I haven't been following that closely. I didn't even know Mitt was running again. None of the candidates seem like good candidates.

Back to the old saying: If you are smart enough to be a good candidate for president then you are smart enough to know you don't want to be one.

Mitt's not running. But he seems like the only reasonable candidate.

It will probably boil down to Trump vs. Hillary.

Let the American people be ashamed.

Can't vote for anyone who is for open borders - that narrows the field down dramatically.

Rather someone that goes for a good deal than someone that is a good deal.

Many elections in the past I have voted for candidates while holding my nose because they stank; but, they stank less than the other guy.

However, ever since I could first vote I've never NOT voted in an election.

Sadly, my candidate of choice right now truly is none of the above; which means this might actually be my first time NOT voting?! OMG!

But, seriously, what will any of them do to help unemployment which, despite government claims of being around 5 percent is really over 20 percent?

What will any of them to do end that job-killing, healthcare cost raising, Obamacare?

What will any of them do to fight ISIS and other terrorists? anything?

What will any of them do about the humanitarian problem of massive refugees in the Middle East?

What will any of them do about the expansion of China? I get the feeling that all of those running will not care one bit about China taking over the South China Sea.

I'm not hearing any answers to any of these questions - just of lot of shrill voices. "vote for me, I've got a pussy." "Don't vote for him, he is a pussy!" "Vote for me, I'll give you free stuff" "Don't vote for him, he'll take your stuff" And a f&cking barking dog!

Perhaps, we are witnessing history - The death throes of the Republic.

P.S. I voted for Mitt; and would vote for him again if he was running. But, yea, he seems to have been the last serious adult to have run for President.

Charles, I was thinking of the same thing -- not voting -- but then I realized that I should just vote for someone.

I voted for Mitt in the last election, too.

He's a decent guy, he's run a state, and he's a grownup.

I don't love him on all fronts. But he's the best candidate, even if he's not running.

I would also have voted for Christie. Don't love him, either.

for him again if he was running. But, yea, he seems to have been the last serious adult to have run for President.

Posted by: charles at February 17, 2016 6:13 AM

Mitt was badly hampered by being a genuinely nice guy, and a bunch of tired old republican political hacks scared to death of being called racists.
The second debate finished him off when he let Candy Crowley run all over him.

This is why Trump has so much support. Thr American people are sick to death of playing the socialist imposed sensitivity game.
My mother is a Trump fan. I am not. But if the election comes down to him against Hillary or Sanders, yea, Ill be voting for him.
My prefered candidate is Cruz, and yes, I will be attending the caucus to vote for him, in a couple of weeks. His commercials give me a lot of hope that his team understands the game here, and will do what it takes.
Politics is always a lesser of evils game.

I'm firmly in the Cruz camp. He's the one that comes closest to just following the constitution. And he says his first action will be ending Obamacare. He doesn't seem to care to cater to the establishment, either, so that gives me hope. There is so little difference between the establishment republicans and the establishment dems that there's almost no purpose in having 2 parties anymore-which is why establishment candidates aren't doing well, in either party.

Hillary is toast. It'll be Sanders and either Cruz or Trump, most likely. And I really doubt Sanders wins the general, which is why they had to be able to nominate a Justice before Obama is out. I don't want it to be Trump, though I'll vote for him if I have to. I'd say it's because I don't want a man capable of throwing tantrums to have control of nukes, but we've had that the last 7+ years and we haven't all died yet.

I'm with Isab; the candidate who comes closest to what I'd prefer is Cruz. I get the appeal of Trump and Sanders, but Sanders is a small-town socialist at heart and Trump is, well, Trump. I'm biased, but I think Cruz/Fiornia would be a strong ticket.

I didn't care for Mitt. He felt like George Bush III (attack of the bee). Mitt is a very left wing Republican and as we saw that doesn't work. I still voted for him because Obama is worse than Carter. But openly left wing Republicans don't have a good track record on getting elected, despite all that 'electability' hype.

I don't know if Trump still has a chance or not. He's fully outed himself as a leftist with his 'Bush lied people died' rant. But with a winner takes all system and a lot of candidates he may have just enough popularity to sweep the field. I hope not but stranger things have happened.

