Using Reason and Common Sense in Choosing the GOP Nominee

[Nyvin]

Lets not choose a extremist in 2016! Lets use some logic, common sense and reality!!!

Left needs to be put back into its disgusting little box.

We haven't chosen an extremist in the last attempts....Dole, McCain, Romney....hardly what you would call extreme...they were the picks of the establishment Republicans and they lost...I did vote for all three...who was the last Republican to win....George Bush....twice........

Perhaps we should learn from the winners this time....George Bush and Ronald Reagan...I think they were a tad bit conservative...weren't they...of course Bush spent too much money but he got the war right...till obama came in and wrecked it....

The war was a disaster, it's why all the GOP candidates are backing away from it, even Bush's brother Jeb had to eventually back away from supporting the Iraq War. It was a mess as early as 2004, the administration just kept the charade of it positive until the 2006 midterms came along.

Bush signed the treaty to have all US troops removed from Iraq, he signed it in 2008, leaving "nothing" in the country in regards to the US military.

Saying "Bush got the war right" is a right wing fairy tale

 

[2aguy]

Lets not choose a extremist in 2016! Lets use some logic, common sense and reality!!!

Left needs to be put back into its disgusting little box.

We haven't chosen an extremist in the last attempts....Dole, McCain, Romney....hardly what you would call extreme...they were the picks of the establishment Republicans and they lost...I did vote for all three...who was the last Republican to win....George Bush....twice........

Perhaps we should learn from the winners this time....George Bush and Ronald Reagan...I think they were a tad bit conservative...weren't they...of course Bush spent too much money but he got the war right...till obama came in and wrecked it....

The war was a disaster, it's why all the GOP candidates are backing away from it, even Bush's brother Jeb had to eventually back away from supporting the Iraq War. It was a mess as early as 2004, the administration just kept the charade of it positive until the 2006 midterms came along.

Bush signed the treaty to have all US troops removed from Iraq, he signed it in 2008, leaving "nothing" in the country in regards to the US military.

Saying "Bush got the war right" is a right wing fairy tale

History will see it differently.....and obama will be judged for the disaster he created....

 

[Nyvin]

Lets not choose a extremist in 2016! Lets use some logic, common sense and reality!!!

Left needs to be put back into its disgusting little box.

We haven't chosen an extremist in the last attempts....Dole, McCain, Romney....hardly what you would call extreme...they were the picks of the establishment Republicans and they lost...I did vote for all three...who was the last Republican to win....George Bush....twice........

Perhaps we should learn from the winners this time....George Bush and Ronald Reagan...I think they were a tad bit conservative...weren't they...of course Bush spent too much money but he got the war right...till obama came in and wrecked it....

The war was a disaster, it's why all the GOP candidates are backing away from it, even Bush's brother Jeb had to eventually back away from supporting the Iraq War. It was a mess as early as 2004, the administration just kept the charade of it positive until the 2006 midterms came along.

Bush signed the treaty to have all US troops removed from Iraq, he signed it in 2008, leaving "nothing" in the country in regards to the US military.

Saying "Bush got the war right" is a right wing fairy tale

History will see it differently.....and obama will be judged for the disaster he created....

No he won't. I can guarantee you the Iraq War and the proceeding ramifications in the region will be attributed to Bush. The Iraq War was practically Bush's Affordable Care Act of his term...he put everything into it, and it was a total mess from beginning to end and beyond.

If he put all that political capital into something and then just left the responsibility to Obama that itself was it's own failure.

 

[toxicmedia]

As an Independent, I am disappointed that in the past too many conservative Republicans have shown a lack of reason and common sense in judging GOP presidential candidates, leading to the selection of a weak nominee.

In 2008, too many conservatives unfairly judged Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to be "RINOs," and as a result John McCain got the nomination. In 2012, too many conservatives declined to support Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich because they did not have a perfect record on every issue, even though overall they were definitely conservative and probably would have run a more effective campaign than Romney did (and I say this as someone who likes Romney).

Someone who agrees with you on 70% of the issues is not a RINO and is not your enemy. And when you judge someone who was/is a governor or mayor, you have to consider the legislature/city council with which he or she had to work.

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

It would also be a great idea for the GOP to pick a woman and/or a black as the VP nominee, if not the presidential nominee, or both. Nominating two white guys will just confirm the idea that the GOP is ultimately a good ole boys club.

