LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLLE!
Well that was entertaining. I wish I would have had some popcorn.
The only consolation I have after watching the CNN Republican Debate is that the odds of Michele Bat-Shit-Crazy Bachmann or Rick Piece-of-Shit Santorum becoming president are effectively zero. But try telling them that. You'd think the person in charge of the Republican party would cut them loose, but apparently a few more weeks in Crazy Town is on the agenda. Along with four more years with President Obama.
Because if there's a challenge to the Democratic ticket here, I'm not seeing it.
Time to drag out the Don't Fuck It Up Presidential Matrix to pit the candidates head-to-head and see which has the best chance to screw up the country even worse than it is now...
And now the run-down...
Rick Santorum (SCORE: 0)
Rick Santorum is a piece of shit. He's worse than a piece of shit. In fact, I would rather have a literal piece of shit... a turd that fell out of my ass... in the Oval Office than Rick Santorum. It might smell bad, but it would do far less damage to our country. After his wacky ramblings about "gay napkins wanting to be paper towels, but they can't be paper towels because they're napkins" I pretty much wrote him off. How in the fuck could this lunatic possibly represent this country?
Michele Bachmann (SCORE: 1)
Certifiable. The fact that this particular flavor of crazy has made it this far in a frickin' PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION is just mind-boggling to me.
Herman Cain (SCORE: 2)
I admit, I was a fan when the guy first got started. He had straight-talk and a policy of sticking to his guns. Then he went nuts. I mean, seriously, have you heard the goofball shit that has come out of his mouth lately? It's almost as if this is all a big joke to him. But when you crunch the numbers, this guy has a serious chance to be tapped for Vice President on the ticket. Scary.
Ron Paul (SCORE: 3)
Despite his low score, there are some things that Ron Paul has to say that I actually like. But the guy is simply not presidential. We desperately need a president who can inspire and give people hope at a time when there's not a lot of hope to go around. But Ron Paul is not that guy. His doom and gloom crotchety old fart routine may be "telling people what they need to hear" but there has to be something positive in your persona to make people want to follow you. Couple that with his horrifying take on foreign policy, and Ron Paul shouldn't be anywhere near The White House.
Rick Perry (SCORE: 4)
Yikes. No. Just no.
Jon Huntsman (SCORE: 5)
On paper, the guy has presidential credentials that look pretty darn impressive. He's sane. He's good on foreign policy... especially in China. He's not wacky religious. He seems pretty open-minded and forward-thinking. AND he shares a name with the very scary Huntsman Spider. You don't fuck with a Huntsman Spider. Where he fails as a serious candidate is in full effect at the debate... he's just bad at it. His own party seems to hate him. How is he going to get anything done?
Newt Gingrich (SCORE: 6)
The guy has so many scandals in his past that it seems impossible to understand how Republicans tolerate him as a candidate. But he does seem to have a very clear vision for how things should be. Sure this vision is hard-core Conservative to its core, but at least it seems solid, which is something both Conservatives and Liberals can cling to in uncertain times. I don't really like the guy, but I can't deny he seems like a candidate that has his shit together (if not his campaign) when it comes to being a president. I admit that his high score surprised me quite a lot, but head-to-head he just kept winning when I factored in all the pieces.
Mitt Romney (SCORE: 7)
Out of all the Republican candidates, he's the only one I could bring myself to vote for. Mostly because I don't know much about him yet. Granted, it would take a lot for that to happen, but there it is. And while I don't think he would make a great president, I do think he could make a good president. If nothing else, he seems more presidential when stacked up against the other hopefuls. He certainly seems the most respectful and the least crazy of the bunch (with the possible exception of Huntsman). In this crowd, that's saying a lot.
In all honesty, I am not against voting for a Republican candidate. If the right one came along, I'd absolutely consider them in a race against Obama. But I'm just not seeing it in this bunch. So what happened? I just don't know. Looking at how this debate went, maybe all the good ones are too smart to jump into such a volatile race. Maybe they think they have a better chance if they wait until President Obama has his second term. Perhaps they don't want to take the reigns when things are so bad. There could be a hundred reasons.
