Share This Article with a Friend!


CHQ 2016 GOP Presidential Straw Poll: Week 21

It's never too early to start thinking about the 2016 presidential election. While you may change your mind later, tell us who you'd like to see as the GOP nominee this week. 
Instructions:
ConservativeHQ.com's Weekly GOP Presidential Straw Poll is available exclusively to registered CHQ members. To register, click here. If you are already a member, please log-in by clicking here. You may vote once a week by clicking on the button next to ONE candidate's name at the bottom of this (don't click on the photos).
 Review the choices FIRST before adding a write-in candidate.

Presidential Poll Candidates Wek 14 
MY CHOICE FOR THE 2016 REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
THIS WEEK IS:
Choices

Login to vote in this poll.

Sarah Palin

1. “Palin was the last one on the team.” Of course. She was the Vice Presidential candidate – always the “last “ one on the team. But she didn’t just fall off of a turnip truck, did she? She was a sitting Governor of our largest state! Presumably she was deemed by someone to be competent enough to be the President of the United States. And she was controlled by “operators”? You agree, I see, that she shouldn’t have been controlled by them.

2. A few items re: “fan” – Reagan said he was a “fan” of Margaret Thatcher. Palin described herself as a “fan” of Herman Cain. Neil Cavuto described himself as a “fan” of Ronald Reagan.
The idea that emotion should not be involved in a political campaign is nonsense. Should our decisions and actions be based on reason? Of course! But there is plenty about which to be “emotional” in the coming campaign. Any candidate who adopts the unemotional, detached demeanor is going to lose the interest of a people struggling with loved ones dying and threatened by government “health care”, lost jobs, soaring cost of living, outrage over the betrayal (another “emotionally” charged word) in Benghazi – and much, much more. People are angry. They should be. We’re not automatons. We are supposed to have feelings. Many of us – including myself – are outraged at the abuse Palin herself, and her family, were subjected to by the media. Is there a problem with that? Should we get angry? Should we be “upbeat”? Ronald Reagan, known as the Great Communicator, expressed valid emotion when he delivered very reasonable addresses to us and to the world. He was pretty effective. Your attack on “emotionalism” is “unreasonable”.

3. When I say Palin has done more harm than good I am referring to the successes of those she has endorsed when they have been the worst enemies of Republican Conservatives. Progressives in the Republican Party are like a tumor. They consume the resources of the party while destroying its purpose. They destroy Conservatives and assume the party mantle in order to collude with socialists and progressives on the other side of the aisle. They collude to deny voters opportunities to choose Conservatives. This is what Karl Rove does. It’s become his profession. It’s what Mitch McConnell and John McCain do in the Senate. They never miss an opportunity to attack people like Ted Cruz. They are destroying this party. One of the worst is McCain and he might well have lost the nomination in 2010. Even if Hayworth were not perfect, it is open to great doubt that he would be as vicious an attack dog against Conservatives as John McCain has been throughout his career. And every time he (McCain) shows up in the news we can thank Palin. Perhaps it is a reasonable thought that, as the Hippocratic Oath demands, “First, do no harm.” If those who are doing harm would just sit down and stay out of it, it would be worth a hundred Tom McClintocks out campaigning.

4. Regarding “running down” other candidates, apparently you are not a big “fan” of Marco Rubio. Last July you were found “running” him “down”. It is not a bad thing to draw attention to the actual words and acts of a candidate, whether we agree or disagree with those words or actions. If we agree with them we’ll couch our comments as praise. If we think they are wrong, we have a right and even a duty to point it out. If that means you disagree with Marco Rubio’s being “bought and sold” for Jeb Bush or “betraying Tea Partiers”, you should just say it. You did. Was it running down Rubio? Yes. It was.

5. You ARE in a snit. You are now even picking on my formatting. Get over it. Again, it’s not wrong to express a difference of opinion. You think Palin is the greatest thing to come along in years, apparently. I don’t. You take exception to that. This is a vital, eleventh-hour election in which we have a chance to save the republic. We need to look at the best possible candidates who will stand for the principles that will save us and not allow themselves to be ambushed by a hostile press or controlled by a hostile Progressive element that is determined to steer the Republican Party toward socialism. We need to look at those who can be elected. We need to look at everyone, not just Sarah Palin. She might not be the nominee and if she were to be, even though I’d vote for her, she might well lose the election. We need to look at all the options. We need to move on. So, again, get over your snit.

6. You have already missed out on a lot of information that is vital to winning this struggle. We all need to be better informed, you and I and everyone at CHQ and throughout America. We are where we are because too many people didn’t want to be informed. I want to be informed. So should you. If you don’t, then you’ll just qualify for “low-information” voter, to use the current term. I hope you will change your mind about becoming informed.

7. I guess that’s all, unless you want to snipe at my formatting again.

I'm done here

And still not interested in Tom McClintock.

Though I will correct an error in my previous comment: You've persuaded 2 other people (in addition to your own vote), not 4 as I had typed. I misread the vote totals.

Best wishes in your quest to bully, erm, I mean, persuade folks to find out who Tom McClintock is.

