Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

If Gates ran, I'd vote for him.

Skjellyfetti wrote:If Gates ran, I'd vote for him.

OVER Obama?


There are over 2400 members here and not ONE of us believes that. Even the stupid ones like dOpie.

AZGrizFan wrote: OVER Obama?

yes.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: OVER Obama?

yes.

Do explain, please.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
yes.

Do explain, please.

Because he graduated from William & Mary?

LeadBolt wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:


Do explain, please.

Because he graduated from William & Mary?

I'm going for the Buffy Ticket....

Paul

Romney, T-Paw or Cain for me. But if Rick Perry makes a run that'll change things up

For me, I'll have my first vote ever for Gary Johnson in the primary probably. I doubt he'll win it. I could deal with Santorum, Pawlenty, Perry, or Romney as the nominee/president. As long as they go moderate with the VP selection (IMO Gary Johnson would make a great VP politically speaking for Santorum or Perry) they'll have my vote in the general election. If not, I'll vote for third party. I don't want Cain or Palin as president either; people may not like "career politicians" but having a few years of legislative and or executive experience is a big deal in terms of leaderships and getting things done. Case and point: Hoover and one could say Obama as well

As in Robert Gates? I could get behind him. Read a story in TIME about him and have been a fan since.

Skjellyfetti wrote:If Gates ran, I'd vote for him.

Cool. I don't see one, with any chance, that I'd vote for. Admittingly, I don't know much about Huntsman, but I'd be surprised if I can vote for him. We'll see. I'm not sold on Romney. Pawlenty, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, and Gingrich are laughable. Paul still says many things I agree with, but he has no chance of winning the nomination. So, that leaves me with Huntsman and Romney, with the possibility of some currently unknown person jumping in. Leaves a lot to be desired.

As to Gates, I don't think there's any chance he runs...but, if he did he would garner some of my attention.

Pwns wrote:As in Robert Gates? I could get behind him. Read a story in TIME about him and have been a fan since.

I could vote for him. I read that story as well. I'd vote Petraus and even though she wouldn't run, I'd vote for Condi Rice.

GOP politicians I'd probably vote for over Obama:

Lindsey Graham
Robert Gates
Gary Johnson (I'd have to do a little more research)
Any GOP nominee that says that online poker should be legalized

And as much of a fan of Ron Paul that I am as a person and politician, I'm not going to fool myself into ever thinking I could punch his name on a ballot.

Gates is too honest to run for president.....the honesty that would make him a great president is the same honesty that would keep him from getting elected...

Appaholic wrote:Gates is too honest to run for president.....the honesty that would make him a great president is the same honesty that would keep him from getting elected...

There's something to be said for that, but there IS precedent. Honesty is a two-edged sword. It's probably what got Jimmy Carter elected in 1976, particularly after the Nixon Pardon flap that killed Ford. But honesty is also likely what got Carter booted out in 1980. But Panama Canal and the Iran Hostage Crisis didn't help matters, either.

SuperHornet wrote:

Appaholic wrote:Gates is too honest to run for president.....the honesty that would make him a great president is the same honesty that would keep him from getting elected...

There's something to be said for that, but there IS precedent. Honesty is a two-edged sword. It's probably what got Jimmy Carter elected in 1976, particularly after the Nixon Pardon flap that killed Ford. But honesty is also likely what got Carter booted out in 1980. But Panama Canal and the Iran Hostage Crisis didn't help matters, either.

agree

youngterrier wrote:For me, I'll have my first vote ever for Gary Johnson in the primary probably. I doubt he'll win it. I could deal with Santorum, Pawlenty, Perry, or Romney as the nominee/president. As long as they go moderate with the VP selection (IMO Gary Johnson would make a great VP politically speaking for Santorum or Perry) they'll have my vote in the general election. If not, I'll vote for third party. I don't want Cain or Palin as president either; people may not like "career politicians" but having a few years of legislative and or executive experience is a big deal in terms of leaderships and getting things done. Case and point: Hoover and one could say Obama as well

Obama as community activist may be a case in point, but not Hoover.

Unlike activists and career politicians, Hoover had a strong a track record of "getting things done," as both a mining engineer and Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce. Perhaps Hoover had a tin ear from lack of previous elective office, but he had plenty of executive experience - more than most presidents. This is not to say that Hoover was a success as President, but his failings were not due to lack of executve experience.

Unfortunately, Palin's visibility and provocative outspokenness have only enhanced her caricature, as protrayed in the lamestream media. She does not yet possess the gravitas and substance I would like to see in my President, but she has a great deal more experience and gravitas than she gets credit for.

Romney has been far too cautious and protective of the old guard and his own mistakes. Pawlenty is too weak. I am not sure about Santorum. Perry just might be able to "git 'er done."

