Fundies out to discredit Romney: It Begins.

[Austin]

Ron Paul is not electable. If one is libertarian-minded at all, he doesn't sound too bad until his his views are really researched. And then not so much. Unless Somolia seems like an attractive place to live. He has his fanatical supporters, for whom he can never do any wrong, but beyond his cult (which is well-organized - I'll give them that), people tend to flirt with his ideas a bit and then get a reality check about what his views would really mean for this country. His views would not be able to withstand the intense scrutiny that a general election would bring.

I'd take Romney any day over him, and I think Romney is a souless asshole.

[bananacat]

The problem for the current GOP is that any candidate who is extreme enough to win the nomination won't be moderate enough to win general election. I'm pretty sure that Obama will be re-elected, partly because we have a history of electing incumbent and partly because the GOP won't be able to get a good candidate. Their last moderate chance was McCain, and he ruined it by pandering to the extremists by picking Palin as his running mate.

I think that Romney would have a decent chance as a modern Democrat if he didn't have to compete with Obama. That says a lot about how far we've shifted, but right now a center-right candidate like Romney would fit better with the Democratic party. Now I won't pretend that Democrats are all accepting and tolerant, and there's plenty of bigotry in both parties, too much IMO. But it's especially bad with the Republican party since the Tea Party has managed to grab a disproportionate amount of power within the party. I could see a religious "minority" having a shot among the Democrats, but there is no way a Mormon or a Catholic will win the GOP primaries. Santorum and Romney are both out for being the wrong brand of Christian. There's no way Bachmann will win either, since she's a woman. There are to many patriarchy supporters to ever let that happen. Cain might have a chance, but when it comes right down to it, I think there will still be enough closet racists that when they actually get into the voting booth, they just won't be able to vote for him no matter what they think of his policies. I'm actually quite surprised that Paul won the Values Voters poll, since he advocates decriminalizing drugs. I don't think this will go over well long-term. So that leaves Perry. As long as he doesn't do anything to eff it up, he's got a pretty good shot at winning just being the default candidate.

So my prediction is that Perry will get the nomination, not because he's anything special, but precisely because there's nothing special about him.

[mirele]

Ron Paul is not electable. If one is libertarian-minded at all, he doesn't sound too bad until his his views are really researched. And then not so much. Unless Somolia seems like an attractive place to live. He has his fanatical supporters, for whom he can never do any wrong, but beyond his cult (which is well-organized - I'll give them that), people tend to flirt with his ideas a bit and then get a reality check about what his views would really mean for this country. His views would not be able to withstand the intense scrutiny that a general election would bring.

I'd take Romney any day over him, and I think Romney is a souless asshole.

This. On top of that, Paul's got a long, long history of being insensitive to issues regarding race, and his opinions on certain women's issues are also cringeworthy. There are a few things I agree with Paul on, but those are side issues of the "clock stopped twice a day" variety.

[kpmom]

Well, one thing I know is that 14 months is an eternity in an election cycle. A lot will happen in that time, and by the time we get down to the nomination, things will probably look VERY different.

Very true. The only one that seems electable to me is Romney, but then I couldn't believe people actually voted for George W. Bush, so what do I know.

Can a Republican get the nomination w/o the support of the evangelicals? I know many of them didn't care for McCain, but he got the nom.

[galaxygirl]

With these candidates, Obama doesn't even have to do anything to get elected. The only one I see even remotely electable is Romney. However, I can't wait for more debates between the GOP candidates, it's better than any sitcom on tv. Sadly.

[Austin]

Very true. The only one that seems electable to me is Romney, but then I couldn't believe people actually voted for George W. Bush, so what do I know.

Can a Republican get the nomination w/o the support of the evangelicals? I know many of them didn't care for McCain, but he got the nom.

It's true that the religious right was very lukewarm on McCain, which is precisely why he chose Sarah Palin, as we all know. My take is that he won the nomination because Romney was a mormon and had a record of being a "liberal" and a flip-flopper. Guiliani was way too liberal. Huckabee only appealed (and appealed big, I concede) to the evangelical protestant right and has major skeletons in his closet, and Ron Paul is a kook who is unelectable. Who am I missing? Anyway, I think McCain was just the last guy standing.

