Is there a 'None of the Above' option?

If I were voting for the person I'd least want to crawl under the covers for four years should he be elected, I suppose it would have to be Ron Paul. But even that terrifies me.

Romney. He is the only one who can beat Obama. While I lean conservative, I think we need someone who can unite the paries and repair the damage of the past 4 yrs.

I liked Jon Huntsman, I don't believe there is a comparative candidate. I'd rank myself in the "Undecided" category.

So two Democrats can't seem to find a suitable option to vote for in the Republican primary. Imagine that.

So who gets your vote Bob?

Ron Paul.

Homer Simpson

Satori, using Randy and Bren's logic, I guess I don't have to worry about voting in a primary.

If the question was "Do Democrats think Obama will have a serious challenge in the general election?" and I weighed in with "Yes, he will.", how much sense would that make?

But to answer your question, I'll be voting the same way I always do - for the candidate who has the best shot at it in the general election.

@Bob -

We tried that strategy last time with John McCain and all we ended up with was some distortionist movie about Sarah Palin on HBO. This time, we need to go for the gusto. And right now, Santorum is the best positioned and still capable of securing the nomination. What we really need more than anything else right now is for stupid Gingrich to get out of the race already!

Actually, JRH, last time around we pretty much knew we weren't going to win regardless of who we ran so, once again, McCain took one for the team.

This time around we're not running against the Second Coming.

Romney. Paul and Gingrich bring ideas to the discussion but aren't likely to be elected - messengers/not leaders. Santorum lost his last senate election by double digits - those who knew him best, rejected him. He seems to possess a willingness to impose his values on everyone else. Romney brings executive experience both as a state governor and in private industry. He has been running for a long time, which has both advantages and disadvanatges. It does show he wants the job and is willing to risk likely defeat against an incumbent president - note many other potential candidates have shied away from the race leaving us the current field. If there was an open seat Santorum and Gingrich would have been long gone as more qualified leaders would have jumped in, but I suspect Romney would be still be there. He wants the job and he's qualified.

Santorum... because Obama will absolutely destroy Romney over the Mormon teaching from Doctrines of Salvation that explains why Blacks are Born Black and were not allowed in the Priesthood until the Mormon God Changed his mind in 1978 and sent word to the Mormon Prophet Spencer Kimball to allow blacks in... Though he changed the discrimination practice... The teaching on why blacks are born black has not changed and neither Romney nor any other Mormon will call the teaching Wrong for to do so would be to call the Mormon God Wrong and the Mormon Prophet Joseph F. Smith Wrong... So Romney can not and will not refute this teaching... If you ask him about it he will avoid a straight forward answer as he as already done in interviews..

@Tim Scheffer...I can understand your support of Santorum. However, to attack Romney over his religious belief is not kosher. He is not responsible for his faith's decision on excluding blacks. That was rectified when President Spencer Kimball removed the restriction for blacks holding the Melchizedek Priesthood. This is consistent with their belief system of ongoing prophecy and latter day revelation.

Lyle,
If my parents raised me with racist beliefs, would it be my fault if I continued that belief? Sorry, I can't support religion on this one. Either it is ok to disagree with your religion on matters, or it is your fault that you believe it.

@Say What...You have to understand the uniqueness of the LDS Church. I am not defending their structural racism, but the fact that being LDS shouldn't be held against Romney.

Lyle,
How is their racism different from anyone elses? KKK? Racism is racism, sexism is sexism. A leader stands up for what is right, provides a voice for the masses for change that is necessary.

@ Lyle Rubie, The Mormon Doctrine on why blacks are born black has NOT changed. The Mormon Doctrine found in the Mormon Scripture "Doctrines of Salvation" teaches that Blacks are Born Black because of what they did prior to being born... I am not attacking Mormons, I am simply stating facts about their beliefs... Mormons are good people with good intentions who try very hard to follow all the rules of their faith.... They do a lot of good in the world... But Obama will destroy Mitt Romney with this if Republican fail to vett him in this subject. Mormons who read this will call me names etc. but they will NOT call the teaching about blacks by Joseph F. Smith in Doctrines of Salvation Wrong... Neither will Romney.

@Tim Scheffer....Of what you're writing is only partially correct. The D&C (Doctrine and Covenants) does address the "pre-existence" and the "Mark of Cain". However, the Church doctrine held that since the Mark was placed by G-d, that only He could lift the curse. The controversy is when, why and how the curse was lifted. In Mormon theology, to question the Church leadership is equal to question G-d's (Elohim) authority. This creates a problem for the individual member; they can't question something (such as black skin) without questioning the authority of the Church. This is Romney's problem; he is being held to a standard by his critics that he can't do anything about. He feels like the criticism should be focused on the Church leadership and not on the individual members. This is a significant problem for Mormonism, since they are identified as a single block unit; what one member does reflects on the whole and the whole reflects on the individual.

The only question to ask is whether the member can separate themselves from the authority of the Church to be considered independent. I don't think his or Obama's religious affiliation should be an issue. I know there will be any number of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who will oppose Romney over religion, but I don't know if they would vote for Obama over it.

@Lyle, it's ok to write God. It's not swearing.

I have many very good friends who are Mormons. I go to the Mormon Family History Center to do genealogy research. I do not know what the issue is. I would love if someone would explain to me what about the Mormon faith is anti-Christian. I have tried to read about it and asked a friend about it. When she explained it to me it didn't sound any different than any other religion.

