Is it that smug little smirk he's always got on that f*cking weaselly face of his?

xanadian: Is it that smug little smirk he's always got on that f*cking weaselly face of his?

Didn't bother the republicans about Bush the younger.

The endless flip-flopping to the point that nobody knows what positions he actually holds?

xanadian: Is it that smug little smirk he's always got on that f*cking weaselly face of his?

For me, it's his track record of handing out cash willy nilly. He is tends towards hooking institutions he leads into making extended payments--when faced with infrastructure he builds to what only current need, and rarely with thought to future needs, thus insuring ANOTHER expansion and more expensive than the first--or like his health care initiative, hooking the State to continuing payments directly into private pockets with little oversight or cost control. That he is not batsh*t insane socially is about his only saving grace, but he backs away from a principled stance to play windsock depending on his audience.

Schrodinger's Candidate I've had to deal with since I was in Maine--before he headed out to Utah to deal with the Olympics, and I've actively had a mad on him since college. I didn't vote for him as Governor here in Mass, and I certainly won't vote for him in the Primary, and for gotverdammt sure, not in the national. I've had to deal with his brand of governance before, and if you want to hook future generations to paying for crap, he is an EXCELLENT choice. If you've got your hand out, he's a GREAT choice.

If you have any thought for efficient governance or principle, not so much...

It's that he was a Governor of a Northeastern Liberal State, is a Mormon, and has changed positions to coincide with his Presidential runs.

He prefers New Coke to the original Coca-Cola formula, doesn't he?

He's lead the life of Mitt Romney?

quatchi: Don't hate him cos he's beautiful?

Can do.

A sizable number of Republicans hate Romney because they feel that McCain was too moderate a choice in 2008 and that if Mittens gets the nom for 2012 that it will be 2008 redux. They seem to honestly believe that a hard core uncompromising "values" conservative is the only thing that will gin up the base. They don't seem to appreciate how lop-sided the numbers get when you nominate a TP-backed Bachmann or a Santorum or a Cain due to moderates and independents being scared off by their more radical rhetoric and policies not to mention their abysmal ignorance and bat-shiat insanity.

Not a fan of any of the GOP candidates this time around really but this weathervane with perfect hair would prolly do slightly less harm than the rest of that crop with the exception of Huntsman who simply doesn't have what it takes to make it through this derptastic primary cycle.

I will respectfully disagree. A Romney Presidency will usher in a degree of kleptocracy for corporate interests the likes of which Bush never dreamed of. You want to hook the American taxpayer for projects down the line to your grandkids? Vote this guy in, because he WILL serve up projects that will take generations to complete, and when done, they will have to be redone, and done again, because they only serve to keep the government paying for crap that it doesn't even necessarily need.

He is a master of finding agreeable ways to hook the taxpayer into long term projects, for questionable merit.

Let's be clear: while I don't want Crazy in the President's chair, and Bachmann and Cain represent Crazy very well, and I'm not about to vote for the inherent dickishness that is Newt, I very much, and actively dislike Romney on a scale that makes my distaste for Hillary Clinton look mild. He represents not a step backward for the party, but a leap forward in scamming the American taxpayer, and with that half assed smile on his face the entire time he addresses the rubes that think he sounds "reasonable."

Because he's the worst kind of political chameleon who changes his "beliefs" depending on which way the wind blows?

I would love to see Snowe be involved, but she is far too invested in the future of Maine and her own work in the Senate. I worked on her campaign back in the day, and Impie has my vote if she throws her hat in the ring.

Huntsman is not objectionable, but he has certain baggage. As does Johnson. Neither are ideologues, which is good, but their tax and business stances are troubling.

Johnson's thoughts to balance the budget are inviting, but not realistic in the light of our military position. His tax position is likewise a bit much--as the FairTax is anything but. His ideas on eliminating corporate income tax is appealing to some, but essentially is a huge give away and putting the entire nation on the hook for infrastructure as well as regulation--which he likewise troubling, as are his ideas on currency reform. He is not a bad guy, but he is not someone you want near the Fed right now. His views of the Federal Reserve are likewise troubling. Reform is necessary, but he is looking to raze the system to the ground, and his ideas of fiat based currency is looking to cripple the dollar. His views on free market capitalism are less in line with good Republican values and are very much corporatist in looking to eliminate any regulatory control, as opposed to serving to protect the public interest. He talks a good game, but he is corporatist at heart.

Huntsman is a bit more appealing. He has a record of looking to ease sales tax and simplification of code. He has a record of being on the side of guest workers, while at the same time, looking to limit illegal immigration. His support of a border fence is somewhat troubling, but understandable in the context of his state. His foreign policy is a bit less confrontational than many. He also has a record of actually looking at science before making decisions--he does listen to experts, as opposed to shooting form the hip. His fiscal policy is far less radical than Johnson's, which pushes him ahead for me.

Of the pack, to be honest, Buddy Roemer is the guy I most want to see get his shot. Snowe won't put her hat in the ring, but of the whole pack, Roemer is the guy I think that would do the best job, which is to say, piss off a lot of folks who are trying to buy and sell the elections right now.

Romney is the choice, if you want to see us shackled to continued payouts for generations. Johnson is the choice if you want to see restrictions removed, and a fiat currency return, and a collapse of our markets--as much as Paul is, if they get their way. Johnson speaks softer, but he has a kernal of nutty in there, and won't really get my vote in the Primary. Paul? The little man stands on some issues with grand authority, and his financial policy will gut the nation. Bachmann? Not even on the radar, she's such the loon. Cain? Off the charts, because he's in it to sell books. Santorum? Not even on the radar, because he's just a quieter nutcase. Perry? He makes George Bush look like a genius. Gingrich? The man is a lovely and wholesome package of barely contained dickishness and bad ideas, who thinks of the American public as a personal resource.

So, in the end, Roemer or Huntsman at this point, in that order, because Snowe won't run.

Seabon: H.W. Bush may well have been the best president of my lifetime, with Clinton coming in second.

Bush Sr. had the unenviable responsibility of cleaning up after Reagan's spendthrift ways. He was hardly a bad man, but he just didn't have the charisma to draw folks to him--and a lot to clean up after. He gets a bad rap from some, but he gets points from me for recognizing early the ineffectuality of Voodoo Economics, and now it is taken as gospel, and more's the pity.

farkityfarker: George HW Bush is a "well liked Republican President from the past?"

Why did he lose his reelection attempt?

"Read my lips..."

Pretty much boned him. Then again, perhaps if they'd listened to him in the first place when he ran against Reagan in the Primaries, we wouldn't have had to do so, thanks the burden of the debt we piled on...

randomjsa: The "right" has never been against civil rights and no amount of liberal fantasy changes that.

No, you have just been pro-slavery. And before you say it, Democrats were Conservatives back in the day.

dontpointthatthingatme: Who's going to vote for a Mormon at the end of the day anyway? It's the Kwanzaa of Christianity. Something a bunch of people just made up.

As opposed to all other religions which are based on reality.