[Sprocket]

I'm just going to preface this rant by disclosing that I just took a 1mg xanex, and that this is my rant with no rational filter. Hell, I may not even hit spellcheck.

Rick Perry. What a load of backwoods horseshit he is. He stood up in front of those equally horseshity people (most of which probably have the banjos from Deliverance following them around wherever they utter words like "misunderestimate" and irregardless") in America and talked out of both sides of his mouth. And people cheered. That scared the crap out of me. America, land of opportunity, land of hope, actually cheered this moron. I digress... Can someone explain to me the congnitive dissonence that occurs that in one breath one can say that every, single life deserves a chance -- no matter the circumstances (ie, anti-choice) however, off the top of my head, he's been the governor who's allowed more people to be put to death under his watch than any other governor of the state of Texas history. Either there is sactity in life or there isn't. Use your grey matter and make a decision one way or the other. Life is wonderful and everyone deserves to live -- or unless the state of Texas desides that you shouldn't? Huh? I really wanted to throw my pre-recession/pre-baby 48 inch flat screen tv out the window on that one just so I'm no longer bombarded with this fuckery til Novembr 2012.

And as another side note, dear Texas governor, I think we've successfully fulfilled our quota on ignorant evangelical Texas governors for one generation. Hell, let my great-great grandchildren suffer through one. One in my lifetime was more than enough. I'm a massive history buff but I can't remember (thank you meds) if Johnson was ever a governor. Either way, I wasnt' born yet, so anywhoo. The last oh great governor that hailed from the longhorn state was no peach and his de-regulation policies (+2 wars) are the reason we're Snookie bufount (sp?) high in dept and all of the other economic woes -- which I equate to swimming in the pool with all the kids who haven't gotten out to pee ALL DAY, among other things. I digress yet again...

So fuck you, Rick Perry. And if you're elected, I hope the Mayans had it right and the world ends Dec 21, 2012. Because you're going to royally fuck this country over -- and do it with that shit-eating smile on your face -- and it just may be safer to be beemed up by aliens or whatever these doomsdayers things will happen.

*highly medicated rant over*

[LynnKaboom]

Rick Perry reminds me of Yosemite Sam. I can just see him chasing after Bugs Bunny.

But I think Yosemite Sam might be the better president.

[Bella99]

Hmmm. Is Perry Yosemite or Foghorn Leghorn? Pondering......

[bananacat]

Rick Perry reminds me of George W. Bush, and not just because they're from the same state. They really have similar backgrounds, but they also have the macho personality and pretend to be against intellectual elites while actually having attended a good university and skating by on privilege while being stereotypical irresponsible frat boys. And I think Perry could conceivably win, since we did actually elect Bush the second time. I'm too young to really know much about the George H.W. Bush presidency, so I don't know if he had that same fake "Aww shucks, I'm just a good old southern boy" persona, but I am inclined to give Perry the nickname Bush III just because of his similarity to Bush II. Can anyone better informed than me tell me if H.W. Bush was similar to W.?

[demgirl]

H.W. Bush had less of that "good ole' boy" personality. He was much more the elitist, prep school Republican. I'd say he's closer to Romney than Perry.

I just don't think Perry takes this one. After all the straw polls (which mean less than nothing) are done... I think the guy with the most money, who has been de facto running for four years, is entirely vetted, and has already been attacked for every scandal and "wrong" vote so that voters are tired of hearing about it is going to take the primaries -- and that's Romney. Ironically, given how far away the election is, I think Perry got in too late. Voters aren't going to forget the HPV scandal, the immigration issues, etc. in time.

Paul is an absolute loon and people always clap feverishly at his "Never pay any taxes ever for anything" and turn around and vote for someone else. Bachmann, Santorum and Gingrech are out of money and out of time to build any steam. Cain is a little strange, but he'd need an enormous uptick in fundraising to be a real threat.

In any other election cycle, Romney would be the John Kerry of the election... but again, I really don't think voters are going to cast votes based on the candidate. I think it will all come down to how pissed off the electorate is about the economy, so I think he would win against Obama.

[Childless]

I'm not entirely sure that Romney would win the general election. It would all depend on how many of the the Republican evangelical base sat out. Will they refuse to vote because he's a Mormon or would they go to the polls because they hate Obama that much? It'll all depend on what they do. They're a much bigger voting block than independents and while Romney might pick up a few dems, I don't think he'd get enough of them to make a difference. He'll need that evangelical voting block to win.