We rarely if ever hear Romney speak of his faith. This is what my friend said: "Mormons are in no way to use their religion as a way to further a career or seek support from the church. Setting himself as a man of faith is one thing, but boasting his religion with pride is not, nor are they to use it to gain favor, or expecting backing from their church as favor."

I do not see anything in their faith that is any more extreme than other religions. Why isn't anyone picking apart any of the other candidates religion? Or even our sitting president. Why only Romney?

@mau -- 'Swearing' isn't the reason some Jewish people are loath to write out the full name of the Almighty.

@mau...Let me explain. Randy is correct in as much as many Jews, myself included, do not write out G-d, out of a form of respect. It is also our tradition that we substitute names for G-d, even in our Torah.

I can probably give you a little perspective of why Mormons are attacked as being non-Christian.
1- They have a different understanding of the Heavenly Father (Elohim). He rules from the planet or star Kolob. He has a goddess wife and they engage in sexual union in the preexistence creating spirit children. The spirit children are then incarnated into bodies on earth.
2-They believe in a concept of "eternal progression". The Heavenly Father and Mother were once a man and woman and have progressed over time to become gods with their own planet to populate.
3- They believe that Jesus and Lucifer were literally brother spirit children in the pre-existence. The Heavenly Father asked how each would create order on the earth and the two brothers disagreed and the Heavenly Father accepted Jesus' plan and rejected Lucifer's. He rebelled with a third of the other spirit children and they lost being cast out as Satan and the others as demons.
4- They believe that after the Ascension of Jesus, he came to North America and walked amongst the native peoples. This is the book of Mormon story.
5- All who live righteous lives can be elevated after death to god and goddess status with their own worlds.

@Lyle, I was raised a Catholic and believe God lives in Heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus, we are all given a soul when we are conceived, Adam and Eve populated the earth (always wondered if that was possible without incest), giants roamed the earth, Lucifer was a fallen angel.... My paternal grandfather (a Catholic) believed that there was indeed a man in the moon (not just the face but aliens).

And then we have another candidate associated with Opus Dei.

Bob, your teasing aside, I'm a moderate independent and proud of it. I did like Jon Huntsman. Of all the candidates, I feel that he had the best capacity to bring both sides of the aisle together again. I also believed that he would represent our country in a dignified, knowledgeable, and respectful manner on the international stage. He doesn't have the same type of "past" as the other Republican nominees, doesn't have to answer questions about his patriotic infidelities, revenue sources, intemperate comments, or newsletter content. I was disappointed that the GOP didn't embrace him as their candidate.

So Bren you would have voted for Huntsman rather than Obama?

So, the 99% are lazy, dumb, freeloaders? Lets see you try to go it alone (just the 1%).

Geez Chris, Who do you think builds your houses, makes your electronics, makes your cars, prepares your foods, sells you goods? Sounds like highly skilled smart educated people work hard to make and provide things for you. Who's the freeloader now? Without the 99%, you'd be cold, naked on the side of the road waiting for a ride.

As the bible says 'the last shall be first and the first shall be last, so I guess us 99%ers will see you on our way up while your on your way down. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.You talk like the southbound end of a northbound horse. Chris L

So has Obama. He never quit campaigning during his whole term.

If you really paid any attention to the media you would know that there are 70% more negative media coverage on Romney than any other candidate. Romney is the Republican people's choice and that is why he is ahead by over a million votes. He will EARN the nomination and he will demolish Obama in the presidential election.

Huntsman was the only sane one in the pack, which of course meant he'd be the first to fall by the way.

Randy: Obama or Huntsman? If you had your choice?
Unlike some others I can accept crossing a party line....

@Craig -- the question was, if the GOP Presidential primary were held today, who would have your vote? So, voting in the GOP Presidential primary, I would usually vote for the person whom I would least mind my preferred Democratic Presidential candidate lose to in the general election. That would have been Huntsman, had he still been in the running.

With Huntsman out, I'm scared to death of any of them winning a general election. Santorum the most, probably, followed by Gingrich and then Romney.

@Randy: LOL, I tried.

And hang onto your job -- assuming you still have one.

All the far lefties voted for a Muslim in 08...so what's the big deal?
Anybody BUT obama in 2012!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Phew! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

That's pretty harsh critisism.
At least he stays in the basement and don't make his mom sleep down there. That must be good for some credit, right?
Am I being sarcastic... or sticking up for him?
Maybe Chris is happy with 99 weeks of unemployment? Or maybe he isn't..
Maybe he makes more sleeping in, than Michael does busting his hump?

Because hope and change is working so well?

As opposed to where we were when he took over (in an economic free-fall, that is), yeah I'd say change has been working well. We're out of Iraq (thank god), Osama sleeps with the fishes, we've been gaining jobs every month for two years now, and we're about to finally implement near universal health care coverage that we've been talking about since at least the Nixon administration. We've eliminated weapons grade uranium from 6 countries, and ousted a middle east dictator without setting a single US boot on the ground. It took W eight years to so completely screw up the country, surely it will take at least that long to fix.

The US should never have backed opposition to Muammar Gaddafi. Since Clinton put a missle in Gaddafi's living room and killed his kid, he was afraid to mess with the USA. Only an idiot like Obama would back an Arab Spring where the new leader of Libya will hate us more and respect us less. What we got a was bill for protecting the uprisers and a Muslim Brotherhood leadership. Another unfunded war. Iraq was supposed to have ended in the first year of the BO admin... Hope and change my butt, this Bozo has us circling the drain.
Have we cut funding to any Countries who hate us?
Anyone but Obama in 2012!
I'd even vote for Ernie and Bert over that fool.