Honestly, none of them. I don’t think they are viable candidates. None of them represent my best interests at this time.
I do think if Rep. Peter King had a better track record on organized labor I might be able to support him for President. But I realize that many have other issues which are more important to them then organized labor.
Looks like I’ll have to consider writing my name in for President in 2016!
No kidding. I’m getting sicker and sicker of both parties playing the same game. I also refuse to choose a political party, because, honestly, neither the Dems nor the GOPers have ideas which faithfully promote Church teaching. My political party is the Catholic Church, and my platform is the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Bible. Honestly. I’ll vote. I always do. But every time I vote, I vote extremely conflicted about who I should vote for, often up and until I have filled out my ballot and submitted it.
The one that will be morally sound and wins.
I understand how you feel. I feel conflicted at times, too. I feel like it’s getting more difficult to vote, as time goes by.
Yeah, I agree. If that’s all they have, don’t look for a change of political parties in the White House. While I can appreciate the GOP, it is difficult to explain why they cannot come up with a dynamic candidate. Its sad.
I became of voting age during the Nixon years and I was so disgusted by both parties that I never joined any political party, but at least I could freely vote my conscience. There have been times when I actually was a write-in-candidate for President and Gubernatorial positions. Needless to say I lost in a crushing landslide. My concession speeches were real popular at the local bar.
That being said I think its wonderful that you stick by your principals and vote for the candidate that best represents your interests and values! You vote, you have a right to complain or complement as the case may be.
The problem as I see it for the Republicans is they don’t have anyone who really captures the imagination of the electorate.
Not yet. But where was Reagan in 1978? True, he had nearly won the nomination in 1976 but I don’t think he had yet captured the imagination of the electorate. He wasn’t yet what he would become later. He had to overcome the warmonger label. Maybe its better that no one candidate has captured the imagination of the electorate yet or be the hands down favorite to win the nomination - like the situation the Dems are in with Hillary. For the Dems its Hillary or nobody really. I would rather be in the GOP position.
Anyway, here is my take on some of the candidates:
Rick Perry - his flameout in 2012 still bothers me. And he is a southern white male evangelical conservative. Is that the candidate that will appeal to enough voters to win?
Chris Christie - deserves a 2nd look: if he can put the bridge incident/scandal behind him, then he might yet be a major contender. His embrace of Obama on election eve still bothers me a great deal.
Santorum - I still think a white conservative Catholic whose last election was a double digit loss is not a candidate who can appeal to a wide enough group to be taken seriously.
Ted Cruz - too much of a conservative firebrand/narrow appeal.
Bobby Jindal - he needs to work on his communication skills but he is a brilliant man with a lot of great ideas. No one could accuse a Jindal candidacy of lacking new, fresh ideas or being just another white candidate. Jindal/Walker. (or vice versa).
Rubio - my old favorite. Lost some of his luster in recent years with the immigration flip. Still can’t be counted out.
Huckabee - another white, male, southern evangelical. Not the candidate for 2016.
Rand Paul - very intriguing. Is he electable?
Romney - I liked him in 2012. But I don’t think he fought hard enough to counter Democrat narrative/lies. And his campaign made a lot of mistakes. I think its time for a different candidate.
Jeb Bush - Bad last name. And wobbly on immigration.
Overall: we have enough qualified candidates this time around that we don’t need a bunch of flavor of the month / gimmicky candidates: Bachman, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, et al.
We’ll know a lot more after the November elections. If the Republicans win the Senate, that will really energize the party. Candidates will pick up more and more interest and scrutiny in the coming year. I still like Rubio - good social conservative, economic moderate, good foreign policy (which we’ll need), appeals (hopefully) to all wings of party. The next President will be doing a lot of clean up, and dealing with the Middle East, Israel, etc. on top of domestic issues. I don’t trust Rand Paul - I think the libertarian brand is really tarnished by the Iraq/Syria ISIS and Ukraine messes. Paul would be almost as lost as Obama. I like Ted Cruz, just not sure he would get elected. I would definitely go for him. Like Jindal. Even like Christie, but not sure he has broad enough appeal and he seems clueless about foreign policy - but the kind of guy who could pick it up and do it. We’ll see. I actually think a number of them could do it. Especially if the party is in a better place. I do worry about the Republicans winning the Senate then somehow managing to blow that - alienating enough people to lose in 2016. People looking to balance the President against the Senate and House.
Brian Sandoval - Governor of Nevada, he’s a great and cool guy.
All good points. Keep an eye on Scott Walker governor of Wisconsin and Mike pence governor of Indiana. If Scott Walker wins his reelection and I think his stock will increase. I have heard good things about Mike pence as well. Foreign-policy and security might be a big issue in 2016 if that is the case I think rand Paul may not be a very strong candidate.
Even though I have a much higher opinion of his father, I’d easily pick Rand Paul out of that bunch.
Lincoln/Johnson in 2016!
I am not familiar with him. How is he great? And we elected “cool” the last time and look where we are!
Yeah, because that qualifies one for POTUS. After all Obama sure captured the imagination of a lot of people and look how well he’s run the country.
Doesn’t Carl Rove decide these things?