Romney bows out
Now the next one we need to bow out is Huckabee (I'm trying to be realistic). Jeb Bush has already declared he is in and the worst part is that he appears to have received most of Romney's financial base, which makes him the de facto leading candidate. The one remaining thing is for Romney to put his backing behind one candidate, because that support is a huge deal. I'm hoping he backs someone on the conservative side like Ted Cruz, but I fear he's going to back Chris Christie.
I agree that the Democratic party is a complete waste of time. They are unabashed communists in their goals and mentality now. (If you disagree, please show me a true "blue-dog" Democrat who actually will vote to buck his party on economic matters.)
But the reality is that a third-party just isn't quite feasible yet. That's how we got Bill Clinton (I voted for Ross Perot). So we are stuck with a Republican as the main challenger.
I don't like Bush because he's just like his father and brother - an establishment Republican. Christie is similar, but just too liberal for me, though I have to admire his moxie in dealing with the education unions.
I don't like Huckabee because he wants to make the office an extension of his religion.
Of the realistic candidates, I like Ted Cruz the most. Scott Walker is also one I could get behind.
Is one going to be disappointed by not finding an Objectivist on the potential ballot? I don't think there's any way to avoid this. But until there is a Gulch to retreat to, I don't see the value in burying my head in the sand.
Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and Rick Perry are on my 'short list'. Which means Rubio will probably get the nomination...!
I wonder if someone did an impartial analysis of change in size and scope of gov't under Dems and Republicans if there'd be any difference at all.
It would be difficult b/c whom would you credit with reining in spending, during the 90s, Republican Congress, President Clinton, or the end of the Cold War, which President Reagan possibly had a hand in.
In any case, it seems patently wrong to say the Republicans are disappointing while Democrats were hopeless. They both sometimes claim to want to reduce the size of gov't, but not in a way that would affect the military, social security, Medicare, education, or anything like that. They both claim to want to reduce the intrusiveness of gov't, but not in any way that would take any tools away from gov't that might catch even one criminal.
The only thing I see Republicans doing better is they get people out protesting for doing the same stuff Democrats get away with w/o objection.
You lost me here...can I get a clarification?