Romney - the biggest idiot of the bunch - worse than 2008 McCain - can't possibly win against Obama.
Best of the bunch and the only one who can win over Obama - Dr. Ron Paul.
G O R O N P A U L G O R O N P A U L ! ! ! !
Which Republican Presidential Candidate was the most ENTERTAINING??!!
BlueRepublican
2012/05/22 17:52:30
|
|
|||||
|
4 votes
|
|
5% | ||
|
10 votes
|
|
11% | ||
|
14 votes
|
|
16% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
3% | ||
|
8 votes
|
|
9% | ||
|
34 votes
|
|
39% | ||
|
14 votes
|
|
16% | ||
|
Sadly, now that most of the contenders for the Republican nomination for President have dropped out of the race, I don't feel it's as fun anymore. Romney is as bland as white rice and Obama can't come up with a better slogan than 'foward' This year's contenders were even more entertaining than the actors in the 2008 presidential race. While some were partially known to the public, others were catapaulted into the limelight. America got to know a lot more about these politicians than ever before. Sound bytes, viral clips and satire flooded the internet and cable news. Pundits on both sides had an endless supply of material. Not since the days of the Bush Presidency had we seen so much available political entertainment. The best part was that it was genuine, not manufactured propaganda. From Rick Perry's infamous ooopppss!! at the debate, to Bachman's creepy magazine cover. From Gingrich's moon colony proposal to Herman Cain's 'Lybia moment' and Santorums sweater vest sermons and google problem, etc... Even Donald Trump got in on the action. Romney's uncomfortable interviews about flip-flopping and Ron Paul's zingers and ads mocking all. Yup, good times. So pick your favorite below, vote now, comment, reply, share with all your friends and RAVE all DAY!!!! Which Republican Presidential Candidate was the most ENTERTAINING??!! |
Top Opinion
-
Wayne 2012/05/22 18:12:52
On any given debate night I could have chosen the "Clown for a Day". I picked Perry because he was the real hope for the Pubs in their battle of the ABM. ("Anybody But Mitt")
I mean that few politicians could survive an election if all their misdeeds were unveiled, witnesses brought forth and the mess splashed abroad by the media.
But the whole media blitz just didn't seem right to me. They picked the one relatively obscure candidate to attack that might have been (in my opinion) able to win and bring the nation back together (not that I agreed totally with his policies).
Seemingly, according to reports, the reputations of some witnesses weren't stellar, yet they were believed. In man/woman relationships, the "unsaid" is as relevant as the "said." So,how do we know those witnesses weren't giving unspoken signals? Also, a person scorned can be very dangerous. Could that have played into this? Aren't all men vulnerable to an angry woman? Wasn't there plenty of time for the witnesses to go to the media before he decided to enter the race? Why would they wait? Did any money change hands?
Surely you can understand why some of us have questions about this?
Thank you for posting.
he's HERMAN CAIN....
"ah don't have facts to back this up...."
classic.
I want to see Barack Obama debate Ron Paul, no scripts, no teleprompters--just good old fashioned Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Mitt Romney will not be very challenging I think we can both agree.
I don't think I would sit down with Santorum for any price. That guy is like nails on a chalkboard irritating, as far as I'm concerned - a lot like Sarah Palin. Cain has a sense of humor, at least.