Ohio Chatter DEV

BCBulldog

There is one perfect candidate and he is getting no attention. Of course, he has show no interest to this point either. JC Watts. He would annihilate Obama in every facet. I would love to see the two of them debate just to watch Obama piss down his leg.

Little Danny

I think in order to take down this administration, conservatives and republicans will overlook a lot of things that would normally be a a big deal in most years. If they believe it is going to take a hindu, a mormon, a muslim or even a Martian to defeat Obama, then they will overlook those issues. They might not like it, but they will take it over the alternative.

I don't know if Mitt will be the guy. If it is, I'd like him to pick someone like Paul Ryan as his running mate. I'd actually like to see Ryan run for president. He has a specific plan to tackle the financial crisis, paying off the debt,job creation, economic growth and has a plan to adddress health and retirement security, I think he has already publically stated he will not be running for president however. I think this guy is the future of the party.

CenterBHSFan

fan_from_texas;408743 wrote:I'm a big Romney fan. I voted for him in the primaries and have liked him for years now. I don't think there's any real chance he'll be the nominee (because of all the idiots in our party), so I'll probably have to suffer through being underwhelmed again by our nominee.[/QUOTE]

Don't feel bad, us democrats have underachieved for Y.E.A.R.S.!

ptown_trojans_1

Economically, Romney is alright, but foreign policy, he is pretty much a neocon. He doesn't support arms control, or anything the President is doing. He is for taking a Bush line of Iran (which didn't work and haven't put forth a good policy on containment). He is pretty much the same on Afghanistan, and Iraq. He doesn't have a plan for the Mid East, or Europe, wants to keep a defense budget high.

Given that foreign policy matters more to me than domestic policy, between Obama and Romney, I'd stick with Obama right now. That could change is Romney moves toward the center on foreign policy and articulates a better policy.

The new book he put out, was just a blame, blame, blame on the Obama agenda and not any indepth policy.

Romney to me is more suitable in the Senate or Secretary of Treasury.

fan_from_texas

Little Danny;408776 wrote:I don't know if Mitt will be the guy. If it is, I'd like him to pick someone like Paul Ryan as his running mate. I'd actually like to see Ryan run for president. He has a specific plan to tackle the financial crisis, paying off the debt,job creation, economic growth and has a plan to adddress health and retirement security, I think he has already publically stated he will not be running for president however. I think this guy is the future of the party.

As expected, Paul Ryan gets a lot of press up here (he's my Congressman). He seems like a fairly down-to-earth guy with good, solid ideas. Plus, if he's President, it frees up his seat for my run.

BoatShoes

fan_from_texas;408863 wrote:As expected, Paul Ryan gets a lot of press up here (he's my Congressman). He seems like a fairly down-to-earth guy with good, solid ideas. Plus, if he's President, it frees up his seat for my run.

Good Luck FFT if that should play out. Nonetheless, wouldn't those on the right be bothered by the fact that Paul Ryan doesn't have any executive experience?? That's a major beef with BHO right now (among many other things). For weeks I saw Charles Krauthammer wailing away at Barry about never having run anything. J.C. Watts I guess has started a consulting firm in the wake of his congressional career but it certainly isn't that long of an executive record.

But, anyways, it seems most of you are probably right in that Romney would never get nominated because the far right hates him...It's a shame too because I really think he's probably one of the most qualified people to be President around.

BCBulldog

BoatShoes;408941 wrote:J.C. Watts I guess has started a consulting firm in the wake of his congressional career but it certainly isn't that long of an executive record.

He's got a lot more going than a consulting firm. He has several diverse organizations in his company and has served on multiple executive boards. He is infinitely more qualified than Obama, better received by everybody than Romney and more intelligent than both. He should be our next president.

believer

^^^I'd vote for Watts in a heartbeat. He's more qualified to be POTUS than the inexperienced Chicago Political Machine "public servant" clueless leftist hack current residing in the WH.

gibby08

BCBulldog;409754 wrote:He's got a lot more going than a consulting firm. He has several diverse organizations in his company and has served on multiple executive boards. He is infinitely more qualified than Obama, better received by everybody than Romney and more intelligent than both. He should be our next president.

Why?? Because he's a Republican??

The only way Republicans nominate Watts is if they are looking for their version of Barack Obama ...plain and simple.

There are 3 or 4 people more qualified than him in the Republican Party

believer

gibby08;409798 wrote:The only way Republicans nominate Watts is if they are looking for their version of Barack Obama ...plain and simple.

racist

gibby08

Maybe...but you know it's the truth

sjmvsfscs08

I'll take this ticket any day of the week!

...minus the mustache of course.

gibby08

^^^

Now that you mention Powell....I was talking to a couple of my friends that work for ODP(they were here for Lee Fisher's visit to the fair) and they said Powell is being talked about as a possible replacement for Biden in 2012,along with Hilliary,Even Bayh,Howard Dean,and Kathleen Sebelius

sjmvsfscs08

Powell's support for Obama was largely because he thought he was a unifying figure with his remarkable ability to speak. He did however donate the maximum amount to John McCain too, but was extremely displeased to his choice of Palin.

