2012 Presidential Primary Poll

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Wall street Republicans don't like him.

National security Republicans don't like him.

Social conservative Republicans don't like him.

We haven't really had for a long time, perhaps the first time, a true anti-special interest candidate. I find that quite refreshing.

Those republicans who want the gov off their own backs, but who hypocritically desire the gov to double-down in hassling "disapproved persons"-- A few talking heads seem to have paniced over the last couple of days having suddenly realized that it's not impossible that Ron Paul could win. So the strategy of ignoring Ron Paul had to end.

First Levin fired both barrels, and today Hannity spent much of his show ragging on Ron Paul for being the antithesis of "conservative" and a closet racist and anti-semite to boot. If the talking heads have millions of brain-dead loyal listeners, then it might well succeed in diminishing Ron Paul's support. We shall see.

I guess Giuliani would almost be the perfect candidate for Levin or Hannity. I despise that man.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[mav]

First Levin fired both barrels, and today Hannity spent much of his show ragging on Ron Paul for being the antithesis of "conservative" and a closet racist and anti-semite to boot. If the talking heads have millions of brain-dead loyal listeners, then it will might succeed in diminishing Ron Paul's support. We shall see.

You know what I find amazing Lester. People like Levin and Hannity deify Ronald Reagan. However, they break Reagan's 11th commandment. "Thou shall not talk ill of any fellow Republican." Ron Paul, whether they like him or not, is a registered Republican. He does not have "I" after his name in congress. But I guess Paul just isn't Hannity's or Levin's type of Republican.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you classified some of their listeners as "brain dead." I don't understand what is so hard about thinking for yourself instead of taking what some a$$hole says on radio or tv as gospel truth. Anyone want to explain that one for me? I just don't get it.

[kieefer]

You talking to me?

RP is a libertarian and it was in 2008 that he decided to become a registered republican, he's a libertarian running on the republican ticket, essentially a RINO.

Besides his wacky foreign policy and pro-drug views he's not a Reagan conservative and that's the reason Levin dose not support him. RPaul's views are also not mainstream and that's why the MSM ignore him as well, if it wasn't for his young voter base he wouldn't have the support that he does.

I won't get into calling fellow republicans or libertarians names as you two do but isn't the main objective here to get BHO out of office? I believe several non-ronulans here have said that they would vote for RP if it was between him and BHO, nuff said. I think a lot of RP supporters have blinders on, not looking at the big picture of things.

As far a being a "brain dead" listener, you can kiss my ass.

I enjoy talk radio and listening to a constitutional lawyer with a sense of humor who calls out the liberal hypocrisy and has an insight on the effects of poor government policy and the rule of law. I don't care for or listen to Hannity but enjoy Rush now and then.

I personally read about candidates who appeal to me and catch all the debates. I picked Santorum early after the first debate and find him being the most conservative IMO, and my decision on him was before Levin ever picked him btw.

RP has never appealed to me and neither has Romney. Bachmann has her head on straight but will also never get elected, Perry is another GWB who won't go nowhere. Newt is the brightest man on the stage but has shown a lot of poor judgement in the past. We'll see where this ends.

I'm voting Santorum in the Primary and as of now, whoever the nominee is in the General.

[mav]

You talking to me?

WTF are you talking about?

Nobody is talking about you (at least I'm not), sheesh. There is no need to get you panties in a wad, so you can start acting like an adult and stop telling other forum members to kiss your a$$. That is totally uncalled for.

If you go back and read Lester's comments he pointed out two charges that are being made against Paul. Both are totally unfounded. As Lester was stating, it appears that Paul is now being branded as a "closet racist" and "anti-semite." I was following up on those comments that there are "some" of their listeners that will hear that and without doing any investigating on their own will automatically accept that as being truth. Geeze, I even quoted Lester's comments to emphasize what my response was pertaining to.

If someone wants to talk about you personally, we do have the quote function and see your screen name.

[hornett22]

You talking to me?

RP is a libertarian and it was in 2008 that he decided to become a registered republican, he's a libertarian running on the republican ticket, essentially a RINO.

