I would vote for a _____, over obama...

[billc]

Remember as well that an incumbent in office already has a financial advantage over a new comer. They say obama will have 1 billion dollars in his war chest even before the super pacs joined in. Who most wants limits on campaign spending...the guys already in office. They have a stage already paid for by the tax payers, they can get free television during the non-election cycle by going on t.v. and radio shows, they get name recognition from this as well and so they love the idea of limits on campaign spending or even better, having the tax payers actually pay for the election. That way the new guys are stuck within the limits and the incumbent gets all the other non-campaign spending goodies that an elected office holder gets.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am not entirely certain that the GOP is planning to run for this election. That is, the GOP apparatchiks appear to be less than pleased with Romney, which is understandable given that he's a moderate in an age where the GOP is in no mood to appeal to the center.

Not to quote myself but (I'm doing it though), I read this tonight; seems I am not the only one thinking this!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/friedman-we-need-a-second-party.html

WATCHING the Republican Party struggling to agree on a presidential candidate, one wonders whether the G.O.P. shouldn’t just sit this election out — just give 2012 a pass.

 

[Sensei Payne]

:: Throws Hat into the Ring ::

See I liked Obama in the Primaries, it wasn't until he beat Clinton that he turned into something I didn't want...case in point

I have to say, being still registered as a Dem. I regret it. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, on my mind and on my conscience I can not, and will not vote for someone that will not defend the constatution and our individual rights.

Ron Paul 2012


Side note: isn't it funny how the topic of this thread isn't, "Who would you vote for?" its "Who would you vote for over Obama" Its really sad that there aren't more candidates that are civil servants and not just serving themselves.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

:: Throws Hat into the Ring ::

See I liked Obama in the Primaries, it wasn't until he beat Clinton that he turned into something I didn't want...case in point

I have to say, being still registered as a Dem. I regret it. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, on my mind and on my conscience I can not, and will not vote for someone that will not defend the constatution and our individual rights.

Ron Paul 2012


Side note: isn't it funny how the topic of this thread isn't, "Who would you vote for?" its "Who would you vote for over Obama" Its really sad that there aren't more candidates that are civil servants and not just serving themselves.

For what it's worth, Ron Paul has said that if he does not get the GOP nomination (which he won't), then he will not run as an independent, which means his name will not appear on the ballot.

I'm really looking a lot harder at Gary Johnson now. He is seeking the Libertarian nomination. Should he get it, his name WILL be on the ballot, and is equally offensive to conservatives and liberals; but for different reasons. He's got all the things I like about Ron Paul, and only a few things I dislike, and none of the baggage Paul does (racist newsletters, etc).

http://inthesetimes.com/article/12741/why_gary_johnson_should_terrify_the_democrats

 

[Sensei Payne]

According to all of the interviews that I have read and see videos of, Ron Paul has stated that he hasn't ruled out a Third Party Seat, but at this stage in the game he is still confident about his status as a possible GOP candidate.

 

[Sensei Payne]

He's got all the things I like about Ron Paul, and only a few things I dislike, and none of the baggage Paul does (racist newsletters, etc).

I also want to point out that he wasn't the Author of those "racist Newsletters", in fact the only unconstitutional item he has ever voted for was MLK Jr Day. A Racist wouldn't vote for a whole day devoted to the Honor of a Black Man.

 

[cdunn]

I also want to point out that he wasn't the Author of those "racist Newsletters", in fact the only unconstitutional item he has ever voted for was MLK Jr Day. A Racist wouldn't vote for a whole day devoted to the Honor of a Black Man.

Did he write them? No. Did he make a calculated ploy to associate his name with racism in the eyes of the voters of Texas that seek out that sort of literature, planning on using that voting bloc to keep getting elected? Probably.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

According to all of the interviews that I have read and see videos of, Ron Paul has stated that he hasn't ruled out a Third Party Seat, but at this stage in the game he is still confident about his status as a possible GOP candidate.

Confident or not, he's not going to get the GOP nomination. Ever. Even he knows that.

However...

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/dont-expect-ron-paul-go-rogue-run-independent

And while Ron Paul hasn’t ruled out a third party bid, his aides insist it won’t happen. Inside the Paul clan, Rand’s generation is rising, and the dream is a new kind of Paul campaign: One that’s dead serious, a tick or two closer to the mainstream, and one that wins.

I don't know what will happen. We'll know when we know, I guess.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I also want to point out that he wasn't the Author of those "racist Newsletters", in fact the only unconstitutional item he has ever voted for was MLK Jr Day. A Racist wouldn't vote for a whole day devoted to the Honor of a Black Man.

The buck stops with him. His name was listed as author, he is responsible for their content. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he did not write them and does not approve of their content, it shows a profound lack of judgment. I say this as a person who generally like the old coot and was 'this close' to voting for him. FWIW, I don't personally think he is a racist. I also think it doesn't matter. It's his hit.