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin would be a poor choice. In 2012 she put her foot in it big time by endorsing John McCain. I don't want to hear from anyone about her "debt". WE did not owe McCain, but she paid "her debt" with our country's interests. The result? Instead of J.D. Hayworth voting the RIGHT way in the Senate, we have the destructive, dangerous McCain colluding with the worst Democrats in Washington to bring us down. Every bad vote McCain casts in the Senate is derived from Palin's support of him in the election. Hayworth was in an excellent position to defeat him and go to the Senate and Palin sabotaged him. Inexcusable and unforgivable. Anyone with judgment this poor cannot be our leader. Besides, if she got on the ticket again we'd have a replay of her trouncing by Katie Couric to have to watch! No thanks. Please stop promoting her at Conservative HQ. It erodes your own credibility with real conservatives. Try promoting someone worth the effort instead - try Tom McClintock. I note he voted right again yesterday on the Omnibus spending spree. He is dependable and stable, he won't be acting like a fool, which Palin has done over and over. He's sober, smart, experienced, presidential and his voice is a lot easier on the ears! That's my recommendation.

Correcting the record

Palin endorsed McCain in 2010, not 2012.

And J.D. "Free Government Money!" Hayworth is not the saint you paint him to be. If he would take money to make a commercial touting "Free Government Money!", then his record shows he has a price. So the GOPe would just have to give him the right price and he'd be at their beck and call.

This is not a defense of McCain. But a clear-eyed view of his opposition in that race.

Regarding Couric: She has bombed out on three jobs since 2008 while Palin has succeeded in everything she's done. And Palin did not even bomb out that interview. Watch it again. You sound like a GOPe or liberal talking point machine.

I've got to admit, I'm not at all interested in checking out whoever Tom McClintock is when his champion claims that Palin has acted like a fool over and over again. Not interested in the least.

For example, where was McClintock in 2010 when Palin was a HUGE part of the biggest conservative victory nationwide since the 1930s? Even Obama said he got shellacked.

Where was McClintock on Ted Cruz's race? Deb Fischer's race? Rand Paul's? Susana Martinez's race?

Hello? Don't remember him anywhere helping anyone get elected.

Palin, the so-called fool, understands that our system is not set up for Heroes and Saviours to come in and singlehandedly right the ship. We need conservative-minded folks at every level of government and in every branch of the federal government. Not just the chief executive position.

Does Tom get that? Then why isn't he out there helping to populate state governorships, legislatures, and the federal legislature with conservatives?

Until I see him doing that, I'm not interested.

Setting the Record Straight on McClintock

Firstly, okay, 2010. He wasn’t any better in 2010 than he was in 2012. So what?
I’m not trying to resurrect J.D. Hayworth. But how many of these possible candidates have not put out a public service message? If you’re saying he’s corrupt, just say it. I don’t know. Frankly, to use Mark Levin’s phrase, I would have voted for an orange juice can if he or she were to run against McCain – at any stage of any campaign. Do you prefer McCain? Palin did.
Regarding Couric, Palin showed abysmal judgment in consenting to a lengthy interview that Couric was going to edit down to 15 minutes. It would be obvious that Couric’s mission would be to find 15 minutes of tape that made her look stupid. Would you sit down with Michael Moore for 2 hours and expect a great interview as the finished product that millions will see? Or Katie Couric? Same thing. She didn’t do any better with Charlie Gibson. Too bad. She might have come off as brilliant in the miles of tape on the cutting room floor. Or if she’d been live. It was a judgment thing. Remember when Mark Levin – a friendly force – couldn’t get her on his show? Or Sean Hannity? She said she would have, but the McCain team wouldn’t let her go on these shows. And she let them control her. So after being treated like cat litter by them she goes back and stumps for McCain.
I would imagine if McClintock were invited to people’s campaigns he would have been happy to increase his conservative support in the House. But remember, the big star with the celebrity bus was Sarah Palin. She was in the news due to the 2008 campaign. She had a high profile. There are a lot of solid, loyal, intelligent conservatives holding office who weren’t invited around the country because some idiots don’t know who they are if they didn’t see them on the six o’clock news every night. And these idiots are just not smart enough to want to know about anyone they don’t already know about.
What McClintock is NOT doing is running around knifing Conservatives in the back. McCain, made possible by Sarah Palin, however, IS. I don’t ever find that McClintock’s been closeted with Karl Rove trying to plot to disenfranchise Conservatives within the party. If there is anyone around Washington that could be correctly described as “GOPe”, that person would be McCain, the endorsee of Sarah Palin. Again, why on earth couldn’t she stay out of that? Maybe you should check with Ted Cruz and see whether he would rather have Hayworth in the Senate, and then check with him to see if he thinks McCain is his enemy or Tom McClintock is his enemy. Every time we hear another attack on Cruz or Lee by McCain and his gang we can remember that Palin virtually got McCain re-elected. I’ll bet Cruz wishes she hadn’t.
