Which forum Republican....

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, of course

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Torie, but he would never win the primary.

Of those who could, MasterJedi.

I'd trounce MasterJedi in the primary

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

look you primitive screw heads, I am easily the closest thing to the ideal ideological GOP primary candidate.  

And as far as the general election goes:

1) On economic issues:  I have enough moderate economic policies not to scare off independents, and I have more than enough economic imagination to trounce Obama on his economic record and lack of economic imagination.  And I am willing to spend and tax, not in an attempt to artificially redistribute wealth, but in an attempt to transform the American economy in very patriotic (e.g. my energy plan) and concrete (set milestones and metrics for measuring success) ways that would unite the majority of the nation and give it a sense of economic purpose that would greatly benefit our foreign policy goals.

2) On foreign policy:  My long standing position is based upon the principles of the freedom and tolerance of religion, and therefore I can completely be consistent in critiquing a) Bush43’s naïve foreign policy for attempting to occupy and impose democracy in Muslim countries which do not believe in religious tolerance, and b) Obama’s naïve policy of supporting the Arab Spring Islamist uprisings which do not believe in religious tolerance as the foundation of democracy.  Thus, I could critique both Bush and Obama based on the principles of the US Declaration of Independence and on the Preamble and First Amendment to the US Constitution and argue from an 100% American viewpoint that these freedoms are universally essential to any society, and that the US should NEVER have a foreign policy which supports “democratic” movements opposed to these universal principles.  Thus my foreign policy is explainable to any American and upholds the foundational universal principles that have a) made this country great b) made the US a safe-haven from religious persecution, whether that persecution is in the form of Christian theocracies or in the form of Muslim Sharia Law.  And my view of tolerance and freedom of religion as the foundation stone for a civilized and peaceful society will reassure independents who may be disturbed that I am a genuine believer in the bible.

3) On social issues:  aside from opposing abortion except in the case of rape or incest (less than 1% of all abortions), I am status quo on social issues.  I do NOT support anti-sodomy laws and believe the government should NOT be telling adults what they can and can not do in the bedroom, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.  I believe gays should, and do, have the right to marry (no one is going around arresting homosexuals for declaring themselves married), but recognition of those marriages by the state (which is the people) is NOT a right under our constitution – you do NOT have the right to have your actions condoned by the state….my social positions would NOT scare off independents.

4) My personal beliefs:  I am not a young-earther and I am a huge proponent of science.  I know enough about the bloody history of heretical Christianity to be able to use that history to promote separation of church and state and reassure independents.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

With that platform you wouldn't make it out of the primary. The Tea Party would label you a RINO.

The Tea Party is not opposed to Red-White-And-Blue-Apollo-style programs to convert over to natural gas (producted in America) and away from oil (produced in Muslim countries).  Nor is the majority of the Tea Party opposed to a millionaires tax (if the cut to tax ratio is 5:1 to 10:1) to pay for such Apollo-style programs.  And the Tea Party isn't opposed to preaching the foundational doctrines of the US to the masses of the Arab Spring.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, you're certainly more electable than an aging never-married/never-reproduced bachelor obsessed with fitness.

you lost me...are you referring to Torie?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If I ever did have a chance of being nominated, this would be the year.

are you a social conservative?  if not, you stand no chance at the nomination, esp this year.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1) On economic issues:  I have enough moderate economic policies not to scare off independents, and I have more than enough economic imagination to trounce Obama on his economic record and lack of economic imagination.  And I am willing to spend and tax, not in an attempt to artificially redistribute wealth, but in an attempt to transform the American economy in very patriotic (e.g. my energy plan) and concrete (set milestones and metrics for measuring success) ways that would unite the majority of the nation and give it a sense of economic purpose that would greatly benefit our foreign policy goals.

2) On foreign policy:  My long standing position is based upon the principles of the freedom and tolerance of religion, and therefore I can completely be consistent in critiquing a) Bush43’s naïve foreign policy for attempting to occupy and impose democracy in Muslim countries which do not believe in religious tolerance, and b) Obama’s naïve policy of supporting the Arab Spring Islamist uprisings which do not believe in religious tolerance as the foundation of democracy.  Thus, I could critique both Bush and Obama based on the principles of the US Declaration of Independence and on the Preamble and First Amendment to the US Constitution and argue from an 100% American viewpoint that these freedoms are universally essential to any society, and that the US should NEVER have a foreign policy which supports “democratic” movements opposed to these universal principles.  Thus my foreign policy is explainable to any American and upholds the foundational universal principles that have a) made this country great b) made the US a safe-haven from religious persecution, whether that persecution is in the form of Christian theocracies or in the form of Muslim Sharia Law.  And my view of tolerance and freedom of religion as the foundation stone for a civilized and peaceful society will reassure independents who may be disturbed that I am a genuine believer in the bible.

