So who will be the Republican nominees for President and Vice President in 2016?

[analog kid]

So,If you're a Republican you can't drink from a waterbottle? Truly pathetic

Welcome to politics. You must be new here.

[abbajc]

please not rubio

[analog kid]

Welcome to politics. You must be new here.

^^ I meant politics in general, and not this forum. That didn't come out right.

[West of the Rockies]

Do any of you get tired of the misinformation being spewed into the dialogue by both sides?  I get the feeling that a handful of the people on this forum will say, "Hey, it's not us -- it's their side".  Both sides do it.  Personally, I think that one side in particular has a tremendous number of people who make a lot of money appealing to the worst nature of a segment of our American population.  Nonetheless, don't you all get tired of the incredible horseshit being thrown around out there unchallenged by a truly objective media?  For instance, here are a couple of the big lies (as I see it) to serve as an example:  Bush was in on 9/11.  Obama wants to take away all our guns. 

Is it too much to hope that genuinely intelligent, committed people with honor and integrity run for office?  Do we have to keep getting these ditzses, serial philanderers, closet homosexuals who pretend to be deeply offended by other people's homosexual behavior, knuckleheads who see communists in every doorway, science-deniers, young-earth creationists, career politicians on the take (and in the backpocket of big dollar corporations/donors), and assorted turds?  For every John Edwards, there's a Larry Craig.  For every Tom Delay, there's a Rob Blagojevich. 

It's appalling what passes as a "leader".

[Juan]

Is it too much to hope that genuinely intelligent, committed people with honor and integrity run for office?

I fear so. On both sides.

[West of the Rockies]

I think there is a struggle within the Republican party as to what direction to take things.  It appears to me that corporatist /Neo-con Rove wants to move things a little back to the center, but the TPers won't go along with that.  I don't think that ultimately trotting out an unprepared young-gun (Rubio) will work.  I think Christie has pissed away a lot of the goodwill those on the right felt for him.  He might be able to lure a few Dems and independents and moderates to his camp.  The party needs to do better than a Santorum or Bachmann or Trump who both have too much weird history attached to their names.   Romney has run twice and is done.  I can't imagine Jeb Bush is truly a viable candidate -- he has the taint of George W. on him a Coast Gabber mentioned earlier in this thread.  I can't imagine that either Paul has a realistic chance anymore (Ron's too old, and Rand doesn't have much credibility outside of the TP nation).

And yet I sure don't see anybody unbeatable among the Dems.  Biden?  He's no spring chicken and has a history of gaffes that might bite him on the ass.  Hillary is no youngster either.  She's got some definite upsides, but those who hate her do so with a white-hot hatred.

Interesting times, yes?

[West of the Rockies]

I fear so. On both sides.

You know what would be interesting, Fill, is to have people list those politicians who they once admired but no longer respect (and not just because politician X became a RINO or DINO).  For instance, for about a week and a half I thought John Edwards had potential.  Turns out to have been a colossal turd.  I admired McCain until (and I know I'm gonna step on a few toes by saying this) he chose Palin as his running mate.  She's pretty.  I wouldn't say 'no' if she asked.  I don't want her to be the leader of the free world.

[beyondbeleef]

A robotic Cyber Reagan with whatever token hispanic Republican of the day as VP.


What does it matter,
Bush ruined the Republican brand
for 40 years to come.

Thank you. And I have to thank somatic hypermutation for injecting some realism into this thread.

for people to be reviving ridiculous birther claims, MONTHS after Obama's second presidential re-election, I think that you need to take a step back into reality.

If you want to discredit p. obama, please do so with referenced, nuanced policy criticism. not hyperbole or random assertions backed up with nothing.

If you still want to clutch your birther blankie... maybe you need to consider that you are a bit of a sore loser.

[Falkie2013]

Christie is seen as a sellout to Obama and is finished as far as national Republican politics is concerned.


Rubio might well be the best chance we have in 2016. Biden and Hillary are damaged goods. Biden because he comes off as a fool and an idiot ( not partisanship, I'd say that if I wasn't a Republican ) and Hillary because she carries both the baggage and questions about her role in Benghazi.


