previous post next post  

After two debates...

By The Armorer on September 13, 2011 | | Comments (34)
 ...anybody excited about any of the people running?

Yeah, I'm on leave, and bored.  Well, until SWWBO notices my availability - then things will change.  I might still be bored, but I will be busy.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

34 Comments

By Raging Tachikoma on September 13, 2011 10:07 AM
I have watched niether of the debates, and I don't intend to start watching them until all of the snowballs chance in hell candidates are dropped, better to see a two or three way discussion of true potential nominees without all of the noise they create.  That said the only candidate to excite me thus far is Perry,  no he isn't perfect but he seems to be a d@mn sight better than Mitt "Global Warming is real" Romneycare.
 
By Heartless Libertarian on September 13, 2011 10:16 AM
Well, my preferred choice, Gary Johnson, keeps getting excluded from the debates
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 13, 2011 10:25 AM
@Raging - you make a good point, and one that I spent most of my voting life using.  Having been more involved in politics the last few years (even to the point of actually participating in partisan activity and having a chance to talk with actual politicians in ways most people don't) I'm less sanguine about waiting - because when you wait, you end up with what's left after the rabid partisans have shaped the field.

That may still be a better approach, I'm just not as sanguine about it as I used to be.
 
By JimC on September 13, 2011 10:34 AM
I'm a honkie for Cain.  He doesn't have a chance but he has good ideas and speaks without notes or a teleprompter in complete sentences and paragraphs.  Clearly unelectable.
 
By Grumpy on September 13, 2011 10:35 AM
 John, as I watched, I should have just dozed off and went to sleep. In my dreams, I would have voted the same way I wanted to, the last time. "None of the Above" - *Check*! I know, that is not right! But it always seems to sound like endless chatter, actually saying nothing. But the same is true of the other side. I just wish these people who consider themselves to be *the elites* would at least, visit reality.  
 
By DL Sly on September 13, 2011 11:13 AM
"Yeah, I'm on leave, and bored."

And nary a Whatziss to be found?
tch tch tch
Slacker.
0>;~}
 
By Miss Ladybug on September 13, 2011 11:32 AM
Voting "None of the above" gets us a president like Obama.  Elections have consequences...whether you vote or not...
   
By Quartermaster on September 13, 2011 1:04 PM
 DL, son't feel bad. All I did was ask him about a rifle and a bayonet and he gave me a mean look and hurt my little feelings.

My version of SWWBO has a list prepared in case I get the idea I have some free time.
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 13, 2011 1:08 PM
All y'all bite me.

 
By Rob in Katy on September 13, 2011 1:30 PM
I like Cain, I liked MB until she went off the Vaccine deep end. With forced vaccinations we all but had Polio, TB and a host of other diseases wiped out, now they are coming back with a vengeance that we allow anyone to opt out or allow those that have never been vaccinated to sneak over the border and infect others. I had Whooping Cough a few years ago, it was wiped out in this country – Who the F let it back in? The Gardasil stuff is another matter, it had very little testing and since it was an STD, it should have been by parental or individual request not a mandate. I see a lot of good VP candidates that can carry the fight and fight dirty which the President shouldn't do, but not one Ron or Maggie. sigh.
 
By Raging Tachikoma on September 13, 2011 1:56 PM
Cain is awesome, but he is effectively a nonentity at the present time, he would be well served by aiming for a Governorship or Senate seat before trying for the big prize.  Both Reagan and Thatcher have become Legends that shine so brightly people often don't see the failings and mistakes they made, Reagan was a great president. but he was far from perfect, and Thatcher effectively set the UK on the roaf to civil disarmament and EU membership, which is all too rarely commented upon. This is a search for the best candidate for the current moment, not the best candidate circa 1980 so everyone needs to stop with the Reagan comparisons already, he isn't about to rise from the dead,and even if he did he would be ineligable to run for office again, I think, otherwise all ahead for Zombie Reagan in 2012,
 
