Fuzzy’s 2012 Prez Musings: God, No Romney or Huckabee. Please.

So I just saw this headline from Rasmussen: GOP Voters Like Three Candidates Best for 2012, and I couldn’t click over fast enough.  Alas, it’s the same three: Romney, Huckabee, and Palin. 

I can’t stress enough how very very little I like Mitt Romney for president.  He is the former governor of the lunatic state (we’re actually a commonwealth) in which I live, and he did a lot of fun things like cut masses of fire fighters and police across the state (er, commonwealth), leaving many communities without first responders that they sorely need, instead of taking on the unions who have negotiated crazy contracts that (among other egregious offenses to fiscal responsibility and common sense) enable “wounded” (i.e. oops, I dropped my beer bong and slipped a disc) troopers to (as they call it) “double-dip.”  You know, collect money from everywhere while still working “on the side” (they’re disabled, right, so no more state troopering, just a big pay off and early pension).  The result of Romney’s “tough” cuts?  Towns and townships across the commonwealth with too few police, too few firefighters . . . but lots and lots of “body guards” and “bouncers” who are not physically able to work for the police force or as a firefighter but can take these second jobs and still get pension and disability benefits. 

He’s also, of course and far more importantly, responsible for the amazing disappearing tax dollar disaster: RomneyCare.  It’s ObamaCare writ tiny, and it’s costing huge.  And it’s not improved anything in health care here.  Nothing.  I did see Romney on some show give a satisfactory (to everyone who’s not me) response when asked about this (I rather think it was on Hannity because I was busy trying to decide who had better hair.  I ended up going with Hannity because he’s an actual conservative).  Romney said, and I’m paraphrasing:  RomneyCare is wonderful at the state level, and I’d do it again, but with changes.  I would never ever ever impose something that was intended for a single state on the entire nation; it’s unconstitutional to do that; I respect states’ rights.  Blah blah blah.

Here’s the problem with RomneyCare:  ideologically it is not reconcilable with conservativism.  Period.  Not on the state level, not on the national level.  Nowhere, no way, no how.  It’s spreading the wealth, it’s commonwealthizing (yeah, yeah, just made that up, sort of like nationalizing) health care.  In the MA law, we have to pay a penalty if we are not compliant (sound familiar)?  And we are all taxed to pay for it, and everyone’s premiums have gone up, including poor people’s who then take deductions for it (i.e. tax payers are hit for that, too).  And our taxes just keep going up.  Heck, our current useless governor recently tried, and I’m not doing a Fuzzy’s Faux News bit here, to charge people for going into the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV here, DMV or Department of Motor Vehicles elsewhere).  That’s right, a $5.00 cover charge just to walk in the door.  It was ultimately not enacted, but that’s how desperate this state (er, commonwealth) is for cash.  I expect a giant Cali-style garage sale any day.  And it’s in no small part due to the enormous entitlement that Romney the not-conservative forced on us all.

If you can make RomneyCare fit a conservative ideology or worldview, I want to hear it.  Really, I do.

Needless to say, I’m hoping against hope that 2012’s Republican candidate is not Romney. 

As for Mike Huckabee . . . I like him, but I’m not comfortable running someone who is also, or was, a preacher.  The idea of Huckabee being the 2012 presidential candidate makes me nervous not only because I’m not personally comfortable with a preacher as president (that’s my own deal, and I get that others don’t feel that way) but because I don’t think he can beat BO.  He’s not got the get in the dirt and fight for the win attitude that it would take.  He’s a gentleman, and he won’t “go there” when he should (like McCain didn’t, and remember how that turned out).  Now, Huckabee is a real conservative, and I admire him greatly, but please don’t let’s put him up against BO.  He’s too nice a person, too much the gentleman, too gracious.  While he’s busy turning the other cheek and rising above the fray, BO and his thugs will have their boot on his throat.  Remember, the BO campaign took out Hillary Clinton, arguably one of the top two nastiest and dirtiest-fighting pols alive today (BO being the reigning champ).