Sarah Palin was is intellectually very weak, and a disaster.

But I don't think the GOP lost the last two Presidential elections because they had weak candidates.

I think the majority of American voters rejected a very clear platform based largely on social issues.

The GOP platform in it's entirety, has something for every demographic to be offended by, except white guys

those wanting handouts or who wanted to suck on the public tit were the most offended

I work for a living, and I didn't vote for Obama.

I wasn't offended by Mitt's 47% comment, but it was a huge turn off for me because Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

His idea of struggling financially was when he and his wife first started their own business after college, fully paid for by daddy, and they had to sell off some stocks in GM his Dad gave him. Just to afford that 5 star lifestyle and he's never known any other.

 

[turtledude]

As an Independent, I am disappointed that in the past too many conservative Republicans have shown a lack of reason and common sense in judging GOP presidential candidates, leading to the selection of a weak nominee.

In 2008, too many conservatives unfairly judged Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to be "RINOs," and as a result John McCain got the nomination. In 2012, too many conservatives declined to support Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich because they did not have a perfect record on every issue, even though overall they were definitely conservative and probably would have run a more effective campaign than Romney did (and I say this as someone who likes Romney).

Someone who agrees with you on 70% of the issues is not a RINO and is not your enemy. And when you judge someone who was/is a governor or mayor, you have to consider the legislature/city council with which he or she had to work.

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

It would also be a great idea for the GOP to pick a woman and/or a black as the VP nominee, if not the presidential nominee, or both. Nominating two white guys will just confirm the idea that the GOP is ultimately a good ole boys club.

Sarah Palin was is intellectually very weak, and a disaster.

But I don't think the GOP lost the last two Presidential elections because they had weak candidates.

I think the majority of American voters rejected a very clear platform based largely on social issues.

The GOP platform in it's entirety, has something for every demographic to be offended by, except white guys

those wanting handouts or who wanted to suck on the public tit were the most offended

I work for a living, and I didn't vote for Obama.

I wasn't offended by Mitt's 47% comment, but it was a huge turn off for me because Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

His idea of struggling financially was when he and his wife first started their own business after college, fully paid for by daddy, and they had to sell off some stocks in GM his Dad gave him. Just to afford that 5 star lifestyle and he's never known any other.

I really don't worry much about the background of a candidate. what I worry about is what policies he will push and the type of judges he will appoint. Romney did a good job as a governor, a great job as the Olympic chairman, and was a successful executive at Bain. That sure made him far more qualified than Obama. And Mitt didn't get affirmative racism to get into Stanford, or Harvard Law or Harvard MBA

 

[Nyvin]

As an Independent, I am disappointed that in the past too many conservative Republicans have shown a lack of reason and common sense in judging GOP presidential candidates, leading to the selection of a weak nominee.

In 2008, too many conservatives unfairly judged Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to be "RINOs," and as a result John McCain got the nomination. In 2012, too many conservatives declined to support Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich because they did not have a perfect record on every issue, even though overall they were definitely conservative and probably would have run a more effective campaign than Romney did (and I say this as someone who likes Romney).

Someone who agrees with you on 70% of the issues is not a RINO and is not your enemy. And when you judge someone who was/is a governor or mayor, you have to consider the legislature/city council with which he or she had to work.

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

It would also be a great idea for the GOP to pick a woman and/or a black as the VP nominee, if not the presidential nominee, or both. Nominating two white guys will just confirm the idea that the GOP is ultimately a good ole boys club.

Sarah Palin was is intellectually very weak, and a disaster.

But I don't think the GOP lost the last two Presidential elections because they had weak candidates.

I think the majority of American voters rejected a very clear platform based largely on social issues.

The GOP platform in it's entirety, has something for every demographic to be offended by, except white guys

those wanting handouts or who wanted to suck on the public tit were the most offended

I work for a living, and I didn't vote for Obama.

I wasn't offended by Mitt's 47% comment, but it was a huge turn off for me because Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

His idea of struggling financially was when he and his wife first started their own business after college, fully paid for by daddy, and they had to sell off some stocks in GM his Dad gave him. Just to afford that 5 star lifestyle and he's never known any other.

