Obligatory polls: Obama leads Bush by two, Ron Paul by … one

posted at 7:45 pm on April 14, 2010 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Obama neck and neck with Anybody But Obama,” although that’s not strictly true. He leads each of the top GOP contenders by margins that are reasonably healthy, especially in light of the fact that his approval’s headed down the toilet over ObamaCare. That’s because Romney, Huck, and Palin all bring their own baggage to the hypothetical whereas Bush and Paul are more symbolic — Paul because his agenda is probably unknown to most voters (i.e. he’s baggage-less) and Bush because, of course, he embodies the pre-Obamanomics era. In their own way, each is a much purer “Anybody But Obama” choice than the current crop of Republicans. The numbers on G-Dub:

Americans are now pretty evenly divided about whether they would rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush in the White House. 48% prefer Obama while 46% say they would rather have the old President back.

Bush had atrocious approval ratings for his final few years in office, particularly because he lost a lot of support from Republicans and conservative leaning independents. Those folks may not have liked him but they now say they would rather have him back than Obama. 87% of GOP voters now say they would prefer Bush, a number a good deal higher than Bush’s approval rating within his party toward the tail end of his Presidency. Democrats predictably go for Obama by an 86/10 margin, and independents lean toward him as well by a 49/37 spread.

And for Paul:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided…

Obama earns 79% support from Democrats, but Paul gets just 66% of GOP votes. Voters not affiliated with either major party give Paul a 47% to 28% edge over the president…

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of all voters have a favorable opinion of Paul, while 30% view him unfavorably. This includes 10% with a very favorable opinion and 12% with a very unfavorable one. But nearly one-out-of-three voters (32%) are not sure what they think of Paul.

Perhaps tellingly, just 42% of Republican voters have a favorable view of him, including eight percent (8%) with a very favorable opinion.

Nate Silver sampled several polls and weighted for different factors to determine that Huckabee and Romney, not Paul, actually do best head-to-head with The One. That’s useful but no fun; the fun poll, of course, would be an HA reader survey to see where you guys stand on the thorny hypothetical of an Obama/Paul race. I used to tilt, very reluctantly, towards The One on that, since normally I’ll give precedence to foreign policy over domestic policy. But the more poisonous Obama’s economics become and the more confounding his treatment of American allies, the harder it is to justify that. So here are two polls; one gives you the option to stay home, the other doesn’t. I’m curious to see how many of you would simply boycott the election if forced to make this choice and how many would, however grudgingly, vote Paul simply to dislodge the American messiah.

A possibly clarifying exit question for Paul supporters: Would/should the United States actually sell nuclear technology to Iran? Sounds crazy, I know, but Paul himself has always insisted that he’s not an isolationist, merely a non-interventionist. Trade is therefore on the table, and since Iran has a demand for reactors and we have a supply, hey. If the objection is that we wouldn’t trade with a country that’s a threat to us, good news: According to Paul, Iran isn’t a threat. In fact, not only does he oppose any military strike against them, he even opposes sanctions. When asked point blank during the 2008 campaign what he’d do to stop their nuclear program, he answered, point blank, not much. Any reason, then, why we wouldn’t hook up our partners in peace in Tehran with some “peaceful” nuclear accoutrements?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Can’t believe ANYONE would stay home and not vote after seeing where that has gotten us. Grow some balls people. ABO: Anybody But Obama!

Vigilante on April 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM

This was not the poll I was hoping for.

redridinghood on April 14, 2010 at 9:11 PM

SRLC poll

Mitt Romney 24% (439 votes): Mitt wins because he understands Conservative, econ 101, now has recognition, he has a quality, moral, candidate appeal. He’s such a better choice than Obama, maybe the public will give him a pass on his Mormonism.

Ron Paul 24% (438 votes): Out there Libertarian, he’s for getting the government, the hell out of peoples lives, no more U.N. No more Federal Reserve, no more Govt. industrial war complex, which all appeals to a much larger segment of Americans than you’d think, he’s just not speaking to us from anyplace on the earth.

Sarah Palin 18%: Solid Conservative, she represents though to many, the past Republican efforts to moral engineer, which is a career and party killer, the opposite of what Ron Paul represents and why even though she is right in so many ways, she gets beat by Paul.
Moral candidates are a winner, morality lawmaking (or the perception of)? The opposite, loser, big time.

Newt Gingrich 18%: Hardly conservative, hardly solid but represents the big brain in the room, he also represents what holds Sarah back, the old perception of forcing moral views down the throats of the public.