Besides his wacky foreign policy and pro-drug views he's not a Reagan conservative and that's the reason Levin dose not support him. RPaul's views are also not mainstream and that's why the MSM ignore him as well, if it wasn't for his young voter base he wouldn't have the support that he does.

I won't get into calling fellow republicans or libertarians names as you two do but isn't the main objective here to get BHO out of office? I believe several non-ronulans here have said that they would vote for RP if it was between him and BHO, nuff said. I think a lot of RP supporters have blinders on, not looking at the big picture of things.

As far a being a "brain dead" listener, you can kiss my ass.

I enjoy talk radio and listening to a constitutional lawyer with a sense of humor who calls out the liberal hypocrisy and has an insight on the effects of poor government policy and the rule of law. I don't care for or listen to Hannity but enjoy Rush now and then.

I personally read about candidates who appeal to me and catch all the debates. I picked Santorum early after the first debate and find him being the most conservative IMO, and my decision on him was before Levin ever picked him btw.

RP has never appealed to me and neither has Romney. Bachmann has her head on straight but will also never get elected, Perry is another GWB who won't go nowhere. Newt is the brightest man on the stage but has shown a lot of poor judgement in the past. We'll see where this ends.

I'm voting Santorum in the Primary and as of now, whoever the nominee is in the General.

So your objective is to replace BHO with someone just as bad as long as they have an ® after their name. Yeah,that makes sense. About as much sense as ouur current drug policy that wastes billions of dollars and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

You talking to me?

RP is a libertarian and it was in 2008 that he decided to become a registered republican, he's a libertarian running on the republican ticket, essentially a RINO.

Besides his wacky foreign policy and pro-drug views he's not a Reagan conservative and that's the reason Levin dose not support him. RPaul's views are also not mainstream and that's why the MSM ignore him as well, if it wasn't for his young voter base he wouldn't have the support that he does.

Hi Kiefer

Yes that is a good point that if you squint yer eyes and define republican just the right way, then Ron Paul really is a RINO. Similarly if you define republican the way democrats like to do, fat cats only interested in doing favors for the country club members, then arguably Romney might turn out to a PERFECT republican, not a RINO at all. If a true republican must be fairly sensible on taxes, but addicted to deficit spending, megalomanic about running the affairs of the world, and repressive against any persons who do not have a lifestyle in a narrow idealized "christian nuclear family" which may have never existed, a mere idealized theory of the victorian age, then anyone other than Reagan republicans would be RINOs.

Note that many of the talking heads-- Hannity for sure and I think also Levin, define themselves as CONSERVATIVE rather than REPUBLICAN. I define myself LIBERTARIAN and would vote either party that would be closest to Libertarian principles. It looks like the republican big tent is slightly more accomodating to a Libertarian, but only slightly.

I won't get into calling fellow republicans or libertarians names as you two do but isn't the main objective here to get BHO out of office? I believe several non-ronulans here have said that they would vote for RP if it was between him and BHO, nuff said. I think a lot of RP supporters have blinders on, not looking at the big picture of things.

As far a being a "brain dead" listener, you can kiss my ass.

I enjoy talk radio and listening to a constitutional lawyer with a sense of humor who calls out the liberal hypocrisy and has an insight on the effects of poor government policy and the rule of law. I don't care for or listen to Hannity but enjoy Rush now and then.

I did not claim that the talking heads have millions of brain dead brainwashed listeners. That is an allegation which some people make though I hope that it is not true. I hope the people have more independent thought than some people expect. I was merely saying that mainline "conservative" talking heads coming out fullbore trying to define Ron Paul as not a "true conservative"-- It will be a great test of the hypothesis. If they stay on the riff for a week or two and Ron Paul's support plummets among centrists and right-wingers, then it would unfortunately tend to reinforce the hypothesis. As I said, we shall see.

I enjoy listening to many of the talking heads, but don't especially have a high percentage of agreement with any I can think of at the moment. Much of what they do is entertainment, the "live wrestling" of politics.

Some people say Ron Paul support is a cult of personality. That is amusing because the man is not especially "larger than life." It would be like saying the people who voted Bob Barr in 2008 were in a "cult of personality", because most tree stumps have more personality than Bob Barr. I think the Ron Paul support is support of the ideas rather than the man, and it would work so much better if we had some dynamic larger-than-life handsome fellow running on the same core beliefs.

