Bachmann v perry-which one to beat obama?

[ICWS]

I believe the GOP nominee will either be Mitt Romney (still the fave with big business backing) or Rick Perry (will have the backing of the Evangelical Bible thumpers, neo-cons and the Tea Party types). The only one who I think can beat Obama in a general election is Romney. But something tells me that the GOP will bend to the desires of the radical right, so there's a good chance that Perry might win it.

Bachmann is a (lunatic) fringe candidate. She has no chance of winning the nomination, IMO. Ron Paul is probably the most intellectually honest candidate the GOP could possibly have. But the current GOP is not embracing intellect or honesty these days, so I don't think he has a chance either.

Assuming Romney takes it from Perry, here's one problem I see Romney having: in order to beat Perry in the GOP primaries, Romney is going to have to articulate a LOT of extreme right wing positions. But the U.S. is not an extreme right wing country. It's a center-right country. So to beat Perry, Romney is going to give Obama and the Dems a big bat to smack him in the head with during the general election.

But let's say somehow, some way, Michele Bachmann wins the GOP nomination. Well, if that happens, just go ahead and start congratulating Barack Obama on his second term in office. He'll slaughter that crazy eyed nutcase. Other than a win or two in the neo-Confederate/Bible Belt states, she'll be decimated.

I do think Bachmann has a reasonable chance of winning the nomination, but I agree with you that if she does win it, she'll be destroyed by Obama on the campaign front and in the debates; due to her own problems and because the MSM will aim to expose her and certainly hammer her with criticism after criticism (a la Sarah Palin).

Because of the opinions you and I gave about Bachmann, I believe the GOP will eventually start to push Mitt Romney and Rick Perry more into the spotlight over her, since Romney and Perry, as of now, each have a better chance of defeating Obama than she does. Between those two, I think Mitt Romney would win the nomination. You may be right in that the GOP may try to appeal more to the radical right, but I think Perry's proven habit of being conservative in his rhetoric more so than in his policy making will give Romney a slight advantage over him. Plus, I think the GOP knows that Romney probably has a better chance of getting swing states than Perry does, which would help in competing against Obama.

Lastly, I appreciate that you acknowledged Ron Paul as the most intellectually honest GOP candidate, as I too share that sentiment. That's why I hope he somehow wins the nomination, as he's proven to have terrific insight on economic issues and I also like the fact that he's an anti-war Republican. In my opinion, Paul is the only one of the two major party candidates (Obama and all the other GOP candidates) who would seriously pursue reducing the U.S. military budget as a way to cut deficit spending. Also, it would be great to see someone like Paul come in as president and challenge the Federal Reserve System and Keynesian economics in general. I don't think Paul would actually bring it down, but I think he can provide some oversight and make the Fed more accountable for its policies and practices.

[markabilly]

Do not underestimate Rick Perry. He has the type of personality that wins votes and elections, despite the well known facts I have previously quoted. NAd there is far more than I have quoted.

He also has MONEY FROM RICH SUPPORTERS, and he knows how to get them to give it to him, to a level that I doubt anyone else can compete.

He is already bragging about stuff he had nothing to do with while he was governor, as the Texas governor's position has far, far less power than the LT. Governor and the Speaker of the House, as well some other elected officials.

Personally, i think the only good thing about him being elected president is that he will not be the governor any longer.


Ron paul may be the better choice, but he can not survive against perry and his money.

[Bob Riebe]

Do not underestimate Rick Perry. He has the type of personality that wins votes and elections, despite the well known facts I have previously quoted. NAd there is far more than I have quoted.

He also has MONEY FROM RICH SUPPORTERS, and he knows how to get them to give it to him, to a level that I doubt anyone else can compete.

He is already bragging about stuff he had nothing to do with while he was governor, as the Texas governor's position has far, far less power than the LT. Governor and the Speaker of the House, as well some other elected officials.

Personally, i think the only good thing about him being elected president is that he will not be the governor any longer.


Ron paul may be the better choice, but he can not survive against perry and his money.

Paul is a libertarian isolationist living in dream-land.
His chance of winning the GOP nomination is not too far from zero.
I can see the slim possibility of him running as a third party candidate for no other reason than to screw the Republicans, who if they choose Romney or Perry probably would deserve it.