Face facts, Libertarian leaning Conservative Candidates means the GOP could win nearly every election from now on.

Get out of peoples personal lives, apply econ 101, morality in governance, no more socially engineering, if you’re going to have a war, don’t be a kitty about it (pay attention to the best by date), real old time Goldwater conservative principles equals (potentially) a permanent Conservative majority.

Speakup on April 14, 2010 at 9:20 PM

If anyone has any questions about the details of Mitt’s Free & Strong America PAC for Q1, look no further than here where you’ll find info on both the expenditures and the contributions of the PAC.

Also, since this has become a persistent topic of conversation here, Mitt is getting a lot better at drawing distinctions between his health care plan and Obamacare

dnlchisholm on April 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Oh, give me a break. Obama would trounce Romney, Huckabee or Paul. If that’s not enough to discredit these cockeyed Hot Stove League polls, I don’t know what is. I don’t include Palin because I don’t think she’s running.

ddrintn on April 14, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Soooo what we need is a symbolic canidate for 2010.

I guess that’s how Obama got into office.

petunia on April 14, 2010 at 9:35 PM

So I’d be stuck with an a complete nut job or Ron Paul :)

lavell12 on April 14, 2010 at 9:39 PM

dnlchisholm on April 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM

I’m not going to click… I’ve got to go. But when Romney was on O’Reilly and talked about healthcare… I get his position I just don’t like it.

He’s pretty much lost me.

My position is that if the Feds get involved at all it should be to stop States from putting up barriers to insurance companies selling stuff people want at cheap prices. That is really the opposite of state’s rights and I would be for it. State’s have pushed healthcare up by regulating too much.

I just don’t see myself agreeing with Mitt on that one.

However, healthcare is passed. We need to get rid of it. If Mitt would get behind that… he’d have a better shot.

petunia on April 14, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Can’t believe ANYONE would stay home and not vote after seeing where that has gotten us. Grow some balls people. ABO: Anybody But Obama!

Vigilante on April 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Any body but Huck, Paul or Obama.

Okay okay anybody but Huck or Obama.

I draw the line there.

petunia on April 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Barney Rubble should be able to win against The One by now.

A nation of masochists I guess.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 14, 2010 at 9:48 PM

If there’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s that we’ll never have to make a choice between Paul and Obama. All the Paul Poll Packing in the world isn’t going to make Paul a real option, ever.

didymus on April 14, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Vigilante on April 14, 2010 at 9:07 PM

So we should go with the lesser of two evils again like we had to in ’08?

Please.

catmman on April 14, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Ron Paul maybe a bit loony at times but I’d still pick him over Obama.

Chrisin206 on April 14, 2010 at 10:12 PM

I’d vote for Paul even though he’s a loon. Actually, I’d vote for Paul especially because he’s a loon.

A guy that crazy would be completely ineffective as President and would get zero support from either party. Government gridlock: win freaking win, baby.

Lehosh on April 14, 2010 at 7:50 PM

exactly

Daveyardbird on April 14, 2010 at 7:54 PM

That was my first thought, but Paul would actually be worse, for one reason: the president is the commander in chief. You can’t put someone like Paul in charge of the nation’s defense without putting a bullseye on the entire country.

didymus on April 14, 2010 at 10:12 PM

That’s because Romney, Huck, and Palin all bring their own baggage to the hypothetical whereas Bush and Paul are more symbolic — Paul because his agenda is probably unknown to most voters (i.e. he’s baggage-less)

Baggage-less!?

Maybe people wouldn’t support Ron Paul if they actually know who he really is and the kind of people he likes to hang out with enough that he won’t return their campaign donations.

Glenn Beck has done a good job of showing the dangerous people that Obama surrounds himself with. The same applies to Ron Paul.

At least Romney, Huck and Huckabee don’t frequently hang out with well known white supremacists and organizations.

I’m sorry but America doesn’t deserve have a President who enjoys hanging Ron Paul has more baggage than Romney, Huckabee and Palin combined.

Allahpundit, I’m shocked that you would think Ron Paul is baggage-less than these other politicians.

Conservative Samizdat on April 14, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Paul is most dangerous possible candidate. With his use of racism in his newsletters to expand his political reach earlier in his career, he would be the absolute worse case scenario to run against Obama because for once the media would have evidence for their favorite theme.

