LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Ten third-party candidate names at top of Never Trump’s list
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box ... es-at-top-of-never-trumps-list
Published: May 6, 2016
Author: Jonathan Easley
Post Date: 2016-05-06 13:28:24 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 27543
Comments: 124
"Never Trump" Republicans aren’t giving up in their quest to find a conservative alternative to Donald Trump
Now that Trump has cleared the field of rivals to become the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee, anti-Trump conservatives have turned their attention to recruiting a candidate to challenge Trump and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton
The Hill interviewed several operatives associated with the anti-Trump movement to ask who they’d like to see run
Here’s who they hope to see on the ballot
Mitt Romney
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
The 44-year-old freshman senator from Nebraska has been one of the most vocal opponents to Trump on Capitol Hill.
Anti-Trump Republicans are holding out hope he’ll reconsider. Three different people mentioned his name to The Hill on Thursday.
Rep. Justin Amash
Former Sen. Tom Coburn
The Kentucky GOP made it so that Paul could run for both president and reelection to the Senate simultaneously. But Paul's reelection bid is now in full-swing, and it would irritate many in the party if he were to distract himself from that with another long-shot presidential bid. 1) Paul Ryan
2) Mitt Romney
3) Sen. Ben Sasse
4) General John Kelly
5) Gary Johnson
6) Rep. Justin Amash
7) Tom Coburn
8) Marco Rubio
9) Nikki Haley
10) Rand Paul
If Gary Johnson gets the Libertarian Party nomination, he'll have near 50 state ballot access.
.
in the general election, either as an independent write-in candidate or as part of a third-party campaign.
Speaker Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan ’s (R-Wis.) decision Thursday to not endorse Trump will only give further oxygen to the furious efforts by some to find a Trump alternative
The 2012 GOP nominee first declined to run for president in January of 2015.
Since then, he’s consistently beat back pleas from panicked establishment Republicans to return to the fray and save the party from Trump.
The announcement Thursday from Ryan, Romney’s 2012 running mate, that he’s not ready to back Trump will surely fuel rumors that the former Massachusetts governor could get back in the ring.
In many ways, Romney would be the dream anti-Trump recruit.
He would have instant access to a national fundraising network and enough name ID to move quickly up the polls and make the debate stage.
Romney’s entrance would attract a media frenzy, and he’s the kind of center-right candidate that Republicans opposed to Trump could feel good about voting for.
Romney has thoroughly rebuked Trump and campaigned against him at every turn.
He has said that he will write a name in if his options are down Trump and Clinton. Could that be his name
On Thursday, Sasse penned an open letter on his Facebook page about why voters should not settle for either Trump or Clinton and outlined the qualities he wants to see in an independent or third-party candidate.
“Why are we confined to these two terrible options?” he wrote. “This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.”
Unfortunately for anti-Trump conservatives, Sasse, who has a young family, says he won’t run himself
General John Kelly
Anti-Trump conservatives spent months trying to convince Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, a revered, straight-talking four-star retired Marine Corps general, to launch an independent bid.
Mattis officially took his name out of the running last week.
Now they have their eyes on another tell-it-like-it-is military man: Former U.S. Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly.
Kelly retired in January after more than four decades of service. He spent years in various leadership posts in Iraq and lost a son, former Marine Robert Kelly, to combat in Afghanistan.
Kelly has not spoken publicly about the presidential race, and a spokesperson did not return a request for comment about whether he’d be interested.
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson
The Libertarian Party nominee is so far the only candidate other than Trump and Clinton who is likely to be on the ballot in all 50 states.
Johnson served two terms as the Republican governor of New Mexico beginning in 1995. He participated in one GOP presidential debate early in the 2012 cycle before running as a Libertarian and winning about 1.3 million votes in the general election.
Since 2012, Johnson has been working as president of a marijuana marketing firm. He left that position to run for president, winning the Libertarian nomination again in 2016.
One of the biggest challenges facing a new candidate will be hitting the threshold of 15 percent in national polls to qualify for the debates.
Johnson could be the answer: A Monmouth University survey from late March found him taking 11 percent in a hypothetical match-up against Trump and Clinton.
In a statement released Wednesday after Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-Texas) left the GOP race, Johnson put himself forward as the alternative to “two of the most polarizing candidates in recent history.”
“With millions of Americans now feeling politically ‘homeless,’ a two-term Governor who balanced budgets, cut taxes, cut regulations and truly reduced the size of government may offer the home they are seeking,” Johnson said
The 36-year-old libertarian-leaning Michigan lawmaker says he’ll never support Trump and is furious with colleagues who have warmed to the likely nominee in recent weeks.