Harry Browne is the closest I recall of a Libertarian candidate with personality or "gravitas".

I personally read about candidates who appeal to me and catch all the debates. I picked Santorum early after the first debate and find him being the most conservative IMO, and my decision on him was before Levin ever picked him btw.

RP has never appealed to me and neither has Romney. Bachmann has her head on straight but will also never get elected, Perry is another GWB who won't go nowhere. Newt is the brightest man on the stage but has shown a lot of poor judgement in the past. We'll see where this ends.

I'm voting Santorum in the Primary and as of now, whoever the nominee is in the General.

Yes Bachman seems to a nice church lady who probably does more good than harm as a congressperson, but I don't see a President Bachman working out well.

I don't get it with Santorum, but then again you don't get it with Ron Paul so that's kewl. Santorum is "Giuliani Lite" to me. A smart-ass prejudiced authoritarian yankee who would get us in all kinds of trouble as president. Might as well elect New York congressman Peter King as president.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[kieefer]

WTF are you talking about?

Nobody is talking about you (at least I'm not), sheesh. There is no need to get you panties in a wad, so you can start acting like an adult and stop telling other forum members to kiss your a$$. That is totally uncalled for.

If you go back and read Lester's comments he pointed out two charges that are being made against Paul. Both are totally unfounded. As Lester was stating, it appears that Paul is now being branded as a "closet racist" and "anti-semite." I was following up on those comments that there are "some" of their listeners that will hear that and without doing any investigating on their own will automatically accept that as being truth. Geeze, I even quoted Lester's comments to emphasize what my response was pertaining to.

If someone wants to talk about you personally, we do have the quote function and see your screen name.

My apologies, I tend to fly off the handle every now and then.

The charges of Paul being a racist were based on some newsletters he or someone else wrote years back. No doubt that if he continues to rise in the polls the more talk about this will surface.

I'll crawl under my rock now.

[mav]

My apologies, I tend to fly off the handle every now and then.

No problem with me. I have done the same and I am sure I will probably do it again in the future.

[kieefer]

So your objective is to replace BHO with someone just as bad as long as they have an ® after their name. Yeah,that makes sense. About as much sense as ouur current drug policy that wastes billions of dollars and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

No, I'd consider voting for a democrat if it was a sure bet to get BHO out.

My take on legalizing drugs is that alcohol already causes enough pain and suffering, why add drugs to the mix? Having both will increase the erosion of family and society and the waste will still be there either way in one form or another.

[Bigiron]

JMHO. RP: I like many of his opinions/beliefs. But, he will never be President.

Newt: Smartest candidate, and the only candidate who will accomplish anything toward saving our country.

Romney: A white obama. The Presidency would just be a hobby to feed his enormous ego. His smirky grin reminds me of Algore and his sneering at

all the peasants. Romney is a closet liberal and would accomplish nothing as President.

Perry, Bachman, Santorum, Huntsman: Should disappear, as they don't have the slightest chance of being elected.

The only democrat that could oust obama would be Clinton, to satisfy her craving for power and control. She would be as disasterous as obama.

[Guest pfries]

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The charges of racism is based on some newsletters written primarily by Lew Rockwell,

another libertarian, years ago. I heard all that, too, but I don't think Paul is guilty of

slandering or racism. That stuff seems to be by a once previous association.

I have to agree with Hannity that this race is far from over. I just wish the masses hadn't

fallen for the smear campaign on Cain. Gingrich probably is the "progressive" he's been

accused of. I think Bachmann would make a good President, but is lacking some time in

leadership positions. I doubt I'll be thrilled with Romney, but like others have said, I'll be

casting an R in the general.

The problem I have is the direction the Republican leadership is taking things. I don't like

the idea of an "Heir Apparent" to the throne. And if you noticed all the Republicans voting

to make us all terrorists, that should make you sick. There is a lot of cleaning to do. We

could start right here in TN.

[kieefer]

hey, ya'll be sure to place your vote in this valuable poll - NATION WIDE POLL

[mav]

Did anyone watch the debate last evening? I haven't watched the last several debates, but I did watch this one. I wanted to see if any of these racist accusations would be brought up in the debate. They were not.

