Push for Frothy.

That picture looks like an Easter Island head.

ABR*

//*Also not so hot on Huntsman

Who? Frothy? RON PAUL? Gingrich? Jeb Bush?

Kevin72: Who? Frothy? RON PAUL? Gingrich? Jeb Bush?

ANYONE.

He's close to almost sorta sane, y'see, and he's a heathen Mormon, which are even worse than Catholics.

They made a serious mistake in not having Generic Republican stay in the race. Having no personal flaws and being able to express multiple non-contradictory positions would have made GP a difficult challenge for Obama to overcome.

Careful what you wish for. I hear RU PAUL is campaigning (new window)

LordJiro: Kevin72: Who? Frothy? RON PAUL? Gingrich? Jeb Bush?

ANYONE.

He's close to almost sorta sane, y'see, and he's a heathen Mormon, which are even worse than Catholics.

Frothy and Gingrich are both Catholic.

So they want a different brand of flake?

Is this a No-Homers splinter group?

Speaking as a Massachusetts voter who survived Romney's gubernatorial (heh, guber) reign, I'm in.

It's not so much Anyone But Romney, as Anyone Who's Not (Relatively) Sane. Do you think they'd be happy with Huntsman?

Huntsman? I'm OK with THIS!

With hindsight being 20/20, I'm remembering that many Republicans said, after losing (miserably) to Obama in 2008, that the problem was that they weren't conservative enough. Hard to believe that at the time, they had not yet begun to derp.

What it said was that the party simply wasn't accepting the vote. They just did not understand how they could possibly have lost. They didn't see it as a sign that they had fallen out of touch with the mainstream and should perhaps tack slightly towards the center. They just said, "This didn't happen."

I was a little curious at the time as to how they were going to move even farther right without actually cooking and eating the children of the poor. (I think I got a hint at how insane they were going when they claimed that Obamacare infringed upon their God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to be farked by an insurance company.) It's this weird "we can't possibly be wrong" idea. If you try plan A and it fails, you don't try plan B, you try plan A _harder._ The idea that maybe trying to legalize the murder of abortion doctors is probably not the path they want to be on is literally not occurring to them. They tried this once and it worked, dammit, and they're going to keep on trying it until it works again.

The longer, the better.

Would a venn diagram of the ABR and the Teabaggers look like a circle?

I thought that said PBR, and I'm still hung over.

themindiswatching: Anyone But Romney...so, Obama?

Romney will name Huckabee as his VP and get all the Jeebus Cultists behind him.

Well, based on various polls the last few months, the ABR crowd is running about 25-30% of the Republican voting bloc. That's hardly a "fringe group", and if Romney ends up their candidate I expect those voters to just stay home or vote for a third party candidate (Paul? Perry? maybe Bachmann?)

/they don't want a godless Mormon in the White House, you know

Bendal: Well, based on various polls the last few months, the ABR crowd is running about 25-30% of the Republican voting bloc. That's hardly a "fringe group", and if Romney ends up their candidate I expect those voters to just stay home or vote for a third party candidate (Paul? Perry? maybe Bachmann?)

/they don't want a godless Mormon in the White House, you know

i imagine that they will probably vote for Romney anyway, and claim to have been behind romney the entire time!

/freeper land will be a fun place to visit for the next few months for a good chuckle
//same with WND

themindiswatching: Anyone But Romney...so, Obama?

This in 2.

peasandcarrots: With hindsight being 20/20, I'm remembering that many Republicans said, after losing (miserably) to Obama in 2008, that the problem was that they weren't conservative enough. Hard to believe that at the time, they had not yet begun to derp.

What it said was that the party simply wasn't accepting the vote. They just did not understand how they could possibly have lost. They didn't see it as a sign that they had fallen out of touch with the mainstream and should perhaps tack slightly towards the center. They just said, "This didn't happen."

I was a little curious at the time as to how they were going to move even farther right without actually cooking and eating the children of the poor. (I think I got a hint at how insane they were going when they claimed that Obamacare infringed upon their God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to be farked by an insurance company.) It's this weird "we can't possibly be wrong" idea. If you try plan A and it fails, you don't try plan B, you try plan A _harder._ The idea that maybe trying to legalize the murder of abortion doctors is probably not the path they want to be on is literally not occurring to them. They tried this once and it worked, dammit, and they're going to keep on trying it until it works again.

