A Senator, Congressman, Governor and a Speaker. Who does America need and who will they Choose? (POLL)

I think... it's only fair...

Obama: "The mixed bag"... This guy, I believe, truly and honestly wanted to do something enormous for the country... that isnt to say he didnt want his little slice on the side. He came in obnoxiously optimistic about policies he thought were superflous (any of the current war-fronts) and found that reversing those positions wasn't a light switch. I think he is better at playing the game than most give him credit for and has had to turn his game around recently. The public spotlight isn't always rosy.

Between Obama and Romney... I would retain Obama... I'm one of those flip flopping independents though... I did have hopes for this year's republicans... but all of them fall short of anything even remotely level headed or sustainable.

What about corporate responsibility? and how it ties in with the concepts of freedom and liberty?

How is personal responsibility NOT entwined with corporate responsibility? Don't human run corporations? Don't humans buy the products and services of corporations?

It's politicians who've given corporations unfair advantages and special treatment under law (see Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad).

Whenever there's power, money and injustice involved, look deeper and you'll see a politician's smiling face.

Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad)

That case ruled against the corporation...they had to pay a tax that persons didn't have to pay...the right wing court clerk scribbled the case gave corporations rights as people... the case verdict was the polar opposite of that, yet cons have taken that scribbling and applied it as law.

Actually, Randy, you're wrong. That case affirmed that corporations cannot be denied the same rights as individuals - but the concept of corporations having rights goes back to 1790.

Actually, it would be prudent to read up on the decision before painting it something it isn't.

Sorry, MJ. Off topic. My bad.

ACTUALLY, I am completely right. I have done MUCH research - independent research from many sources. Have you a particular problem with facts in general, or just those who come from people you don't like?

Well, the thing is that the whole thing was about how a tax was levied. The railroad was considered a quasi-governmental corporation. Wait, why am I even going here with you? It's WAAAAAYYYY off topic and you're being quite condescending. Tell you what, take a look at the link I provided and you'll get what I was trying to say. If I may make a suggestion, calm down. Reacting as if everyone is out to get you isn't healthy. Guess what, nobody's out to get you. I'm sure you've done extensive research (just like with every other topic) and have formed your opinion about what the words mean. Sorry, now I sound condescending. Anyway, take 'er easy.

The "winner" is chosen by the Republican comittee as the one most likely to "win" the election. The real question is... who is a sure bet to lose?

If you can answer that, then the field is somewhat narrow in choices...

Does one of the other candidates strike you as likely to win if nominated for the RP? Just curious.

Ron Paul would do best with independents. By far.

He actually wins over a lot of Democrats to boot.

Dr. No's problem is only from within his own party. If he'd win the primaries, he'd win the election; I have no doubt. But the GOP will do its best to hamstring him long before he gets that chance.

Objectively speaking, if Ron Paul were to capture the nomination for the republicans... I dont know that he would have enough resources to hold off the campaign machine on the democrat side... and get enough of the crazy social conservatives together to give him support from the right side.

Ron really splits a lot of die-hard republican factions... not saying its a bad thing... but the republican party is fighting damn hard to hold together this round, and nothing would ensure a split faster than Ron's nomination in my opinion. I think the republican party will continue to reject Ron because of this. Their interest lies in self preservation, not actually nominating a true republican to the ticket. Ron is just too radical for the majority of people who side with the republicans... he would almost have a better go if he registered democrat.

I'd almost welcome them nominating Ron though... it might actually get the parties to split and reverse again. We are due for a reverse on the base and a realignment...

If Ron Paul got the nomination, corporations would flock to Obama with open checkbooks. As it is, Obama will top a BILLION in his war chest (God only knows why) but the truth of the matter is that the more corporations give to Obama, the more pissed off Americans will be. We're already tired of corporations buying politicians - disgusted that Congress has done nothing to counter the effects of Citizens United and in the end, Americans DO have a soft spot for the underdog. So maybe Dr Paul has a better chance than the pundits predict

Regardless of if he won or not... the RNC is thinking of itself. It doesn't give a fig for who actually wins if it comes to the detriment of it's own organization.

Ron Paul would drive out the social conservatives faster than a room of cats can clear a room of rats. Then he would drive the religious nuts out the window and the hardcore military out the back door.

What reliable factions of the RNC would remain standing?

I'm not saying he couldnt have a shot at winning, that he isnt a good candidate or that he could turn a lot of things in another direction... Im also not saying he is a good candidate or that I would vote for him... all of that isnt relevant...

What is relevant is, the RNC wants to keep itself intact... so it has to pick a candidate that is the least offensive to the greatest majority of it's members... It's members currently include factions that do not, and would not, normally get along with themselves. If you pick someone like Ron Paul, it's like setting up a powder keg in the middle of a cracked rock.

Even if Ron Paul won the election and triumphed over Obama, it would be to the detriment of the RNC... especially if he pulled from ultra librals and independents... Then the next party year there would be less contributions and campaign backing because the RNC would be seen as less stable and less able to continue to vote up kickbacks for the people who really run the show.

The real objective of the RNC (and the DNC) is power. It can't keep power if it can't rely on anyone. Ron Paul only brings unreliable votes to the party and who's to say people would be happy with their choice come 2016?

If I were running the RNC, I would keep the hell away from Ron Paul... especially if he is as popular as you think he is Marshall

As I see it, what's most relevant is the RNC figuring out that MOST republicans aren't religious zealots or war-mongers. If they can't become more centrist, they have no chance. Ron Paul would lose the votes of that small percentage of extremists within the republican party, but would find incredible support from independents, libertarians and even lots of disillusioned democrats.