You asked where McClintock was in the Martinez race. She went along with Obamacare once in office. She maintains that Obamacare is now the “law of the land” and supports it, despite her campaigning against it. Maybe another bad choice there. One place McClintock was, was supporting Chuck Devore, a Reagan Conservative, for US Senate in California. In that event, your friend Palin parachuted into California to meddle about, endorsing Carly Fiorina, another fake Republican, dangerous on the “global warming” issue and was full of praise for Jesse Jackson. She has been quoted as supportive of gender quotas in Congress. Palin’s support there might have been a detriment , had it been successful in getting her elected. McClintock was also noted as “Conservative icon Tom McClintock” in supporting Fred Thompson for president.
McClintock did try to “populate” the California governorship once. He was the odds-on favorite to fill the job when Gray Davis was recalled. He was the obvious choice – a Reaganite conservative back in Sacramento. Then, out of the blue, Schwarzenegger announced on national television. Dazzled by the huge name recognition, the GOPe put the cork in the candidacy of McClintock. And Schwarzenegger proved to be an incredibly terrible governor – arguably worse than Cruz Bustamante, the Democrat opposing him. The GOPe strikes again! And again, name recognition seems to be trump card.
To be quite honest about it, maybe Palin did more harm than good in her campaigning for others. She made some very, very bad picks, after all. If she’d stayed away maybe some better people would have gotten nominated and elected.
I was a Palin fan to start with. I looked forward to seeing her on FOX conservative shows, where she could tell us what she’d done, what she believed, how she would lead. Instead we got nothing there and just the Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric fiascos. I don’t know any more what her political beliefs are. Presumably they are compatible with McCain’s. Otherwise she just sold out to pay off an imagined “debt”.
You seem to be one of those people who, when “their” candidate doesn’t get the baton they pick up their marbles and go home in a huff. I’m not. If McClintock is not the nominee I will support whoever is most conservative available at every stage. I don’t say Palin is stupid. I say she has shown – over and over – defective judgment, in placing herself in vulnerability with left-wing media repeatedly, and by endorsing the man who is probably the worst fake Republican in the Senate. And that’s saying something. I hope you will check out McClintock and get over your snit. He doesn’t deserve your ire – he’s a strong conservative Congressman who is not afraid to go to bat for the Constitution. Listen to some of his speeches, more importantly, look at his voting record.
This is how we are divided. Too many candidates. The establishment usually has only one at a time. And they are always dependably Progressive. No ideological differences in that camp. We have the talent on our side, but maybe too much! The most important thing we must do is be sure – absolutely sure – that the person we all support is truly conservative and won’t fumble the ball and won’t become another Bush Progressive or just fail to support Conservatives rather than Progressives.
I think we have a number of good people, some better known, higher profile, than others. Mike Pence is good; Mike Lee is good. There are a lot of good people. And there are a number of great disappointments like North Dakota’s Kevin Cramer or Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan or New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte. And this is where the McCain endorsement put Palin for me.
Maybe we would have been disappointed in Hayworth. Maybe. But we know what McCain is and was in 2010. Many backed candidates who ran as conservatives and then voted like Progressives. When they do this it is time to elect someone else. But to elect someone we already know is liberal is defeatist. As I say, there are disappointments. I supported a man for Congress who had a good record in his state and I believed an excellent character. As soon as he got to Washington he made friends with the Progressives and started voting with them. Almost every vote was identical to John Boehner’s and Nancy Pelosi’s. Yeah, that’s disappointing. I’ve been around long enough, and participated in political activity long enough to have survived many disappointments. But long ago I stopped supporting people I knew in advance were going to be a detriment if they succeeded in getting elected.
I am afraid you’ll miss out on a lot of information about some potentially strong conservative candidates if you refuse to learn anything about anyone that someone favors who does not support Sarah Palin. That seems to be your position and it’s unfortunately not very sound intellectually. This kind of tunnel vision will kill any chance we’ll ever have to defeat fascism in America through election.

