My 2014 GOP Dream Team

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I know that it's still almost two years away, and once endorsements are open this may need to be tweaked, but I will post my preliminary list of preferred potential GOP candidates for 2014.  Please note that these are all potential candidates unless bolded, in which they are declared candidates.  Also, much will depend on who decides to run and which incumbents seek reelection.

* denotes an incumbent.
Senate
AK: Sean Parnell
CO: Jane Norton
ID: Jim Risch*
ME: Susan Collins*
MA: Depends on the results of the special election once John Kerry is confirmed (which I expect.)
MI: Pete Hoekstra (But only if Levin retires)
MN: Rod Grams, Gil Gutknecht
MT: Denny Rehberg
NE: Mike Johanns*
NH: Frank Guinta, Charlie Bass, Jeb Bradley
NC: Phillip Berger, Patrick McHenry (not to be confused with Patrick Henry)
OR: Greg Walden, Gordon Smith
SC: Tim Scott*
SD: Mike Rounds
VA: Bill Bolling, Thelma Drake
WV: Shelley Moore Capito
WY: John Barasso*

Governor
CO: Scott McInnis
CT: Michael Fedele
FL: Bill McCollum
IL: Dan Rutherford
IA: Steve King (Branstad if he runs without electable primary opposition)
KS: Sam Brownback*
ME: Paul LePage* (Somebody else if he/she is electable)
MD: Robert Ehrlich
MI: Bill Schuette
NV: Brian Sandoval*
NH: Frank Guinta, Charlie Bass, Kevin Smith, Jeb Bradley
NM: Susana Martinez*
OH: Mike DeWine, Josh Mandel
OK: Mary Fallin*
OR: Greg Walden
PA: Bruce Castor, Mike Turzai
RI: John Robatille
SD: Dennis Daugaard*
TX: David Dewhurst, Mike Williams, Greg Abbott
VT: Phil Scott (possibly)
WI: Scott Walker*, Paul Ryan
WY: Matt Mead*

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Denny Rehberg has already lost two Senate races, so I doubt he runs again.

Which one was the other one?  He would've won this year if the Dems hadn't started that phony gun rights group endorsing the Libertarian candidate.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

MI: Pete Hoekstra (But only if Levin retires)

>Rails against Democrats as being the "racist, slavery" party.
>Top pick for Senate is a racist.

Pete Hoekstra is not a racist.  He just got bad advice from his media team by running an ad that was considered racist.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

MI: Pete Hoekstra (But only if Levin retires)

>Rails against Democrats as being the "racist, slavery" party.
>Top pick for Senate is a racist.

Pete Hoekstra is not a racist.  He just got bad advice from his media team by running an ad that was considered racist.

He's a man who ran a blatantly racist ad. If that doesn't make him a racist, can't that discount basically any other candidate who did something the same or smaller (for instance, if I recall correctly it was you calling Jim Webb an anti-Semite for a campaign brochure)?

But Jim Webb is a Democrat, and that makes him a racist you see.

Again, it was his ad team that made an anti-Semitic flyer.  Getting bad advice from your media team by running a racist ad is not the same as being racist yourself.  Hoekstra may have gone along with it, but the primary responsibility for that ad lies with his media consultants.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

MI: Pete Hoekstra (But only if Levin retires)

>Rails against Democrats as being the "racist, slavery" party.
>Top pick for Senate is a racist.

Pete Hoekstra is not a racist.  He just got bad advice from his media team by running an ad that was considered racist.

He's a man who ran a blatantly racist ad. If that doesn't make him a racist, can't that discount basically any other candidate who did something the same or smaller (for instance, if I recall correctly it was you calling Jim Webb an anti-Semite for a campaign brochure)?

But Jim Webb is a Democrat, and that makes him a racist you see.

Again, it was his ad team that made an anti-Semitic flyer.  Getting bad advice from your media team by running a racist ad is not the same as being racist yourself.  Hoekstra may have gone along with it, but the primary responsibility for that ad lies with his media consultants.

So there's no reason to bring it up at all, since it's only his ad team?

No, it was just a huge misstep.

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

OMG, you're dumber than I thought. Do you really think that Hollings and Byrd were segregationist by 2001? LoL LoL LoL. And I'm not sure Hollings was a segregationist (Byrd ceirtainly was), but Hollings supported Jackson in 1988 (!!) and Byrd supported Obama in 2008 (!!!). That's my evidence.

They were still racist, and the only reason they supported black presidential candidates was because they were Democrats.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

OMG, you're dumber than I thought. Do you really think that Hollings and Byrd were segregationist by 2001? LoL LoL LoL. And I'm not sure Hollings was a segregationist (Byrd ceirtainly was), but Hollings supported Jackson in 1988 (!!) and Byrd supported Obama in 2008 (!!!). That's my evidence.

They were still racist, and the only reason they supported black presidential candidates was because they were Democrats.

Hollings could have supported Michael Dukakis. He could have supported Gary Hart. He could have supported Al Gore, or Dick Gephardt, or Joe Biden. But no, he supported the black guy.

