Trump and Cruz Call Rubio Out on his Gang of Eight Amnesty Push

As the Republican presidential primary heats up, illegal immigration is again taking center stage.  While this is nothing new (as we know President Reagan attempted to address it in the ’80s, John McCain made it a priority in ’08, and on), the discussion has taken an interesting turn this election cycle.

At issue, of course, are Obama’s executive amnesty, the recent influx of illegal immigrants (including huge numbers of children), the vast number of illegals currently living and working in the U.S., border security (such as it is), and a host of related issues including the burden of illegal immigration on tax payers in terms of jobs, health care, schooling, police and judicial involvement, and various entitlement costs.

Marco Rubio’s involvement with the Gang of Eight, particularly his subservience to bipartisan efforts with Chuck Schumer, has not gone unnoticed by either the conservative base nor by the other presidential hopefuls.

When Rubio ran for the Senate in 2010, he was claimed to be an adamant opponent of amnesty, and only once elected did he jump at the chance to work on a massive “comprehensive” amnesty plan.  At the time, Professor Jacobson noted that Rubio was “played” by both Schumer and the GOP pro-amnesty McCain-Graham tag team (and he was right).

Since then, Rubio has tried to distance himself from his own choices (while raking in money from pro-amnesty supporters behind closed doors), but it’s worth noting that his mentor Jeb Bush probably played a role in decisions that Rubio now seems to regret.  For example, like Jeb, Rubio was very quick to distance himself from the TEA Party that was instrumental in electing him to his current seat in the Senate; this is not unlike Jeb’s negative assessment of the conservative base when he dismissed us as unnecessary to his presidential ambitions.

To me, it seems that Rubio’s amnesty lies are, er flip-flop is, more rooted in his being a campaign conservative who says one thing to get elected and does the opposite once in office.  That’s not a rare thing in American politics, so it’s somewhat amusing to me when Donald Trump now claims that Rubio’s support for amnesty is “because he’s Hispanic.”

Watch:

This seems to be an off-the-cuff remark and not his campaign’s message; he also does not reject the idea of Rubio as his VP running mate should he win the GOP nomination.  However, even if a comment made in passing, this seems a simplistic and somewhat specious argument.

Beyond the points made above, not only are the majority of GOP establishment (i.e. supporters of amnesty) white, but one of the staunchest opponents of amnesty is himself Hispanic.

Watch:

Ted Cruz has stated that he literally laughed out loud at Rubio’s bizarre claim that his position on illegal immigration is the same as Cruz’s.

Politico reports:

[Cruz] told reporters after, “In the “Gang of Eight” fight Marco chose to stand with Chuck Schumer and to lead the fight tooth and nail for a massive amnesty plan. I chose to stand with [Alabama Sen.] Jeff Sessions and to lead the fight to defeat amnesty.”

Cruz’s broadside was the latest in an escalating feud between the two senators that blew up in the wake of Tuesday’s fourth GOP debate, during which both had strong performances. Rubio over the past couple of days has tried to equate Cruz’s record on immigration which his own more relatively conciliatory one, while Cruz has pushed back hard on those efforts.

“I have to admit that I laughed out loud at that,” Cruz said earlier Friday on Mike Gallagher’s radio show, in response to Rubio’s assertion on Thursday that they held similar views on immigration reform. He went on to add, “that statement was truly stunning. That’s like Obama saying my position is the same as his on Obamacare. That’s like Ayatollah Khamenei saying my position is the same as his on the Iranian nuclear deal.”

Cruz, you may recall, led the fight against the Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight amnesty bill.  Watch:

And the bill was stopped in its tracks.

Like Trump, Cruz has released his own illegal immigration plan summary in which he focuses on three key elements:  securing the border, restoring the rule of law, and reforming legal immigration to protect Americans.  See link for discussion of each point.

SECURE THE BORDER

A Cruz Administration’s first priority for immigration reform will be to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. We will:

  • Build a wall that works.
  • Triple the number of Border Patrol agents.
  • Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border.
  • Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry.

RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW

We need a President who will follow the law, hold those who break it accountable, and take seriously the duty to protect Americans. To restore the Rule of Law, a Cruz Administration will:

  • End President Obama’s illegal amnesty.
  • Increase deportations and end catch-and-release.
  • End sanctuary policies, sign Kate’s Law, and deport criminal immigrants.
  • Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving financial benefits and strengthen E-Verify.

REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO PROTECT AMERICANS

In order to strengthen our immigration system, protect national security, and better serve American workers, we must:

  • Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program.
  • Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high.
  • Enforce the public-charge doctrine.
  • End birthright citizenship.

Cruz makes his point via Twitter:

The question facing Republican primary voters is: Has Rubio learned his lesson?  Perhaps an even more pertinent additional question is: Have we, as we watched Rubio go from TEA Party hero to GOP establishment zero, learned our lesson?

Advertisements

Establishment GOP As Clueless As Ever

I was watching this clip of Mitt Romney being interviewed on Hannity, and I sighed. A lot. I shook my head with disbelief and not a little sorrow.  Here it is, watch it, see how you respond:

 

Although I definitely believe that we’d be in much better shape right now as a country if Mitt Romney had won last November, I (almost) can’t believe how . . . seriously, truly, deeply stupid he is about the “mistakes” he claims to have made.  Hispanics.  Really?  That’s why he lost?

This is a deep and serious problem with establishment GOP: they honestly believe that their own big spending, big government solutions are way better than leftists’ big spending, big government solutions, and because they are so invested in this big spending, big government ideology, two major things happen (neither good for either the GOP or our republic):  one, they compete for Democrat voters on Democrat turf, and two, they do so at the expense of their own base . . . failing to care that the base is deserting them in record, wacko bird numbers. They seem to think that GOP numbers are tanking because of the left; that’s only half right–they’re also tanking because conservatives are fed up with them and have been for years.  What they don’t seem to understand is that they will never ever win by running as Democrats against actual Democrats.

Sure, if Mitt could have turned out Hispanics in the numbers (both real and fraudulent) that turned out for Obama, he’d have won.  He didn’t lose by all that much, after all, but the people who didn’t turn out, who didn’t vote for him weren’t only the Democrat and Obama’s base; they were prominently, in large numbers conservative voters (seriously, this is what Mitt worries he did so wrong: he didn’t win over enough Obama voters. Yet if the GOP had run an actual conservative, conservatives would have turned out in huge numbers as we did in 2010).  Instead of worrying that he, amazingly, turned out fewer conservatives than that national disgrace John McCain, Romney is worried that he didn’t turn out enough of Obama’s voters.  You can’t make this stuff up, you really can’t.

It’s insane.

Yet this is what the GOP elite are thinking, planning for, and worrying about.  How, they fret, will they ever convince Obama voters to vote for their big government instead of Obama’s big government?  Gee, they wonder, what can we do to show that we’ll hand out just as many phones and other freebies as Obama?  That they’ll grant amnesty without secure borders (ahem Rubio and Paul Ryan) just like Obama?  How can they convince Obama voters that their big government solutions to “national” health care, “national” education, and a myriad other issues they want to solve via the federal government and increased tyranny are better than the Democrats’ federal programs, regulations, and general tyranny?  If only they could solve that problem, they are certain, they’d win a presidential election.

Never mind that Americans are sick of, don’t want, and actively reject all that big spending, big government nonsense that does nothing for the American people (except enslave them and whittle away at that their God-given rights) and does everything for the political class and their cronies.  Who cares what Americans want?  Not the Dems.  Not Obama.  And no, not the GOP establishment who are trying to compete on regressive turf with regressive policies for regressive votes.  They think that’s a winning strategy, and they think that even as the American public declares that it wants less government spending and fewer federal programs.