Thanks for replying

However, I'm not going to read every word of long, unbroken paragraphs, when a mere skim reveals certain problems that show we'll never be on the same page.

A few random examples:

"Palin showed abysmal judgment"
Actually perhaps you don't know that she told her operators that she did not think the interview was a good idea. And she told her operators after the first session that it was not a good idea to continue. But she apparently didn't think it was the place of the last guy to join the team to make a big stink and change the plans of the guys who'd been on the campaign team for months.

Should she have trusted her instincts? Sure. She won't make that mistake again.

"I was a Palin fan"
indicates an issue right there. Being a fan of any politician will lead to, well, long, unbroken paragraphs defending whoever you're currently a "fan" of with emotionalism rather than reasoning.

"Palin did more harm than good"
in the context of whatever Tom McClintock has ever done is again does no help to your or his cause.

HINT: Running down someone else is not an argument for your guy.

"get over your snit"
Again, insulting people you seem to be trying to convince to become a "fan" of your current guy is not doing you or your guy any good.

"I'm afraid you'll miss out on a lot of information"
Thanks for your concern. I'm not worried.

Still not interested in Tom McClintock.

But congratulation on getting 4 folks in addition to yourself to vote for your guy.

One vote at a time!

Setting the Record Straight on Sarah

Firstly, okay, 2010. He wasn’t any better in 2010 than he was in 2012. So what?
I’m not trying to resurrect J.D. Hayworth. But how many of these possible candidates have not put out a public service message? If you’re saying he’s corrupt, just say it. I don’t know. Frankly, to use Mark Levin’s phrase, I would have voted for an orange juice can if he or she were to run against McCain – at any stage of any campaign. Do you prefer McCain? Palin did.
Regarding Couric, Palin showed abysmal judgment in consenting to a lengthy interview that Couric was going to edit down to 15 minutes. It would be obvious that Couric’s mission would be to find 15 minutes of tape that made her look stupid. Would you sit down with Michael Moore for 2 hours and expect a great interview as the finished product that millions will see? Or Katie Couric? Same thing. She didn’t do any better with Charlie Gibson. Too bad. She might have come off as brilliant in the miles of tape on the cutting room floor. Or if she’d been live. It was a judgment thing. Remember when Mark Levin – a friendly force – couldn’t get her on his show? Or Sean Hannity? She said she would have, but the McCain team wouldn’t let her go on these shows. And she let them control her. So after being treated like cat litter by them she goes back and stumps for McCain.
I would imagine if McClintock were invited to people’s campaigns he would have been happy to increase his conservative support in the House. But remember, the big star with the celebrity bus was Sarah Palin. She was in the news due to the 2008 campaign. She had a high profile. There are a lot of solid, loyal, intelligent conservatives holding office who weren’t invited around the country because some idiots don’t know who they are if they didn’t see them on the six o’clock news every night. And these idiots are just not smart enough to want to know about anyone they don’t already know about.
What McClintock is NOT doing is running around knifing Conservatives in the back. McCain, made possible by Sarah Palin, however, IS. I don’t ever find that McClintock’s been closeted with Karl Rove trying to plot to disenfranchise Conservatives within the party. If there is anyone around Washington that could be correctly described as “GOPe”, that person would be McCain, the endorsee of Sarah Palin. Again, why on earth couldn’t she stay out of that? Maybe you should check with Ted Cruz and see whether he would rather have Hayworth in the Senate, and then check with him to see if he thinks McCain is his enemy or Tom McClintock is his enemy. Every time we hear another attack on Cruz or Lee by McCain and his gang we can remember that Palin virtually got McCain re-elected. I’ll bet Cruz wishes she hadn’t.
You asked where McClintock was in the Martinez race. She went along with Obamacare once in office. She maintains that Obamacare is now the “law of the land” and supports it, despite her campaigning against it. Maybe another bad choice there. One place McClintock was, was supporting Chuck Devore, a Reagan Conservative, for US Senate in California. In that event, your friend Palin parachuted into California to meddle about, endorsing Carly Fiorina, another fake Republican, dangerous on the “global warming” issue and was full of praise for Jesse Jackson. She has been quoted as supportive of gender quotas in Congress. Palin’s support there might have been a detriment , had it been successful in getting her elected. McClintock was also noted as “Conservative icon Tom McClintock” in supporting Fred Thompson for president.
McClintock did try to “populate” the California governorship once. He was the odds-on favorite to fill the job when Gray Davis was recalled. He was the obvious choice – a Reaganite conservative back in Sacramento. Then, out of the blue, Schwarzenegger announced on national television. Dazzled by the huge name recognition, the GOPe put the cork in the candidacy of McClintock. And Schwarzenegger proved to be an incredibly terrible governor – arguably worse than Cruz Bustamante, the Democrat opposing him. The GOPe strikes again! And again, name recognition seems to be trump card.
To be quite honest about it, maybe Palin did more harm than good in her campaigning for others. She made some very, very bad picks, after all. If she’d stayed away maybe some better people would have gotten nominated and elected.
I was a Palin fan to start with. I looked forward to seeing her on FOX conservative shows, where she could tell us what she’d done, what she believed, how she would lead. Instead we got nothing there and just the Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric fiascos. I don’t know any more what her political beliefs are. Presumably they are compatible with McCain’s. Otherwise she just sold out to pay off an imagined “debt”.
You seem to be one of those people who, when “their” candidate doesn’t get the baton they pick up their marbles and go home in a huff. I’m not. If McClintock is not the nominee I will support whoever is most conservative available at every stage. I don’t say Palin is stupid. I say she has shown – over and over – defective judgment, in placing herself in vulnerability with left-wing media repeatedly, and by endorsing the man who is probably the worst fake Republican in the Senate. And that’s saying something. I hope you will check out McClintock and get over your snit. He doesn’t deserve your ire – he’s a strong conservative Congressman who is not afraid to go to bat for the Constitution. Listen to some of his speeches, more importantly, look at his voting record.
This is how we are divided. Too many candidates. The establishment usually has only one at a time. And they are always dependably Progressive. No ideological differences in that camp. We have the talent on our side, but maybe too much! The most important thing we must do is be sure – absolutely sure – that the person we all support is truly conservative and won’t fumble the ball and won’t become another Bush Progressive or just fail to support Conservatives rather than Progressives.
I think we have a number of good people, some better known, higher profile, than others. Mike Pence is good; Mike Lee is good. There are a lot of good people. And there are a number of great disappointments like North Dakota’s Kevin Cramer or Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan or New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte. And this is where the McCain endorsement put Palin for me.
Maybe we would have been disappointed in Hayworth. Maybe. But we know what McCain is and was in 2010. Many backed candidates who ran as conservatives and then voted like Progressives. When they do this it is time to elect someone else. But to elect someone we already know is liberal is defeatist. As I say, there are disappointments. I supported a man for Congress who had a good record in his state and I believed an excellent character. As soon as he got to Washington he made friends with the Progressives and started voting with them. Almost every vote was identical to John Boehner’s and Nancy Pelosi’s. Yeah, that’s disappointing. I’ve been around long enough, and participated in political activity long enough to have survived many disappointments. But long ago I stopped supporting people I knew in advance were going to be a detriment if they succeeded in getting elected.
I am afraid you’ll miss out on a lot of information about some potentially strong conservative candidates if you refuse to learn anything about anyone that someone favors who does not support Sarah Palin. That seems to be your position and it’s unfortunately not very sound intellectually. This kind of tunnel vision will kill any chance we’ll ever have to defeat fascism in America through election.