Spirit of 1776 on April 14, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Way to play the race card, just like the left. Congrats.

nazo311 on April 14, 2010 at 10:40 PM

I’m sorry, but anyone who exactly predicts the crisis back when Mitt was formulating his liberal health care plan, Palin was hunting meese [sic], Huckabee was releasing criminals, and Newt was proposing big-government solutions disguised as free-market ones, Ron Paul was warning us all about the housing bubble and its infection in our financial system.

Ron Paul in 2003:

One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out.
Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged overinvestment in housing.
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.
Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish
government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

Add that to over 30 years of strict adherence to the constitution and the defense and promotion of free markets, you’ve got yourself one hell of a candidate. Ron Paul all the way.

iamse7en on April 14, 2010 at 10:44 PM

RON PAUL!!!

Nelsen on April 14, 2010 at 10:46 PM

RON PAUL 2012! Save our Constitutional rights!

RightXBrigade on April 14, 2010 at 10:58 PM

iamse7en on April 14, 2010 at 10:44 PM

So, now the ENDGAME! (*heh*) is that Herr Doktor is also…a Prophet.

I will say one thing for Herr Doktor, his cult does predate Obama’s. Not by much though.

catmman on April 14, 2010 at 11:08 PM

hey, what’s this ???

and this ?

flooding the poll ? I am shocked !

runner on April 14, 2010 at 11:12 PM

Way to play the race card, just like the left. Congrats.

nazo311 on April 14, 2010 at 10:40 PM

LOL. There’s no race card being played here.

There is plenty of documented evidence that Ron Paul has a comfortable relationship with white supremacists (as well as other loony and dangerous fringe groups.

I hate to say it, but most Americans would prefer to have Obama in the white house than a man who associates with white supremacists.

Conservative Samizdat on April 14, 2010 at 11:39 PM

If it came down to Obama and Paul, I would hope someone would simultaneously detonate every nuclear weapon on the planet and put us all out of our misery!

I think Obama is Satan himself and indeed the root of all known (and unknown) evil, but if Ron Paul somehow ended up as our candidate…

Holy crap. That just doesn’t even compute.

gary4205 on April 15, 2010 at 12:18 AM

I wouldn’t know what to do if it came down to a vote between Obama and Ron Paul.

I would hope my vote doesn’t come down to those two choices.

Which is worse: Having a socialist in the white house or an old guy who likes to hang out with white supremacists in the white house?

Conservative Samizdat on April 15, 2010 at 12:38 AM

Mitt Romney 24% (439 votes): Mitt wins because he understands Conservative, econ 101, now has recognition, he has a quality, moral, candidate appeal. He’s such a better choice than Obama, maybe the public will give him a pass on his Mormonism.

Ron Paul 24% (438 votes): Out there Libertarian, he’s for getting the government, the hell out of peoples lives, no more U.N. No more Federal Reserve, no more Govt. industrial war complex, which all appeals to a much larger segment of Americans than you’d think, he’s just not speaking to us from anyplace on the earth.

Sarah Palin 18%: Solid Conservative, she represents though to many, the past Republican efforts to moral engineer, which is a career and party killer, the opposite of what Ron Paul represents and why even though she is right in so many ways, she gets beat by Paul.
Moral candidates are a winner, morality lawmaking (or the perception of)? The opposite, loser, big time.

Newt Gingrich 18%: Hardly conservative, hardly solid but represents the big brain in the room, he also represents what holds Sarah back, the old perception of forcing moral views down the throats of the public.

Face facts, Libertarian leaning Conservative Candidates means the GOP could win nearly every election from now on.

Get out of peoples personal lives, apply econ 101, morality in governance, no more socially engineering, if you’re going to have a war, don’t be a kitty about it (pay attention to the best by date), real old time Goldwater conservative principles equals (potentially) a permanent Conservative majority.

Speakup on April 14, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Are you kidding with this BS?

The ONLY reason Ron Paul ever wins a straw poll is because he buys it by giving out a crap load of free tickets to the event. The ONLY reason Romney won the SRLC is because he did the same thing. ACORN comes to the GOP, period.

These two pieces of crap disgust me. Paul is a charlatan, a crook, who bilks the cultists out of their money so he can stay in office in Texas and drag pork home by the train load.

Romney is a walking turd. A flip-flopper who would sell his mother if it would get him elected POTUS.

While every other SERIOUS Conservative in the nation is out there on the front lines FIGHTING, these two clowns are scheming for 2012.

In FACT, every SERIOUS person at the SRLC SPECIFICALLY told the attendees to FORGET 2012 and concentrate on 2010 and winning THIS war.