Which brings me to Sarah Palin.  She’s got the grit, the fight, and the backbone to take BO on; I have zero doubt about that.  And I honestly believe that she would best him in any debate.  What worries me still about her is that I just don’t think she can win indies.  And she’d need indies to win.  It’s a numbers game, after all, and without indies, she’d not pull it off, especially now when the House is in Republican hands and many people believe that BO has been neutered (I don’t, but we’ll see how it plays out).  There’s no urgency to drag BO out of office now that he’s being checked by the House, and that urgency is what might have swung indies to vote for Palin if Tuesday’s election had been 2012, with both houses and the WH in radical socialist democrat control.  I think the Republicans, barring any stupid attempts to work with the socialist agenda, will take the Senate in 2012, too, so again, less urgency in putting a Republican in the WH.  Big picture, though, we absolutely must have one to repeal that healthcare monstrosity before it “goes live” in 2014 (BO has always taken his second term as a given).  Sarah Palin is young, she can wait a few cycles for her time; I’d love to see her win the WH, but 2012 is key to repealing ObamaCare, something we need done.

And that’s the bottom line.  We absolutely must have a Republican president in 2012, or we will never be rid of ObamaCare.  Never.  It’s literally do or die in 2012.  We can’t take wild (or even mild) risks with our presidential candidate, we can’t put too much hope in a candidate that we all know outside our own ranks is not a viable presidential candidate (if O’Donnell and Angle had won Tuesday, I’d be singing a different tune on this one).  There is too much at stake.  One sixth of our economy, our nation’s health care system (the best in the world), and far far too many of our freedoms and choices . . . that’s a lot, and I’m not willing to gamble when the stakes are that high.

So the question becomes who can win, who has the backbone to fight BO tooth and nail, who is fiscally responsible, who loves America and supports our military, who respects our Constitution, who has experience (preferably executive as a governor, but business or legislative experience would do–BO lowered the bar to a ridiculous low on experience), and importantly, who can lead?  I think, given this president’s embarrassing behavior, that we don’t really need anyone who is “polished” (geez, that asshat gave the British Prime Minister plastic helicopters from the WH gift shop, groped the Queen of England, made the Dali Lama slink out the back door by the trash bags, gave “shout outs” to his buddies before addressing the Fort Hood terrorist attack, verbally attacks and disparages his own people, and bowed down and hugged and otherwise belittled himself before communists, tyrants, and dictators.  The man thinks “corps” is pronounced “corpse,” for God’s sake.  Anyone would be an improvement.).

Here are the remaining four that Rasmussen polled on:  former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (13%), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (6%), Texas Congressman Ron Paul (5%) and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (3%). Seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.”

I guess I’m in the 7% who prefer “some other candidate.”  And here are the top three in my oh so humble opinion:  Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan. These men–and yes, I know they are all men, but our best women (Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Jan Brewer) might not win, and winning is the only hope for this country’s salvation–these men are all solid conservatives, are all more than a match for BO in every conceivable way (ideologically, of course, but more importantly, they are all articulate, intelligent, and knowledgeable), all share our core values, all are American patriots, and all have as much, or more, experience than BO did in 2008.

The downside:  Christie is a bit, as we say in polite company, “rough around the edges.”  He’s absolutely freaking wonderful in my book, I like plain speaking, but many people are turned off by it.  This could be a liability with left-leaning indies.  Rubio, I have reservations about because of his using campaign money for personal reasons (I know he paid it back, but it still bugs me).  Ryan . . . well, it’s hard to think of a downside, but I guess one could argue that he doesn’t have enough experience (laughable given how thin BO’s resume was) or that he’s not knowledgeable about foreign affairs. I don’t know, it’s hard to come up with a downside on Ryan.  But none of these downsides–for any of them–is a deal breaker or would cost them the election.  I can’t think of any that are that substantive.