As Michael Barone has pointed out, the primary problem with both Republican and Democrat politicians as demonstrated in the failed economic policies of both the Bush and Obama administrations is that they have wasted precious resources and years trying to maintain and shore up their cronies in the old guard. Instead, we should have been allowing free enterprise, the most productive and forward leaning system the world has even known, to embrace the brave new world of the future. What we really need is the "creative destruction" of free markets.

We are at a pivotal moment in our history, and neither party has a workable vision for change management. The only workable choices are apparently the free markets and free enterprise embraced by our founders, or the type of centralized planning epitomized by the Chinese Communist Party.

I vote for the Founders, which means I am leaning libertarian.

Gary Johnson was a superb governor of New Mexico, and an excellent leader. I am not ready for him as President, but would like to see him as a cabinet secretary and/or senator before going for the top spot. Same with Herman Cain.

It seems to me that the libertarian philosophy is the only one with a snowball's chance of embracing the kinds of changes which will see us through this crisis. The failures, thus far, of leading Republican candidates to convincingly eschew failed solutions, tactfully abandon corrupt cronies, and vigorously put forward a free enterprise vision of the future is a major disappointment and may just push me towards the libertarians.

I'll vote for anybody who isn't a CFR or CNP member.. so I guess that only leaves Ron Paul.

However, the two parties really need to go, we need three or more parties (which are actually rivals, instead of just kind of the same party like we have now).

native wrote:Unfortunately, Palin's visibility and provocative outspokenness have only enhanced her caricature, as protrayed in the lamestream media. She does not yet possess the gravitas and substance I would like to see in my President, but she has a great deal more experience and gravitas than she gets credit for.

Please....for the love of God...PLEASE quit being an apologist for that stupid fokking carnival clown. Sure, the "lamestream" (how clever...) media gives her coverage, mostly negative....that's because she has EARNED mostly negative coverage. She's an intellectual buffoon who quit on the constituency who elected her (blaming the media of course...makes the job too tough ) to represent them. She quit being governor of the least populous state containing as much or more federal land as state land....she's a lightweight....she's the fokking Charlie Sheen of presidential politics....please quit blaming her viability (or lack thereof) as a presidential candidate on the media she used to fatten her bank roll....it empowers the same "lamestream" media you and your ilk claim to abhor...

Appaholic wrote:

native wrote:Unfortunately, Palin's visibility and provocative outspokenness have only enhanced her caricature, as protrayed in the lamestream media. She does not yet possess the gravitas and substance I would like to see in my President, but she has a great deal more experience and gravitas than she gets credit for.

Please....for the love of God...PLEASE quit being an apologist for that stupid fokking carnival clown. Sure, the "lamestream" (how clever...) media gives her coverage, mostly negative....that's because she has EARNED mostly negative coverage. She's an intellectual buffoon who quit on the constituency who elected her (blaming the media of course...makes the job too tough ) to represent them. She quit being governor of the least populous state containing as much or more federal land as state land....she's a lightweight....she's the fokking Charlie Sheen of presidential politics....please quit blaming her viability (or lack thereof) as a presidential candidate on the media she used to fatten her bank roll....it empowers the same "lamestream" media you and your ilk claim to abhor...

Carnival clown compared to what? I obviously do not think Palin ready for the Presidency, and I just as obviously blame the lamestream for their many sins of omission and commission, especially in her case. Just the troof, Appy.

I know Gary Johnson. Had some business dealings with him several years ago. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. He's a true libertarian without the Ron Paul craziness.

CitadelGrad wrote:I know Gary Johnson. Had some business dealings with him several years ago. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. He's a true libertarian without the Ron Paul craziness.

From what I've seen, I tend to agree with you...but, I just doubt his ability to win the nomination--like Paul.

Johnson won't win the nomination, the country isn't quite ready for his stoner persona as a candidate. If he can get the Vice Presidency or another cabinet position, he'll have a definite future in National politics. I think he would make a great president

Appaholic wrote:

native wrote:Unfortunately, Palin's visibility and provocative outspokenness have only enhanced her caricature, as protrayed in the lamestream media. She does not yet possess the gravitas and substance I would like to see in my President, but she has a great deal more experience and gravitas than she gets credit for.

Please....for the love of God...PLEASE quit being an apologist for that stupid fokking carnival clown. Sure, the "lamestream" (how clever...) media gives her coverage, mostly negative....that's because she has EARNED mostly negative coverage. She's an intellectual buffoon who quit on the constituency who elected her (blaming the media of course...makes the job too tough ) to represent them. She quit being governor of the least populous state containing as much or more federal land as state land....she's a lightweight....she's the fokking Charlie Sheen of presidential politics....please quit blaming her viability (or lack thereof) as a presidential candidate on the media she used to fatten her bank roll....it empowers the same "lamestream" media you and your ilk claim to abhor...

Come on Appa, there's no comparison. Just because the "lamestream" media and "yellow jounalism" made it too tough to be governor of Alaska , there's no way that would happen if she was elected president. She wouldn't have any trouble managing the whole country--Alaska is TOUGH--look at its proximity to Russia and Canadia...frightening.