I'd be curious to see how many American voters would choose "None of the Above" (as they have on the ballot in Nevada) if they had the option in 2012.

Come on down, candidates! Right now we hate everyone!

Forget abstaining, let's hope we can have a viable write-in candidate that grabs the majority ;)

FACT CHECK: Republican debate strains some facts

So Bachmann wins the Iowa Straw Poll, Ron Paul second, Pawlenty drops out, and Rick Perry jumps in. Busy weekend.

My guess is that it becomes a three horse race between Bachmann, Perry, and Romney. Three different types, really. My gut says that Bachmann and Perry try for the same base and tear each other apart, and Romney comes away the winner.

Obviously we've got a ways to go, but that's my guess at this point. It is subject to change.

Thoughts?

I don't see Romney winning the nomination - not conservative to get the evangelicals. Also, him being Mormon is a major stumbling block - it shouldn't be, but he's Republican and it WILL be. Focus on the Family and other similar groups will have a heyday teeing off on that.

Best guess is that the GOP ticket will be Perry for Prez and Bachman as VP...or vice-versa. I lean toward Perry as the more likely for the nomination because I think he'll be better debating against the silver-tongued Obama...but Bachman may have a better chance as a woman AGAINST Obama in the general election than Perry...who is a white guy.

Certainly plausible. Really hard telling what will happen. Does the base want somebody hardcore (Bachmann), spiritual (Perry), experienced (Perry and Romney), new (Bachmann), or something else? Time will tell, but I think those three are your realistic pool.

I want someone who will reform or eliminate NCLB, create jobs (and not the minimum wage ones that form most of Perry's job creation in Texas), and have enough backbone to stand up to Congress and somehow force the tough, unpopular decisions on Congress to fix the national budget - even if it means that they only get one term in office. 1.5 trillion in cuts from a "supercommittee" doesn't even put a dent in our looming debt problem.

Agreed completely. I actually think that person might be Bachmann. The media will crucify her like they did Palin, though. She may not be experienced, but she'll have Tea Party backing, which will certainly back her up in a big fight with Congress. I don't know that Perry or Romney are that bull-headed. I think Bachmann could stir some $hit up.

My problem with the tea party is that they insist on massive budget cuts but refuse to consider raising ANY taxes - and the Bush era tax cuts (and Obama's extension of them) are part of the problem.

There's got to be a happy medium. Nobody will be entirely happy with it, but a situation of this magnitude should not be tested with "give me everything I want or no deal" tactics.

Well, I agree with you, taxes need to be raised on the half of Americans who pay no tax. That seems straightforward to me. However, I still think the Tea Party people are the only ones who have the fire to stand up and get things done. Your average politicians do not have the knowledge or willpower to make the drastic changes that need to be made. Tea Partiers do.

I think folks like that are exactly what we need. You reference a "situation of this magnitude" (I agree), but what's better: massive cuts or doing absolutely nothing? Your average politician is going to do the latter. I choose the former.

I couldn't possibly agree more. Of the three frontrunners, Perry and Bachmann make me want to vomit, and Romney makes me queasy.

Perhaps some good will come though. Maybe eventually the more libertarian minded Republicans will finally splinter from the evangelical pseudo-conservatives. That group would have a good chance of drawing some of the younger folk who might otherwise vote for Obama.

I can dream, can't I?

Will no one rid the GOP of this troublesome man?

Only one man has the cajones to speak the truth.

Let's face it, the establishment of both parties got us into this cadaveric economy. An ill-considered and ignorant brew pushed on us by Nobel prize winners that couldn't manage a fast food restaurant.

Why not try something different?

We have heard people say that the debt doesn't matter. Why aren't these posters and writers and dimwits heaped with the massive ladle of scorn and derision they deserve? We heard people advocate for endless wars. Why are these people not dropped into Afghanistan with an M16? We have heard people say that government should create jobs. Who really believes that government can CREATE jobs? It has to pay for those jobs with stolen money that someone else would be spending. Why would anyone believe that that is going to create jobs?

Why would we put healthcare in the hands of a government that gives us the VA system?

We all inherently know that the further away decisions are made from you, the less say individuals have. Why would we want to put more power in the Federal government?

http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_2012_...65tmn6_152.jpg

I hope you're right. I was just predicting what I think will happen, not what I WANT to happen.

I think a libertarian-minded party could do really well right now in this election, if the media wouldn't treat them like the plague. Hopefully it'll come in time.

Paul would be good for the economy, but what good is it to have a great economy if the rest of the world is busy blowing us up?

In the debate on Thursday, they asked Paul about Iran. He basically said we might as well just give them nuclear weapons so that they can protect themselves against Israel and other countries if need be. He said we should stop poking our noses in other countries' business, and just let them do whatever they wanted. I can't imagine letting Iran or North Korea do whatever they wanted on the military front. We'd have a nuclear war and the world would be blown to bits.

The leader of Iran already said he wants to blow Israel off the face of the earth. Not monitoring Iran's nuclear weapons program would be a disaster.

If the GOP is to win in 2012, I think Perry/Rubio is the ticket. Rubio would pretty much guarantee Florida, Perry would pretty easily carry the evangelical south, and Rubio also would appeal to the Hispanic base as well. States that Obama won in '08 with large Hispanic bases that could realistically be taken in '12 (ie not California) are Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico.

Of course McCain/Palin lost by a lot more than whatever Florida and the other three states I listed have in electoral votes, but those four plus Indiana, Ohio, VA, and NC would make the GOP total more than 270. A poll also showed that Romney was ahead in Michigan (vs Obama), so perhaps you could switch Ohio with Michigan as well.