Should we really be that shocked? Conservative mindsets fear anything that involves change. The only difference is that the American right-wing has to engage in a startling amount of doublespeak and mental trickery on a constant basis because nothing in America is that solid. We're a country founded on revolution and empire that has seen a drastic amount of change in a historically short period of time. You cannot really be a conservative in America because America always changes.

So having a bunch of sad old white people put their fingers in their ears and start humming and yelling about the 'real silent majority' is just par for the course. I'm not saying it's acceptable or even healthy for them (a lot of them are just angry to begin with because their whole political ideology is simply impossible), but it's not that stunning. To be a Republican, you don't have a luxury of having an easy past to go back to. You have to invent one. And inventing something as spurious as what the Republicans seem to want (or rather, what they mistakenly believe everybody else in their party exactly wants) is a game designed to frustrate, annoy, and destroy.

The Republicans are learning that no matter how much they chant or biatch or whine that their ideology has a hard time working in a normal country, much less one as strange as the United States. Their delusion and anger comes from a realization of this fact that they have to constantly suppress.

And folks, this is what happens when you bed the Tea Party and the Religious Right.

Half sane republicans like Romney, Huntsman or Johnson are sneered at and mocked while idiots like Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich are cheered.

I'm not a fan of Romney, not at all, but out of the current crop of contenders, if I had to support one, I'd pick Romney simply because he's the most sane of the bunch (which isn't saying much.)

If Huntsman or Johnson had a larger support base and a chance of winning, I'd consider them.

Its upsetting that our current crop of conservatives can only congregate around crazy cretins (sentence turned into an alliteration so I had to go with it.) The party is so broken that sane conservatives are labeled RINO and pushed out the door.

themindiswatching: Anyone But Romney...so, Obama?

You laugh, but a conservative blogger I follow has said he'd rather vote for Obama than Romney. (This was a guy who liked Bachmann, to give you perspective here.)

You see, with Obama, he knew exactly what he was getting.

I'm someone else!

Wyalt Derp: It's not so much Anyone But Romney, as Anyone Who's Not (Relatively) Sane. Do you think they'd be happy with Huntsman?

Huntsman? He's Obama, if Obama had Romney's color, religion, and American citizenship, so no.

Anybody but X doesn't work. Seriously, think about it: it didn't work against Bush. You need to give people more reason than "Y isn't X" to vote for someone. People need to actually want to see Y win, or they'll just stay home and X wins by default.

For the party of Lincoln, I suggest the superior acronym:
A.nyone B.ut R.omney A.nd H.ow A.bout M.e?

that bosnian sniper: Huntsman? He's Obama, if Obama had Romney's color, religion, and American citizenship, so no.

I didn't realize there were issues with Romney's citizenship.

Either way, Obama and Huntsman are not the same. For one, Huntsman has been against abortion and done much to restrict abortion as governor. He's also has ties to the defense industry and will increase defense spending, plus Huntsman removed the progressive tax system in Utah and would probably try something similar as President.

Huntsman and Obama are both sane and competent, and there is a lot of areas that they agree, but that in no way means they are the same. But to the Republican party voters, being anything less than crazy ideologue that they can agree with (Ron Paul doesn't count), makes you unelectable in their eyes.

Gwyrddu: that bosnian sniper: Huntsman? He's Obama, if Obama had Romney's color, religion, and American citizenship, so no.

I didn't realize there were issues with Romney's citizenship.

Either way, Obama and Huntsman are not the same. For one, Huntsman has been against abortion and done much to restrict abortion as governor. He's also has ties to the defense industry and will increase defense spending, plus Huntsman removed the progressive tax system in Utah and would probably try something similar as President.

Huntsman and Obama are both sane and competent, and there is a lot of areas that they agree, but that in no way means they are the same. But to the Republican party voters, being anything less than crazy ideologue that they can agree with (Ron Paul doesn't count), makes you unelectable in their eyes.

They are not the same, no. Huntsman is slightly to the right of Obama, but they're both in the center, center-right camp. And they're both competent and articulate, which unfortunately has become a political position all its own.

I'd vote for Obama over Huntsman, but the country would be better off if the Presidential race was between those two.

/probably vote 3rd party/write-in anyway