Sarah Palin

Firstly, okay, 2010. He wasn’t any better in 2010 than he was in 2012. So what?
I’m not trying to resurrect J.D. Hayworth. But how many of these possible candidates have not put out a public service message? If you’re saying he’s corrupt, just say it. I don’t know. Frankly, to use Mark Levin’s phrase, I would have voted for an orange juice can if he or she were to run against McCain – at any stage of any campaign. Do you prefer McCain? Palin did.
Regarding Couric, Palin showed abysmal judgment in consenting to a lengthy interview that Couric was going to edit down to 15 minutes. It would be obvious that Couric’s mission would be to find 15 minutes of tape that made her look stupid. Would you sit down with Michael Moore for 2 hours and expect a great interview as the finished product that millions will see? Or Katie Couric? Same thing. She didn’t do any better with Charlie Gibson. Too bad. She might have come off as brilliant in the miles of tape on the cutting room floor. Or if she’d been live. It was a judgment thing. Remember when Mark Levin – a friendly force – couldn’t get her on his show? Or Sean Hannity? She said she would have, but the McCain team wouldn’t let her go on these shows. And she let them control her. So after being treated like cat litter by them she goes back and stumps for McCain.
I would imagine if McClintock were invited to people’s campaigns he would have been happy to increase his conservative support in the House. But remember, the big star with the celebrity bus was Sarah Palin. She was in the news due to the 2008 campaign. She had a high profile. There are a lot of solid, loyal, intelligent conservatives holding office who weren’t invited around the country because some idiots don’t know who they are if they didn’t see them on the six o’clock news every night. And these idiots are just not smart enough to want to know about anyone they don’t already know about.
What McClintock is NOT doing is running around knifing Conservatives in the back. McCain, made possible by Sarah Palin, however, IS. I don’t ever find that McClintock’s been closeted with Karl Rove trying to plot to disenfranchise Conservatives within the party. If there is anyone around Washington that could be correctly described as “GOPe”, that person would be McCain, the endorsee of Sarah Palin. Again, why on earth couldn’t she stay out of that? Maybe you should check with Ted Cruz and see whether he would rather have Hayworth in the Senate, and then check with him to see if he thinks McCain is his enemy or Tom McClintock is his enemy. Every time we hear another attack on Cruz or Lee by McCain and his gang we can remember that Palin virtually got McCain re-elected. I’ll bet Cruz wishes she hadn’t.
You asked where McClintock was in the Martinez race. She went along with Obamacare once in office. She maintains that Obamacare is now the “law of the land” and supports it, despite her campaigning against it. Maybe another bad choice there. One place McClintock was, was supporting Chuck Devore, a Reagan Conservative, for US Senate in California. In that event, your friend Palin parachuted into California to meddle about, endorsing Carly Fiorina, another fake Republican, dangerous on the “global warming” issue and was full of praise for Jesse Jackson. She has been quoted as supportive of gender quotas in Congress. Palin’s support there might have been a detriment , had it been successful in getting her elected. McClintock was also noted as “Conservative icon Tom McClintock” in supporting Fred Thompson for president.
McClintock did try to “populate” the California governorship once. He was the odds-on favorite to fill the job when Gray Davis was recalled. He was the obvious choice – a Reaganite conservative back in Sacramento. Then, out of the blue, Schwarzenegger announced on national television. Dazzled by the huge name recognition, the GOPe put the cork in the candidacy of McClintock. And Schwarzenegger proved to be an incredibly terrible governor – arguably worse than Cruz Bustamante, the Democrat opposing him. The GOPe strikes again! And again, name recognition seems to be trump card.
To be quite honest about it, maybe Palin did more harm than good in her campaigning for others. She made some very, very bad picks, after all. If she’d stayed away maybe some better people would have gotten nominated and elected.
I was a Palin fan to start with. I looked forward to seeing her on FOX conservative shows, where she could tell us what she’d done, what she believed, how she would lead. Instead we got nothing there and just the Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric fiascos. I don’t know any more what her political beliefs are. Presumably they are compatible with McCain’s. Otherwise she just sold out to pay off an imagined “debt”.
You seem to be one of those people who, when “their” candidate doesn’t get the baton they pick up their marbles and go home in a huff. I’m not. If McClintock is not the nominee I will support whoever is most conservative available at every stage. I don’t say Palin is stupid. I say she has shown – over and over – defective judgment, in placing herself in vulnerability with left-wing media repeatedly, and by endorsing the man who is probably the worst fake Republican in the Senate. And that’s saying something. I hope you will check out McClintock and get over your snit. He doesn’t deserve your ire – he’s a strong conservative Congressman who is not afraid to go to bat for the Constitution. Listen to some of his speeches, more importantly, look at his voting record.
This is how we are divided. Too many candidates. The establishment usually has only one at a time. And they are always dependably Progressive. No ideological differences in that camp. We have the talent on our side, but maybe too much! The most important thing we must do is be sure – absolutely sure – that the person we all support is truly conservative and won’t fumble the ball and won’t become another Bush Progressive or just fail to support Conservatives rather than Progressives.
I think we have a number of good people, some better known, higher profile, than others. Mike Pence is good; Mike Lee is good. There are a lot of good people. And there are a number of great disappointments like North Dakota’s Kevin Cramer or Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan or New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte. And this is where the McCain endorsement put Palin for me.
Maybe we would have been disappointed in Hayworth. Maybe. But we know what McCain is and was in 2010. Many backed candidates who ran as conservatives and then voted like Progressives. When they do this it is time to elect someone else. But to elect someone we already know is liberal is defeatist. As I say, there are disappointments. I supported a man for Congress who had a good record in his state and I believed an excellent character. As soon as he got to Washington he made friends with the Progressives and started voting with them. Almost every vote was identical to John Boehner’s and Nancy Pelosi’s. Yeah, that’s disappointing. I’ve been around long enough, and participated in political activity long enough to have survived many disappointments. But long ago I stopped supporting people I knew in advance were going to be a detriment if they succeeded in getting elected.
I am afraid you’ll miss out on a lot of information about some potentially strong conservative candidates if you refuse to learn anything about anyone that someone favors who does not support Sarah Palin. That seems to be your position and it’s unfortunately not very sound intellectually. This kind of tunnel vision will kill any chance we’ll ever have to defeat fascism in America through election.