By Grumpy on September 13, 2011 3:16 PM
   John, in your reply to "Raging", you make some very important points. The first one is later, you say, "...I have become a little less sanguine." You talk about your personal journey into this whole area of partisan politics. In other words, in a "World of Rabid Fanatics", you're trying to be a "Rational Fantic". This is what appears to me to be the situation. During this time of the year the politician has 2 groups of people around him or her at all times. They are "The Office Staff" and their "Political Handlers", providing a "radar-like dome of protection", looking up and out. You, on the other hand, fly low and fast right under the "radar" into the inner sanctum of the politician's "protective dome". You are on the "Inner Ring" behind "staff" and "handlers". Heaven forbid, that the politician says something, not approved by his "handlers." There you sit, face-to-face with the politician. Is that a smile or a smirk on your face? With your background, you start to question the politician. It is strange, none of the questions are answered by the "Bullet Points" or the "Powerpoint Presentations". All you hear is "Argghhh!!!!!!"
 
By Rivrdog on September 13, 2011 3:22 PM
Until and unless the GOP brass figures out that we leave our theology at home when we go to vote, we'll be stuck with this crowd of candidates, all trying to show the best religious face. Excuse me, when did I fall asleep and this Nation became a religious oligarchy?

By my lights, it hasn't, so all the social engineering questions and answers must only be there to hide the candidates' lack of cogent positions on the subjects which matter.

I lay this directly at the feet of the GOP, and if they don't get off this Crusade, they're going to lose, again, only this time, the whole Nation goes down the drain with the loss.

I can be as devout as anyone else. I just don't let my religious beliefs interfere with my concepts of civil governance.
 
By John (Not The Armorer) on September 13, 2011 3:53 PM
Excpet for Huntsman or kook Ron Paul, I would vote for whoever gets the nimination.
And the others should all be put in cabinet positions and turned loose to raise havoc and slash their empires!

Perry's my man at this point, about 80% right on issues and I think can be counted on to do what he says.  I'll fight for him!
Romney is a politician flip flopper and not conservative enough for me.  I can live with him if I have to.
Bachman's good on most issues, but I want executive experience (public or private), and her Gardisil attacks on Perry turned me off.
Cain-  Good man, good ideas, good presentation, but lacks involvement in government. 
Newt-  Sharp- great for refocusing the debates, but personal baggage and his "loveseat with Pelosi" deal turns me off.
Santorum-  Right ideas, not a dynamic leader.
Huntsman- Should be in Dem primary.  He is a squishy RINO ego driven "moderate" who would be nowhere if his daddy was not a billionaire.   I saw how he ran a state- poorly.  He should drop out now.
Ron Paul- 50% brilliant, 50% total nut case.  Get him off the stage and into a rubber room.
And as a bonus- Palin-  Best policy positions of the bunch, about 99% correct in my opinion, but so throroughly and permanently trashed by media lies that she is, sadly, unelectable.
 
By Quartermaster on September 13, 2011 6:08 PM
 Rivr, if your religion does not inform your actions on civil governance then your religion doesn't amount to much. The country has never been a religious oligarchy, and I have no idea where on earth anyone gets off raving that it has become one, or that someone is trying to make it one.

Expecting someone to have something other than the morals of an alley cat is hardly an attempt to establish a religious oligarchy. There is a big difference between moralizing, and pushing religious beliefs done some one elses throat.

The GOP is just moralizing. If you don't like it, the Dems will be more than happy to allow you to join their ammoral side. And that's really the choice that's available. Ymmv.
 
By Quartermaster on September 13, 2011 6:13 PM
 "All Y'all?" Are you joining the ranks of Johnny Reb now Sir John?

Too bad you can't see my Gravitar. That "Bite me" thing goes right along with the Weenie Dawg avatar.
 
By Justthisguy on September 13, 2011 6:17 PM
Curiously, I happened to stop in at the county Republican headquarters today on the way back from the Publix.  It was manned by a coupla nice old ladies who engaged me in congenial conversation, and encouraged me in my intention to switch my registration from L to R for the primary next year.  Knowing how the Electoral College works, I intend to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and for whomever wins the R nomination in the general election. 