I really don't worry much about the background of a candidate. what I worry about is what policies he will push and the type of judges he will appoint. Romney did a good job as a governor, a great job as the Olympic chairman, and was a successful executive at Bain. That sure made him far more qualified than Obama. And Mitt didn't get affirmative racism to get into Stanford, or Harvard Law or Harvard MBA

He was a very mediocre governor, which is why he didn't run for reelection after 1 term. He left office with 39% approving his job performance and 59% disapproving. Two things he did get right was supporting renewable energy and Romneycare, both probably are his highlights.

He also never got Massachusetts out of the rut it was it in from the dotcom bust, but I wouldn't attribute that to him alone.

Two dumb things he did was try to reinstate the death penalty in the state that probably hates it the most in the country, and refuse to increase the minimum wage in one of the most expensive states in the country, both saw his approval drop significantly afterwards.

 

[turtledude]

As an Independent, I am disappointed that in the past too many conservative Republicans have shown a lack of reason and common sense in judging GOP presidential candidates, leading to the selection of a weak nominee.

In 2008, too many conservatives unfairly judged Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to be "RINOs," and as a result John McCain got the nomination. In 2012, too many conservatives declined to support Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich because they did not have a perfect record on every issue, even though overall they were definitely conservative and probably would have run a more effective campaign than Romney did (and I say this as someone who likes Romney).

Someone who agrees with you on 70% of the issues is not a RINO and is not your enemy. And when you judge someone who was/is a governor or mayor, you have to consider the legislature/city council with which he or she had to work.

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

It would also be a great idea for the GOP to pick a woman and/or a black as the VP nominee, if not the presidential nominee, or both. Nominating two white guys will just confirm the idea that the GOP is ultimately a good ole boys club.

Sarah Palin was is intellectually very weak, and a disaster.

But I don't think the GOP lost the last two Presidential elections because they had weak candidates.

I think the majority of American voters rejected a very clear platform based largely on social issues.

The GOP platform in it's entirety, has something for every demographic to be offended by, except white guys

those wanting handouts or who wanted to suck on the public tit were the most offended

I work for a living, and I didn't vote for Obama.

I wasn't offended by Mitt's 47% comment, but it was a huge turn off for me because Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

His idea of struggling financially was when he and his wife first started their own business after college, fully paid for by daddy, and they had to sell off some stocks in GM his Dad gave him. Just to afford that 5 star lifestyle and he's never known any other.

I really don't worry much about the background of a candidate. what I worry about is what policies he will push and the type of judges he will appoint. Romney did a good job as a governor, a great job as the Olympic chairman, and was a successful executive at Bain. That sure made him far more qualified than Obama. And Mitt didn't get affirmative racism to get into Stanford, or Harvard Law or Harvard MBA

He was a very mediocre governor, which is why he didn't run for reelection after 1 term. He left office with 39% approving his job performance and 59% disapproving. Two things he did get right was supporting renewable energy and Romneycare, both probably are his highlights.

He also never got Massachusetts out of the rut it was it in from the dotcom bust, but I wouldn't attribute that to him alone.

I knew well, in college, the woman Mitt Beat. at our 25th reunion, she was whining how she lost to him but admitted he wasn't that bad.

He had a resume far better than the affirmative action empty suit who beat him

 

[Nyvin]

Sarah Palin was is intellectually very weak, and a disaster.

But I don't think the GOP lost the last two Presidential elections because they had weak candidates.

I think the majority of American voters rejected a very clear platform based largely on social issues.

The GOP platform in it's entirety, has something for every demographic to be offended by, except white guys

those wanting handouts or who wanted to suck on the public tit were the most offended

I work for a living, and I didn't vote for Obama.

I wasn't offended by Mitt's 47% comment, but it was a huge turn off for me because Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

His idea of struggling financially was when he and his wife first started their own business after college, fully paid for by daddy, and they had to sell off some stocks in GM his Dad gave him. Just to afford that 5 star lifestyle and he's never known any other.

I really don't worry much about the background of a candidate. what I worry about is what policies he will push and the type of judges he will appoint. Romney did a good job as a governor, a great job as the Olympic chairman, and was a successful executive at Bain. That sure made him far more qualified than Obama. And Mitt didn't get affirmative racism to get into Stanford, or Harvard Law or Harvard MBA

He was a very mediocre governor, which is why he didn't run for reelection after 1 term. He left office with 39% approving his job performance and 59% disapproving. Two things he did get right was supporting renewable energy and Romneycare, both probably are his highlights.