The upside:  Christie has proven himself to be a man who has the courage of his convictions and will do exactly what he says he will do.  The man is a budget-balancing dynamo who is completely unafraid to tackle unions (huge in NJ), special interests, and anyone else who stands in the way of the welfare of his state, including people in his own party.  I like that.  A lot.  Rubio has shown that he is an adept politician who understands what the people want and what America is, and he seems dedicated to fulfill his promises of fiscal responsibility and smaller government (I also secretly think it’s a good idea to run a Hispanic against our first-ever most historical watershed unprecedented wonder of all wonders ocean-controlling planet-healing black president. I would never advocate running just any Hispanic.  No “quotas” here, no “affirmative action,” no PC crap. The real deal, and Rubio is the real deal).  Ryan is absolutely brilliant; he’s also gorgeous (well, all three are gorgeous, aren’t they?), articulate, and . . . well, presidential (something we sorely lack currently).  He’s also got an amazing mind for finance and economics, something we will definitely need in 2012.

What say you?




29 thoughts on “Fuzzy’s 2012 Prez Musings: God, No Romney or Huckabee. Please.

  1. Excellent analysis! I totally agree with you on Romney and Huckabee. Love Palin but also not sure if she can win indies. As for your question, I like Pawlenty and Ryan. I am totally in love with Chris Christie but I don't think Americans can handle him. He'd give too much of what they need and not enough of what they want. And God forbid we just get a plain talking, smart, focused, effective leader that is a bit rough around the edges!

  2. @kerry: I'm with you. I've met Herman Cain and been able to talk with him at some length. He is a great man and would be an excellent choice. The Left would try to paint him as an “Uncle Tom” and all the other epithets that go with it and be aided and abetted by the media. It would be a tough slog, but of all the candidates who are INTERESTED in running, he's the one that gets my vote. Christie, Rubio, Ryan (and maybe my governor-elect, Scott Walker) would be high on my list, but a resounding “NO!” to Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, et al. I like Sarah, but she's unelectable at this time. And this is one place where I want electability.

  3. I agree: if it's Huckabee or Romney, I vote Libertarian. I like Herman Cain, as doees Kerry; forget his lack of experience (the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue took care of that, thanks for pointing it out), the guy's got it. And the idea of two Black men running for president and causing panic among voters who vote based on skin color appeals to me. That is, unless Hillary quits as SoS and runs against 0bama in the 2012 primaries (Jimmy Carter had his Teddy Kennedy, after all).

  4. What say me … you're a genius because you agree with me … Or I'm a genius because I agree with you.

    My first choice is Paul Ryan. He has the ability to explain our economy and how it works so a third grader can understand it. And let's face it, that's about the level of thought that the BO voter had in 2008.

    My other choice, is of course, Chris Christie. He does lack polish, but at the same time will be able to convince a 2008 BO voter that black is black and white is white.

    Both of these men can look the American people in the eye and tell the TRUTH! This is something that has been missing from Washington for several years. I think they will show right out of the gate that they mean what they say.

    Rubio will make a great Senator for awhile. Palin is a Conservative Hero, but I think the MSM will scare the fence sitters with NO ideals (or you call them indies) away from her.

  5. I'll place $$ on Romney. It WILL be him on the ticket.

    My first choice, right now, would be Paul Ryan.
    If I felt Christie was an option, I'd choose him, but he doesn't seem interested, at the moment.

    I agree with you wholeheartedly on your thoughts and feelings on Palin and Huckabee. The thought of Huckabee running makes me cringe. I don't believe he can win.

  6. I'm so tired of even hearing about people like Huckabee and Romney. Aren't there any other people in the world.

    My first choice would be Paul Ryan with Jim DeMint as Vice. After Ryan serves two terms then DeMint can have a few. Yep – that would get this country on the right track.