Never you mind that it doesn’t work, that an election that Obama never should have won was not won by Obama but lost by these regressive GOP establishment types who really, truly, deeply believe that their key to success is to out-regressive the regressives, to win over regressive voters with their bigger, better, more policies, programs, regulations, laws, mandates, and dictates.  They just keep churning out unacceptable candidates that the conservative base of the GOP continuously rejects in hopes that they’ll finally hit on one who will appeal to not only indies but to a good portion of the Obama base.  That’s the plan.

And they think it’s a good one.

They see headlines like Ted Cruz now leads GOP presidential pack and The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states, and they conclude, as Mitt Romney does in the above video, that . . . Hispanics!

You can’t fix stupid.  You can only vote it out of office, out of power, sweeping it out of the way.

Fuzzy Rant: GOP Traitors, Snowden, AGW Hoax

It is so time for a rant here at Fuzzy Central; I can feel it coming, so grab some popcorn and stand well away from your computer monitor.

Amnesty and the Traitorous GOP Who Support It

Seriously?  I am spitting mad about this, and my anger is directed not so much at McCain the Regressive Clown or Graham the Closet Case but at Ayotte and Rubio.  Those two ran on, courted, and were accepted by the TEA Party . . . the same TEA Party they are now pledging–behind closed doors, of course–to destroy.  I don’t know diddly about Ayotte, and after this, I don’t really care if she can cure cancer with the mere bat of her eyelashes.

As for Rubio . . . I haven’t trusted him since I found out that he was charging his own personal expenses to the state GOP credit card, of particular, damning interest was that he only paid it back years later–after he was caught.  Really, that was it for me with him.  Notice how after I posted about that, I just kind of shut up about him? He was a disaster in the making, but he seemed a better deal than Crist and that other guy, and conservatives seemed determined to see in him what they waned to see, so . . . I shut up.  No more.  Never forget that the one and only reason Rubio is in the United States’ Senate is the support he got from the TEA Party, the same TEA Party that he snubbed by refusing to join the Senate TEA Party Caucus.  The same TEA Party that he lied to–repeatedly–about his views on illegal immigration and amnesty.

Do not, DO. NOT. let the GOP sneaky snakes who voted for cloture and then voted against amnesty get away with their treachery.  They KNOW that a cloture vote ensures the bill goes forward–just as they did on ObamaCare, and they do it anyway.  Yes, they really believe we’re that stupid.  Enough!

et tu Paul Ryan?  I have no words.  Just lots of sad.  I carry it in a big suitcase with wheels now.

Snowden, the ManBearPig er, TraitorHeroWhackJob

Dude, I’m not sure what Snowden is; his “tyranny tour” is not helping his case with anyone who might be inclined to land on the “hero” side.  He exposed illegal government activity. That’s whistleblower stuff, but . . . *shrug* what the heck ever.  Like he really matters in the grand scheme of America’s destruction.

More on the ManBearPig as Deluded and Frightened Obama Pivots to Global Warming Climate Change (or whatever)

Poverty is skyrocketing, electricity bills are to follow that skyrocketing trajectory (as Obama promised), the number of people collecting welfare and food stamps is fast quadrupling.  Millions upon millions of Americans either have no job at all or are working only part-time (which, thanks to the ObamaCareTax monstrosity is now less than 30 hours per week, further crippling the hourly-wage-earning lower and lower-middle classes).

So what does Obama deem–the very week that the world learns that the earth has not warmed in at least 15 years–the key, most imperative item on his agenda?  Yep, killing U. S. coal.  And along with it, still more jobs, and pushing people who are barely hanging on to their lower and lower-middle class status into the poverty/government-dependent classes.  Oh joy!

It’s not enough that we all actually know now that the whole AGW hysteria is utter and complete bullcrap–oh no, now we need the Divider in Chief pontificating on how he’ll heal the planet.  Again.  Or something.  Sick-making.  I love how he and his horrendous nightmare of a wife flew off–in separate planes, Air Force One AND Two–to the same place and essentially, give or take a couple hours, at the same time.  Yeah, that’s a man who is really worried about his carbon footprint.

Typical commie regressive: laws and rules and government-dictated morals are for thee, not for me.

Sick. Of. It.