I think it has to have become obvious to a guy as smart as he is that Obama is anything but a unifying figure. He smiles at you while he simultaneously stabs your back. He's a brilliant Machiavellian politician, it's as simple as that.

Powell has been displeased with much of the Republican party, which makes since because Republicans haven't done anything correctly since about 2003. But I do think with the right candidate Obama would throw his support back to the GOP, after all he never changed his party affiliation, and wasn't made Secretary of State either.

cbus4life

fan_from_texas;408754 wrote:Elected != nominated, unfortunately. Romney would do well in a general election, but he has very little chance of being nominated.

True.

BCBulldog

gibby08;409798 wrote:Why?? Because he's a Republican??

Um, yeah. Please see the thread title. See a 1st grader for further explanation.

gibby08;409798 wrote:The only way Republicans nominate Watts is if they are looking for their version of Barack Obama ...plain and simple.

If by "their version of Barak Obama" you mean a charismatic leader who can connect with people across party lines, then yes. But I am guessing that you are implying that only white people should be nominated by the Republicans because the Democrat party is the black party. You may want to read Mr. Watts book to help open your mind a bit.

gibby08;409798 wrote:There are 3 or 4 people more qualified than him in the Republican Party

Like who?

gibby08

BCBulldog;411198 wrote:
Like who?

Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
Rick Santorum

Footwedge

gibby08;411573 wrote:Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
Rick Santorum

Rick Sanitarium? Really? If Sanitarium were elected, half the country would move to Canada................................and the other half would illegally enter Mexico.

gibby08

That was a list of people who are more qualified that J.C Watts

I Wear Pants

They're all bad candidates. All of them.

Things can change in two years but every single person that is likely to be on a ballot in 2012 is absolutely terrible.

BCBulldog

gibby08;411573 wrote:Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
Rick Santorum

Watts has more experience in federal politics than Jindal and Santorum and is more respected across a broader spectrum than Romney and Huckabee. I'm sure you can cite plently of reasons why you think any of these guys are more qualified and I could argue why Watts is more qualified. But, I believe that Watts is the most electable candidate of any mentioned.

Mr. 300

Anyone, and mean ANYONE will be more qualified than who was elected in 2008, so experince means nothing. It's all about electability and who turns out after getting jazzed up by the party. The moderates will be jumping from Obama's camp after what he's done to prolong the economic downturn.

ptown_trojans_1

This whole article is why I won't vote for Romney. It makes no sense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html

1. Missile defense is not limited in any conceivable way. The only missile defense systems that would possibly be limited is the pie in the sky 100billion ones that is a decade away (when the treaty expires).
2. Regional missile defense against Iran and North Korea is not limited in any way shape or form. The Russians are not going to strongly object and pull out of the treaty for these systems as they pose no direct threat to them.
3. The BCC that he mentions is a mainstay in all Arms control treaties. It was in the 1st START and is just a continuation of the previous committee. (If he read the treaties he would see that)
4. Rail based ICBMs are covered as the language of the treaty is broad enough to include any launcher that can deliver an ICBM. If the Russians do decide to do this, it would be covered, head to the BCC and be under inspection by us.
5. The treaty does not favor the Russians. Yes, Russia is already near the 700 launcher limit, but they are far above the warhead limit and this treaty brings them from their 2,500 to 1,550. Yes tactical and MIRVs are not covered. But, that was not the focus of the treaty. It is a bridge to future treaties which will cover those areas.
6. Tactical weapons, I highly doubt Russia will launch tactical weapons as that would spark a thermonuclear war and thus far Russia has not been stupid enough to do that. Deterrence has held.
7. Finally, he mentions putting ICBMs on bombers? That is crazy. The warheads are completely different and would take years to engineer for a bomber. Besides, bombers are useless today as Russia's are large and slow, easily picked off by our radars. It makes no sense for the Russians to put all their eggs in bombers instead of mobile missiles.

This article is everything I don't like about Romney. It is partisan talking points without reading the treaty and its context.

believer

Mr. 300;412356 wrote:Anyone, and mean ANYONE will be more qualified than who was elected in 2008, so experience means nothing.

Obama has actually proved that experience should mean something.

ptown_trojans_1;412362 wrote:This article is everything I don't like about Romney. It is partisan talking points without reading the treaty and its context.

Not that I'm defending Romney, but out of curiosity, what are Obama's positions on these issues? Anyone know? Does BHO even know?

believer

ptown_trojans_1;412362 wrote:This article is everything I don't like about Romney. It is partisan talking points without reading the treaty and its context.

Not that I'm defending Romney, but out of curiosity, what are Obama's positions on these issues? Anyone know? Does BHO even know?

Archive

Dear GOP, please nominate Mitt Romney