Sarah is the Voice of the Real America!

Every primary the Republican Party gets hornswoggled into choosing some politician whom everyone believes has the right strategy and the articulate ability to win -- and we always lose even if we win. Papa Bush and W are classic examples – both good men, but they never read anything of value; therefore, they didn’t know how to lead our great country

Everyone knows Sarah’s heart, and her message is simple and clear. She is the “gangbuster” of the group as well. Sarah is also the only one who would claw Hillary to shreds... and all those voting good people living in so-called “fly-over country” know this too. Wake-up everyone! Don’t let history repeat itself again, again, and again!

Candidate 2016

Back in January 2013 Dr.Ben Carson gave a speech which was on C-Span. He spoke mainly on why the health care act is not what is needed. He was a very good speaker and appreciated by the audience. Just a few feet to his right sat none other than the President and First Lady.

John Philip Sousa IV is running a campaign for Ben to be the candidate for President in 2016. His reasoning is that Ben could capture many in the black community who already know and love Mr. Carson and would vote for him. This would be numbers for the Republican Party that would not normally vote Republican. Mr. Carson is admired and respected in his field of medicine. He is kind, gentle and a dedicated conservative. He loves our Constitution and would consider the opportunity to run if he is wanted and needed. He is worth thinking about seriously. He would gain votes from both sides of the aisle! Constitutionalists NEED to win in 2016!!

No experience!

Yes, Dr. Carson, seems to be a great guy, very accomplished and conservative in many ways. Gives a good speech. So does Obama BTW.

However, he has NO experience in either actually running a campaign at any level, or in serving in executive public office at any level.

Ideology isn't everything. Experience in the process matters.

Obama got Obamacare passed because of his ideology. It's rollout and implementation, i.e., the process, continues to be so bad that he may have set progressivism back for decades.

We need a Competent Conservative to be president.

Ben Carson is Conservative (though see his shakiness on the 2nd amendment) but not Competent in political elections or public office.

Mitt Romney is Competent (supposedly) in Big Business/Big Government mergers & acquisitions (his governorship was not very competent) but not conservative ideologically.

So, they are basically flip sides of the same coin of not being the complete package for the U.S. presidency.

Carson can surely be considered for Surgeon General, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or perhaps even Secretary of Health and Human Services, the area of his expertise, but not the overall chief executive.

Romney could serve on a trade commission or be an ambassador, but his Big Business/Big Government ideology really has no place in constitutionally limited government that operates on the basis of the Rule of Law and not cronyism.

TAKE OVER THE RINO PARTY

I have a plan for we conservatives, libertarians and possessive individualists to take over the American government by taking over the RINO party. I have snail-mailed and e-mailed this plan to all of the elite of the conservative movement. The snail-mails even included a self-addressed, stamped postcard that they could return so I would know they got the message. I have gotten no responses. I don’t know if that is because it got stuck in the phalanx of clerks and apparatchiks that I am sure screen their mail; they haven’t the time to respond or even drop a post-card in the mail; or they are elitist snobs who don’t entertain ideas from “the little people.” I am proudly one of the “little people.” It is the “little people” from whom all brilliance comes. Sometime the elite pick up these flashes of brilliance and set the world on fire. If you have access to any of the conservative elite, contact me at [email protected] and I will e-mail you a copy of my plan. Republicans may well take the Senate in 2014 and the Presidency on '16 but it will only be a temporary victory — the Libratards will not give up. If we want a more-or-less permanent solution we need to get overwhelming majorities — national state and local — so we can amend the constitution. To do this we need to get with the conservative elite and other like-minded people and take over the Republican party and the American political system. First, we need to select a Reaganesque presidential candidate. The best one on the scene right now is Gov. Sarah Palin — if you can persuade her to serve! Best Regards Dave

none of the above? blend of the above?

Marco Rubio stabbed us in the back on immigration.
Ted Cruz is similarly weak, but better on the budget and ObummerDoesn'tCare.

Paul Ryan was thought to be strong on fiscal matters, before he back-pedaling at the beginning of negotiations a couple years back (going from "balance the budget" to "reduce deficits in some far-off decade"), and before he turned his coat inside-out recently.

Sarah and Michele are kind of OK, but not the best-spoken, not the quickest with the clearest, hardest-hitting turns of speech.

There are a lot worse out there than Rand Paul, but right when you think you might be able to rely on him, he doubles back, too.

We know we need to get rid of Harry Reid, Nasty Pelosi, Schmucky Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Grahamnesty, Karl Rove, John Boehner, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Zoe Lofgren, Orrin Hatch, Luis Gutierrez, Chuck Rangel, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel, the haughty John Kerry who served in VietNam, Moonbeam Brown... and the whole Obummer regime crowd, so, in each of those cases, anyone the least bit better will do...

but what we really want are some people who are really, consistently good, who have their priorities straight, who are definitely worth voting FOR, worth donating to their campaigns, worth writing postings on the web for, worth collecting petition signatures for from sun-up 'til after sun-down, worth bending the ears of co-workers, neighbors, grocery clerks, barbers/stylists, hardware, book-store, fellow library patrons, club-members... IOW who aren't going to back down to the leftists and stab us in the back.