But not Crazy Ron and RomneyCare. hell, Romney was too big of a coward to even SHOW UP in New Orleans. But he sent his astroturf campaign down there to start running for 2012.

NOTHING offends me, I don’t allow people or things to have that power over me, but Mitt Romney OFFENDS me. He doesn’t give a DAMN about America or the American people.

Every one else is out there tooth and nail fighting ’til their last breath to preserve Liberty and Freedom before it’s gone forever and this turd is trying to angle a way in for 2012!

It’s offensive as hell.

Ron Paul is a loon, he doesn’t matter. He will never be POTUS and if silly people want to send him money, well, you know what they say about a fool and their money. But Mitt Romney is a scumbag, a real scumbag.

All Romney cares about is Romney….

Oh, and speaking of Sarah Palin, you need to go look at her record in Alaska. The LAST thing she messed with were social issues. Her personal feelings never effected the law.

She is one of a handful of people left that actually believes you follow the Constitution and rule of law, no matter what.

Arrrrrgh!

gary4205 on April 15, 2010 at 12:40 AM

gary4205 on April 15, 2010 at 12:40 AM

I think someone has some unhealthy pent up anger towards Romney.

Conservative Samizdat on April 15, 2010 at 12:55 AM

I voted for Ron Paul 40 times, because I love crazy, and Ron Paul is mfing crazy!

Inanemergencydial on April 15, 2010 at 1:10 AM

I think someone has some unhealthy pent up anger towards Romney.

Conservative Samizdat on April 15, 2010 at 12:55 AM

Sorry..I’m usually a little more sedate, but Romney really pushed a button with me and his vote buying stunt in Nawlins.

You expect that nonsense out of the loons that support Ron Paul, hell, they’d buy their own tickets in “Dr Paul” wasn’t…BUT the deal with Romney was just poor form.

I mean EVERYONE ELSE is focused like a laser on the job at hand, winning back Congress, and this walking turd, who didn’t have the guts to show his face, because he knew he’d get hammered on his massive screw ups as Governor, had the gall to send a 2012 campaign committee down there to win a useless straw poll and get a headline that “he won”

That’s ALL Romney cares about. winning 2012,. being President. he’d sell his mama or his kids if that’s what it took.

Palin, Newt, hell, even Huckabee was all about 2010 in Nawlins. Only Romney was so obvious. Again, the only reason that ass even had a presence there was to set himself up for 2012.

We need leaders we need PATRIOTS, not country club elitists who are only out for themselves!

@@@!!#$#$#$#^&((&***&&%%$$##!!!!@@@!!!!!!!!!!!

gary4205 on April 15, 2010 at 1:14 AM

It’s the unforeseen dark horse candidate that usually takes the day.

President Krusty the Klown and VP Allahpundit by 3%.

Lockstein13 on April 15, 2010 at 2:34 AM

OK, AP, you’ve made this one interesting.

A possibly clarifying exit question for Paul supporters: Would/should the United States actually sell nuclear technology to Iran?

I would argue that the United States should, in general, not be selling anything to any foreign power, friend or foe. There are of course, exceptions, particularly involving war material during hostilities. But in general I don’t like the idea of using taxpayer dollars to as capital fund enterprises designed to benefit other nations.

Sounds crazy, I know, but Paul himself has always insisted that he’s not an isolationist, merely a non-interventionist. Trade is therefore on the table, and since Iran has a demand for reactors and we have a supply, hey.

Trade is in fact on the table. And for products with minimal strategic value, I absolutely support free trade with nations we are not at war with.

But nuclear technology, in and of itself, has strategic value. I’m quite sure that Dr. Paul would tell you that the US has a right to restrict trade in such circumstances. For example, the duPont Corporation was certainly restricted from selling technology developed at Savannah River while building nuclear bombs. Likewise, Congress routinely restricts the sales of computer technology to countries that are unfriendly to us (and they may even do it to friendly nations, I don’t know).

I would argue that even peaceful nuclear technology poses a threat that Congress can act on. If Congress wants to restrict that commerce, I certainly wouldn’t oppose it, and I don’t think Ron Paul would either.

If the objection is that we wouldn’t trade with a country that’s a threat to us, good news: According to Paul, Iran isn’t a threat.

Try to keep in mind, threat is not a digital function; it is an analog one. Some countries pose more of threat than others, but just about every nation poses some threat to us.

We trade with countries we consider to be threats all the time. China is a threat to us, and given their wealth, power, and population, arguably a greater threat to us than Iran. We trade like mad with them. Which raises the question: If the PRC wanted to contract with Bechtel to build nuclear plants for them, should Bechtel be barred from doing so?