In the meanwhile, it is what it is.
I love comments! However, all comments are moderated, and won't appear until approved. Are you an abusive troll with nothing to contribute? Don't bother. Selling something? Don't bother. Spam linking? Don't bother.
In SC and FL, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney are the leaders in the polls.
I really can’t believe that these are the BEST the Republican party can come up with – that scares the ever loving SHIT out of me.
Anyway, I’m with you on all your reviews.
I’m voting for Obama again because if he wins a lot of conservatives will get apoplectic over a re-election and die. Obama still won’t do anything worth mentioning, but conservatives getting apoplectic and croaking is pretty funny.
I haven’t watched any of the debates…perhaps I should make time to give these folks a shot.
I do get the benefit of hearing how great Newt is every day at work, however, as our office suite includes a guy who’s managing his local campaign. I agree with your assessment of him (but I keep that to myself in the office).
I seriously thought Rick & Mitt were gonna have a throw down fist fight last night! That would have been awesome!
I couldn’t bear to watch the debate. That much crazy might send me over the edge. Politics just makes me ill.
Jon Stewart said it best on The Daily Show when he said the GOP presidential candidates is like a reverse American Idol.
I seriously wish Huntsman could rise in the polls. I experienced him as Governor of Utah and I was proud to vote for him as he wasn’t all Republican and actually considered all Utahans when making policy. He’s one GOP I would consider voting for, but his level of support falls off the charts and that makes me sad given the number of other wacky packs that are running.
Mitt has a chance and he could really have some support. I really don’t think I’d vote for him, but I could consider some of his policies and being presidential enough to take center stage over the others.
Rick Santorum is a whole spetic tank full of shit.
The other day it finally struck me – OMG THOSE are the real Republican candidates? It had seemed like a big joke til then, so it just took forever to dawn on me. Wow.
Other than what you already mentioned about Gingrich, the only thing that surprised me in your head-to-head results is that you chose Perry over Paul.
In Texas, we can vote in either party’s primary as we don’t have official party affiliations. In incumbent years, it just seems silly not to vote in the opposing party’s primary. I hope I have a more clear vision by the time our primary gets here….
It was a tough call. But, in the end, I think Paul is a slightly more dangerous candidate than Perry. My intent here are to rank the candidates by how likely they are to “fuck it up” from most to least. On one hand, I think Ron Paul is more thoughtful and certainly more anti-war than Perry, which I like… but, on the other hand, his naivety on foreign policy and his take on the entire purpose of foreign aid and investment is bordering on cataclysmic.
I agree that a lot of the money we send “overseas” is put to bad use, but to use that as an excuse to scrap everything is categorically absurd. You cannot ignore our position in the global community. This country doesn’t exist in a bubble. Would I like to see the USA meddle less in the affairs of other countries? Absolutely. I honestly believe a lot of our current troubles in the international arena comes from unwarranted interference gone wrong. But to pretend that troubles in foreign lands won’t wash up on our shores if left unchecked would be laughable if it weren’t so terrifying.
I guess I just figure Perry could easily expand the percentage of “interference gone wrong” to the point that it would be worse than doing nothing.
It’s tough for me to find fault in your logic here, which is why it was a tough call for me. In the end, I figured that the act of doing nothing is “politically easier” than the act of interfering. If Ron Paul decided to cut off all foreign aid and investment, I don’t think he’d face the obstacles that Rick Perry would face if Perry decided to invade Columbia.
I guess what I’m saying is that, where foreign affairs are considered, it would be “politically easier” to keep Perry in-check than Paul. But I’m not 100% sold on that. I probably should have had them tied. But I respect Paul much more than Perry, so perhaps it was easier for me to see him as the more dangerous option?