Amash, who first backed Sen. Rand Paul
(R-Ky.) in the primary and later Cruz, has thrived on Capitol Hill as a wildcard willing to buck GOP leaders.
He stoked speculation that a third-party run may be in the works with a cryptic tweet sent out late Tuesday night after Cruz suspended his campaign.
Amash did not return a request for comment
(R-Okla.)
Coburn served three terms in the House followed by two in the Senate, cutting his final stint short after being diagnosed with cancer.
Healthy now, Coburn is on the short list for most anti-Trump Republicans.
The Oklahoma Republican, who backed Sen. Marco Rubio
(R-Fla.) in the primary, told The New York Times earlier this year that he’d back a third-party bid to stop Trump.
Coburn said he didn’t expect that he would be that candidate, but he also declined to rule it out.
Coburn is well-known inside Washington from his frequent appearances on the cable news circuit. He's quotable and has a reputation as a pragmatic conservative.
But some believe he lacks the name recognition and a national fundraising network to get off the ground.
Nikki Haley
The South Carolina governor is one of the brightest young stars in the Republican Party.
Several anti-Trump conservatives have dropped her name, and the reasons are clear: As an Indian-American woman, she provides a double-shot of diversity. She’s also telegenic, charismatic and one of the most popular governors in the country.
Haley said Wednesday she’d support the GOP nominee, but she could come under pressure to challenge him instead.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
The former “most interesting man in politics” could reclaim that title with a bold move back into the presidential race.
He’d likely find the press eager to cover his bid this time, giving him a platform to get out his message of expanding the party. That message was drowned out last year in the crowded GOP primary.
Conservative blogger Erick Erickson, a prominent “Never Trump” voice, told The Hill on Thursday that Paul would be a “viable” contender as a third-party or independent candidate
Poster Comment:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 84.
#19. To: All (#0)
I have been thinking about this for a little while. Everyone wants to break the back of the 2 party system and finally someone did and people are still not happy! If people like Bernie and Trump can keep kicking the elites in the ass why not support them? We are never going back to the days of real freedoms. Once we allowed women to vote US was screwed. Women only want a sugar daddy government. The only real change is collapse the US completely which means collapse the world and that just means world war III. When thats resolved you will end up even worse. Trump may not be want you want but he is breaking the back of the elites in charge and next election you can keep electing non traditional people to government until we get real change. If not enjoy more of the same. Third party vote is a complete waste and will get you the opposite of want you want. The greatest 3rd party run was still someone from the 2 party system and all that happen was a split which lead to Bubba gump in office. That lead to more progressive government. Yes more of the same progressive government you so love. Watch what you ask for you just might get it!
If people like Bernie and Trump can keep kicking the elites in the ass why not support them? I thought about the same thing,and came to the conclusion I could never support Trump because he SEEMS to be doing the right thing,but for the wrong reasons. People that do things for the wrong reasons usually tend to be even worse than the ones they replaced if they do gain power. And that is just assuming he doesn't drop out,which I still think he will do.
I still think he has had it with these progressives and wants to make them pay. He is a narcissist so you really never know what is on his mind. My choice will be Hillary which makes sticking my head in a fire ant pile enjoyable or a so called anti establishment candidate. Trump is not my first choice but he will probably do the least amount of damage over any candidate that even has a smidgen of a chance to win even one state. He might even surprise us all? Plus I do not think I can take 4 more years of anti small business, anti white man, anti freedom lover and anti American! I would fold my company and take medical retirement due to my crap back. Besides is it not worth a vote for Trump to watch Neoclowns and progressives heads explode?
Ok. I guess we will find out who is right pretty soon,unless he drops out. Besides is it not worth a vote for Trump to watch Neoclowns and progressives heads explode? No. I have to live with myself,and I have nothing but contempt for the typical Trump supporter. It was asshats like this that got us Poppy,Boy Jorge,McLunatic,and Romney.
He's not going to drop you senile geezer.
He's not going to drop you senile geezer. Seems like you have a lot of emotional investment in his campaign. I suspect you are going to be in deep,deep emotional trouble when he drops out or is defeated by Bubbette!.
Yup,murdering more Americans that disagree with your superstitious beliefs is exactly what this country needs to get back on a moral footing and become great again! Good call! BTW,what do you call a Christian Jihad,a Crusade?
You're an old dying man that helped fuck this country. You hate freedom of religion just like Obama. You want faggots mascurading as married just like that cunt running for President. Go shrivel up prune face.
What is your problem?
I don't like freaks who support two men being married. I despise them. I hate them. They are ruining our country. It is sick. Peter is a fucking sicko freak.
