What Republican could possibly run for President next?

For the uptiest time, Obama was erected into the White House by Democrats (of course), blacks (for his blackness), habitual welfare recipients (for being Santa Claus) and misguided Whites (guilt trip). Obama had no other qualifications, except

Clean shaven
Articulate (when Teleprompter is in attendance)
Mainstream
Black

And of course, he was re-erected because MSM, blacks and Democrats would have voted for him 'cos he's too big to fail, and misguided Whites just could not believe such a nice looking fella could screw things up on such a grandiose scale, and decided to give him another chance.

Simple, really.

 

Everything in a simple mind is simple.

 

Thank you.

 

You are reflecting Hillary Clinton's plight as the Turdblossom vs TPs War is put on the back burner during their united slimekreig.

Of the Repubs, I'm most impressed by Randy's maneuvering at this stage. He continues to champion the majority in his call for congress to summon the courage to enact comprehensive immigration reform. When Jebby proclaimed illegal immigration "an act of love", Randy followed up, not with the tired old snippy rightist boilerplate, but with, "If it were me, what I would have said is, people who seek the American dream are not bad people." Eminently reasonable for all but the most ideologically-hidebound wacko birds on the nativist lunatic fringe

He's already disposed of Carnival Cruz, the New Jersey Big Boy has re-enacted the Hindenburg disaster, and RP is poised to put away Jebby easily. Nailing the Cheney dirtball on the Iraq fiasco was a deft touch he undoubtedly hopes to deploy against Jabba the Bush and Clinton.

That's the kind of blunt honesty Americans yearn for!

 

Or maybe they're waiting for the midterms to be over, as they (both parties) should.

 

I believe there are several good Candidates that can beat The Hildebeast. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, and John Kasich come to mind. I agree with Rand's opinion that we should not be the world's policeman. We should quickly open up all our energy production here, and oil crude prices will plummet on the world stage even before we greatly increase our production, and Rand Paul would do that as the other candidates would work toward also.

I think Jeb Bush has a strong chance, but does not fit my criteria of our becoming energy independent.

A good Constitutional Conservative that pushes the right buttons is electable.

Sealing the borders first, then immigration reform with enforceable teeth.

 

OH!! OHHH!!!

Check this out!!!

"FOREBODING!!! NOT....FER BOATIN'!".....General Collin Powell's explanation to President George W. Bush's question asking the General....."Now why in HELL Collin would we want to go fishin' over there?".....after General Collin Powell gave his own personal Military Assessment of the at the time environments in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

AboveAlpha

 

So independent white voters that voted for Obama are all whites with a guilt trip and young women, 76% of which voted for Obama if memory serves me correctly, are all on welfare? Of course blacks voting for Obama was all about Obama being black (when Clinton received almost identical support) and not because of anti-blac political agenda of the Republican Party. That also explains why 75% of Hispanics voted for Obama... because he was black and not because of the anti-Hispanic agenda of the Republican Party.

That "Right-wingers" keep drinking the Republican Koolaide and living in a bubble is about the only real deductions we can make from such silly statements and allegations. When are they going to realize that Obama was the "lesser of two evils" when compared to McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 and that's why Obama was elected.

 

Paul would be within the realms of possibility. Huckabee or Kasich? Doubt it. Cruz or Perry? LMAO! You're delusional if you think either of those two could win a general Presidential election in this country.

 

Spot on!

Anyone so alienated and deluded as to believe Americans would elect those characters is still benighted in the twilight zone of their Romney Landslide!

 

Wow... OK.

• First of all, there are no "independent" voters - there are Americans without strong convictions.
• White voters voted for Obama either because they were Democrats or because of guilt trip or because "it's about time we have us a black president" - there were no other reasons to vote for first-term junior senator with no accomplishments.
• Young women voted for Obama for the above reasons, because of the successful democrat's smear campaign to portrait Republicans as being anti-women. Young women also voted for Obama because he was "cool"
• Blacks voted for Obama because of his blackness and because blacks traditionally vote Democrats; that's why it was easy for Clinton to get black vote, too.
• Hispanics voted for Obama because he was expected to open floodgates of illegal immigration into US, which is exactly what he's doing. And expanded welfare, of course. Obama's portrait should be on all EBT cards.

Everything is explainable if you apply some logic to it.

 

More than 51% of the American electorate chose the President twice because the voters decided he was a better choice than the alternatives the GOP offered.

The losers may need to make up excuses and impose fanciful motivations on 60-70 million Americans to pleasure themselves, but that's the way it is.


Once again, their challenge is to offer a candidate that is preferable to the Democrat.

So far, they just seem to be sputtering about the Democrat.


The electoral votes of the worst-educated states is a lock for them, but that's nowhere near enough.

