... was just on, and my thoughts on the candidates:
 Rick Santorum - wants to tell us how to live and what to think - no, no,no
 Newt Gingrich - saw him once in the lobby bar of a Hyatt ... just a crabby old guy
 Michelle Bachman - didn't display her real positions while trying to appeal to the middle .... I thought she was against blatant politics like that.
 Mitt Romney - No mistakes, but he just seems like someone who wants to be President more than he wants to help.
 Rick Perry - This guy is a fascist, no kidding, I would hate to see him with more power
 Ron Paul - I agree with that guy about 87.23% of the time; it's the other part that worries me
 Hermann Cain - Only guy who consistently proposed solutions rather than just rehash the problem. Suffers from being black following BO
 Jon Huntsman - Didn't say enough, but I would like to hear more
olee - maybe I'm wrong, but from reading your posts recently, it appears that you are starting to see the light re: the 'unfairness', 'limits' and the 'economic destructiveness' of std liberal 'robin hood' policies. When they start TAKING YOUR MONEY (as opposed to some supposed other RICH guy's $$) ... money that you likely need and rely on .... the unfairness of liberal/ socialistic policies starts to become very clear.
Agree that Huntsman is the best of the current bunch.
The guy that I really really really wanted to run was governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana. He has cut the deficit and turned things around in Indiana w/out bringing out all of the rancor that we saw in Wisconsin. Unfortunately - his wife didn't want to go thru the scrutiny of a presidential campaign where there'd be lots of talk about why she left her husband and kids to run off with CA doctor. Daniels comes across as a saint .. raising the kids by himself and then taking his wife back 4 yrs later .. after her affair with the CA doctor fizzled. Says 'if you like happy endings .. you'll love how our story played out"
Daniels got my attention when he told social conservatives in the republican party of the need for a "truce" on social issues so the party can focus on fiscal issues. Like Huntsman, Daniels also has indicated some willingness to compromise on various issues, including possible willingness to consider tax increases to rectify a budget deficit.
In August 2010, The Economist praised Daniels' "reverence for restraint and efficacy" and concluded that "he is, in short, just the kind of man to relish fixing a broken state – or country." Nick Gillespie of Reason called Daniels "a smart and effective leader who is a serious thinker about history, politics, and policy."
Like Huntsman and Herman Cain - Daniels wants to fix things; to get something DONE; not just pander to the tea party and social conservatives in the party ... even though he may share many of their concerns.
" Best combination of clear reasoning and experience."
...which pretty much excludes him from being the Republican nominee. Because the Republican party has such intransigent factions within the party, they are rarely ever able to nominate the best candidate.
I have never voted Republican, but would vote for him immediately, and will most likely vote for whoever the R nominee is, simply because Obama has proven himself to be not only completely inept, but thoroughly dangerous.
If only we could run a Chris Christie - Marco Rubio campaign against Obama!
It IS sad that the best choices aren't even considering being in the race at all.
Oh heck, sometimes I really think we'd do as well or better if we just drafted some folks right out of the phone book & sent them to DC for a term - then drafted some new folks. Overall I think we'd get more honest representation.
... and for all that, ANY one of them would be superior to Obama. In fact, based on how absolutely confused Obama has been since he took office, almost anyone would be superior. In a word, Obama has been overwhelmed by this job.