Dependable Sarah in 2016

Wake up everyone! Sarah is consistently ahead of all the other good people because she is the most well-known and has already proven herself trustworthy and thinks like a man -- she can dress down a moose too.

She’s not a politician! She is a mother and housewife who objected to the current regime in Alaska, got into politics locally to fix the problem, fixed it, and the next thing she knew she was governor of Alaska.

I trust Sarah implicitly to make the dramatic changes necessary to restore our Constitution. You should too... and she is a knockout. What more do you want?

TAKE OVER THE RINO PARTY

I have a plan for we conservatives, libertarians and possessive individualists to take over the American government by taking over the RINO party. I have snail-mailed and e-mailed this plan to all of the elite of the conservative movement. The snail-mails even included a self-addressed, stamped postcard that they could return so I would know they got the message. I have gotten no responses. I don’t know if that is because it got stuck in the phalanx of clerks and apparatchiks that I am sure screen their mail; they haven’t the time to respond or even drop a post-card in the mail; or they are elitist snobs who don’t entertain ideas from “the little people.” I am proudly one of the “little people.” It is the “little people” from whom all brilliance comes. Sometime the elite pick up these flashes of brilliance and set the world on fire. If you have access to any of the conservative elite, contact me at [email protected] and I will e-mail you a copy of my plan. Republicans may well take the Senate in 2014 and the Presidency on '16 but it will only be a temporary victory — the Libratards will not give up. If we want a more-or-less permanent solution we need to get overwhelming majorities — national state and local — so we can amend the constitution. To do this we need to get with the conservative elite and other like-minded people and take over the Republican party and the American political system. First, we need to select a Reaganesque presidential candidate. The best one on the scene right now is Gov. Sarah Palin — if you can persuade her to serve! Best Regards Dave

Bernie Sanders

To the person who wrote in Bernie Sanders:

The man is a good, possibly very good politician who knows his constituents.
I have rarely seen a better example of an effective townhall meeting than the one I saw of Sanders on C-Span.

HOWEVER - This is the CONSERVATIVE HQ, here, and we are talking about the best conservative for the job. Sorry, but no deal!

Our choice for Republican presidential candidate

It's not really "just around the corner," but Rand Paul is steady, consistent.
We like him, he's a "no nonsense" kind of fellow.

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen"

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen" as is required by the U.S. Constitution to serve as president. He was born in Canada and his father was not a U.S. citizen. He insists that he is a U.S. citizen, but he evades the clear importance of the constitutional provision requiring the president ot be a "natural born citizen" - that is one who is "born in the country of parents who are citizens". This is the definition provided by Vattel in "The Law of Nations", one of the principal reference works used by the Founders of this nation at the Constitutional Convention, along with Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". Vattel:§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.  The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”U.S. Supreme Court:"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]   parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162 Ted Cruz's name should not be included on any list of potential candidates for president due to his indisputable lack of eligibility. Nor should the names Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum be included. None of these individuals are natural born citizens. Inclusion of the names of ineligible candidates is an insult to Americans who believe strongly that respect for the Constitution is an essential requirement for preservation of the rule of law in this nation. Moreover, inclusion of ineligible individuals in a presidential poll distorts the process and undermines the very purpose of conducting such a poll.

Jetdriver2 is correct! Ted Cruz is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen"

Jetdriver2 is absolutely correct.

The primary guide that the founding fathers looked to while creating The Constitution was a book written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758 called "The Law of Nations". When our founding fathers were forming our government, a child's nationality when born was determined by his father's nationality, NOT his mother's. This is confirmed in the Federalist Papers, and in certain correspondence of Alexander Hamilton & Ben Franklin. It was also confirmed in 1875, in the case of MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, when The Supreme Court defined the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. (Plural)

For comparison purposes only, Obama's case is a bit more complicated, although it is clear, under this principle, Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen, I have serious doubts that he is a citizen at all. In fact he was born a British subject, as Kenya was still a British colony making his father a British subject, which made Obama a British subject at birth as well. Additionally, his birth certificate is a crude and obvious forgery, and the fact that he was adopted by his mother's second husband, an Indonesian, thereby becoming an Indonesian citizen himself when his mother brought him there to live. In fact, Obama actually appears to be an illegal alien, in that he attended college here on a Fulbright Scholarship which is ONLY awarded to foreign students, and he had to have declared himself to be a foreigner when applying for same. Since there is no evidence of his ever being nationalized after his return, he's still not a legal citizen at all.

The ironic part of this case is the possibility that his birth certificate may not have been faked in order to prove that he was born in Hawaii. It may have been forged to hide the identity of his real father, the self acknowledged Communist, pornographer & pedophile Frank Marshall Davis, who Obama discusses in his book (which appears to have actually been written by Bill Ayers) Virtually nothing that we've been told about Obama's background appears to be completely true, and much if not most of the details are boldfaced lies.

It's too bad that Cruz isn't eligible, as I think he has the best credentials and experience for the job, however, by virtue of his legal expertise, he's clearly the VERY best possible choice for our next Attorney General. As he's pretty young, appointing him to the Supreme Court would also be an excellent idea.

So who is the best choice to head the ticket?

With all his flaws, I remain a fan of Newt Gingrich. I would love to sit down with a cocktail and watch him annihilate whomever the Democrats pick to run in the debates. I still don't think that anyone could do the job he could do, but alas, he's no longer even on the list.

I also have trouble with the answer because it's a moot point if the person we select isn't electable. Unfortunately I believe that this is also the case with Sarah Palin. The progressives are very good at one thing... LYING, and the residual negatives on Palin from the far left's vicious character assassination of her in 2008 prevents her from being a viable candidate in 2016.

