Skip to content

Republicans want to defeat Obama at any cost

A new poll from CNN shows that the most important thing they want in a presidential candidate in 2012 is someone who can defeat Obama — even if that candidate disagrees with them on major issues and ideology.

I guess I’m happy that Republicans are taking a slight break from ideology, but only so they can cement their reputation as the Party of No.



  1. Brandon wrote:

    That actually makes sense. If I had to choose between a candidate I really like and a candidate I sort of like but has a good chance of winning the election, I’ll pick the one who can win. Now what’s really surprising is Republicans choosing pragmatism over ideals.

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 3:15 am | Permalink
  2. The poll asks takers to rate the importance of a candidate agreeing with them on every single issue. 29 percent rated this as the most important quality.

    71 percent emphasizing other qualities over this one isn’t exactly the same thing as saying that ideology isn’t important to them, but when you use the phrase “every single issue,” it’s not surprising that the majority of people who get asked that question realize, somewhere inside of themselves, that no president will ever agree with them on “every single issue.” It’s not a realistic goal, so it doesn’t shock me that most people would pick a different quality to shoot for.

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 8:44 am | Permalink
  3. Er, to be fair, it seems the exact wording used was “every issue that matters to you,” but my opinion remains the same; 71 percent of the people who took this poll probably think or believe that Obama disagrees with them on more issues than any of the GOP candidates do.

    Whether or not they’re right to believe this is an entirely different matter…

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 8:48 am | Permalink
  4. Iron Knee wrote:

    Given what most of these people believe about Obama, and the sorry state of the Republican stable of presidential candidates, it seems like the best candidate for them to elect would be the real Obama. After all, he has the best chance of defeating their fake Obama. 🙂

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 9:29 am | Permalink
  5. Michael wrote:

    It’s really sad and telling that the leading GOP candidate is openly ignorant about evolution. Of course, if I remember correctly, early polls like this put the Huckster in the lead in 2008, but he never came close to McCain.

    Personally, the only candidates on that list that I would ever even *consider* voting for would be Romney and Pawlenty. Daniels would get a lot of middle America support, and is somewhat moderate on social issues. But he’s done a lot of damage to the state budget that people are not happy about. By selling off major sources of income (e.g., the I-90 toll road and the lottery) to private groups, the state faced a major deficit, so property taxes shot up and services had to be slashed. Teachers, firefighters and police have all taken big hits. And to top it all off, both the government and private businesses have invested craploads of dollars to host a Super Bowl…which might not happen (not that Daniels has much control over that). I shudder to think what Daniels would do in Washington.

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 9:51 am | Permalink
  6. Jeff wrote:

    The ironic thing is that, if the GOP tries to get a candidate that they think can defeat Obama but doesn’t agree on the party line 100%, they risk alienating part of their base, which will make it harder for them to get their candidate elected against Obama. So, the GOP either gets someone that every Republican will love that doesn’t stand a chance, or they get someone that would have stood a chance if they could get every Republican to love them.

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 11:15 am | Permalink
  7. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Interestingly none of these 4 individual were in the pole. I believe they’d make great candidates and give people a tough choice for 2012.
    Chris Christy
    Marco Rubio
    Paul Ryan
    Rand Paul

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 11:28 am | Permalink
  8. Michael wrote:

    Interesting list, Patriotsgt, but I think they’re all too fresh for 2012. Yes, Obama was fresh in 2008, but he did the keynote at the 2004 DNC and built a huge following in his 4 years in the Senate. Christie only has 2 years in a traditional elected office (AG before that), and he’s been quite a bit divisive. Rubio and Ryan, I could see them having a strong showing in 2016 or 2020, depending on what they do in the next few years. Rand Paul…I just don’t see it. He’s got the same outside-the-mainstream views as his father, but he doesn’t have the charisma. He’s also said some things that have brought on accusations of racism. Even if unfounded, the accusations alone kill it for large swaths of voters.

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink
  9. RK wrote:

    I’m not sure I see it happening, at least on many of the important issues. The tea party believes in a lot of issues mandated by God, I don’t see them compromising on those issues.

