Who will run in 2012

[Wu du Nord]

Bachmann just suspended her campaign today.

Thank god! Kooky is kooky no matter where you stand.

I wish this were a satirical joke, but someone actually thought it was worth a shot.

[wu_shizzle]

Romney is polling well in South Carolina. Time to crown him. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/1...over-gingrich/

[SB Shock]

Romney is polling well in South Carolina. Time to crown him. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/1...over-gingrich/

polls show the race tightening with Romney actually losing ground (Romney did have 10-11% lead over Gingrich).

[shox1989]

taken from RedState http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/1...ck-obama-wins/







I will not vote for Romney (not that it going to matter in Kansas anyway). It will be better for Conservative to have a democrat to rally around in the White House and improve the numbers in the house and take back the senate. That is where real change can take place.

That is pretty much the way I am starting to feel. I think Romney is too much of a weasel and would probably do harm to the Republican party if he won.

[wu_shizzle]

That is pretty much the way I am starting to feel. I think Romney is too much of a weasel and would probably do harm to the Republican party if he won.

So a 3rd Bush term then?

[Kung Wu]

That is pretty much the way I am starting to feel. I think Romney is too much of a weasel and would probably do harm to the Republican party if he won.

Nononono!!!

First off a RINO is 100% better than a Marxist. Thats easy.

But also the President is still somewhat beholden to his party so at least RINO will be under pressure from the right, while Jimmy Carter II is pressured from the left.

Net result is the worst conservative is much better than the best Marxist.

[Maggie]

Nononono!!!

First off a RINO is 100% better than a Marxist. Thats easy.

But also the President is still somewhat beholden to his party so at least RINO will be under pressure from the right, while Jimmy Carter II is pressured from the left.

Net result is the worst conservative is much better than the best Marxist.

I agree. Odds are the GOP will hold on to the House and take over the Senate. But they probably won’t have the numbers to override a veto – so the GOP must take the White House if it expects to undo much of what Obama and the Democratic majority accomplished in the first two years of his first term.

There will be no savior galloping in and taking the GOP convention by storm. Mittens can win a general election – is he milktoast, yup. But he has a better chance of beating Obama then the other candidates. Furthermore, he is saying a lot of the right things at the moment and the Rubio’s and Ryan’s of the world will, as best they can, hold him to it.

[shox1989]

Nononono!!!

First off a RINO is 100% better than a Marxist. Thats easy.

But also the President is still somewhat beholden to his party so at least RINO will be under pressure from the right, while Jimmy Carter II is pressured from the left.

Net result is the worst conservative is much better than the best Marxist.

Hey I fell for that line with W. Bush. All he did was turn 4 straight record budget surpluses into record deficits.

Republicans like Romney spend money. Lots of it. I would rather blame Obama for increasing the deficit than letting Romney take the blame and pull the Republicans down with him.

If Romney is the nominee, I will probably vote Libertarian to show my protest. Kansas is going to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is anyway, so I am not really throwing away my vote. I am just able to feel better about myself and register a protest vote.

[Kung Wu]

Hey I fell for that line with W. Bush. All he did was turn 4 straight record budget surpluses into record deficits.

Republicans like Romney spend money. Lots of it. I would rather blame Obama for increasing the deficit than letting Romney take the blame and pull the Republicans down with him.

Which is why having a conservative House and Senate is even more crucial than whoever takes POTUS. Without conservatives in the House and Senate, the country remains gridlocked and Obama's damage is _permanent_.

You really think Romney would outspend Obama? Could ANYBODY outspend Obama?

It's all about Congress, with POTUS playing the important roll of being able to undo the damage done.

If Romney is the nominee, I will probably vote Libertarian to show my protest. Kansas is going to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is anyway, so I am not really throwing away my vote. I am just able to feel better about myself and register a protest vote.

I used to have that attitude but realize now the damage it does. It plays into a fragmented vote that weakens the only chance for conservative rule. It is a two party system and that is never going to change. The only chance to save America at this point is for the conservatives to take over the GOP. Fragmenting the conservative vote just further dooms this country. Kick out the RINOs.

I can't blame anyone for voting their conscience, but please consider that the stakes are higher than ever before with a leftist ideologue in office. Fragmenting now will be a potentially irreversible mistake. In fact, it may ALREADY be too late and we are too close to the trees to see the forest.

[shox1989]

Yes it is possible. Because he will more than likely have a Republican Congress and like W. Bush he will not veto ANY spending bills. I agree that a conservative congress is far more important than who is president. I am just going by the way things went under W when he had a Republican congress.

Remember W gave us the biggest new entitlement program since Medicare with the Medicare part D expansion. And it was totally unpaid for. It was totally irresponsible.

Remember W gave us the biggest expansion of the federal gov't into our children's education with the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND fiasco. Until then, education was almost 100% funded at the local and state level. Now the feds have their hands into it and it has been pretty ugly.

Remember it was W who actually proposed and got Congress to pass the TARP bill and the bail outs of the auto companies (although Obama certainly didn't reverse either one when he took office).

Remember it was W who spent a lot of money on two wars (again Obama continues it). Wars that I also supported at the time, but the responsible thing would have been to cut other spending to pay for the wars, which of course was not done.

Remember it was W who failed to veto a single spending bill his entire 8 years in office. It was that kind of irresponsiblity that gave us things like the bridge to nowhere.

Remember the last four budgets before W took office all had record surpluses. It was under W that those record annual surpluses turned into record deficits.

So yeah I do think it is possible that Romney could increase the deficits worse than Obama. In fact, it is probable that the overall spending amount wouldn't be significantly different. The guy was governor of TAXACHUSETTS for pete's sake. The guy has taken every position on every issue and will say anything to get elected.

I hope if he wins that I am wrong. But I absolutely have no faith in the guy.

I would rather have a Republican Congress keeping check on Obama while gaining seats and strength as the country blames Obama for the record deficits.

Remember after 6 years and 8 years of Bush, the Democrats made huge gains in Congress and gave us Obama. I don't want a Romney presidency to give us more liberals in Congress and for the country to blame him (and Republicans) for a growing deficit problem.

My first preference would be for a truly conservative president to change things, but I really don't see that happening under Romney. So given the choices, I think we would be better off with an Obama to blame (especially if a Republican Congress keeps him in check) than a Romney to blame and to pull the Republicans down with him.

[Kung Wu]

Now that Romney has likely lost Iowa, does that change anything?