Perry? I like Perry, and I really was looking forward to him being the nominee. When he got in, my guy was at 6% and not getting any traction. Perry had a great record, looked great, and after having read his book, I was pretty stoked. If my guy couldn't win, I was glad that Rick Perry was going to win. He was strong on state's rights, got out of the way of private businesses, and was all around great conservative candidate. Problem was that Perry actually had to talk, and couldn't just give speeches, put out position papers, and ads. After the first debate, I was worried about him. After the second debate, I wondered, "Where is the guy that wrote, "Fed Up"? After the 3rd "You have no heart" debate, I realized that he was going down in flames before our very eyes. Hmm? Then Bachman, jumped the shark with the ritarded Gardisil kids Mom. oops. In swoops Herman, who unlike all the rest of the folks, has a plan. A simple plan. it is attacked by the left, it is attacked by the right. WHY? Because it represented a fundamental change in the way Washington works. So count out most people in the establishment liking or supporting Herman. That is THEIR POWER, and they weren't gonna let some outsider with a simple tax code that is transparent and hard to tinker with win. But anyway, back to whom to support.
Perry is not going to win, and should probably do the respectable thing and endorse someone and get back to the business of being the best governor in the history of the United States.
Bachman? See Perry. Same goes with Santorum, although frankly his endorsement would only gain the endoresee what? 10 people?
Paul. He definitely is the only one left in the race that has any balls to change anything in DC. Too bad his foreign policy is so ritarded. Actually come to think of it it's not his foreign policy that is ritarded, but actually his blame America first mentality. A lot like Obama in that. So no, not him either.
Mittens? Probably more conservative that Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher combined, but choosing to run in places like Massachusetts, one has to be a pantywaist scumsucking lib to even get the nomination there, let alone win. So who knows what the real Romney is like. He did pretty good at not screwing up the businesses he ran, and used the money he was born into to jump in at the top. So I like that part of him. I could give a shit about his positions on abortion. Romneycare. That's his achilles heel. So easy to shift a la Perry and say, Hey it's what the people of Massachusetts wanted, the legislature supported it, and I signed it. It sucks and was a horrible idea, but that's what you get from crazy libs in the Peoples State of Massachusetts. But instead it's the hill he wants to die on. Politically ritarded. How about a nice blanket statement from Mittens? "To all those people out there that would not vote for me, due to my ever shifting beliefs and positions: I am a fiscal, social, and defense conservative. I had to say those things before to fool the people of Massachussetts because they are idiots, easily fooled, and wont be voting for the Republican Nominee even if it's me, so fuck them. I'm with you, I've always been with you." The regular Mittens supporters would continue to support him, and the other 75% maybe he picks up 10% of them, and poof* he has enough to win. But he wont do that. No Bullworth moment from him.
Which leaves us with Newt. I like Newt, and thought he would make a good VP for Herman Cain. He is an asshole, and knows his way around the smoke filled back rooms of DC. That's what is needed there, in the position of VP. Now I am supposed to ignore the fact that of all the candidates, HE is THE most inside the beltway candidate, and even when he was out of office, he basically was there with his hand out smoozing and peddling influence for the likes of Fannie and Freddie, and now Medicare Part D. A million here, and a million there, for "consulting". Really? I guess some will buy that load of shit. Whatever. That's the way things work up there. Influence and power are the most valuable commodity in DC, and Newt had the connections, with the right, so companies on the left used him to get their support. Sure, it would be fun to see Newt battle in a debate. But the lingering question remains. Ask 100 people from around this country about the years from 1995-2000. Ask them about the budget "surplus". Ask them about the Clinton Lewisnky thing. Ask them about the economy prior to the dot.com bubble bursting. Ask them about the government shutdown. Then ask them who was to blame, and ask them why the economy was good. I bet at least 70% of people would tell you that Clinton was good, and responsible for the good economy and the budget surplus, and Newt was bad and to blame for Lewinskygate witchhunt, and the government shutdown. newt always got the blame, and Clinton always got the credit. Why? Because the media framed it that way. You dont think they can do the same thing? They already did a pretty good job at blaming the recession on Bush, and letting Pelosi's takeover in 2006 and the rapid decline of the economy, and the increase in spending by 40% since, slide.
So... whom will I support for the nomination for the GOP for President of the United States of America? Who knows, and frankly you should not give a fuck as to whom I would support. Do your own research, come to your own conclusions and vote for the candidate that best represents YOUR beliefs, not the opinions of talking heads on TV, radio talk show hosts, or a loud mouth like myself, but take a bit of advice for me; Chose FOR someone, not against someone, nor for "the person most likely to beat Obama". It is so much more exhilarating to be FOR someone, than it will ever be to be against someone.
Ragnar DanneskjöldSupporter of Herman Cain for President, until such time that he officially withdraws from the race.