The nice old ladies were familiar with the Gunwalker scandal.

There are so many impeachable offenses done by appointees of this President, that it just boggles the mind!
 
By wolfwalker on September 13, 2011 6:33 PM
...anybody excited about any of the people running?

Not even a little bit.  I have yet to find a candidate who can convince me that they are actually what I want: an American born and bred, a rock solid defender of the Constitution and the American way of doing things.  All I see on that stage is politicians, the lowest form of life in the known cosmos.


 
By DL Sly on September 13, 2011 7:17 PM

"Sly - Bite me."

Hey, I'm not the one that said I was bored.
0>;~}

 
By John of Argghhh! on September 13, 2011 8:01 PM
QM - I'm named for a rebel ancestor on my mother's side - Pappy Hays, of the Orphan Brigade.  I get my southern vocabulary honestly.

Sly - yeah, so?  Pllllppppttttt!

Besides, I was dumb enough to put it in digits, and SWWBO has suddenly come up with... "plans."

Boys, don't let yer wimmin read yer blogs!
 
By Joe in N Calif on September 13, 2011 10:13 PM
QM, he is just using proper grammar.


 
By Grimmy on September 14, 2011 12:06 AM
My two cent's worth:

1. We're still letting the media pick our canditates for us.
2. The Establishment GOP is nothing but a bunch of Vichy scum. Already conquered by the leftards and just pretending to be independent of their control.
 
By Argent on September 14, 2011 2:16 AM
My overall impression was of a gameshow.  That reflects far worse on my view of the US style election system than the actual contenders, except for the type of contenders the system barfs up.  Pretty mixed bunch I think.  I think the Texan and the short woman are the more likely winners.  But not necessarily of the election.

The Texan carries a lot like Bush.  I wonder if it's natural or practiced or maybe a Texan thing.

Religion has long been the right's achilles heel, just as economics has been its strength.




 
By Quartermaster on September 14, 2011 6:44 AM

John, you made the mistake of putting up a blog for her to read, Sooner or later yer gonna put up some compromising material.

Joe I agree with teh grammer part. We won't tell him, however, that the real Rebels were known as Yankees.

 
By Oldloadr on September 14, 2011 6:52 AM
"Religion has long been the right's achilles heel, just as economics has been its strength."  I realize that is the perception from the outside looking in and a great talking point for libs in this country.  However, some things to consider:
1. About 14% of the electorate in 2000 called themselves "Religious Right."
2. About 102,000,000 Americans call themselves Evangelical.
3. Since 1980, the Dems have launched an all out attack on traditional social values, leaving involved social conservatives nowwhere to go but to the GOP in a 2 party country.
Therefore, the GOP has more to loose by turning its back on the religious right than it has to gain.  I believe that was part of McCain's downfall, not the whole enchilada, but a part.

 
 
By joe on September 14, 2011 7:16 AM
All of the candidate have problems. To name just a few:
Perry--immigration, HPV vacine
Romney--Romney Care
Bachman--reference to DC earthquake as God's punishment followed by 'just joking' plus harping on perry's vacine mistake
Gingrich--smart guy, but has already shown that he is amoreal, and makes poor decisions in his personal life
Santorum--helped John Ensign cover up
Huntsman--don't know what his position is this month, but it will change
Cain--no traction, probably not electable--what a shame
Paul--right on decreasing size of government, but a nut case on everything else
Palin--didn't finish mayor, didn't finish governor

I will hold my nose next year and vote for one of them
 
By MikeD on September 14, 2011 8:24 AM
"Cain- Good man, good ideas, good presentation, but lacks involvement in government."
"Cain--no traction, probably not electable--what a shame"

When the worst thing you can say about a candidate is that he "lacks involvement in government" (since when was that a bad thing?), then maybe he's the best candidate in the field.

And how is Cain unelectable?  Make him the nominee and we'll see how "unelectable" he is.  I'm voting for him in the SC primary, and if he gets the nomination, I'm voting for him.  But then again, regardless of who gets the nod, I will be voting for the (R) in 2012, because it does not matter WHO it is, if they come from the current field, they cannot be worse than the current occupant.
 