So what, you may ask, of the recent Supreme Court rulings, of the ongoing assault on Obama’s “political enemies” while he courts America’s enemies in our White House, of the blatant military and arms support of al Qaeda, of the embarrassing place that America now holds in the world with Putin laughing in Obama’s face and Afghanistan, etc. dictating terms to him, of the Common Core nightmare, the impending amnesty’s effects on America and her people, of the major scandals that reveal a third-world mentality in this country’s president . . . of a million other things that this administration is doing, has done, intends to do.  What of all of it, you ask?

I have no words.

Terms I Put In Scare Quotes . . . And Why

When I was writing my dissertation, my dissertation chair complained (seemingly) endlessly about my use, misuse, and (too often, flagrant) abuse of scare quotes.  As it happens, she was right: dissertations are not really the place for the challenging of accepted ideas with such a simple device–actually, as it turned out, dissertations are not the place to challenge ideas accepted by leftist loons at all (but that’s another story for another day).  However, snapping on some scare quotes is fun for the snarky and, as far as I’m concerned, mandatory for tweeters (particularly snarky tweeters like me).  While I can’t seem to write complete blog posts at the moment (several half-started, half-hearted drafts languish in my Drafts folder), I am rather active on Twitter where expressions must be succinct (140 characters or less) and still make sense.

This is actually a wonderful exercise for me because I tend to be verbose to the point of rambling incoherence.  Okay, maybe not incoherent, but I can rock a simple stance into several pages with little effort.  Scare quotes are my saving grace on Twitter because I can say so much with only two additional characters: “”.  Hard not to love that . . . even as it makes me think of that Friends episode in which Joey tried so hard, and with hilarious results, to understand “sc-air” quotes (when you wave your fingers on both hands in the “quotation” gesture to undermine, question, or otherwise lampoon the word, term, or phrase being “sc-aired”).

“Gun control”–It’s never ever about controlling crime; it’s always about controlling people.  Leftists create gun-free zones and then are shocked (shocked, I say) that lunatics hell-bent on mass casualties “hit” these gun-free zones.  That makes sense how?

“Palestine”–D’oh.

“Marriage” (when used in conjunction with the word “gay”)–there is no such thing as “gay marriage.”  Marriage is what it is, and government plays exactly no role in its definition.  As long-time readers of this blog know, I was not always opposed to “gay marriage”; however, once it became clear that this was not about equality (civil rights–a term that never worked on me in this context) but about undermining religion, I realized just how wrong I was.

“Religion” (when used in conjunction with Islam)–Islam is not and never was “simply”  a religion (woot at the scare quotes).  It is, and always has been, a complete economic, political, religious, and socio-cultural dictate.  And it is, and always has been, a vehicle for barbarism, even evil.

“Compassionate Conservatism”–this one is SO annoying.  It means being a great big big-government leftist in faux-conservative clothing.  And yes, I do mean George W. Bush (his dad was, arguably, even worse because he was responsible for Agenda 21 in America).

“Progressive”–I always mean “regressive” because that’s what they are.  They anchor themselves in a destructive, regressive past that is fantastical (and/or evil: segregation, slavery, prohibition, eugenics, etc.).  For example, in the midst of the Great Depression, lunatic regressive FDR paid farmers NOT to farm.  People are starving, particularly in the South, and the government limits farmers’ crops or flat-out bars them from growing much-needed food.  This is not evil how?  FDR has earned his place among the worst presidents this country has ever had the misfortune of electing, and it’s no accident that the Constitution was amended (22nd Amendment) upon his death (he was barely cold in his grave before Americans ensured that two terms as president was quite enough).