In addition to being electable, we need someone with with strength of character who's not afraid to stand up to the leftists, other world leaders and the media, so at this point I have to go with Rand Paul. With Allen West as the VP, and Ted Cruz as the Attorney General I think we have a viable nucleus of a ticket. I think General Petraeus is a strong contender for Secretary of State, or if not State, then certainly for Defense. Jim DeMint is a possibility for Secretary of the Treasury. And while he wouldn't be on the ticket, I still say that we can improve our chances of winning if Newt Gingrich is in charge of debate prep for the actual candidate. If he did as good a job as I expect he would, I think his grist of history would make him a natural for UN Ambassador.

fs

Qualifications

Our Idiot and Chief is't a citizen either.

To be or not to be qualified....

We are aware that he is not qualified and his Party knows it as well. But....that is what makes us different from THAT Party; we are supposed to be upright and honest and they are sneaky snakes who hide anything that might get in the way of their agenda. Do we really want to be like them? I really like Cruz but....it is what it is; no can do.

Ted Cruz Nat. Born Citizen!

That Nat. Born CITIZEN-SHIP Requirement, was Sunk by The Demo-Commie Party, And Barrack Hussein Mohammett Obama, King Of Kenya, Soros-Schwartz-stan AND The NWO U.S.A.

Here Here

It would be an insult, a waste of time, and an insult to conservative Americans to suggest they be elected. Sarah Palin is also not to be taken seriously, as I believe her to be not who she purports herself to be, but regardless, she ran with Mc Cain(your fired!), and did nothing for Alaska(double fired!).

Cruz Qualifies for the Presidency - Cruz for President in 2016!

Since Senator Cruz was born on an American air force base in Canada, which is considered as valid as our embassies in legally being seen as the same as American soil, he is indeed qualified. This discussion came up in recent months on Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Risind newsletter and the final concensus in the matter was precisely that - yes, he qualifies. I cannot imagine a better candidate to serve America in the Oval Office than one whose predecessors had suffered under the scourge of Communist Cuba, thereby understanding how important it is to safeguard our precious and vulnerable freedoms. Ted has proven himself with the stand taken for over 21 hours on the floor of the Senate speaking out against the socialized medicine bill, which at least two thirds of the electorate and now over 83% of physicians are strongly against, so he speaks for me and I would be delighted to support such an unwaveringly conservative candidate in 2016. Run, Ted, Run...patriots across America such as I are looking forward to supporting your candidacy...all the way to the White House!

Cruz is in fact a natrual born U.S. citizen

This is total BS. Only one parent needs to be a citizen and his mother was. You don't know that the hell you are talking about. The Law of Nations is not the governing authority for the U.S. Constitution. This comment is probably coming from a Paulite Libertarian who doesn't like Conservatives.

Cruz Citizenship

The fact that Ted Cruz' mother was American makes him a citizen but not a "natural born" citizen, according to the criteria used by most nations of the world and our founders in the 18th century.

There is a reason that the Constitution makes a distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen." It was, and is, to guard against the possibility of the electorate voting for a person who could have some unrevealed divided, allegiances. Obama is a showcase example of why this distinction is so important.
The reason the founders used the Vattel definition of citizenship is because it is important and useful to have a criteria that is subscribed to by the majority of the societies in the world on a subject such as this matter. It in no way implies any external governing authority over The US Constitution. It simply informs us of the constructive meaning of "natural born citizen," which is the meaning we must continue to use unless we amend The Constitution to say otherwise.

Sarah in 2016

Obviously, this is a very small poll, but it certainly shows how soundly Sarah Palin is trouncing all other potential candidates -- this pleases me to no end.

It appears that a preponderance of our voters, one might call the silent majority, those who stayed home in disgust on Nov. 6, 2012, would flock to the polls in 2016 if they could vote for Sarah. Her impeccable character is already proved, is well known by everyone who counts, and she’s loved.

Given the choice between Sarah and Hillary, our “silent majority” voters would squash Hillary, a proven traitor to the principles and ideals most us hold dear.

While I love Sarah as a

While I love Sarah as a person, and she is a great conservative, she is not the best choice for the GOP. She is best positioned right where she is, to be a voice for conservatism outside of the government.

SARAH FOR PRESIDENT

WHILE I CANNOT PREDICT THAT SUPER SARAH WOULD GET ELECTED--- I CAN TRUTHFULLY SAY IF SHE DID THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE AND THE CHANGE WOULD START IMMEDIATELY IF THE BAD GUYS WERE NOT SO AFRAID OF HER WHY WOULD THEY CONTINUE TO TRY TO DISCREDIT AND INSULT HER WITHOUT STOP??? J CARROLL BARNHILL A TRUE FLORIDA CRACKER

Who is?

I respect your comment, but also respectfully request that you not leave it there.

Who then, is the best choice, if not Palin?

I do grow weary of people basically saying that Palin needs to do the heavy lifting of vocalizing strong and steady conservatism, finding and championing candidates, and taking the hits and abuse, but then not being considered worthy to actually run for office and be the elected standard bearer.

I seriously would like to know who is your best choice for the GOP?

Thanks.

2016

I agree Sarah should be at the head. as for the vice I think Allen West would be great.
As for Christie,I tried to answer that choice last nite and it would not let me tell the truth. I'll try again tonight.

Christi

Under no circumstances would Christi win down here and I am not far down. I live in VA and there is no republican I know that would vote for him. He has a better chance of becoming the nominee for the Dems.