I don't know who would be in the field for the Democrats. I've been busy with personal stuff and posting here and one major recurring and ongoing on line problem.

I am a registered Republican and voted for Romney.


I've never understood this thing of being called a sore loser.


I would remind people that 3 million voters chose not to vote for anyone for President on their ballots.


But to many objecting to the policies of Obama is either being a sore loser, a racist, a bigot or worse.


We have ostensibly a 2 party system. I'm part of the loyal ( to the Constitution and the form of government and not to the man temporarily holding the office ) opposition.


But somehow that doesn't seem to be acceptable to those whom I might well call sore winners, because they continually ascribe base motives to ALL Republicans and Conservatives where all too frequently none exist.

[PB the Deplorable]

... If you want to discredit p. obama, please do so with referenced, nuanced policy criticism. not hyperbole or random assertions backed up with nothing...

Yes, let's get back to blaming Bush for everything.

[BigDave]

Yes, let's get back to blaming Bush for everything.

Barry Soetero has lots of supporters on this message board unfortunately! I hope that everything He tries fails

[beyondbeleef]

What is the point of that, calling him Barry Soetero? Yes, that was the name he went by whilst in Indonesia living with his mother and stepfather. What exactly is the point of you bringing it out, unless you are trying to create some Otherness or be pejorative

It's like the people who spit out 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama' as though that is an insult or discredits him in some way besides just being his full name

As far as I know Obama is proud of both aspects of his heritage, I don't get what you're playing at. It's like if I shouted 'Marco ANTONIO Rubio!' I.e. get a load of this Foreign sounding name

I don't understand the way some conservatives work

[Falkie2013]

The reason people use his full name in an attempt to disparage him is that the media and others made such a big point of telling Conservatives and others NOT to use his middle name.


Just like they have told us not to call him the Messiah despite his being called that by Farrakhan and others as well.


It's sarcasm and more.


And in historical terms, it's light. Just look at what they called Grover Cleveland, Lincoln or FDR sometime.


By comparision, the perjorative lets Obama off easy.

[Nucky Nolan]

I called Romney and Ryan. The alliteration was nice, so I recently predicted that Rand (Paul) might run with Rubio. I'm undecided as to who got the top of the ticket in my political daydream. Their names had to start with "R", as in Reagan, though.


I wasn't shocked and stunned when the pundits claimed that Bush would be nominated. He was a good governor in Florida, but I hope that he decided to not run for president in 2016. I'm disappointed with mainstream Republicans who downplayed the role of the Constitution. They demonstrated that we needed an alternative to the Establishment Party (a hybrid of the two). Graham and McCain just furthered my disdain for and distrust of neoconservative philosophies. Their cheap shots during Paul's filibuster clinched it. Their meal with Obama was symbolic as it reflected their appreciation of encroaching statism. The RINOs have been too influential, as well as instrumental, in the diminution of our Constitution, so the other posters before me likely were right in their calls for a third party that will stanch growing statist trends.

[Juan]

Rubio needs to run for the Senate again, then come home and run for Governor in Florida and get some executive experience.  I don't think Rand Paul has any executive experience, either.  Jindal, Haley and Christie have the executive experience.  So does Jeb Bush, but his last name probably sinks him.

[onan]

Rubio needs to run for the Senate again, then come home and run for Governor in Florida and get some executive experience.  I don't think Rand Paul has any executive experience, either.  Jindal, Haley and Christie have the executive experience.  So does Jeb Bush, but his last name probably sinks him.

As much as I would like to use the experience argument, I do not think it is valid. Some of our better presidents had less experience than those with more.




A quote from TIME magazine in February of 2008:

But if one moral of the Bay of Pigs is "Beware of charisma" or "Timeworn trumps callow," what do we make of the mistakes and miscalculations of deeply experienced leaders? Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed court-packing scheme, for example, or Woodrow Wilson's postwar foreign policy? For that matter, Kennedy would not have faced such a harsh early tutorial if the venerable warrior and statesman Dwight D. Eisenhower had not allowed the Cuba-invasion plan to be put in motion during the last of his eight years as President.

[/size]

[MV/Liberace!]

i think rand paul would obviously be on the short list.

[Marc.Knight]

i think rand paul would obviously be on the short list.