  7. I totally agree with you about Romney. I think Huckabee has a better chance of winning over Independents than Sarah Palin. But, I still think that Sarah Palin has a good chance of winning if she has good managers, and not those idiots who ran McCain's campaign. My three top picks for Pres. are: Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Sarah Palin. And, I think we need a physician to run as the vice Presidential nominee, to run against Obamacare.

  8. @Lisa, I keep meaning to look at Pawlenty more closely, but haven't gotten around to it. I will, though, given your endorsement here. I like to do periodic musings on elections, so that will be a good topic at some nearish point. I had to laugh at your last sentence, so true. Sad, but so so true.

    @Kerry, Christie says he's not interested, and I believe him (unlike everyone else who says it). BUT if there were a large enough call for him from the people, he'd step up and serve. He's that kind of guy. And heh, isn't Cain a fair tax guy? I don't know much about him, but I seem to remember that he supports affirmative action and quotas based on race? If so, he's not the guy for me; I hate affirmative action (though agree that it had its time and place, but it's usefulness has long passed). But I'll definitely take another (or a first) look at him based on your endorsement. You read all my pre-2008 election musings, I think, so here we go again. *hugs*

    @Deekaman, I know you were talking to Kerry, but I wanted to jump in here. I wonder if that “Uncle Tom” crap wouldn't backfire, though, in the case of Cain? Not only is he actually black (and not half white as BO is), but he's got that affirmative action thing going for him (well, from the base dems' perspective, anyway, I think that's a deal breaker). I really want to see the Republican Party start firing back at the bs from dems about RAAAACISM, etc.; it's total lies, and I'm honestly not sure how any thinking person can look at the conservative movement and think it's racist. Oh! wait, just answered my own question. They are not thinking people. Heh.

    @John-holton, hi and welcome, first of all. πŸ˜€ And second, you guys are really going to make me do some research on Cain, I see. Okay, will do. I'm not sure that Hillary will, though I do think that Bill Clinton has been testing the waters for her. The challenge will come from Evan Bayh. And he's likely to get a lot of support from “normal” dems who are aghast at what has happened to their party. I'm eager to see how that plays out, actually, because that Bill and Hillary are also working to salvage the party and Bayh would have a good VP pick in Hillary. One thing's for sure, the next two years are going to be an action-packed ride.

    @Tammy, ooh, goody! Another one to look into. Can honestly say that I don't know a thing about him at this point. *googling wildly*

    @Odie, heee! You are such a joy to me. I really do like Ryan for 2012. Christie would run into serious problems in the South and Midwest; he's too abrasive for the South and too “East Coast” for the Midwest. I like Rubio as a senator, too, as I said, I have reservations about his integrity, so will be watching him closely.

  9. @Pedaling, ugh, I hope you are wrong, but at this time, it doesn't look like you are. I can just hear the GOP progressive elites gigglilng over how wonderful RomneyCare will be such a boon to the ticket because it's just what the unhinged socialist are begging for. That right there is exactly why he is a bad choice. But we'll see how the power plays out. The GOP has institutional power, but the Tea Party candidates have the power of the people . . . guess who's going to win that little tussle.

    @Adrienne, me, too. But they (“they” being the progressive GOP elite) honestly think, right now anyway, that they have the power. They don't. The talk about Romney and Huckabee will die out over the next few months, and there will be new names tossed out by summer (Palin will still be among them unless she comes out and says she won't run but will support someone else–as she's already intimated). And I love love love Jim DeMint. The only reason I didn't include him is that I have my doubts about someone as conservative across the board as he is (rather like Palin but without the Alinsky baggage of the last three years).

    @Teresa, I like Mike Pence, too, and I LOVE your idea of having a physician-legislator run as VP. Well, I added the “legislator” part, but if one of the republican physicians wanted a shot, I'd be up for that (well, in theory, depends on the top of the ticket and the doc involved, but the idea is pure genius).