I'd be OK with Rubio or Cruz. I'd prefer Cruz. How things work out in real life, who knows? I knew Obama would be bad. But I had no idea it would be this bad. So despite all their rhetoric I expect both Rubio and Cruz would be for bigger government once elected.

On the other side you have the crook and the commie. So anyone from the repub camp has a chance. I still put things at 50/50 Hillary gets the nomination. It will be interesting to see how things turn out if she does get it. Unlike Bernie she doesn't inspire the young. I wonder if in a Hillary/Rubio match would the under 30 crowd would sit things out.

I'll be voting Libertarian--always have--but the general election promises to be hugely entertaining if Trump is nominated.

A black woman of my acquaintance is all for Trump, and she tells me there are many others like her. If Trump runs against Hilary, imagine if he gets more votes from women than she does. And imagine if he gets, say, 30% of the black vote (which has never gone much above 10% Republican in my lifetime). Either or both of these would cause so many talking heads to explode, they'd be cleaning up the studios for weeks.

You are showing your California roots there Amy in pining for Christie. Outside of New York and California he had absolutely no appeal. It would have been another McCain and Hillary would be president.

Romney appears like more of statesman than the current contenders. Gravitas. Paglia wrote something about him, that was pretty good.

If you think you know any of these people because of recent coverage… Well, I hope you don't think that.

By the way – no president can launch nukes all by himself. Think about this, and you'll realize it is true.

Mitt Romney is his father's son. That's both a good thing and a bad thing. George Romney won the governorship of Michigan in the early 1960s as a moderate Republican of the era, in the general mold of Eisenhower. He presided over Michigan in a decade of prosperity, and he was regarded as a good statesman. He didn't have major disagreements with the state's Democrats, and there was a pretty good feeling of bipartisanship in the state government at the time.

You can see this in Mitt. Like George, he prefers to pursue bipartisan solutions and work out disagreements on the down-low, keeping most of the arguments out of the public eye. There's a lot to be said for being willing to work for compromise and not embarrassing your opponent in public. However, things have changed since George Romney's day. I think you can see the result in Mitt as a lot of his policy positions are actually not very well formed or consistent. That's due to the conflict between what he learned from his father and the current environment, in which the opposition takes a triumphalist attitude and has no interest in "whatever works" compromise. Mitt has not been able to reconcile the difference. (And it should be pointed out that some of the compromises that George Romney agreed to were what put Detroit on the path to where it is today.)

And an interesting note that ties things back to Amy: it was George Romney who, as the CEO of Nash-Kelvinator (which became American Motors) who pushed for the development of the Rambler.

If you think you know any of these people because of recent coverage… Well, I hope you don't think that.

By the way – no president can launch nukes all by himself. Think about this, and you'll realize it is true.

Posted by: Radwaste at February 17, 2016 7:49 AM

You are correct, but what they can do, is as Obama has done, botch foreign policy so badly, that in an unstable and chaotic world, one or more countries or terrorist groups decides to get froggy, and lauch a nuke at us, or one of our allies.

(As you probably know we can trace the origin of a nuclear bomb by its atomic properties)

At that point, retaliation starts World War III.

There is a significant lag time between bad foriegn policy, and reaping the repercussions. If Obama had been a one termer the damage could have been significantly less.

If anyone gets nuked in the next five to ten years, it can be traced directly back to Obama, Hillary, and to a lesser extent that moron John Kerry, by anyone willing to connect the historical dots. (This would not include the imbeciles in the mainstream media)

I cannot believe this needs to be said but I will not vote for anyone who thinks we should torture people. I am not sure that leaves anyone but the Libertarian candidate.

If I was able to vote in the Republican primary, I'd be supporting Jeb Bush based on experience, despite what happened in the Presidential election 16 years ago. Chris Christie would be my next choice. But when the other voters who would have supported these candidates decided to go for the showman, it really didn't take much to make the Republican party look bad. At least with McCain and Romney, there were a large number of Democrats who had respect for them.

Other decent folks who are no longer running: Scott Walker and Carly. Dr. Carson is an intelligent and decent person who is still running, but, sadly, doesn't seem to have a chance, because, I believe, he is not highly articulate on a "debate" stage. All of these people are flawed, IMO, as is Mitt, but all are preferable to those still running in both parties, IMO.