 

I think Hermann Cain should have another go at it.

 

That would be my preference.

 

Sorry but you seem to confuse logic with delusion.

In 2008 it was McCain v Obama and McCain was a dinosaur politically. He's still stuck in a cold war mentality. Even my parents, life-time Republicans living in Arizona, objected to McCain being the Republican presidental candidate because he was totally out of touch with the world in the 21st Century. We won't even touch on the fact that Sarah Palin is a nutcase because that wasn't really important in 2008.

In 2012 it was Romney v Obama and Romney was a arrogant wealthy elitist that had little or nothing in common with the American people. His policies of greed didn't float well with tens of millions of Americans.

The reason Obama won in both elections was because the Republican Party pulled from the bottom of the barrel in selection of their presidential candidates. Obama wasn't a good choice for America (which is why I didn't vote for him) but he was simply better than the candidates the Republicans nominated.

That is the real issue that needs to be addressed by this thread. Is there a Republican out there that isn't from the bottom of the barrel? If the Republicans are going to win in 2016 they're going to at least find someone better than the Democratic nominee. Now that should be all that hard because I don't expect any stellar candidate from the Democrats but considering the Republican track record and who's out there today I don't see much hope for the American People getting anyone really worthy of the office even if a Republican is elected.

These repeating elections where the choice is always between the "lesser of two evils" is really hurting America.

 

It should be noted once again that this was really a choice of the "lesser of two evils" because neither the Republican or Demomcratic nominees were worth two dead flies.

 

Some may deem one or both vastly superior, others abysmally inferior.

Despite the current proclivity for cleaving to either extremist attitude, I'd estimate them as typical, and agree with the American electorate in their preference.

 

Some people have abysmally low standards too. LOL

Most people I'm aware of have considered recent presidential elections as a case of selecting between Dumb and Dumber.

 

There are alway chronic malcontents, but the realistic approach is to chose the better of one's limited options.

You can't always get what you want - and it may not be good for you, anyway. Of course, the times shape leaders far more than do leaders shape the times.

If greatness is an option and the electorate opts instead for mediocrity, that's how the electorate defines itself.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Mr. Stevenson "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"​

 

Certainly no where near the size of the angry black voters who would never vote for a white guy over a black guy as the numbers prove.

 

You make no sense try again, what specifically, what policies do the Republicans need to adopt to get more of the black vote? What Democrat policies and positions get them that vote?

 

What was better about him than either McCain or Romney? Heck what was better about him than Hillary? Heck she was supposed to be a shoe in remember and he beat her handily. Of course she is a wealthy elistist out of touch with the people.....

Better in what way? And since Hillary is the best the Dems and she couldn't beat an unknown, inexperienced, unrest candidate and is going down in flames on her Booker tour who else do the Dens have? The Reps will haves competitive race which is good. So far the Dens are stuck with Hillary with no viable alternatives.

 

From my perspective "not much" which is why I never voted for him. They were all 'bottom-of-the-barrel' candidates IMHO.

In 2008 I did embrace Obama's call to close GITMO but that didn't happen because it was eventually blocked by Congress. GIMTO remains the most egregious violation of the US Constitution in my lifetime. It never stops amazing me that several dozen of people have been imprisoned for over a decade for their political or religious beliefs by the US government and that dozens more have been denied a speedy trial as guarenteed under the US Constitution. The founders of America are rolling in their graves today on the 238th anniversary of the United States

I wasn't really enthused about his statements that we would get out of Iraq and Afghanistan because the "fine print" called for between 15,000 and 30,000 US soldliers to remain in both countries. I wanted us out of both countries immediately with no US soldiers left at all.

In 2012 Romney was just way too much of a silver-spoon wealthy elitist that didn't have a clue about the lives of average Americans.

 

Let's be clear here, you're stating as far as qualifications, experience, history of accomplishment and leadership you found not much difference between Romney and Obama?

What would make a "top-of-the-barrel" candidate as opposed to Romney?

And we are seeing the results of that misguided policy.

And we see the results of that misguided policy.

And Hillary isn't? Give me the examples of what led you to the opinion Romney is a "silver-spoon wealthy elitist" and do you hold the same view for Pelosi and Reid for example? Why do you oppose electing people with successful track records of leadership skills and accomplishments on huge scales?

 

TPs are, apparently, making a smooth transition from their inveterate kvetching about the leader Americans have chosen twice by already kvetching about the leader Americans will choose next.

Meanwhile, they are showing as little interest in the matter of nominating an opponent as did the Bush's National Security Council the existing threat from al Qaeda until it was no longer a threat - and even then they pursued their obsession:

Lest I appear to digress,

Hello? Al quaeda?

Hello? A nominee?

If you fixate elsewhere, what should you expect?

Will they just go with the default position?