But he's a racist !!!111!!!!!!!Elev1n!!1!!1!!

Not to say Byrd supported Obama over Clinton. Clinton the white. You see.

Then why were they on record within the past 20 years making racist statements like the ones I posted?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson is also an anti-Semite who has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.  Senator Hollings has also referred to Mexicans as "wetbacks" and a Jewish colleague as"the Senator from B'nai B'rith."

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

No.  They were both racist, albeit against different raes.  Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

No.  They were both racist, albeit against different raes.  Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

Man man man, you can admit that you were wrong sometimes.
Byrd and Hollings are aracist for you but Hoekstra isn't. You always think that republicans are good people and democrats are the bad people... You're like a kid (maybe you ARE a kid). And even when you know that what you're saying is a piece of sh**t, you keep saying the same sh**t instead of recognizing you were wrong. And that's because you are a dumb. Because silly people think they're always right.


Oh, and I have two questions for you:

1) Are you sure you have Asperger syndrome? Isn't it another kind of syndrome?
2) Why did Storm Thurmond became a republican?

1. I was diagnosed with Asperger's when I was four years old.
2. Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican because of race, but most of the segregationists never switched parties, and most of them that did had reasons that had nothing to do with race. 
3. What I've said is backed up by historical evidence.  I realize that there are bad Republicans and good Democrats, but those people seem to be in the minority, in my opinion.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

No.  They were both racist, albeit against different raes.  Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

Man man man, you can admit that you were wrong sometimes.
Byrd and Hollings are aracist for you but Hoekstra isn't. You always think that republicans are good people and democrats are the bad people... You're like a kid (maybe you ARE a kid). And even when you know that what you're saying is a piece of sh**t, you keep saying the same sh**t instead of recognizing you were wrong. And that's because you are a dumb. Because silly people think they're always right.


Oh, and I have two questions for you:

1) Are you sure you have Asperger syndrome? Isn't it another kind of syndrome?
2) Why did Storm Thurmond became a republican?

1. I was diagnosed with Asperger's when I was four years old.
2. Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican because of race, but most of the segregationists never switched parties, and most of them that did had reasons that had nothing to do with race. 
3. What I've said is backed up by historical evidence.  I realize that there are bad Republicans and good Democrats, but those people seem to be in the minority, in my opinion.

You provethat not every Aspy is intelligent

BTW, segregationists never switched parties because they died/had no time/voted republican no matter what was their registration, but their sons (and daughters, but specially sons) are republican people now. So, what's you point?
What historical evidence? Pat Buchanan and Washington Times being your main source means that what you have is fictional evidence.

I've done a lot of reading on this stuff.  Herman Talmadge was a Democrat in 1980; Sam Ervin was a Democrat during Watergate, and Al Gore Sr. (who filibustered against the 1964 CRA) was the father of Al Gore.  Hardly an example of a segregationist's son being a Republican.   And as for my intelligence, I have had three semesters in college, and I had a 4.0 GPA for two of them.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

No.  They were both racist, albeit against different raes.  Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

Man man man, you can admit that you were wrong sometimes.
Byrd and Hollings are aracist for you but Hoekstra isn't. You always think that republicans are good people and democrats are the bad people... You're like a kid (maybe you ARE a kid). And even when you know that what you're saying is a piece of sh**t, you keep saying the same sh**t instead of recognizing you were wrong. And that's because you are a dumb. Because silly people think they're always right.


Oh, and I have two questions for you:

1) Are you sure you have Asperger syndrome? Isn't it another kind of syndrome?
2) Why did Storm Thurmond became a republican?

1. I was diagnosed with Asperger's when I was four years old.
2. Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican because of race, but most of the segregationists never switched parties, and most of them that did had reasons that had nothing to do with race. 
3. What I've said is backed up by historical evidence.  I realize that there are bad Republicans and good Democrats, but those people seem to be in the minority, in my opinion.

You provethat not every Aspy is intelligent

BTW, segregationists never switched parties because they died/had no time/voted republican no matter what was their registration, but their sons (and daughters, but specially sons) are republican people now. So, what's you point?
What historical evidence? Pat Buchanan and Washington Times being your main source means that what you have is fictional evidence.

I've done a lot of reading on this stuff.  Herman Talmadge was a Democrat in 1980; Sam Ervin was a Democrat during Watergate, and Al Gore Sr. (who filibustered against the 1964 CRA) was the father of Al Gore.  Hardly an example of a segregationist's son being a Republican.   And as for my intelligence, I have had three semesters in college, and I had a 4.0 GPA for two of them.

3 people prove nothing.
How do you explain that Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia... were one-party states, where democrats usually got more than 90% of the vote, and now, white people in those states go 85-15% for the GOP in most cases? Aren't these white, racist people (not all of them are racist, of course) the sons and daughters of segregationist people who used to vote democrat?

You're not intelligent, man. You're very, very stupid. Intelligent people don't talk about their intelligence. Even more if that intelligence is a fiction.

Yeah, but most of their sons and daughters are probably not racists or segregationists, mostly because of the brave Republicans (and some Democrats later on) who fought and died to end segregation.