I'm disturbed by the political field right now. I can't believe we have come to this point. I don't like any candidate. I suppose I like Cruz best but he honestly has an off-putting personality. Which I had never actually voiced out loud and then my daughter sends me the link of his former roommate at Princeton bashing him. Basically Craig Mazin called him an asshole on such a nuclear level, it's worth finding the tweets. I suppose I will vote, but darn if I know who for right now.

I'm disturbed by the political field right now. I can't believe we have come to this point. I don't like any candidate. I suppose I like Cruz best but he honestly has an off-putting personality. Which I had never actually voiced out loud and then my daughter sends me the link of his former roommate at Princeton bashing him. Basically Craig Mazin called him an asshole on such a nuclear level, it's worth finding the tweets. I suppose I will vote, but darn if I know who for right now.

Posted by: gooseegg at February 17, 2016 9:02 AM

So, when he is running for prom king, dont vote for him.

Seriously I would think at this point, most adults would not disqualify a presidential candidate because someone, somewhere considers them an asshole.

Everyone I know of any intellect at all, who is outspoken in their beliefs, tends to be considered an asshole, by those with.... lets put this delicately "fewer gifts in that area".

Obama got elected by working the political machinery, and being a blank slate. Also possibily a lot of vote fraud, in the inner cities of Ohio and other swing states.

Is he your idea of a nice guy.....a non asshole? Hows that working out for you?

Why someone goes into the voting booth looking for a white knight metaphorically, is kind of beyond my understanding.

Jim,

It is a big jump to go from nothing to president. I'm not shocked that was asking too much of Carson. I think he would have been a good president. But part of the job is getting elected.

GooseEgg,

There is a real generation gap you are describing. My father falls into your camp. To me it boils down to the prisoner's dilemma. If both act in good faith both benefit a little. But if only one acts in good faith the other gains much. For years the Republicans have tried to act in good faith and since the media shields them the Democrats acted poorly to great advantage. The only solution is to act poorly so you both suffer. Otherwise there is no reason for the bad actor to change.

Voting for a nice guy who will act in a bipartisan manner just doesn't appeal to many of us anymore. That is unfortunately why Trump is doing so well. He at least is willing to fight for what he wants. I just don't want anything Trump is selling.

None of the current candidates appeal to me right now. Two things are needed for a successful president, experience running an enterprise with a co-equal deliberatvie body (board of directors, legislature, etc.) and a political philosophy (i.e., a vision of what the role of government should be).

Mitt Romney had executive level experience with Bain and as a one-term governor of Massachusetts, but didn't seem to have a political philosophy, adopting whatever position he thought would get him elected.

McCain didn't have either. He'd only ever been a squadron commander and a figurehead EVP of his father-in-law's beer distributorship. And he seemed to tailor

Obama had a political philosophy, however repellent, but no executive level experience, or even experience working with or for someone at that level. His vision of a chief executive was that of a popular caudillo with unlimited authority. He avoided controversial issues and skipped the U. of Chicago professorial lunch debates, never subjecting his philosophy or positions to any sort of test or critical review.

Donald Trump has executive level experience, but his view of the government's role seems to be whatever he wants it to be at the time. Another concern is that his business experience is almost entirely predicated on him as a brand, which may not translate well to the presidency. He does however, have a better strategic vision than any of the other candidates. He knows in which states he has to apeal to Republican base and in which ones he must appeal to both Democrats and Republicans (open primary states like South Carolina).

Ted Cruz has no executive level experience and his stunts shutting down the government make me question his ability to govern. He does have a political philosophy and he hews pretty closely to it. He has taken a stand on controversial issues (instead of ducking for cover by voting present, like another first-term Senator with no executive experience who ran for president).

Marco Rubio has debatable executive level experience. He was the Speaker of the House for the Florida Legislature and demonstrated an ability to work with both sides of the aisle. Behind in the polls, his committment to his stated political philosophy seems to be crumbling.

John Ellis Bush has executive level experience as governor of Florida, but seems lost as a candidate.