By Grumpy on September 14, 2011 11:01 AM
 "Freedom of Religion" also means, "Freedom *from* Religion". Religion is a personal matter, not an official matter, therefore, should be left at home. If religion is such an issue, don't tell people how to do something, show them by your lifestyle or character, *for the rest of your life, in public or private.*  
 
By Oldloadr on September 14, 2011 8:46 PM
Grumpy, you are entitled to that opinion.  However, the 1st amendment gives others the right to propose that their faith system belongs in the mores of our current society and be codified into the laws of the land.  We used the Judeo-Christian for almost 200 years as the basis of our statutes and it worked fine.  Since lawyers and judges (usually not voters) decided that we don’t need an ethic; our society has been plagued with crime, corruption in high places, greed, and disintegrating family structure.  Maybe it wouldn’t hurt to go back what worked before and have a solid moral compass.   Nobody is going to make you join a church to draw social security, it never happened before. Why is everybody so apoplectic over a few candidates that aren’t afraid to stand on/for something?
 
By Grumpy on September 14, 2011 10:49 PM
 Oldloadr, you have the full right to hold your beliefs personally. Let's take a look at "The Bill of Rights". Ammendment #1 - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Therefore, the concept of encodification of faith based principles in most cases is a violation of The Constitution of United States/ Bill of Rights/ 1st Ammendment.

Would I love to see the Judeo-Christian values you describe? *Yes!* The real thing that gave power to the concept for over 200 years, it is voluntary by each person, not by encodified law. Let those few candidates who want stand on/ for something. let it be The Constitution of United States of America.
 
 
By Grimmy on September 14, 2011 11:54 PM
Grumpy:

Your "Freedom *from* Religion" meme began as a war-cry of the militant evangelical atheists. What we've been going through that started 50 odd years ago and grows stronger each year is an out and out contra constitutional attack on religious identify by those same militant evangelical atheists and all their useful idiots.

There have been intellectually inbred sacks of leftardic crap that have abused that same "Freedom *from* Religion" to force commemorations of our war fallen and veterans, memorials both public funded and private, to be stripped of all religious symbolism, especially, and often only limited to Christian type symbols.

If a person can think, for just a minute, beyond the bottom of his/her own belly, or further than the reach of his/her own gonads, then the pattern of aggressive misuse, abuse, purposeful misinterpretation and out and out bullshit of the cultural destructioners becomes very obviously um-mistakable.

You can see the outlandish and absolutely contrary to American tradition and Constitution efforts in schools, courtrooms, public memorials, and even being forced onto private property. Nothing is out of bounds to these scumbags. And nothing done by these scumbags seems at all to register with those of their useful idiots.

Perspective on the First Amendment is not some magical mutating thing that is in any way hard to pin down.

There will be no National Religion as in the old Catholic church of Europe or the Church of England in the UK to which a person must belong to own property, vote, hold a job, or be counted as a citizen. Citizens have the right to identify themselves and decorate their surroundings with whatever relgious paraphanalia they choose.  That's the freedom listed. Atheism is the only religion at this time attempting to force itself onto everyone in this country. Heck, Islam isn't even as aggressive in its craptasticalness as modern atheism.
 
By Oldloadr on September 15, 2011 6:33 AM
Therefore, the concept of encodification of faith based principles in most cases is a violation of The Constitution of United States/ Bill of Rights/ 1st Ammendment. - Actually, it's not.  As you see, it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  That doesn't mean a state cannot say that buying and selling on Sunday is unlawful, or that your sexual preferences are not a civil right, or that alcohol may or may not be consumed in public or purchased on Sunday.  Morality based on an existing religion's set of values can be codified in teh laws of the land, but that doesn't mean that you are forced to adhere to that religion's principles or support their work on Earth. 
 
By joe on September 15, 2011 7:06 AM
MikeD, I voted for Cain in the 2004 GOP primary for Senate. He pulled 26% of the vote. He was the best choice then, and is probably the best choice now, but he will not get the nomination.