As I have mentioned in a previous post, one of those cringe-worthy moments with Paul occured when Bachmann started attacking his foreign policy. I think Paul sort of lost it on that one. He got so rattled that a lot of what he said was not very coherent. I thought it was really bad. While I do agree with some (or maybe even a lot) of Paul's foreign policy views, I do not agree with everything. It is too bad that he cannot effectively communicate his foreign policy message during these debates instead of coming across as a kook. Nonetheless, I am still a believer that domestic policy trumps foreign policy, and Paul (IMHO) still has the best ideas. Therefore, he still has my vote for the primary.

I learned a few new things during this debate. I really like Perry's idea of a part-time congress. It would never happen, but it is good nonetheless. It was the first time I had heard it. Overall, I thought Perry did a good job. He didn't get a lot of face time, which I think works on his behalf. He was also very strong on the 10th ammendment.

Michelle Bachmann. Before the debates, I really liked Bachmann. I thought she was somewhat conservative and really tough in regards to saying what she thought. She reminded me a little bit of Palin. She is incredibly fiery and will not back down when pointing out some of the other candidate's flaws. This is a great thing considering none of the candidates are ideal, and they all have their flaws, including Paul. However, I have picked up on something that I absolutely loathe. At times when she is attacking a candidate's positions, she will throw out these wild and unsubstantiated charges. Gingrich is trying to elect candidates who back infanticide, Gingrich is paying off Tea Party leaders in SC instead of earning their support, Perry is at fault because Gardasil causes mental retardation, Politifact said everything I said was true, etc... She criticized Cain's 999 plan, rightfully so, as I did not like Cain's plan either. However, once Cain was gone, 999 became a great idea.

I was wrong about her. She is nothing like Palin. I completely understand that a fair amount of ego and a lot of ambition are typical traits found in most presidential contenders. However, to say or do anything regardless of the veracity to get a leg up on your opponents is totally unacceptable (even in the general election). While I do not think she stands a chance at winning the nomination, stranger things have happened. If it were to occur, I would really consider voting third party in the general. Based upon what I have seen thus far, she scares the crap out of me.

[kieefer]

I thought it was one of the better debates.

Santorum seemed to get more face time than usual, Huntsman showed what a con-man he is and Paul lost it once again on foreign policy. Perry did do better this time.

Romney has got his answers down pat, his just repeats the same old tune.

Gary Johnson was a good addition in the first debates, too bad he hasn't been able to keep up.

Did you notice that tax policy wasn't discussed? Guess that subject faded with Mr. Cain.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm not a Ron Paul fanatic, but thought Ron explained himself quite well on the foreign policy stuff. And I agreed more closely with what Ron said on the issue than what Bachman said on the issue.

Nuclear proliferation control is to nations as gun control is to individuals. Maybe you would want to keep guns away from Crazy old Uncle Elmer, but do you want to risk life and limb taking it upon yourself to forcibly disarm everyone except yourself and your close pals? That is the Brady Campaign approach to nuclear proliferation. The genie has been out of the bottle for 67 years.

[mav]

Gary Johnson was a good addition in the first debates, too bad he hasn't been able to keep up.

Gary Johnson was an excellent addition. However, he has switched to the libertarian ticket. He pretty much mirrors Paul views, except he has nowhere near the name recognition.

[dlm37015]

the problem is obama will be relected i just hope the country can stand 4 more years of him i hope that we can maintain our lead in the house and gain more in the senate imo sarah palin is the only member of the gop that could beat him but the gop dislikes her as much as the dems

[BigPoppa]

I was on the Cain Train, but we see how that worked out.........

I guess now I will hold my nose and vote for Romney, not because I'm crazy about him, but because I think he has the best shot at unseating President Obama.

Newt is probably the smartest guy in the room, but he comes off like he is and he knows it, and turns a lot of people off. Also, while he would probably shred Obama in the debates, he would look like, just as Michael Savage said "an old, fat, white guy". That would be advantage Obama in the popularity contests that we now call elections.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Unless Obama wears out his welcome even more over the next year and democrats are too demoralized to vote and independents have become willing to vote for satan in preference to Obama, I don't think Romney can win. As you say it is greatly a popularity contest. Romney isn't naturally likeable for enough people to vote for him, unless by next November any random clown looks better than Obama, to the average man on the street.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Santorum did sound pretty good. I didn't care for Bachmann as much this time, and I do like her.