3) On social issues:  aside from opposing abortion except in the case of rape or incest (less than 1% of all abortions), I am status quo on social issues.  I do NOT support anti-sodomy laws and believe the government should NOT be telling adults what they can and can not do in the bedroom, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.  I believe gays should, and do, have the right to marry (no one is going around arresting homosexuals for declaring themselves married), but recognition of those marriages by the state (which is the people) is NOT a right under our constitution – you do NOT have the right to have your actions condoned by the state….my social positions would NOT scare off independents.

4) My personal beliefs:  I am not a young-earther and I am a huge proponent of science.  I know enough about the bloody history of heretical Christianity to be able to use that history to promote separation of church and state and reassure independents.

That's all pretty mainstream republican plank stuff.  Romney could be described nearly the same way, for example.  So what do you have to offer that none of the other candidates have?

  dude, I've said more in that one post that Romney has said in 5 whole years of running for POTUS.  Plus, I haven't flipflopped on sensitive issues.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How many native born Republicans do we have who are at least 35?

I think we're just discussing ideological fitness, regardless of age, for none of us have the resume to run for POTUS.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But where's your tweak of the Cain tax flat tax plan?... As for the general, what you wrote helps, but your tax plan might hurt you.

that's way way down the list of economic priorities.  The first thing we need to do is get the US Government supporting businesses with valid business plans (e.g. conversion over to natgas from oil in order to keep dollars spent on energy within the US economy).  My Apollo-style energy plan with a 2020 goal to wean us off half of our dependency of foreign oil that we’re spending $700B/year on and thus create a $350B/year organic stimulus, in addition to creating millions of new high-paying energy jobs in the US ( the Saudi-Arabia of natural gas) and generating vast tax revenues from energy production profits to help pay for the Apollo level effort…would be my main economic objective 

Once the energy plan passes congress, then I’d set my sights on reforming the tax code.   I want to abolish the IRS and the need for personal CPA’s, with the promise that Americans will never again have to fill out an individual federal tax return, which would also help to eliminate tax cheats.  But we need a jobs engine (see energy plan) to absorb those displaced by eliminating a whole entire industry of bean counters.

I’d probably look into tax reforms that could help rebuild some of our manufacturing base by shifting taxes from the manufacturing level down to the consumption level, and seek the approval of the proposed plan from manufactures and unions of manufacturing workers, and add that to my platform.

---

  That's what you're going to need to win the primary.  The rest of that doesn't really differentiate you from the pack.

Right now the GOP is simply looking for a trusted conservative who can complete a sentence, who isn’t a loon/troll who immediately alienates half of Americans, and who hasn’t ruined the lives of several spouses.

Romney and Huntsman fail the trusted conservative test.  Perry and Cain fail the complete a sentence test.  Bachmann and Santorum and Paul fail the loon/troll test.  And Newt fails the spouse test.

---

Also, I don't know what kind of hijinks you were up to in your early rogue years, before you found Jesus.  Some of that will surely come back to bite you in the ass. 

Well, I don’t have the resume to run for POTUS, so my past is secondary.  I view this thread as only considering each poster’s ideological strengths in relation to the American electorate.  But, my criminal record is minimal (criminal trespassing for breaking into my high school when I was 17 during the summer before my senior year, and public intoxication on a Galveston beech when I was ~19).  The fact that I was also a punk wouldn’t damage my chances since I was never arrested for a violent crime.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst is probably ideologically correct--traditionalist and anti-tax enough to with the GOP, but centrist and compassionate enough to win the general--but he's going to let somebody piss him off and he'll say something arrogant and harsh that will cost the Republicans the election.

Moi?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Moi?!

Oui, tu. 

You're the master infracter on this board.  On the campaign trail, with a hectic schedule and lacking rest, I bet you'd be even more quarrelsome and stubborn. 

angus, my man, I'd be nothing but smiles on the campaign trail:

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You're the master infracter on this board. 

yo, that's Master Infractor (with an "o"), to you, angus. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't mind. And yes, I do like tackling complex issues that require nuance. I don't think that needs to take away from basic principles, it just doesn't translate well into simple solution soundbites.

not to argue, but isn't the preamble to the Constitution a simple soundbite which lays down our basic principles

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

muon2,

just read Tori's description of your work...now I understand what you meant by complex issues....I withdraw my previous question