He also never got Massachusetts out of the rut it was it in from the dotcom bust, but I wouldn't attribute that to him alone.

I knew well, in college, the woman Mitt Beat. at our 25th reunion, she was whining how she lost to him but admitted he wasn't that bad.

He had a resume far better than the affirmative action empty suit who beat him

At least there is the small sense Obama had to really "work" to where he got to, Romney literally had pretty much everything handed to him from birth.

 

[turtledude]

those wanting handouts or who wanted to suck on the public tit were the most offended

I work for a living, and I didn't vote for Obama.

I wasn't offended by Mitt's 47% comment, but it was a huge turn off for me because Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

His idea of struggling financially was when he and his wife first started their own business after college, fully paid for by daddy, and they had to sell off some stocks in GM his Dad gave him. Just to afford that 5 star lifestyle and he's never known any other.

I really don't worry much about the background of a candidate. what I worry about is what policies he will push and the type of judges he will appoint. Romney did a good job as a governor, a great job as the Olympic chairman, and was a successful executive at Bain. That sure made him far more qualified than Obama. And Mitt didn't get affirmative racism to get into Stanford, or Harvard Law or Harvard MBA

He was a very mediocre governor, which is why he didn't run for reelection after 1 term. He left office with 39% approving his job performance and 59% disapproving. Two things he did get right was supporting renewable energy and Romneycare, both probably are his highlights.

He also never got Massachusetts out of the rut it was it in from the dotcom bust, but I wouldn't attribute that to him alone.

I knew well, in college, the woman Mitt Beat. at our 25th reunion, she was whining how she lost to him but admitted he wasn't that bad.

He had a resume far better than the affirmative action empty suit who beat him

At least there is the small sense Obama had to really "work" to where he got to, Romney literally had pretty much everything handed to him from birth.

LOL, goof off in HS -go to Occidental because he was black. Get into columbia because he was black. get into Harvard Law because he was black.

then we have his political achievements. A liberal judge torpedoes the Republican who would have beat him by allowing the press access to sealed allegations in a sealed divorce file. The other black contender for the Democrat nomination gets torpedoed as well

then he wins the election because blacks turnout in record numbers because of his race and lots of guilty feeling whites vote for him so they can tell themselves they aren't racist

combine that with the fact that the press was busy cum'ing in their shorts over this token

 

[rdean]

As an Independent, I am disappointed that in the past too many conservative Republicans have shown a lack of reason and common sense in judging GOP presidential candidates, leading to the selection of a weak nominee.

In 2008, too many conservatives unfairly judged Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to be "RINOs," and as a result John McCain got the nomination. In 2012, too many conservatives declined to support Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich because they did not have a perfect record on every issue, even though overall they were definitely conservative and probably would have run a more effective campaign than Romney did (and I say this as someone who likes Romney).

Someone who agrees with you on 70% of the issues is not a RINO and is not your enemy. And when you judge someone who was/is a governor or mayor, you have to consider the legislature/city council with which he or she had to work.

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

It would also be a great idea for the GOP to pick a woman and/or a black as the VP nominee, if not the presidential nominee, or both. Nominating two white guys will just confirm the idea that the GOP is ultimately a good ole boys club.

Sarah Palin was is intellectually very weak, and a disaster.

But I don't think the GOP lost the last two Presidential elections because they had weak candidates.

I think the majority of American voters rejected a very clear platform based largely on social issues.

The GOP platform in it's entirety, has something for every demographic to be offended by, except white guys

those wanting handouts or who wanted to suck on the public tit were the most offended

I work for a living, and I didn't vote for Obama.

I wasn't offended by Mitt's 47% comment, but it was a huge turn off for me because Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

His idea of struggling financially was when he and his wife first started their own business after college, fully paid for by daddy, and they had to sell off some stocks in GM his Dad gave him. Just to afford that 5 star lifestyle and he's never known any other.

I really don't worry much about the background of a candidate. what I worry about is what policies he will push and the type of judges he will appoint. Romney did a good job as a governor, a great job as the Olympic chairman, and was a successful executive at Bain. That sure made him far more qualified than Obama. And Mitt didn't get affirmative racism to get into Stanford, or Harvard Law or Harvard MBA

romney was a lousy governor - Google Search

romney was a predator at bain - Google Search


You didn't do that on your own.