Because I’m pretty sure that Bechtel does.

JohnGalt23 on April 15, 2010 at 3:19 AM

Which is worse: Having a socialist in the white house or an old guy who likes to hang out with white supremacists in the white house?

Conservative Samizdat on April 15, 2010 at 12:38 AM

Hmmmmm… I wonder who these guys are?

Strange the people you run across, isn’t it?

JohnGalt23 on April 15, 2010 at 4:02 AM

Ron Paul is a not worth the time to consider his qualifications as a serious candidate.

Rovin on April 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Apparently Scott Rasmussen disagrees with you.

JohnGalt23 on April 15, 2010 at 4:11 AM

Obama is actively undermining Israel.

Paul is an anti-semite, but mostly would just stay out of Middle East affairs with his isolationism.

I’d hold my breath & vote for Paul; I couldn’t let O get another term to hurt Israel & the USA.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 15, 2010 at 4:27 AM

By “hold my breath”, I meant it as in “hold my nose”, since I really can’t stand Paul either, but NO WAY would I just stay home and help O get reelected.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 15, 2010 at 4:30 AM

Well this looks like any other poll with Paul as one of the options. But this time we didn’t need any paulbots.

Fizzmaister on April 15, 2010 at 6:03 AM

There’s only one good thing about Mitt winning the 2012 election:

Christmas becomes cool again and you get the Moron tabernacle Choir cingins loads of Christmas Carols on the WH lawn. Its a decent trade off, just don’t let him mention Joseph Smith….ever.

JP1986UM on April 15, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Allahpundit, I’m shocked that you would think Ron Paul is baggage-less than these other politicians.

Conservative Samizdat on April 14, 2010 at 10:19 PM

what I think he meant is the average voter is clue-less to all of Paul’s looney toon views and past.

If he was an actual candidate, actually polling well in a primary all that would quickly get exposed then that supposed support level drops off fast. If Paul got anything close to the Palin treatment from the MSM he’d be forced to resign is COngressional seat much less actually win nationally.

It is politically impossible for the man to win, he is an “MSNBC Republican” though. They type they love to trot out to bash conservatism and the GOP at large, which is the only thing that has kept them from doing this so far.

jp on April 15, 2010 at 9:43 AM

The thing is, say in theory Paul did get nominated somehow by GOP. It would automatically start a legit Ross Perot type campaign by conservatives and hawks, they and the Dems/MSM would tear him to pieces and whoever that candidate was would have a legit shot at winning or finishing 2nd anyway.

I could see rationalizing voting for Paul over Obama if we were talking about maybe Senator, or definitely COngressman or on the State Level. But given his Noam Chosky/Murray Rothbard views and how important that is to his Utopian vision I think it would be worse than Obama given he’d be CinC first and foremost. Plus everything he ran on would be politically impossible to implement, he’d be an immediate lame duck while still dissing allies like Israel…

jp on April 15, 2010 at 9:47 AM

I just don’t see how they could record my vote. If it was Ron the nutjob Paul against Obama, well, hmmm. I could never vote for Obama, and there wouldn’t be a place to record my spittle on the ballot against Paul. What a conundrum.

Tennman on April 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM

There’s only one good thing about Mitt winning the 2012 election:

Christmas becomes cool again and you get the Moron tabernacle Choir cingins loads of Christmas Carols on the WH lawn. Its a decent trade off, just don’t let him mention Joseph Smith….ever.

JP1986UM on April 15, 2010 at 8:14 AM

I don’t think Romney would ever mention Joseph Smith just as John Kennedy never mentioned the Pope. The President isn’t the Pastor in Chief nor the Missionary in Chief.

I don’t want any President to proselyte for his faith while in office and nor should he claim to be the spiritual leader of the nation.

I just don’t see how they could record my vote. If it was Ron the nutjob Paul against Obama, well, hmmm. I could never vote for Obama, and there wouldn’t be a place to record my spittle on the ballot against Paul. What a conundrum.

Tennman on April 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM

It is a conundrum.

Assuming the worst does happen and Ron Paul does win the GOP nomination…it would be the death of the Republican party. The media would frame the story that the white supremacist have taken over the GOP.

Someone like Romney, T-Paw, Palin, Paul Ryan, Bachmann would have to run on an independent ticket because there is no way in hell I would vote for Obama or Ron Paul.

Conservative Samizdat on April 15, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2