  10. Ryan will…not…run in 2012. I absolutely, positively guarantee it.

    Fuzzy: If Cain buys into affirmative action, it's news to me. If you find a reference (I've not been able), please post it.

    The GOP Progressives like McConnell do believe they are in charge. This is why they need to go away in 2012. The Leftists still believe the electorate went to the opposite pole because Democrats didn't go far enough to the Left. As long as they remain delusional, we have a good shot at sending them to the wilderness for generations. But it requires us to be diligent, both nationally and locally. Start at your school board. Get control of the schools back from Progressives and the teachers union and much of the rest will fall into place.

  11. Well, maybe a surprise, but, I don't like any of the candidates mentioned as either(mostly) not conservative enough or to a smaller extent- not electable. I also view Huckabee as a liberal. Maybe I'm wrong.

    I think we need new blood. Personally, I'd like to see Allen West even though he will have only served two years as a congressman, he has a much better resume than BHO.

    My prediction is that the 2012 election will come down to a mixture of repealing HC and current events. Possible the economy, such as the misery index ala Carter, or more likely, threats from other nations/cultures.

  12. I could not agree more. I'll add one more I don't want, Newt. Not just because no none named Newt has any business running for president, but because of his track record. He had his chance and blew it big time. His failings are a large part of why the contract with America died and we are in the mess we are in. Never the less I'll support any of them against BO, and I'm a big proponent of a third party. We need to get rid of him no matter what.

  13. Ryan will not run. His kids are too young. That I know for a fact (friends who work on the hill).

    Christie is not a true conservative in many ways. He is pro life, he is pro gun control, and he has cap and tax issues. Once all that comes out, the bloom will come off the rose for many. It doesn't matter, he says he will not run. I love him, but he will have problems getting the nomination.

    Pence is a true conservative, but is a very devout Christian, which is hard for some people in the middle.

    Daniels made a comment not too long ago about forgoing social issues for now. I actually happen to agree with that thinking, but many do not. Again, he doesn't seem to have the interest in running.

    Rubio is too new. People are going to be a lot harder to convince that experience doesn't matter. We took a chance on Obama, I can't see us doing that again.

    In the end, I think it is going to be someone who is off the radar right now. The one thing that I know for sure, I will not support Palin in the primaries. She can't win anymore than Bachmann could win.

  14. Fuzzy,

    I feel like we need to just let the dust settle a while and see who comes through as the most electable candidate. I am sure God has his eye on someone we just need to have faith that the right candidate will emerge!

    We need to let them do the job we sent them to Washington to do, and that would to first and foremost extend the Bush tax cuts for all and make them permanent, kill the death tax, repeal Obummercare, end cap and tax once and for all,
    and set this country back on course to a balanced budget.

    This will stimulate the economy and create jobs in short order. If we can create jobs in the private sector that should insure victory in 2012!

    Lock & Load!!!
    Sons & Daughters of Liberty Unite!!!

  15. I agree…Romney and Huckabee make NO SENSE to me.

    Pence? Rubio? Cain? I like them all, but again…I am not done deciding yet. I am still watching them and their actions. Time will tell.

    But NOOOOOOO Romney and Huckabee….NOOOOOOOO, NOOOOOOO, did I mention I think NOOOOOO?

  16. @Deekaman, I'd be surprised if Ryan ran in 2012, too, but I wouldn't rule anyone out at this early stage. He's a definite for some future presidential ticket, though, that man has Mr. President written all over him. I'm not sure where I read that Cain supports affirmative action, but somewhere. I agree with you on hoping the left remains delusional (not far enough left? Un-freaking-real). I also agree that we need to work at local levels to undo the damage done by progs for the past few decades.

    @Kid, this country is not going to elect anyone who we'd deem “conservative enough,” that's kind of the point of this post and one of the things we should take away from the Angle and O'Donnell losses (even if we don't like it). But what we can do is ensure that pure fakes (like Romney) don't win the primary. I like Allen West, too, but he'd have to start now, as BO did (he really didn't serve in the Senate, he began campaigning for president in 2006), and he doesn't have the machine that BO did.