Romney investigated over olympics - Google Search

Don't believe me. Pick your own link. There are so many to choose from.

 

[rdean]

I work for a living, and I didn't vote for Obama.

I wasn't offended by Mitt's 47% comment, but it was a huge turn off for me because Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

His idea of struggling financially was when he and his wife first started their own business after college, fully paid for by daddy, and they had to sell off some stocks in GM his Dad gave him. Just to afford that 5 star lifestyle and he's never known any other.

I really don't worry much about the background of a candidate. what I worry about is what policies he will push and the type of judges he will appoint. Romney did a good job as a governor, a great job as the Olympic chairman, and was a successful executive at Bain. That sure made him far more qualified than Obama. And Mitt didn't get affirmative racism to get into Stanford, or Harvard Law or Harvard MBA

He was a very mediocre governor, which is why he didn't run for reelection after 1 term. He left office with 39% approving his job performance and 59% disapproving. Two things he did get right was supporting renewable energy and Romneycare, both probably are his highlights.

He also never got Massachusetts out of the rut it was it in from the dotcom bust, but I wouldn't attribute that to him alone.

I knew well, in college, the woman Mitt Beat. at our 25th reunion, she was whining how she lost to him but admitted he wasn't that bad.

He had a resume far better than the affirmative action empty suit who beat him

At least there is the small sense Obama had to really "work" to where he got to, Romney literally had pretty much everything handed to him from birth.

LOL, goof off in HS -go to Occidental because he was black. Get into columbia because he was black. get into Harvard Law because he was black.

then we have his political achievements. A liberal judge torpedoes the Republican who would have beat him by allowing the press access to sealed allegations in a sealed divorce file. The other black contender for the Democrat nomination gets torpedoed as well

then he wins the election because blacks turnout in record numbers because of his race and lots of guilty feeling whites vote for him so they can tell themselves they aren't racist

combine that with the fact that the press was busy cum'ing in their shorts over this token

So you are saying Obama became editor because Harvard has no integrity????

You guys just can't take it he's probably smarter than every Republican that exists today.

obama embarrassed republicans are gop retreat - Google Search

 

[candycorn]

How's this for an idea? Consistent with reason and common sense...

Choose someone whose policies are not going to be informed by a fairy tale.

Choose someone whose morality is not fundamentally based in fear of some kind of boogey-man.

Choose anyone but some retard who thinks their mythology is some kind of LAW, rather than a useful metaphor when dealing with a difficult reality.

You want to know why the Republican party had to put up McCain? Because Romney, Huckabee, and Santorum are superstitious retards.

You want to know why Obama beat McCain? Because Obama had a proven record of being a better Republican than McCain. (talk about RINO... sheesh!)

The Republican party--if it is going to have any hope of defeating the church of government--must disavow the superstitious right, and put up for election a rational candidate for a change.

That would get my vote.

Wrong.
Here is the reason McCain lost in 2008; Bush fatigue. No GOP challenger was going to win. There was no a win to be had. In 2012, there was a chance to win and the GOP candidate ran a bizarrely bad campaign where he let Obama define him early and spent the entire election trying to shed the definition. Taking a trip in the middle of the campaign was bizarrely stupid.

 

[rdean]

How's this for an idea? Consistent with reason and common sense...

Choose someone whose policies are not going to be informed by a fairy tale.

Choose someone whose morality is not fundamentally based in fear of some kind of boogey-man.

Choose anyone but some retard who thinks their mythology is some kind of LAW, rather than a useful metaphor when dealing with a difficult reality.

You want to know why the Republican party had to put up McCain? Because Romney, Huckabee, and Santorum are superstitious retards.

You want to know why Obama beat McCain? Because Obama had a proven record of being a better Republican than McCain. (talk about RINO... sheesh!)

The Republican party--if it is going to have any hope of defeating the church of government--must disavow the superstitious right, and put up for election a rational candidate for a change.

That would get my vote.

Wrong.
Here is the reason McCain lost in 2008; Bush fatigue. No GOP challenger was going to win. There was no a win to be had. In 2012, there was a chance to win and the GOP candidate ran a bizarrely bad campaign where he let Obama define him early and spent the entire election trying to shed the definition. Taking a trip in the middle of the campaign was bizarrely stupid.