I can't speak for Pete but he has sugested he abhors homosexuality, too. All he has ever said is that it is their right to screw if that is their preference; he has claimed that he doesn't want any knowledge of the vulgar acts.
I can disagree with a lot of stuff and views of people. But when they support the faggot agenda then lie and say it is conservative. They are worthless to me.
So,to clarify matters,YOU think the Bill of Rights only applies to the people you approve of? That's about as "conservative" as Mussolini,Hitler,the DNC,and the ACLU.
Pete that is why I criticize you. Because you are a liar. Faggots getting pretending to be married are not in the Bill of Rights. You really are that stupid and immoral aren't you. Where in the Bill of Rights you fucking idiot piece of crap?
It's called "equal treatment under the law. Guess what,Bubba? If homosexuals don't have the right to marry,neither do you. The reason you get so hysterical over this is you KNOW I am right,but don't can't face the truth because you KNOW in your heart what you want is a religious dictatorship. With YOUR cult the head cult,that is. You damn sure don't want to live in a country ran by a religion that isn't your own ideal of a fascist police state.
I agree with what you said about "equal treatment under the law", but not when it comes to marriage. The State has no business regulating or getting involved in it. Marriage is a religious (Christian) institution, not a government one, and as such it is not a constitutional right. Equal treatment? No - they want the rest of us to give up our rights. You MUST bake a cake for queers. You MUST open bathrooms to transgenders. You MUST NOT not speak out against homosexuality or they will retaliate. Homosexuals are the new fascists. If they want to start their own "church" and perform unions there, fine by me. But it's not a marriage in any sense of the word. The reason you get so hysterical over this is you KNOW I am right,but don't can't face the truth because you KNOW in your heart what you want is a religious dictatorship. I totally agree with you on this.
#86. To: Deckard (#84)
In a secular context it's a state-established mechanism for manipulating the reproductive fitness of the collect herd/hive. That's the spirit of anti-Christ, not the union Christ defined and illustrated with himself as the head of His church.
Well,the state does have the right to prevent an adult from marrying a child,or a brother from marrying a sister if the sister is able to conceive. Other than extremes like that,I agree. Marriage is a religious (Christian) institution, And your train just left the tracks. Marriage existed long before Christianity,and will still exist when Christianity withers away and dies from lack of interest. not a government one, and as such it is not a constitutional right. BullBush. "Freedom of Association". Equal treatment? No - they want the rest of us to give up our rights. People want all sorts of things they will never get. You MUST bake a cake for queers. You MUST open bathrooms to transgenders. Neither is of any legitimate concern to the government. In fact,the government is violating it's own laws by trying to force people to do these things against their will. You MUST NOT not speak out against homosexuality or they will retaliate. And you can defend yourself. Free speech,and all dat. Homosexuals are the new fascists. Just one of many. There seems to be no shortage of fascists floating around in the 21st Century. If they want to start their own "church" and perform unions there, fine by me. They don't even need to do that. They can have a judge or a JP wed them in a civil ceremony. NONE of their rights are being infringed upon by being refused church weddings. But it's not a marriage in any sense of the word. It's a marriage in every sense of the word.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#46. To: Justified (#19)
I have been thinking about this for a little while. Everyone wants to break the back of the 2 party system and finally someone did and people are still not happy!
#47. To: sneakypete (#46)
#49. To: Justified (#47)
I still think he has had it with these progressives and wants to make them pay.
#52. To: sneakypete (#49)
(Edited)
I guess we will find out who is right pretty soon,unless he drops out.
#53. To: A K A Stone (#52)
I guess we will find out who is right pretty soon,unless he drops out.
#55. To: sneakypete (#53)
(Edited)
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
You're not only stupid but immoral. You're exactly what is wrong with this country. If everyone that thought like you suddenly had a heart attack and died. America would be great again.
#62. To: sneakypete (#57)
disagree with your superstitious beliefs
#64. To: A K A Stone (#62)
#65. To: buckeroo (#64)
#66. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#65)
#70. To: buckeroo (#66)
#74. To: A K A Stone (#70)
But when they support the faggot agenda then lie and say it is conservative.
#75. To: sneakypete (#74)
So,to clarify matters,YOU think the Bill of Rights only applies to the people you approve of?
#78. To: A K A Stone (#75)
Where in the Bill of Rights you fucking idiot piece of crap?
#84. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#78)
Replies to Comment # 84. Marriage is a religious (Christian) institution, not a government one, and as such it is not a constitutional right.
#94. To: Deckard (#84)
I agree with what you said about "equal treatment under the law", but not when it comes to marriage. The State has no business regulating or getting involved in it.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 84.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]