    @Randy-g, agreed. Honestly, I'm completely confused by the amount of talk about Romney and Huckabee; it's certainly not coming from we, the people.

    @Born-Again American, shoot me an email if you want πŸ™‚

    @Trestin, LOL on “newt” stuff, but hey, maybe he can get some mileage out of it by being the first ever most historical white man with a “funny name” running for president? Heh. I actually like Newt, but I don't think he's electable. And I am adamantly opposed to a third party until BO and his traitorous horde are beaten back into their sewers where they belong. They are sitting around hoping and praying (well, maybe not praying) that we go with a third party. It's the only thing that positively 100% guarantees BO a second term. I'd rather vote for Mitt Romney or that lunatic Ron Paul than see that happen.

    @jacg, I don't have any insider info, but young kids didn't stop JFK and might be better in political terms as older kids would be relentlessly targeted by leftists who have nothing better to do than tear people down. I'm okay with Christie being pro-life, but the anti-second amendment and cap and tax stuff is a turn off. If he starts looking like he'll go for it (and he doesn't right now), I'll have to look into that. Daniels was right to say that then, and it's the right thing now. Social issues will kill the conservative ascendancy faster than you can say “Tea Party.” Count on it. Agreed on Palin and Bachmann. They are amazing, but they do not appeal to the indies (both actually turn the indies off in a pretty big way, not good for such a critical year).

    @L, reps won't be able to get much done along these lines until we send them more senators and a president who will work with them. What they can and will do is stop any further damage from taking place. And that's nothing to sneeze at given how much damage has done.

    @Kerry, I'm not sure where I got that, but I know I read it somewhere and immediately tuned him out.

    @Cubbykins, agreed, they are both . . ., well, not my favorites. heh. In normal times, I'd want to give all our new potential candidates time to come into their own (like Ryan and Rubio), but these, alas, are not normal times, and we can't wait a decade for them to get there.

  17. @Kerry, thanks for the link, but it doesn't say what his definition of “affirmative action” is (from the context, I'm guessing he's trying to deflect the question by defining “affirmative” as positive, but I don't like the duck and dodge of that response, as I'm sure you saw coming. hehe.).

  18. well, it's hard for me to imagine he'd be for affirmative action when he's been accused of belonging to the kkk.

    i will keep checking on it and if i can find a better or more recent link, i will let you know.

  19. @Kerry, isn't he black? I'm not positive, but I would suspect that the KKK doesn't allow black members. Probably some crazy Alinsky-style attack.

    @Trestin, heh, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, my friend.

    @Kid, I don't think any of us are in the mood for compromise, and certainly not on working with socialists to implement part of their agenda. However, we're going to have to be more forgiving of conservative patriots who share that goal but who may not live up to every single aspect of what each of us means by “conservative enough.” If that makes sense. πŸ˜› Keep in mind that early in his career Reagan signed an abortion bill in Cali. If we'd held that against him, we'd never have elected him president. Imagine what the country and the world would be like if we deemed Reagan not conservative enough (he did an amnesty bill) or a flip flopper (former dem, formerly pro-choice, etc.). I'm looking for someone who is conservative enough in the big picture, core American values kind of way. There's wiggle room there. But not much. I'm totally opposed to every progressive, every RINO who talks crap and then huddles with the socialists to come up with anti-American legislation (just about anything McCain and Graham do, for example).

  20. yes, he is. he was sitting in for neal boortz and some woman called in and ended up calling him a kkk member because he wasn't agreeing with her. i don't think she realized that he was black, but who knows.

  21. @Kerry, heh, reminds me of Allen West saying that the dems couldn't call HIM a racist. But I guess they manage it, anyway. Bizarreness all around. There's been an increase in buzz about the Fair Tax, too, and every time I see / hear it, I think of you. πŸ˜€

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s