I think Perry will win the nomination, he will carry the South and that will be enough to put him over the top of the other candidates.

Paul did not say that "we might as well give them nuclear weapons". What he did say was that our policy of sanctions was a waste of time and so what if Iran did develop nuclear weapons? How was this any different than North Korea or the Soviets having nuclear weapons? That never led to nuclear war and it doesn't seem likely that it will if Iran gets nukes either. He also said that he didn't blame them if they did pursue nukes, as they are already basically surrounded by countries that already have them. But his point was more about getting rid of the idiotic sanction policy and trying something that actually worked to diffuse the conflict between Iran and the US, not that we should give them nukes.

Of all the Republican Candidates running, I like Paul the best, although I don't agree with him about going back to the gold standard and I suspect he is just too much of an idealist to actually get the nomination. All the same, he doesn't just spout out platitudes and actually seems to believe in what he has to say.

There are things I don't like about Ron Paul too. I doubt any candidate would get 100% endorsement of their ideas from anyone.

I am curious though why you oppose the gold standard?

Although there are many of us here that seem to be libertarians to differing degrees, I don't think a libertarian stands a chance nationally. Certainly not as a third party candidate. Someone who wanted to limit the power of government would get blasted by both the right and the left. Heck, I'm not even sure the GOP would give their full effort to getting a libertarian nominee a victory over a dem. Add that to the fact that most people want something for nothing when it comes to their government and there is simply no way we get a libertarian. The inability to "take things away" once they are given to the people makes the Obama-agenda all the more crippling in the future.

You are quite correct. There are far too many stupid people clinging to archaic nonsense for a libertarian to ever win election. Only by raising the intelligence of the population could you hope to get the parties of the stupid, the ignorant, the uncaring, and the lazy removed from office. It is a pity.

Most conservatives and liberals are not smart enough to think outside the box and realize that their entire moral political compass is based upon a series of logical contradictions. They would never countenance them if they gave it even a modicum of thought.

One would have to ask themselves who benefits from the policies they espouse.

If you are a conservative, who benefits from laws against drugs or prostitution? Is it the user of drugs? Is it the neighborhood in which illegal drugs are used? Is it the prostitute? The John? The John's wife? The neighborhoods in which prostitution occurs? Of course not. The only people profiting from these imbecilic laws are the drug dealers, the pimps, the police and the prison guards. Everyone else including and most especially the taxpayer are losers as a result of this.

If you are a liberal, who benefits from a welfare state? Is it the welfare recipients? Do they truly benefit from policies designed to create dependence? Designed to destroy the family unit? Designed to prevent savings and investment? What simpleton could possibly believe that putting someone on Unemployment Insurance for 99 weeks is a good idea? That it creates jobs? Well, let's not include the Obama administration that is filled with ignorants. Who else could believe that?

Who believes that an effective antidote for past oppression of a race is current oppression of another race? Why would anyone countenance affirmative action? A program that is by definition racist? And save the pap that it is merely a program to choose the minority from amongst similarly qualified applicants. It is and ALWAYS has been a racial quota system designed to take a minority who is utterly and completely unqualified and give a job to them. I can tell you that there are minorities that have attended medical school at Illinois that cannot read and cannot add 2 + (-2) = x. Tragic system designed to impede our competitiveness in the world and 50 years of utter failure to advance african american economic status should tell you what a failure the program is.

Here's why I dislike the two-party system - the primaries are so partisan and closed-minded, and the primary voters have no foresight. The first political candidate I ever donated to was Bill Bradley. I loved that guy. Imagine how different this country would be if 2000 had been Bradley/McCain instead of Gore/Bush.

If Republicans were smart they would nominate someone like Huntsman. I find him intriguing, though I've never voted GOP in a national election before. He appears to be a reasonable guy who could pick up a lot of moderate votes. Romney would probably be a good candidate too if the media and his own party would stop making his religion such a big deal, and if he wouldn't be so afraid of running on his record. Maybe I'm just biased because I'm sick of all the liberal/conservative partisanship bs. We need more moderates in government. JMHO.

But Bachmann and Perry? You're practically forcing me to vote for the incumbent. ;)

+1

From '72 through '96, I'm pretty sure I voted for a third party candidate because I couldn't support either the elephant or the donkey. In '00 and '04 I broke because I really disliked Bush/Chaney/Rove and voted for a donkey. In '08 I had real hope for Obama but smart and elequent doesn't necessarily make for a good leader.

In '12 I will probably vote for Ron Paul whether he has a nomination or not.

Once again, I fear my vote may come down to who the lesser of two evils is. I got it wrong last time - the person I voted for has shown himself to be an incompetent moron and a spineless coward when it comes to dealing with Congress and the general public. I was willing to give him up until next August to see if he could make something of himself, but the whole "we might default" debacle, combined with his inability to work with Congress for the greater good of the country, have forced me to make up my mind early.

I will not vote for Obama in 2012 barring some unexpected major change for the better in how the country is run. However, Perry and Bachmann don't exactly fit what I'm looking for. A ticket of Romney/Paul would be likely to win my vote contingent on debates (or Paul/Romney), but I doubt that either one would get a GOP nomination - Romney because of religion, Paul because he doesn't always toe the party line.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a lesser (though I'd consider Romney a lesser) evil. Perry and Bachmann are as "evil" as Obama is, just in a different way, in my opinion.

I belong to a mainstream Christian religion so I'm not an atheist or Satanist and I'm not an anti-religion in the civil world purist. That said I am not interested in putting someone in the White house who touts Christianity as their guiding light to governing and justifies governing from THEIR Christian perspective.

A nice smart, pragmatic humanist must be out there somewhere.