10. John Thune: The South Dakota senator looks the part of a presidential candidate — tall, dark, handsome — and has a record that conservatives love but isn’t scary to the party establishment. The issue for Thune is whether he wants it badly enough. He had a golden opportunity to get into the 2012 race as a major contender and, oddly, passed. As the Post’s Dan Balz wrote at the time, Thune’s “no” to 2012 could well have a lingering impact on his chances in 2016.
9. Rob Portman: He doesn’t bring the glitz and glamour of some of the other names of this list, but we’d be remiss if we didn’t include the Ohio senator. His experience as White House budget director makes him a credible voice on economic matters, and his current gig as National Republican Senatorial Committee vice chairman means he won’t be far away from the party’s most influential donors. Plus, did we mention he’s from Ohio? Long a presidential debate prep partner, Portman could well play the role of candidate in 2016.
8. John Kasich: The former congressman and current Ohio governor was a big deal in the Republican Party and even ran for president, briefly, in 2000. Provided he can win reelection in 2014, we should expect Kasich to at least consider a presidential bid. Kasich is a conservative favorite and comes from a swing state that is increasingly recovering economically. And at a press conference in November, he notably didn’t rule out a future presidential run.Read the rest HERE:
Here are my picks based on these folks early vibes, NOT my preference:
1. Marco Rubio
2. Paul Ryan
3. Rand Paul
4. Chris Christie
5. Bobby Jindal
6. Bob McDonnell
7. Jeb Bush
8. Scott Walker
9. Rick Santorum
10. Rob Portman
11 comments:
Bosman, your non-preference list seems a good assessement at the current stage. However, what *is your* current top five-in order- current preferenc(es)?
I could vote for 7 of those 10 in a General election.
It's no surprise that State Run Media is trying to pump up the 2016 presidential prospects of pro-amnesty sellouts like Rubio, Ryan, Christie and Bush(Jeb), just like they pumped up the pro-amnesty ABR(Anybody But Romney) candidates in 2012 and 2008.
Amnesty, citizenship and voting rights for another 10-20 million Hispanic Democrats is the NUMBER ONE MISSION of the Democrat/RINO Washington Establishment because they know that it would be the political death knell for the conservative wing of the GOP, especially in crucial swing states like Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado.
The GOP can do FAR BETTER than selecting another pro-amnesty sellout - see McCain, John, 2008 presidential election - to be its nominee in 2016.
Jim DeMint, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Rand Paul and Jim Jordan, among others, would be infinitely superior to the RINOs I listed above.
Rubio, Ryan, Jindal, and Bush are the guys I'm leaning to right now, but my early preference is Rubio.
He's persuasive and sincere.....and extremely hard to dismiss out of hand, although Newark has accomplished this without breaking a sweat.
I think he's probably our best bet.
Dave -
Don't fret, I'll be sweating profusely if one of the pro-amnesty sellouts you mentioned wins the GOP nomination in 2016.
RomneyMan:
It would be easier to tell you who I don't like:
Christie (Obama man crush. IMHO one of the top reasons Romney lost the election)
Jeb Bush (I blame him for Romney losing FL in 08..long story)
Jindal (I don't like his pompous attitude..needs criticize Dems more than REP)
Rubio (overblown..has done WHAT? Hispandering Immigration)
I have lost all respect for Rubio. His immigration bill is no more than amnesty. If the illegals get legal status on day one and stay here, how is that not amnestY
Don't worry about impeachObama, sorry, newark hawk. Multiple user name folks are kind of like that.
Bosman- yes you comments regarding the names you listed are veryvalid. HOwever, Rubio seems the only one of the potential field with any real 'star quality' and likability. Both matter a heck of a lot in generals.
Take Rand Paul for ex. Talks a lot of sense, but don;t seem to have any endering likability or 'it' factor. Unfortunately, vision and great ideas don't pull in a vast percentage of the electorate, who often vote on celebrity.
The entire field is weak. The next rising star of the party isn't listed here, nor are the others who have been added to the list the answer either. I am still waiting for someone I can support. Only an illiterate society chooses popularity and/or style over substance, but unfortunately that is what happened this past election. The pro-amnesty candidates are making a huge mistake, they have no clue what the final impact will be on future elections. It is not what they think it is. No matter what we do on our end, the verdict is already in, the opposition not us will get full credit for legislation passed on immigration. No credit means no votes. The "new votes" will go to the other side. And now they will be legal votes added to the tally of the other side. This is the problem with pandering, it serves no purpose when the end result is an advantage for the enemy.
Joel, I totally agree. it's star's over substance. I like rubio well enough, but not enough to think he'd make anything more than a president who goes on MTV and tells us boxers or briefs. We need to start focusing on who can actually DO the job, not play it on TV.
Post a Comment