• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Republican candidate you wish to get the nod

I wish to get the nomination:

  • Total voters
    78
Romney is the only one who seems to be a realist, but I honestly wonder how far separated he'd be from Obama after the post nomination sprint to the center. If we've learned anything from the Ryan budget affair, cutting spending (the centerpiece of any Republican campaign) sounds awesome until you start talking about and propose what you're actually going to cut.

So unless there's an Alzheimer's epidemic in the next 18 months I don't think it's really going to mater who's nominated. Seniors won't forget who tried to kill Medicare and you can't win without their vote. And that's another reason I'd like to see Romney in there. If what passes as a moderate Republican these days is shredded by a not so popular Obama, primary voters are sure look back on the failed runs of McCain and Romney and deduce that the truly crazy candidates would be a better choice in 2016. If Ron Paul is still alive by then that may be his year!
 
Having both the Republican and Democratic candidates be black would be awesome.
 
bikerdruid said:
don't you people have any aspirations for a credible and intelligent president?:boggled:
Click to expand...

You saw the list.
Roughly half the voters in this country will support at least one of those Santorumists over Obama.
My aspirations for a credible and intelligent Republican candidate died a long time ago.
 
Travis said:
Having both the Republican and Democratic candidates be black would be awesome.
Click to expand...


It would be much more awesome to have both candidates be people who will support policies that are good for the country. I think the current President is a very vivid example of what can be expected when we elect a President simply for the novelty of his race or some similarly irrelevant characteristic, without regard to whether he possesses the character and qualifications for that office.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I think the current President is a very vivid example of what can be expected when we elect a President simply for the novelty of his race or some similarly irrelevant characteristic, without regard to whether he possesses the character and qualifications for that office.
Click to expand...

Funny, but I was thinking more or less the same thing about the drongo who he replaced, except that the irrelevant characteristic was that he was the son of a former president.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It would be much more awesome to have both candidates be people who will support policies that are good for the country. I think the current President is a very vivid example of what can be expected when we elect a President simply for the novelty of his race or some similarly irrelevant characteristic, without regard to whether he possesses the character and qualifications for that office.
Click to expand...

Obama does possess the character and qualifications for that office, just as surely as every man who came before him. Whether that lowers or raises the bar is irrelevant, it only matters that he does meet those qualifications, and has done a fair job throughout his term so far. Is he perfect? Not even close, but then, there has never been a perfect president, and that includes Lincoln and Washington.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I think the current President is a very vivid example of what can be expected when we elect a President simply for the novelty of his race or some similarly irrelevant characteristic, without regard to whether he possesses the character and qualifications for that office.
Click to expand...

It might be a good example, if that was actually the reason he was elected.
 
Jimmy McMillan. Keenan's impression on SNL is killing me and I need more.

"I am the black Lorax!"
 
Apologies for the double post.

EvilSmurf said:
Santorum the name came before santorum the substance. It was anti-gay rhetoric (I believe that it was him comparing homosexuality and bestiality) which caused it to be named after him. By the way, what odds on Santorum being caught with a "wide stance" before the 2012 election?
Click to expand...

You're correct. His deranged statements on homosexuality led Savage Love writer Dan Savage (an openly gay sex advice columnist and founder of the It Gets Better campaign) to put out an open call to his readers to come up with a particularly disgusting sex act or reference that they could name after the former Senator. They sure came up with a good one!

Of course now former-Senator, life-long-douchebag Rick Santorum has used it as evidence of how depraved and wicked the gays are. Geez people seem to take it so personally when you compare their love of their partners to beastiality...

And I agree that time after time we see those who scream the loudest about morals, family values and the evils of homosexuality are usually caught in rest station bathrooms on the turnpike at 3am....
 
More importantly, is this the weakest presidential field ever?

Democrats in '88 and '04 come close, and the '08 Republicans were pretty bad, but goddamn, this is pathetic. It's basically the already weak '08 field minus McCain, who was semi-credible until he lost his mind.

I'm guessing you'd have to go back to some of the goofballs that tried running against FDR to get something this awful. What's more amazing, however, is that there isn't any other Republican figure in the country that just happen to be sitting this one out. Whatever you think about Hillary Clinton, everyone knew that she would be a formidable candidate in '08 when we were picking through corpses in '04.

I went with Bachmann purely for entertainment purposes.
 
Last edited:
Sarah Palin.

Her, just for how funny it would be, and how much material she would give comedians to work with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom