Worst Next President
August 12, 2007
Which Democrat or Republican Presidental candidate would you least like to see as our next President and why?
Montgomery County Ohio GOP Blog
A place for discussion, debate and input concerning party events and happenings.
-
Recent Comments
Zug on Worst Next President THEBIGDAWG on Worst Next President J Todd on Worst Next President JR on Worst Next President Mick on Worst Next President
August 12, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Hillary Clinton!! Because she is likely to adopt the appeasement policies practiced by her husband during his administration and led to the brazened growth of Al Quida. A vote for Hillary is a vote for retreat from a showing of strength and resolve needed to defeat Al Quida radicalism.
August 12, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Hillary Clinton is my concern because she would likely get the opportunity to nominate the successor to Justice John Paul Stevens and possible another SCOTUS justice. My personal philosophy for nominations to the SCOTUS is not consistent with the nominations made by former President Bill Clinton (Justices Ginsburg and Breyer), and I have no reason to believe that Hilliary would be different from her husband.
August 12, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I have found the identity feminism = socialism to be true.
That means any Democrat is out (especially John Edwards).
August 13, 2007 at 1:24 am
Hillary Clinton would be the “Next Worst President”,
because, in my opinion, she has Stalinist/Maxist views
which would be deterimental to this nation! And she,
like her husband, places her finger in the air to see
which way the “political winds” are blowing!!
August 13, 2007 at 2:28 am
Frankly, I am not much impressed with the current field of presidential candidates. Typically, however, pundits and average folks in casual conversation ask the question at hand here in reverse—as in, Who do you like? Instead we are asked to answer the question in a much more challenging way, I suppose.
Which candidate would we/I least like to see as president? In this case I will only consider the top tier candidates who, at this point, appear to have a fighting chance at winning their respective party’s nominations. The answer, in short, is Hillary Clinton.
While there is something to dislike in each major candidate at this juncture (which is very early), Mrs. Clinton would be most detrimental to our conservative vision of the United States.
First and foremost, she is as liberal as Barack Obama or John Edwards, but she has the clear advantage—from the liberal point of view—that she actually seems to have idea as to what she wants to accomplish in office. Obama is simply too inexperienced to have an effective and coherent plan and Edwards is along the same lines though not as far. Hillary Clinton would definitely try to socialize health care and generally increase the size scope of government.
Second, with the likelihood of a Democrat-controlled Congress, many, if not most, of Mrs. Clinton’s ideas would stand a high chance of passing into law. The same may hold true with Obama or Edwards, but Clinton seems to be a much more effective political powerbroker than her two chief rivals.
Third, folks have been discussing the highly polarized nation in which we currently live over the past few years. If you want conservatives and Republicans to oppose a Democrat just because he/she has a certain name, then Hillary Clinton is your candidate. She is a polarizing figure who would further divide the nation into three camps: Clintonites, anti-Clintonites, and those stuck in the middle.
Fourth, it seems that the Clinton modus operandi is to build a legacy as opposed to attempting to deal with brewing problems. Mrs. Clinton would probably be similar to her husband in this respect, meaning that most major issues would be placed on hold until the next president, Democrat or Republican, takes office. We know from 9/11 and other incidents that such a stance is a bad idea.
Thus, Hillary Clinton is the candidate I would least like to see as president come January 2009.
August 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm
It seems as though everyone here is on the same anti-Hillary bandwagon…
Another Clinton presidency would be detrimental to the conservative cause as mentioned above.
Many say that it is simply the right wing’s hate for her husband that fuels the anti-hillary crowd. I disagree, she has proven herself quite capable of pushing crazy left-wing policies quite well on her own.
For all the feminists out there who would vote for her solely on gender, vote for Edwards…he’s just as feminine and has better hair and nails.
As far as the Rs are concerned I am worried about how our lineup of candidates will do against Clinton or Obama.
The conservative base is so disgruntled that many won’t vote for Rudy or McCain or Romney because of their questionable conservative credentials.
While I agree, I will not recuse myself from my right to vote. A no-vote for the Republican is as good as two votes for the Democrat.
I’ll take a RINO who is conservative on some issues over a looney leftwinger any day in the General Election.
I am glad to see that Mike Huckabee did well in the straw pole because I think he’d be a good VP. I think Thompson is the only one with a chance to beat Clinton in the long run if he ever gets in. Romney is convinced that money solves everything and he needs to realize that without a solid base of support it will get you nowhere.
I just hope that enough conservatives will suck it up and vote for the “more conservative” candidate in 2008. If not we will have at least 4 more years of Clinton.
If that happens don’t lose hope, remember, it took 4 years of Carter for us to get our Reagan!!
August 13, 2007 at 4:38 pm
The Democrat or Republican I would LEAST like to see elected to the office of the president of the United States would be:
1. Any candidate who is not prepared to wage unrelenting
military, economic, and political warfare against the
Jihad on Western Civilization.
2. Any candidate who does not believe in the expansion
of the power of the United States armed forces.
3. Any candidate who calls Islam the religion of peace
or claims Islam has been hijacked by Islamic
extremists.
4. Any candidate who does not believe that Muslim
immigration to the United States should cease
forthwith.
5. Any candidate that does not support the building of
a wall on the southern border to limit illegal
aliens entering the USA.
6. Any candidate that does not support enforcement of
immigration laws currently on the books.
7. Any candidate that thinks taxes should be increased.
8. Any candidate that thinks gov’t should expand any or
all entiltelemnet programs.
9. Any candidate that thinks earmarks should exist or
should not be tansparent.
10. Any candidate that will not nominate conservative
judges. And fight for their appointment.
11. Any candidtate that will not support victory in
Iraq. (Victory in Iraq being defined as a state
of reality no more or less dangerous than the com-
bined crime and murder rate of New York, Washington,
DC, Detriot, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, New
Orleans, Newark, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Dayton,
Cincinnati, Columbus, Youngstown, and Phoenix).
Not yearly. Daily.
12. Any candidate that thinks it is in the best interest
of the USA to remain a member of the UN rather than
create a new and smaller League of Democracies that
is prepared to defend Western Civilization.
More later. I’ve got to get back to work.