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 12:34 pm | Permalink
  10. I’m not sure why anyone would consider a situation in which they would vote for a Republican candidate in the 2012 election.

    Even if I were a republican, I’d vote democratic. Well, if I voted, that is. Which I don’t.

    The GOP monetary policy is an economist’s nightmare, their platform is a sideshow act, and their politics are barely worthy of a Very Special episode of the Jerry Springer Show.

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 12:43 pm | Permalink
  11. ebdoug wrote:

    Being naughty: A local Red Neck 99% Republican town asked in the newspaper to write in about my favorite President. So I did. I admittedly stretched some things.

    “I like Ike” Dwight David “Ike” Eisenhower has always been my hero. As a military man he negotiated the end of the Korean War.
    He encouraged the space program to
    compete with Russia. He helped get Joseph McCarthy (McCarthy hearings) out of the way. He expanded the Social Security Act, started the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.

    To pay for World War II, he taxed the rich at 90% of their income above a certain amount of income; thereby creating the most equal distribution of wealth in
    this country which led to prosperity of this country through the 1950s and 1960s until other presidents started dropping the taxes on the rich.
    We now have the most unequal distribution of wealth. Rich get Richer, poor get poorer.

    When Brown vs Board of Education was passed during his administration by the Supreme Court, Eisenhower wanted the DC schools immediately integrated to set an example for the rest of the US. He sent the National Guard to Little Rock Arkansas to implement integration in the schools.

    He was pressured about Vietnam but basically agreed to send 900 observers to Vietnam.
    He protected our country and promoted the social welfare of our country. Eva Douglas

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 12:47 pm | Permalink
  12. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Don’t forget Camp David Eva.

    True Michael -but on Morning Joe (MSNBC) they had a poll today showing 52% job approval for Christie even though NJ is a fairly blue state. They may not like what he’s doing, but they seem to agree its needed.
    Rubio and Rand are new, but at least Rand is not afraid to say what he believes and what he thinks is needed even though it may cost him later. He’s the only Repub to openly say we need to fix/change SS, Medicaid and Medicare along with other cuts to put the budget in line and then look at revenue increases.
    Ryan needs to be able to galvanize the house, which he seems unable to accomplish currently. If he does then he’ll be viable.
    I don’t think many conservatives want the same ole candidate. For too many years their party has been a slow climbing hierarchy that dictates who will be allowed to run. They need to change that if they want to compete. I’d vote for Obama over any candidate in the CNN poll, but I’m not sure if one of the others gets nominated instead.

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
  13. ebdoug wrote:

    I was limited to 300 words. Word is out that my Representative in US Congress: Chis Lee has suddenly resigned for being dishonest. It was Massa last year (not my representative but lives closer) and now Lee. I often contacted Lee and told him I disagreed with all he did. Needless to say that I never voted for him. He has been dishonest before. I once commended him for the House opposing the extention of the tax cuts to the rich,knowing full well he did not vote for that. Little tongue in cheek on my part.

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 6:09 pm | Permalink
  14. PatriotSGT wrote:

    I don’t know what is is with NY and scandals. Spitzer, Paterson, Massa and now Lee. What, are they trying to be #1 in the sleazy dept. 🙂

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Permalink
  15. Michael wrote:

    Eh, NY’s got nothing on Illinois. “[The Illinois legacy of corruption’s] persistence was documented in Sept. 7, 2006 by the Chicago Sun-Times, which reported that at least 79 current or former Illinois, Chicago or Cook County elected officials had been found guilty of a crime by judges, juries or their own pleas since 1972.” (

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 8:10 pm | Permalink
  16. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Oh yeah, I forgot all about Blago world. They’ve been laying low lately. 🙂

    Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 10:44 pm | Permalink
  17. ebdoug wrote:

    Was funny watching the GOP candidates give their spiel. While Chris Lee is resigning, Newt is up there trying to run for President. While Bachmann is calling Obama socialist, as IK pointed out, we just had the big socialistic football game.

    Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 6:18 pm | Permalink