“Conservative”–as expected, when I use scare quotes on this term, I mean establishment GOP (the big government “compassionate” conservatives–the “c” in “compassionate” more aptly stands for “communist”).  When I speak of Rubio, Christie, and/or Ben Carson, I use scare quotes.  These men are not conservatives.  Rubio is a corrupt little toad who used the state campaign credit card for his own personal use (yes, he repaid it, but not until he was caught . . . two years later), who claims that conservatives who oppose his amnesty idiocy are not “true conservatives,” and who refused to join the Senate TEA Party caucus (keeping in mind that he would have lost his race in FL if it weren’t for the TEA Party).  Christie, omg where do I even start?  He’s pro-Islamist (calls anyone who questions anything about Islamfascists “ignorant fools”), pro-big government “solutions,” and pro-Obama on far too many issues for my liking.  As for Carson, I love love loved him because of the prayer breakfast beat-down of 0, but he’s said that he thinks that the Second Amendment should only apply to people in rural areas.  Sorry, he’s lost the plot by too much for my comfort (or support).

“Feminist”–Okay, back to my dissertation director (she was a renowned “women’s and LGBT” scholar.  And, in case you were wondering, that’s worth exactly crap.).  She would get near-hysterical and down-right eye-bulgingly irate if I dared to mention anything that even remotely evoked what she sneeringly called “’80’s feminism.”  This was the so-called third wave of feminism, and as far as she was concerned was too pedestrian and intellectually barren for the would-be progressive academic she was intent in building (i.e. me).

I didn’t get it then.  But I do now.  “Feminism” had to change (to regress) to accommodate the new view that things like burqas and female genital mutilation (and honor killings, etc.) were actually–somehow–suddenly–okie dokey.  That being “tolerant” about these things was somehow more sophisticated, more intellectual.  You know, somehow.

I type that, and I see how insane it is, but these loons who still have the audacity to call themselves “feminists” (all the while actually hating women as women) actually defend such practices on the grounds of “tolerance.”  So feminists who once denounced female genital mutilation (as but one example) now look the other way when stats tell us it’s on the rise right here in America. A few of these faux feminists have even defended the practice.  All of this was anathema to me as an academic, a feminist, an American, and a woman.

So I’m bumbling along in my grad “training” to be a consummate Marxist; this just means that I wrote what was expected:  Marxist crap painted willy-nilly on every thought, word, and deed.  It was so easy, so mindless, that I didn’t even bother with it too much and would slap out a 25-page Marxist lunatic “analysis” in two hours . . . to rave reviews. (Yes, it was really that pathetic.).  It’s hard not to be good at manufacturing/ferreting out “inequality” in even the simplest prose; once you learn the basic premise, you see it everywhere . . . even though it exists exactly nowhere.   It’s like the hypochondriac who reads about the symptoms of a disease and immediately becomes convinced s/he has “it.”

“Mainstream”–let’s face it, “mainstream” actually means the 8-10% of Americans who are Obots (including, of course, the “mainstream” media).  What is actually mainstream is dismissed as “extremist” and lately as the behavior/thoughts of a “potential terrorist.”

“Racism”–One of the great travesties, I think, of leftism is the crazed notion that race is the root of any dissent.  This does nothing to advance debate and serves only, purposefully, to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with 0’s job-killing, middle-class-robbing tactics.

I used to feel insulted when some leftie accused me of racism for the simple act of verbalizing my dissent.   “You just hate him because he’s black,” was the accusation.  Um, well, I hated the same policies under Carter and some (NCLB) under Republican presidents.  Does this mean that I’m a sometimes racist? That I hate all white, Southern men?  It’s nuts; conservatives have nothing to prove here.  We’ve already lost the trenches; we’re evil, hate people, want them to die, blah, blah, blah.  If we don’t have “enough” black republicans, we’re racist.  If we have too many, we’re racist and only pandering.  The truth, of course, is harder for them to grasp.  Conservative values and principles actually empower people; less government intervention is GOOD for people of all races.

As I noted, I’ve actually felt guilty in the past for my views on 0’s destructive, disastrous policies.  He’s killing our economy, and he’s doing it on purpose.  This has zero to do with race and everything to do with policy (I hate what Reid and Pelosi are doing, too. Does that make me a hater of white men or women?  Of course not.).  But for scrambling, fearful leftists, it’s always–always–about race.  Even when it isn’t.  Even when the people don’t think about or care about race.

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?

.
.

.