It is too early to make any predictions. The talking heads on TV are doing it either because they are legends in their own minds, or do want the ability to throw the election one way or another.

[markabilly]

You got no response so lets presume the anti British slur was ill thought out lol..

it was unworthy of a response, as we all know how the brits set up their govt to make it look more democratic than it actually is. house of lords and all that.

and he is wrong about the cabinent positions

the electoral college is an old system that has outlived its time, but it was established back when communication was limited......the only good thing about it is if there is massive voter fraud, such as a million votes for one candidate, where only 500,000 live, the effect is limited as to that one particular elector

[Rollo]

Sorry, but this statement is a LIE:

and he is wrong about the cabinent positions

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitutio...nstitution.pdf
Article 2, Section 2 - United States Constitution
The President:
shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

Who voted for the abomination that is Hillary Clinton? It certainly wasn't you and it wasn't the American people either.

[Roamy]

Gee Ten POS and we get to pick one Whooooo Hooooo

[Bob Riebe]

Sorry, but this statement is a LIE:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitutio...nstitution.pdf
Article 2, Section 2 - United States Constitution
The President:
shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

Who voted for the abomination that is Hillary Clinton? It certainly wasn't you and it wasn't the American people either.

Supreme court justices may be nominated but must be approved by others than the President. Check on Robert Bork what Democrats liars and fear mongers can do to a nomination. The Republicans, good or bad, either have no balls when an appoitment should be strongly opposed, or are gutless idiots but probably good they have not stooped to the lying scum level the Democrats have.
The Democrats brought in a lying whore to try to scam Clarence Thomas but the Republicans did not cave for once.
Appeal court abominations are the result of Presidential choices.

Hillary Clinton, was a disappointment when she accepted her position but the bright side is she can be thorn in Obama's regime from her position, as Panetta and she were recently when asked about defense cuts.

[Kaiser]

I think anyone at this point can beat Obama. He hasn't shown leadership at all and the economy will not be turning around any time soon. Basically, everything he has touched has become a fiasco. He has lost the independent voters and the Jewish vote in New York due to his stance on Israel. The young people are not supporting him this time around either. I wouldn't be surprised to see him become the first incumbent to not receive the nomination from his party.

[Gregor-y]

go back to sleep.

McCain voted yes in 1999 (not in 1991), U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

at the personal urging of Phil Graham, and others such as Alan Greenspan.................despite expressing his own doubts. Within a short period, he had second thoughts and began seeking to reverse the damage, with very very little success, even after the meltdown.

Chicago, the dirty, filthy city of the bought vote and corrupt politics.

So he didn't run and hide; he voted for it. Real maverick there. And you mentioned something about the President from 1991. How you translated my question to apply it to McCain is beyond me. And like I said, hasn't everything McCain has done since January 2008 shown he has no guiding principle whatsoever?

But of course, when all else fails, make fun of my city. Where are you that's so much better, pray tell? Chicago's pretty clean compared to a lot of down town areas I've seen.

For all the let downs and complaints about the President Republicans have painted themselves so far into a corner that no one, including Perry, can be taken seriously. All the sensible Republicans that weren't culled for opposing W tax cuts and wars were pushed aside by the overwhelming need to demonize Obama in the most ludicrous ways imaginable. All the party's left with are cheap opportunists.

[Bob Riebe]

So he didn't run and hide; he voted for it. Real maverick there. And you mentioned something about the President from 1991. How you translated my question to apply it to McCain is beyond me. And like I said, hasn't everything McCain has done since January 2008 shown he has no guiding principle whatsoever?

But of course, when all else fails, make fun of my city. Where are you that's so much better, pray tell? Chicago's pretty clean compared to a lot of down town areas I've seen.

For all the let downs and complaints about the President Republicans have painted themselves so far into a corner that no one, including Perry, can be taken seriously. All the sensible Republicans that weren't culled for opposing W tax cuts and wars were pushed aside by the overwhelming need to demonize Obama in the most ludicrous ways imaginable. All the party's left with are cheap opportunists.

I don't think he was speaking of how dirty the actual streets of Chicago are. LOL

No one has to try to demonize Obama, Obama has done it all by himself.
Anyone who cannot see that either has blinders on, or is so prejudiced against anything but Democrats, that if the Dem. nominated Qadaffi, the majority in Chicago would vote for him.