In fact, as I see it, Ron Paul has more of a chance to bring this country back from the brink of partisanship than any other candidate politician in recent history.

If he won California??? done deal

Ron Paul is not going to win California, or any other state for that matter. As much as I'd like to see him mop the floor with Newt and Mittens, it's not gonna happen. Ron Paul will never get more than 25% of Republican primary voters. I'm not saying this to get you upset or bag on your chosen candidate, I'm just pointing out the uncomfortable truth.

I would disagree....and foresee him winning many states in the west.....maybe not enough to win....but he will win some.

Maybe if he were seeking the Libertarian nomination, but not the republican nomination. He only got 22.9% of the republican vote in New Hampshire, arguably one of the most libertarian states in the country. Maybe....maybe idaho or Montana. Maybe. Definately not California, Oregon or Washington. Nevada? Not a chance. Arizona? No way. Colorado? Nope. The point is, there is no possible way for Paul to win the nomination.

Tell you what, if Paul wins California (since you're positive he will) why don't we make a wager. If Paul wins I'll write an article about anything you choose. If I win, and Paul doesn't win California you write an article about anything I choose. Deal?

so... I guess no one knows how romney could win? considering his word can't e trusted.

In my mind, none of them can be trusted. The only one I might give a second look to would be Paul.

I understand, but Romney has been ordained the "one who can win".

I don't understand why anyone thinks that. Obama only has to make one commercial, a reel of all the changes in position Romney has had followed by poltifacts' list of campaign promises kept by Obama (160 something now), and the words, "Who can you trust?" set on the bottom the whole time.

how can a man known for not having a single issue which he has fought for, or even stayed true to possibly win?

so why is everyone in the party leadership saying he can? why do the refuse to back any of the other's who had strong public upswings if it could have been managed professionally?

because Romney plays ball. the leadership knows if he wins he wont go teaparty crazy on them and if he loses, it doesn't matter because they plan on rotating the white house between parties every eight years anyway.

terrific.

the drama

the horse trading

the emotional speaches, both with and without teleprompters!

the minor issues, inflated

the major issues, ignored

zeal for family, church, states rights, individual rights, wars and conquest

cable news and their panels of idiots askew with rumors, polls, and telling us 'I just spoke with so-and-so and....'

I already asked that question and got the same answer you did. I guess we're supposed to pick Ron Paul, right MJ? ;-)

Er wait.....can I change my vote??? I just heard another vicious internet rumor regarding Newt. This one involving Newt, Callista and Barney Frank. I guess the "nice" way to put it would be a "three-some", but it was much more descriptive than that.

Er wait.....can I change my vote??? I just heard another vicious internet rumor regarding Newt. This one involving Newt, Callista and Barney Frank. I guess the "nice" way to put it would be a "three-some", but it was much more descriptive than that.

EEEEWWWWWW!!! Awhghghgh.

Ummm...I don't know if I want you to post a link...or not.

Maybe I don't want to know about this.

I'm expecting this is a joke/lampoon. If not, please don't tell me.

Come on, Andy. It's like a wreck on the highway. You don't want to look, but you kind of have to. You know what I mean?

I'm turning away and driving on. Really.

Well, maybe just one quick peek.

I'm hanging with Ron Paul until moment nominee picked. But Newt will be only other I will pull lever for just to get Obama out...and I'll just have to pray Newt isn't just being handed the ball of destruction if he wins. Definitely Obama took hand off from Bush...and Bush from Clinton. That being said, Newt would have to start all over on our demise (if history guides us) and a few steps back would be better than giving them a lead in destroying middleclass...

Lisa-May I ask what are the main reasons to replace Obama with Newt?

Rose-which of Newt's big ideals do you like the best?

I'm remodeling and may not be able to get back right away, thanks.

one and the only one, a days work for a days pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rose-how would Newt change it?

Lisa doesn't seem to have any answers.

SEE ABOVE

Rose-cop out, I wanted a real debate.

there can be no debate with someone stuck on the big 0. you all have drunk way to much of his kool-aid and have giving in to the lies!

Rose-no debate means you have no argument. Please tell me now newt will get a days work for a days pay. I will vote for newt (registered republican) if you can change my mind.

one and the only one, a days work for a days pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What exactly does this mean? I've heard an honest days work for an honest days pay. Is that what you ment? If it is, that's a union mantra. Just an FYI.

Denis-1291810 if your thinking about it (registered republican) your half way there. just keep thinking.

northtosouth ya have to go to work first, get off the governments pay, a days work for a days pay.

Good job, 58Rose. Reported.

ya have to go to work first, get off the governments pay, a days work for a days pay.

That, my friend MJ, is a direct personal attack. Reported. Sorry, I rarely report anything but enough is enough.

MJ, that's probably best. Let Sally and Tyler sort it out.

let me tell ya something northtosouth, i don't come on here to attack anyone! What exactly does this mean? you asked me that and i answered you, just forgot to put one of these ,,,,, in there.

worded wrong yes, they have to go to work and get off the government pay, a days work for a days pay.

what possibly good is it to personal attack anyone on here.

THANKS Marshall James FOR THE GOOD THOUGHT!!!

rose-are we talking about government workers or what. I'm already registered, you have to convince me newt is the right guy. his only mantra is knock out obama, is that all you got?

let me tell ya something northtosouth, i don't come on here to attack anyone! What exactly does this mean? you asked me that and i answered you, just forgot to put one of these ,,,,, in there.

Telling me I have to get off the government's pay and go to work is a personal attack.