Bush fatigue? As in "enormous fuck up"? For sure that's partly true. The election wasn't close enough that the Supreme Court could simply hand it over to the GOP like they did with Bush.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If we are going to avoid economic collapse, the next president must start to get our fiscal house in order. Any thinking, rational person with a command of basic math can see that our present fiscal course is leading us toward a cliff.

Given Hillary's disappointing far-left posturing, it seems increasingly doubtful that she would seek to return to fiscal sanity. Therefore, centrists, conservatives, and fiscally responsible liberals had better unite behind the GOP nominee, if we hope to avoid the fate of Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.

 

[Nyvin]

If we are going to avoid economic collapse, the next president must start to get our fiscal house in order. Any thinking, rational person with a command of basic math can see that our present fiscal course is leading us toward a cliff.

Given Hillary's disappointing far-left posturing, it seems increasingly doubtful that she would seek to return to fiscal sanity. Therefore, centrists, conservatives, and fiscally responsible liberals had better unite behind the GOP nominee, if we hope to avoid the fate of Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.

The deficits went down with Clinton and Obama, they went up with Bush. I'd say the better option is Hillary.

 

[Contumacious]

Using Reason and Common Sense in Choosing the GOP Nominee

Yes indeed.

"Independent" Americans will use "reason and common sense" (wink, wink) in choosing a presidential nominee.


Factors that will influence their decision are:


1- will he/she support the welfare/warfare police state
2- will he/she feed me
3- will he/she insure me
4- will he/she educate my child until he is in community college
5- will he/she quench my thirst


.
.

Yes indeed.

"Independent" Americans will use "reason and common sense" (wink, wink) in choosing a presidential nominee.


Factors that will influence their decision are:


1- will he/she support the welfare/warfare police state
2- will he/she feed me
3- will he/she insure me
4- will he/she educate my child until he is in community college
5- will he/she quench my thirst

 

[Jackson]

As an Independent, I am disappointed that in the past too many conservative Republicans have shown a lack of reason and common sense in judging GOP presidential candidates, leading to the selection of a weak nominee.

In 2008, too many conservatives unfairly judged Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to be "RINOs," and as a result John McCain got the nomination. In 2012, too many conservatives declined to support Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich because they did not have a perfect record on every issue, even though overall they were definitely conservative and probably would have run a more effective campaign than Romney did (and I say this as someone who likes Romney).

Someone who agrees with you on 70% of the issues is not a RINO and is not your enemy. And when you judge someone who was/is a governor or mayor, you have to consider the legislature/city council with which he or she had to work.

The GOP must nominate someone who is a good speaker and debater, and someone who is not afraid to go on the attack when the facts justify an attack (even if the news media scream and howl over the attack).

It would also be a great idea for the GOP to pick a woman and/or a black as the VP nominee, if not the presidential nominee, or both. Nominating two white guys will just confirm the idea that the GOP is ultimately a good ole boys club.

I agree with much you said, however I decline to endorse your thought on the Vice Presidential nominee. The days of picking a minority for the sake of "looking inclusive" are gone. Sure if a woman or black rises to the nexis reasonable selection of president should the elected president become unavailable to continue his presidency. But don't vote for token minorities that could have a disaster tenure of the presidency. Make sure they can handle the presidency if the occasion arises.

 

[eagle7_31]

"Using Reason and Common Sense in Choosing the GOP Nominee"

One fails to see the point given the fact the republican political agenda is devoid of reason and common sense.

The only thing worse is the Democrats.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I just watched Jeb Bush's announcement speech. Other than his name baggage, I see no major problem with him. He is definitely not his brother. He is articulate and credible. His overall record as governor is clearly conservative, by any rational measurement:

Jeb Bush s Record Mostly Conservative

No, I don't agree with Jeb on every issue, but I agree with him on enough issues that I could support him. I am especially impressed with his fiscal record as governor.

The next president will have to fix the fiscal disaster that Obama has created, and Jeb's record as governor suggests he would be up to the job.

I am still uncommitted. I want to see the candidates in the debates before I start to decide on my preference.

The only Democrat I would consider backing would be James Webb, who is still doing the exploratory committee thing and is spending time in Iowa. He's getting little press coverage. If the GOP nominated a particularly weak candidate, I would consider Webb (if by some miracle he got the Dem nomination and chose a sane VP candidate).

 

[Socialist]

Bernie sanders, if we 're using common sense.