[NurseNell]

I think it will all come down to how pissed off the electorate is about the economy, so I think he would win against Obama.

I think so too, and it's a scary situation. I would not want to see any of the current Republican candidates win. I think Obama has disappointed many of us who voted for him, even given that the economy is really far more complicated than to be blamed on one person, but he is the best candidate to date.

[quinoa mama]

What about Newt Gingrich. He has a long conservative record and he doesn't seem batshit crazy like Bachmann or Cain. People always bring up his multiple wives, but that I think a lot of people would feel more comfortable with that than Mormonism.

[quinoa mama]

What about Newt Gingrich. He has a long conservative record and he doesn't seem batshit crazy like Bachmann or Cain. People always bring up his multiple wives, but that I think a lot of people would feel more comfortable with that than Mormonism.

[Guest Anonymous]

What about Newt Gingrich. He has a long conservative record and he doesn't seem batshit crazy like Bachmann or Cain. People always bring up his multiple wives, but that I think a lot of people would feel more comfortable with that than Mormonism.

It's my understanding that Newt is barely showing up in the polls. For whatever reason, voters don't seem to like him.

[kpmom]

It's my understanding that Newt is barely showing up in the polls. For whatever reason, voters don't seem to like him.

Saturday Night Live does a funny, ongoing skit, where they let Newt out of the debates early to beat the traffic after he admits he really doesn't want to be president.

[Buzzard]

It's my understanding that Newt is barely showing up in the polls. For whatever reason, voters don't seem to like him.

Hes coming in 4th and he's clearly the smartest of the bunch. Cain has a libertarian streak whether he admits it or not. I like his plan that is sort of a flat tax but kinda isnt... but he doesnt have a shot. I'll vote for Romney and I do think he has a shot. Whether the fundies admit it or not they'll vote for Romney before they vote for the (percieved) communist muzlehm. Mccain isnt exactly the beacon of christianity... they embraced him...

[Childless]

Hes coming in 4th and he's clearly the smartest of the bunch. Cain has a libertarian streak whether he admits it or not. I like his plan that is sort of a flat tax but kinda isnt... but he doesnt have a shot. I'll vote for Romney and I do think he has a shot. Whether the fundies admit it or not they'll vote for Romney before they vote for the (percieved) communist muzlehm. Mccain isnt exactly the beacon of christianity... they embraced him...

McCain isn't Mormon. Romney's religion is a huge red herring when you're talking about evangelicals. Although, I think they would vote for him if only to try and thwart an Obama second term. The whole best of two bad choices thing.

[fundyfunland]

I'll never understand what fundie christians have against LDS members, and saying they're not Christians. Same goes with their stance on Catholics. If someone believes Jesus is the messiah (yes, I'm looking at you Lina!), he or she is a Christian. END. OF. STORY.

As an aside, from what I've seen from Newt Gingrich, he is batshit crazy, but not because he's a Mormon.

[Austin]

I'll never understand what fundie christians have against LDS members, and saying they're not Christians. Same goes with their stance on Catholics. If someone believes Jesus is the messiah (yes, I'm looking at you Lina!), he or she is a Christian. END. OF. STORY.

As an aside, from what I've seen from Newt Gingrich, he is batshit crazy, but not because he's a Mormon.

Evangelicals will never vote for Gingrich. He's had a multitude of affairs and served one of his ex-wives with divorce papers while she was in the hospital, recovering from cancer surgery. He was womanizing the whole time he was calling for the impeachment of President Clinton for sexual indiscretion. He's a philanderer and a hypocrite, at the very least.

[margiebargie]

Is Jon Huntsman still in the race? He's somewhat sane compared to the other republican candidates. He acknowledges the fact of evolution.

[emmiedahl]

I believe Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, perjury, not for his indiscretions. But Newt is a snake, a politician to the core, which is not exactly electable right now.

[Austin]

I believe Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, perjury, not for his indiscretions. But Newt is a snake, a politician to the core, which is not exactly electable right now.

I believe I said he was "calling for the impeachment of President Clinton". I know why Clinton was impeached.

[emmiedahl]

You said "calling for the impeachment due to sexual indiscretion". Difference between that and perjury.