Ben Carson is a brilliant surgeon and a very smart man with a compelling life story. He has some interesting ideas on reforming health care. However, his only experience running things is as the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, a department head position that I would speculate was awarded based more on his surgical expertise than his managerial skills.

Bernie Sanders was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont and is still acting like it - like a small-town mayor who thinks he could save his dying town if only greedy corporations and the federal government would share some of their ill-gotten millions with the little guy.

Hillary has held a semi-executive position as Secretary of State under a president who didn't use his Cabinet secretaries as subject-matter experts, but instead as window dressing. Even so, her tenure has been marked with failures (the Russian reset, Libya, the Arab spring, etc.). Her only attempt to sponsor major legislation, HillaryCare, bombed spectacularly during her husband's administration 20+ years ago. One wonders what lessons she took from that since, as a Senator, she shied away from taking controversial positions and sponsored no significant legislation.

I'll take Trump or Cruz over Hillary or Bernie. I won't vote Libertarian because a Libertarian president will be besieged on both sides and will have a hard time being successful since he'll have no Congressional support network.

I'll probably vote for whoever the republican candidate is- even if it's Trump. Clinton is too corrupt and Sanders is unrealistic. I honestly don't know which R candidate would have the best chance of winning the general election. Trump's an arrogant prick and pandering populist. (That doesn't mean he can't win.) I don't think Cruz will get any moderates or crossover votes. Nobody wants another Bush. Kasich? Who knows? I don't know about Rubio, either... but the fact that the media was so in love with him makes me suspicious.

There's a little write-up at CNN about Bernie Sanders' "socialism" and Denmark's socialism. Seems the Danes don't think their type of government/welfare system would work here:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-denmark-democratic-socialism/index.html

Mitt Romney is his father's son. That's both a good thing and a bad thing. George Romney won the governorship of Michigan in the early 1960s as a moderate Republican of the era, in the general mold of Eisenhower. He presided over Michigan in a decade of prosperity, and he was regarded as a good statesman. He didn't have major disagreements with the state's Democrats, and there was a pretty good feeling of bipartisanship in the state government at the time.

... However, things have changed since George Romney's day. I think you can see the result in Mitt as a lot of his policy positions are actually not very well formed or consistent. That's due to the conflict between what he learned from his father and the current environment, in which the opposition takes a triumphalist attitude and has no interest in "whatever works" compromise. Mitt has not been able to reconcile the difference. (And it should be pointed out that some of the compromises that George Romney agreed to were what put Detroit on the path to where it is today.)

And an interesting note that ties things back to Amy: it was George Romney who, as the CEO of Nash-Kelvinator (which became American Motors) who pushed for the development of the Rambler.

~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at February 17, 2016 8:02 AM

Nice summary of Mitt's problems as a candidate and as a governor.

A trained monkey could have run Michigan in those days (and some might argue did). Detroit was flush with cash, union jobs were plentiful, and everyone was working.

By the time Mitt took over Massachusetts, politics had hardened and he hadn't hardened with them.

I'd vote for Trump or Sanders just because we need to bitch-slap the national committees.

Either way it's time to shake up the business-as-usual model. It ain't workin.

Oh, Cruz is an asshole, no doubt there. I knew the man peripherally in his Texas days, and have family who knew him from Harvard Law and worked with him in several jobs.

I don't care if competent people are assholes. I care if my surgeon can cut well and not infect me, I care if my ICU nurse keeps me alive, I care if my mechanic fixes the damn problem without costing too much, I care that my personal trainer works me hard, and I care if my President at least has a chance of remembering what the damn Constitution is.

I early voted today. I asked for the democratic primary ballot, and voted for Bernie. I don't super care who wins the repub, so any little thing I can do against Hillary, I will do.

Good to read so many libertarians here made common cause with the GOP in 2012 and pulled the lever for Mitt. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we'll give you the lesser of two evils in 2016. Again.

I'm afraid that's just how it works Andre. If you want a candidate you fully agree with then you need to run.

Can I nominate your dog?

...it was George Romney who, as the CEO of Nash-Kelvinator (which became American Motors) who pushed for the development of the Rambler. ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at February 17, 2016 8:02 AM

My dad used to have a white '67 Rambler American with a stick shift on the column.