When the other GOP candidates quit....

[deacon blues]

Romney was a moderate Republican foisted on us by the GOP establishment. He was the governor of a traditionally Democratic state. He had Romneycare---FAR from conservative ideals.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

He is imminently more attractive than Cruz will ever be.

Cruz is staunchly anti-amnesty.

Why is it even necessary to try to appear "attractive" to a certain ethnic group who is demanding special favors on immigration for their own race? Why won't someone point this out like I just did?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by n david

No, he just lies about the records of other candidates and lies about what he will do.

Rubio is a liar. After watching the recent debate and reading excerpts of his recent campaign speeches, I don't trust anything he says.

He's also lazy and doesn't take his job as Senator seriously. He has one of the worst voting records in the Senate. Like obama, he's missed a ton of votes.

Also, there are more voting Dems and liberals than Republicans. Conservative voters are lazy, unfortunately.

Conservatives aren't lazy about voting, liberals are, that's why conservatives clean up in off years. Democratic depend on the uninformed voter, and that's why they're hard to beat in a general election.

If those who voted for Obama were asked who the Vice President was before they could vote, over 50% would be turned away. If they had to name the VP and Sec. Of State 90% would be turned away. As it is they are told to vote for a person because of their skin color or sex in order to secure such and such entitlements, and they oblige.

Its a scam. They should have to know at least something about who their voting for, the issues, or the history of the country (like who was the first president), but as it id they holler bloody murder simply at the idea of having a valid ID.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Romney was a moderate Republican foisted on us by the GOP establishment. He was the governor of a traditionally Democratic state. He had Romneycare---FAR from conservative ideals.

Romney was the best candidate last cycle. I liked Newt but he had too much baggage. Cain was doing OK until the media destroyed him by bringing out his skeletons (can't have black conservative, that's anathema, see also rise & fall of Ben Carson). I think Rick Perry had a legit shot last time but blew it with debate performance and the "oops" moment. Romney really was the best candidate last time, even if he was an establishment candidate. I think Romney lost by not sticking to his guns when Candice Crowley backed him down and the bogus bad press of the 47% comment.

On an unrelated note to Perry, and also Jeb, Kasich, Huckabee, and even Santorum and Pataki. Who is advising these people to give up their political office and run for president. Being the governor of a state (especially TEXAS) makes you relevant, gives you press and recognition, gives you credibility and responsibility. As a former governed you are irrelevant. Not that being a sitting gov makes it automatic (see Jindal) but to me that is just awful political strategy.

[n david]

Bye Felicia....

Lindsay Graham is OUT of the race. 'Bout time. Not that he had a chance, but I'm glad he dropped out. No worries about there being a Defense Secretary John McCain.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Why is it even necessary to try to appear "attractive" to a certain ethnic group who is demanding special favors on immigration for their own race? Why won't someone point this out like I just did?

"Special favors" or a realistic and non-gestapo-like response to a GIGANTIC problem that lacks a very good solution?

I don't think anyone is demanding anything. However, most of the education-based voting public and just about all of the emotion-based voting public both agree that any attempts to deport en masse the likely millions of illegal immigrants is fraught with insurmountable obstacles, unless, as a country, we do some very bad things.

[aegsm76]

Let's start with Border Security.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Let's start with Border Security.

I say we do two or more things at the same time.

Border security AND path to citizenship.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I say we do two or more things at the same time.

Border security AND path to citizenship.

The problem is Democrats lie. Reagan thought he was getting increased security, promised by the Democrats back in the 80s. They reneged on their deal. They always do.

Conservatives, especially the establishment, tend to be stupid and gullible. They hear a promise, then give away the farm on a promise without requiring any kind of down payment before doing so.

I'm actually not against a long, winding, penalty-laden path to citizenship for illegals...but before giving that away, I want border security passed, funded and established.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I say we do two or more things at the same time.

Border security AND path to citizenship.

Why do we focus so much on making them citizens? Why not let them remain here as permanent residence with no path to citizenship? Most of them want to remain loyal to the country they came from.