firm to the belief that the fix was in during the 2008 primaries which resulted with us being stuck with Capt. Queeg. I contemplated sitting that one out and allowed myself to be placated with the proposition of softening the blow by voting for Sarah Palin.

Now I ask if there is anyone that mittens could draft that can draw me from the sidelines. A lot has happened since 2008  - almost every single bit of it bad bad bad. Where I still held some hope for a positive future then that's all dead and gone now. Now I look at things in terms of how painful the crash is going to be.

Idiots like M.Medved are almost gleeful with the prospect of a Romney candidacy. He refuses to see what the rest of us see - a Romney presidency just means hitting that concrete wall at 90 instead of 120mph.

It really matters little because in the final analysis it still is unsurvivable.