The number of voters would also be on a very short list.

[Insanity]

Does it matter? Were Fucked all the same, doesnt seem to matter what Letter they pin on their collar, they still treat us as human footstools.

[Sleepwalker]

It is proper to point out Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen - regardless of where he was born (and that's an issue for another thead) - then say after 8 years that obviously the rules have been changed and insist they apply to everyone.  That is not hypocracy or conflicting.

According to the 14th Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  The Constitution doesn't define "natural citizen" so it would appear the 14th Amendment is all we have to go on.

I am not aware of any Democrats questioning the citizenship of Marco Rubio or Nikki Haley.   Unless Donald Trump becomes a Democrat, I wouldn't worry about it.

[Sleepwalker]

Yes, let's get back to blaming Bush for everything.

Read this letter from a dying veteran to Bush and Cheney.  http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/the_last_letter_20130318/

BTW, I'm not a raving lefty.  I voted for Reagan twice, George H.W. Bush twice, and George W. Bush twice.  That said, I do not understand the vitriol heaped on President Obama.  To me, he's like any other President.  I like some of his policies, not too crazy about others.  And I think considering he inherited an economy on the verge of collapse, he's done pretty well.  He's our President and I want him to succeed.  If he succeeds, we all succeed.  What I object to are the ridiculous claims I hear on Coast to Coast AM against Bush AND Obama.  Bush was behind the 9-11 attacks.  Obama staged Sandy Hook to take away our guns.  It's all idiocy.

When it comes to elections, I would love to see a third choice added to ballots for all local, state and national elections: None of the above.  I think it would give our politicians some humility if the winner of any elected office knew he or she came in second to none of the above.

[FightTheFuture]

It`s FAR too early to even speculate. However, if the election were being held this year, Sen. Ted Cruz would be the nominee. He may be one of the most brilliant constitutional  litigators in modern times. He has a very compelling story, and he is a rock-solid conservative.


As much as I like Rand Paul, he has a lot of baggage related to his dad.

[FightTheFuture]

Read this letter from a dying veteran to Bush and Cheney.  http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/the_last_letter_20130318/

I am saddened by his plight, as I am saddened by all the veteran`s who are suffering -- myself included. But, frankly, he`s dead wrong about a number of things. However, It`s his opinion, and I completely support his right to express it. I  wish him well now, and in the next life.

[PB the Deplorable]

...  He's our President and I want him to succeed.  If he succeeds, we all succeed...

I was with you, mostly, right up to this.  If someone I disagree with politically, someone whose policies I believe are wrong headed and destructive succeeds, by definition I don't think 'we all succeed'.

He succeeded in raming that godawful healthcare bill down our throats.  He's succeeding in resisting addressing the runaway spending.  He's succeeding in class warfare and labeling 'the rich' as evil enemies.  He's succeeding in raising taxes - on everyone, despite his words about only 'the rich.

He's been successful in not doing a thing to get the economy headed in the right direction.  His policies have been those debt building economic stimulous bills - which were mostly a grab bag of pork that had been on Nancy Pelosi's back burner for years, and Qualitive Easting - flooding the economy with newly printed money - which will cause massive inflation down the road .  Handouts to the public sector to keep local government employees working (and voting, and paying dues to their unions, the real constituents).  Obama even said the 'private sector is fine it's the public sector that's hurting' - someone like that has policies that if successfully implemented, we all succeed?

He is successful in having State carry out his policies towards Russia, the Arab world, Iran, Isreal.  His policies towards those nations are a disaster, yet successfully implemented.

I could go on, but the point is:  No, the more successfull Obama is, the worse off the country is.

[Juan]

The "natural born" crowd will really have a fit over Ted Cruz.  He was born in Canada of one parent who was born in the US and another who was born in Cuba.

PB, I'd like to know your source for a definition of "natural born."  The only source I hear cited is a case from Missouri in which the opinion itself says it's interpretation of "natural born" is dicta - non-binding speculation.

[PB the Deplorable]

The "natural born" crowd will really have a fit over Ted Cruz...

It will be an entirely different crowd.  This time around it will be those who are currently shocked that anyone wold question Obama.