She should have been coached by someone(God knows who) to do like Reagan did in his debates.

I think that's the only way any of these folks are ever going to look presidential.

At this point, they are the only two I am interested in and I'm sure that will change. Far from

over.

[mav]

Now that the first caucus is over, has anyone changed their positions? Do you have any comments on the results? I will admit that I becoming increasingly pessimisstic on the GOP's chances of replacing Obama.

In regards to the Santorum finish, I take a little a different position than what I hear from others. Throughout most of this race, Santorum has pretty much been at the bottom of the polls. The big advantage here is that Santorum didn't get anywhere near the same level of scrutiny as did the other candidates. He did not have to endure any attack ads. Why would you waste your money atacking a candidate that appeared to be going nowhere with very little money?

The last couple of weeks of very strong but justified attacks, Gingrich started to fall from the top spot and Paul started being attacked from the right side of the aisle for being a racist and anti-semetic. It is only then when voters started searching for another non-Romney candidate. Fortunately for Santorum, he was the only one left. It will be interesting to see how well he holds up once the heat is turned up. Will he be able to endure it or will he be another flash in the pan candidate who shot to the top only to be knocked back down a month later? Personally, I think it is the later. Even though the primaries have just started, I am starting to feel that Romney is going to be the nominee. Can he beat Obama? I really don't know.

Bachmann is out, Huntsman will probably be out after New Hampshire, Perry will be out after South Carolina, Gingrich may leave after Florida, and I don't know what Santorum will do. Unless he finishes strong in SC, I don't see how Santorum can continue with very little money. By the time Super Tuesday comes around we may only have Romney and Paul still in the race.

[1pointofview]

I liked Cain, he was the most consistent from the beginning. I believe his troubles were amplified and over exaggerated but I would assume about 1/4 of the alligations were actually credible at the very least. Had he stayed in I would have voted for him, heck, he was the first person I ever donated to (of course the poop hit the fan literaly 1 week later)

Now I am behind Newt, not because of his track record but because of his ability to articulate. I don't think newt is a 100% conservative, i think he is a progressive with conservative leanings. Anything progressive scares me but here is what I would like to see.

I would like to see a Newt/ Santorum ticket. The key with Newt is having a conservative congress to keep him in check. I think if we can push some of the crap republicans like Beohner, Canter and the like to the curb and replace them with the likes of West/Rubio/Ryan we will be in good shape.

At the end of the day, I think anyone left (minus Perry/Huntsman) can win. I just want someone who can articulate conservatism. If Romney gets the nod then a conservative congress is imperative otherwise we will have the 3rd term of Bush. Someone who only does what is right when you have the political will to do so

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Money won't be Santorum's problem. His coffer will start to fill after doing

so well last night. Romney has a conservative to worry about now, and Newt

may make things ugly for Romney, which will help Santorum.

Notice how most of the DC insiders are using "Big Government" with

Santorum. They still are cheerleading for Romney. They are establishment

(GOP) cheerleaders for Romney.

A woman called in to Hannity and asked him to ask Romney why we would want

him now if we didn't want him in 2008. I thought her question was valid.

A runner-up to McCain? Why would we? Romney isn't any more conservative

than McCain was.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If Romney or Gingrich get the nomination MAYBE I could vote for them in the general election. Maybe. Possibly a little better than Obama, though their economic ideas seem about as unrealistic as Obama's. Unrealistic/unhelpful in a different fashion than Obama's ideas, but unrealistic/unhelpful none-the-less.

Dunno if Santorum will be a flash in the pan. I personally hope so. If Santorum happened to get the nomination am pretty sure I couldn't vote for him. Would never vote for Obama, but am pretty sure it would be impossible to vote Santorum. I'd be more capable of voting for Perry than Santorum.

Am not against religion or religious people, and even Carter, Clinton and Obama pretend to be religious. However, it is doubtful that the American people will elect another president who receives his bombing target list direct from God, this soon after G.W. Bush. If they do, then they deserve what they will get!