I do like Romney. Hell, now I'm starting to understand the Left's mentality during the last election with their feeling of "anybody but Bush." Well, I feel that way about Obama -- ANYbody, short of Stalin, would be better than Obama. Hell, I'd even vote for Clinton again! At least Clinton was a leader. Obama has proven himself time and again that he lacks leadership, a spine, and balls. What an utter disappointment, and, if his Liberal supporters didn't throw in the towel last summer with his slipshod mishandling of the BP oil spill, they surely must be angry at the ridiculous con game he thinks he's pulling over us -- "Oh, here, let me come up with some solutions for our budget crisis" or "Here, let me put together a Super Committee to make decisions about budget cuts."
Quite frankly, I am still in mourning that Chris Christie decided not to throw his hat in the ring. My sorrow was renewed when I read Christie's succinct analysis of Obama's recent budget debacle, describing Obama as being just a "bystander." This from Politico (emphasis added):
Gov. Chris Christie on Monday tore into President Barack Obama in the aftermath of thesupercommittee’s failure to reach an agreement on debt reduction last week, asking the president, “What the hell are we paying you for?”
Calling Obama “a bystander in the Oval Office,” the outspoken New Jersey governor said the White House spent the weekend tossing out a whole lot of “spin” about the supercommittee’s inability to come to an agreement before the Nov. 23 deadline.
“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for?” Christie said during a press conference in Camden, N.J. “It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”Even though he said both parties deserve blame for talking at each other instead of talking with each other, Christie ultimately maintained that the buck stops with the nation’s highest in command and pointed to his own governance in the Garden State as a model for effective leadership.
“In New Jersey, the reason [problems got solved] is because I called people into the room and said we’re going to solve this problem and I had people of good will on the other side who said they believed it was their obligation, regardless of party, to get done things like pension and benefit reform,” the governor said, adding, “Why the president of the United States refuses to do this is astonishing to me.”
If Obama doesn’t get his act together, he may as well go back to the Senate, Christie suggested.
“If he wanted to run for Senate again and just be 1 of a 100, I’m sure he could have gotten reelected over and over again in Illinois,” he said. “He’s the one in Washington and he’s got to get something done here. And it’s not good enough just to say, ‘Well, I’ll get it done after the election.’”
Could someone please wave a magic wand and make Christie magically appear in the GOP pool? He surely would skyrocket to the top of the chart and win the nomination.
But, alas! -- 'tis but a fruitless wish! The pool as it stands, in my humble and woefully inexperienced opinion? Here you will see the source of malaise --
- Romney, yes I would vote for him, although he has been too much of a flip-flopper on too many issues; but, he could handily take on Obama and, with him being a flip-flopper, he might be seen as more of a centrist and, therefore, more likely to draw some of Obama's disgruntled supporters;
- Cain: like him, the ongoing allegations are going to torpedo his chances (I wonder who's behind those ... it seems a lot of his accusers have questionable backgrounds and track records ... the current accuser, Ginger White, being a prime example); don't really think he's presidential material ... but I would still vote for him over Obama, knowing that Cain has leadership skill (and Obama was far from presidential material);
- Gingrich: hate his marital record, he also seems to be a flip-flopper; but, MAN! the guy is brilliant; I love how he blows away the debate moderators/ass clowns; maybe he's a big enough of a shit to get the job done (I think he would definitely show far more leadership than Obama could even begin to picture);
- Santorum: good guy, intelligent, good debater, could do the job; but, the press has blocked him out (as usual, the press is want to choose our candidates for us ...)
- Bachman: press has ridiculed her from the git-go; someone used the expression the other day (sorry, I forget who) about the press pulling out the Sarah Palin playbook on Perry ... I think the MSM did the same with Bachman; she has come off too robotic for me -- sounding a bit too much like slogans she regurgitates; great background ... she'd get my vote, but the press has blacklisted her;
- Paul: BWAAH - hahahahahahhahha! He sounds like he could unexpectedly suffer a psychotic snap and push "the button"; his ideas of foreign policy are too isolationist and evince a serious lack of international awareness or concern; his lack of support for our military makes him a big, fat zero in my book;
- Perry: as mentioned earlier with Bachman, the press pulled out the Sarah Palin playbook on him and did a major hatchet job ... but, Perry also shot himself in the foot at some of the debates; I do love how his ads call Obama's policies for what they are -- socialist ... and I would still vote for him over Obama!
- Huntsman: Why do I want to take a bath after hearing this guy talk? And ever since it was announced in January that Huntsman resigned his position as ambassador to China, MSNBCs "Morning Joe" has been pumping out the PR for Huntsman like nobody's business! I clearly remember hearing one morning Mika piping up with "Love him!" in another one of her incisive analyses ... not! (Go here for my review of "Morning Joe.") Again, I would vote for him over Obama. Huntsman has way more experience and fortitude than Obama The Spineless Wonder.
Speaking of Morning Joe, this morning's show had the cast really knuckling down on getting out the word for Huntsman, pointing out that Huntsman is the true conservative. The gang was in hot counterattack mode against the recent endorsements Gingrich has received. (Here is Scarborough's op-ed piece, or "test", about the GOP candidates: "Who is the real RINO?") Scarborough does make some interesting observations about the candidate field, making the case for Huntsman being the true conservative compared to Romney and Gingrich ... some good food for thought ...
I just think it a tad odd how hard Morning Joe has been promoting Huntsman ...
Here goes ... What if MSNBC and Scarborough's minions are actually pumping in loads publicity and financial support to Huntman's campaign, having received some sort of promise in return ... let's say ... GOT IT! Huntsman gets the nomination and asks Scarborough to be his running mate!
AAAANNNDDDD!!! Meanwhile, Huntsman is actually the one behind all those women making accusations against Cain in an attempt to bump Cain out of the running. Also, Huntsman might even be funding the media leeches to dig up trash on the other candidates in order to up his chances for the nomination. Huntsman is the U.S.'s billionaire number 486, according to Forbes. He's got the bucks ...
... and I would still vote for him over Obama ... even if Joe Scarborough were his running mate!
0 comments:
Post a Comment