As far as I'm concerned, being to a parent not a citizen disqualifies the person.  That said, I'm tired of having one set of rules for the Left and a different set for everyone else.  It a Tea Party candidate like Ted Cruz runs, well, the Obama case has set the precedent that anyone born a citizen now qualifies.

I'd also note that the qualification was written as an attempt to keep people like Obama from being  President.  People that don't like our form of government, or economic system, or, frankly, most of us.  We don't have that problem with Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Rubio, or Jindal

[PB the Deplorable]

... PB, I'd like to know your source for a definition of "natural born."  The only source I hear cited is a case from Missouri in which the opinion itself says it's interpretation of "natural born" is dicta - non-binding speculation.

I'm no expert but I'd say someone born in the US of 2 citizen parents.  Or born abroad if parents are stationed elsewhere for the military (like McCain) or at a diplomatic post.

If it meant just born here, wouldn't it say Native Born?  I think the key is the intent - it was intended to keep someone with loyalties elsewhere out of office.  Take the case of Obama - his father was a Marxist, and a Muslim.  He was a citizen of Kenya, which was a colony of the UK.  It's clear Obama Sr had issues with the UK and colonialization.  And that's fine, until someone comes here and instead of leaving all that behind and becomes an American, gains power somehow and continues to put that first and this country second. 

Enter Obama Jr.  Now we have the abandoned child who writes a book called 'Dreams of My Father', appears at times to be a Marxist, appears at times not to understand the threat of Islam, and has a problem with our allies that had colonies in the past.  And doesn't seem all that committed to our form of government or our economic system - just the opposite  Just what our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid.  Our real problem isn't the Constitutional issue, it's that we have an electorate that would elect this person.

This is interesting discussion on 'Natural Born' citing various scholars and legal decisions.  It doesn't fully resolve the matter, but provides some context.

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823

[Pragmier]

He's our President and I want him to succeed.  If he succeeds, we all succeed. 

I understood it differently. Success is the end result not the means. Measured by things such as improved living standards, a sound economy, better education, ect - the things that make our lives better. If the president can do that by chanting to a Ouija board then have at it. I too voted for Reagan (2x) and Bush senior (2x), but felt why not give the other party a chance after things improved with Clinton. The financial crisis, the Iraq war, and the Rep's stance on some social policies has kept me in the Dem camp, mostly because there's nowhere else to go. A viable 3rd party, or even 4th would be great.

[PB the Deplorable]

... why not give the other party a chance after things improved with Clinton...

In the '90s (and the '00s) things were still improving, in fact blossoming, from Reagan's (and to a certain extent, Carter's) actions.  The budget didn't get balanced until Newt took the Congress and implemented reforms after 40 years of Democratic control. 

Other than not getting in the way, I like to ask people what - specifically - did Clinton do to grow the economy and balance the budget?

... the Rep's stance on some social policies has kept me in the Dem camp...

To me that stuff is nearly irrelevant in comparison to the economy and foreign policy.  The Left - the behind the scenes 'intellectuals' and decision makers - don't give a hoot about it either.  In fact they like to keep those divisions in place and everyone stired up - how else could they get support and win elections.

[West of the Rockies]

It doesn't sound to PPP pollsters:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/clinton-could-be-unstoppable-if-she-runs-in-2016.html

Chris Christie would be Clinton’s most threatening opponent in a general election. He trails her by only two points (42/44) in a head-to-head contest, and his overall favorability (+28) is higher than Clinton’s (+15). But she would trounce Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan by double-digit margins. Christie is more competitive against Clinton primarily because he is ahead of her by 18 points (47/29) among independents.

Of course Christie trails Rubio among Reps by mid-single digits, and they can throw away another election. The Dems fear Christie more than anyone.

You may be right, Pragmier... On the other hand, there are a few names that I think the Dems would love to see win the Republican primary (Bachmann, Santorum, Trump, Palin).  It'll be curious to see if Rand Paul can weave his current hot streak into something with more momentum and meaning.  It must be a sign that I'm getting old, but I hope it's not Rubio.  Not only do I think he lacks the political/intellectual chops, but he looks like he just stepped out of a 10th grade math class.  I don't want a president who looks like a castmember of "Head of the Class".