quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetCheri

Well coming here has been a real eye-opening learning experience with regards to American politics. I had no idea!
This isn't american politics, this is cm. Big difference

Anyway, I have developed a cursory interest and have sort of tried to follow things both here and elsewhere. One of the things I'm struck by from watching each one rise to the top of the pack only to self-destruct, is the really low quality of the candidates vying for the Republican nomination. My questions for the Republicans and other right-leaning posters on here are:

1) Are any of these candidates really who you would want running your country?
Nope
2) Would any of them be your first choice regardless of who else was running?
No
3) Who would you have preferred to see run?
Morgan Freeman

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Cheri,

1. A sitting President looks a lot more Presidential than the folks with no Presidential experience running against him. 
2. There are some candidates who are low on experience, especially Bachmann, Santorum, and Cain.  A legit response from a Republican would be that Obama had little experience when he was a candidate as well.
3. Gingrich is two people.   When he opens his mouth and talks, he's intelligent and capable. When he actually DOES anything, he's immature and self-serving, and liable to destroy support and alliances.
4. Romney, Huntsman, and Paul are actually not that bad candidates.  I think of Paul like I think of America, though - a wonderful thing in principle that has never been fully implemented.
5. It used to be that the VP position was a springboard to a Presidential run.  Cheney declined to run, and that left a vacuum in the party.  The previous crop of GOP candidates - Romney, McCain, Huckabee, etc., weren't any more impressive than this batch. 
6. The Bush administration destroyed the Republican party for a while.  They ruled the GOP pretty strongly and didn't permit any intraparty dissent, even while plumbing new depths of unpopularity.  The main reason that McCain won the nomination IMO was that he was the candidate least aligned with the Bushies, and one of the main reasons that Obama won the nomination was that he was one of the few to vote against the Iraq disaster.  In other words, the Bush administration was so toxic that anyone who had worked with them was at a disadvantage. 
7. Generally speaking, governors have big advantages over Senators.  There's the fact that governors look like solitary, powerful figures while Senators look like members of a group (a not very popular group).  (I have no idea why Christie, Pawlenty, etc., did not get more traction.)  Senators have a long history of voting on various bills, and for negative campaigning purposes it is simple to cherry pick through previous votes to find attack material.  Basically, experience is not always your friend here.
8. Ideology is becoming more important than accomplishment.  Style over substance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

We go through this all the time, Cheri. Last run with the Dems, we had a former First Lady, a personal injury lawyer, and a novelty candidate who had never run anything in his life, in an election cycle where the Dem was near guaranteed the win.

I'd have liked to see Rudy Giuliani back in the mix, but it is what it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

She asked Republicans.

Well I'm not a Republican either. I'm a registered Independent. But I've been leaning toward the Republicans for a candidate I can support. Obama is going to be the Democrat nominee, and in my opinion he's proved himself to be an empty suit.

Unfortunately, looks like no cigar.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

There really are no "conservatives" anymore in the GOP.

By conservative,I mean what it used to mean.

At this point,con-men and woman will say and do almost anything to get elected,even opposite things(if they think they can get away w/ it).

They pay only lip service to the old conservative principles but act like people with no principles at all.Good examples of this are the two front runners.

The proper term is "neo-conservative",or "new-conservative",which doesn`t look anything like what old-school conservatives look like.


From taxes to moral issues and from foreign policy to keeping government out of our lives,it`s all optional to no-cons.Anything goes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To answer the knuckle-draggers......Rudy would go up and then crash under his own weight,or "baggage"(and it would be ugly),just like the other GOP-losers.

And FYI,the dems didn`t lose the last election.The electorate chose to keep the majority of government power, in democratic hands.The next election, will produce a similar situation.The only question is how badly the republicans with lose

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

That's really interesting Owner59, but just what does it have to do with the topic?

Nothing at all, that's what. Nothing at all.