We’re still months away from the New York presidential primaries – slated for April 24 – but watching all the action in Iowa and New Hampshire has us feeling a little jealous.

The Sheepshead Bay area is becoming increasingly known as one of New York City’s most politically conservative neighborhoods since Republican Bob Turner won the special election to replace Anthony Weiner.

So, since we’re all obviously conservatives over here (obviously), let’s try to get a gauge on what kind of conservative we are. Who do you think is the Republican Party’s best candidate for the 2012 Presidential elections?

Related posts

  • Bookgirlnyc

    I would shoot myself in the head before I voted for any of these people.

    • Anonymous

      Just curious who id a person with such a definitive answer voted for in the last election?

      • Anonymous

        Obama supporters remind me of the North Koreans who worship Kim Jung Ill.  Even though they are starving and the future looked bleak they thought he was the best leader they could ever hope for.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Tinman25 Neil Friedman

          He’s doing better than his predecessor!

          • Anonymous

            What’s the benchmark that you are using?

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            Lets go with Terrorism.

            Bush knew where Osama was more then once and failed to act. Obama discovered where Osama was and after confirming he was there the biggest terrorist in world history was dead.

            Bush started two wars with no plans on ending them. He spent all our money on War. Obama ended one war and is trying to end the second. He didn’t just pay lip service he actually brought our boys home.

            When the Republicans were in charge they laughed at the thought of cooperating with the other party. When the Dems were in charge….well ok the Republicans still laughed.

            Yea, benchmarks indeed.

          • Anonymous

            “Bush knew where Osama was…” – that’s a good one. But let’s for a second imagine that Bush told us that we got Bin Laden, but then through is body into the ocean. Would you give him benefit of doubt? As for wars – no plans on ending them? Really? Where did you read that one? The Nation? As for Obama pulling out of Iraq – it remains to be seen how successful that move was as far as when and the
            manner it was done in.

            Benchmarks, indeed! Getting Osama by continuing Bush’s policies – Gitmo open? Check. Patriot Act not repealed? Check. You know, all the things Bush got savaged for when he was in the office – Obama continued. Looks like Obama thinks that Bush was right. As for wars – Bush went to congress to get permission to go into Iraq, Obama, on the other hand, started a truly illegal war in Libya. No permission from congress…

          • applegreen

            Benchmark??? Come now, there isnt much of a benchmark. 

          • Anonymous

            And Lincoln was a Republican.  How is any of that relevant?

          • applegreen

            Lincoln Republicans were vastly different from the Reagan Republicans, which in turn are vastly different from today’s flavor of the Republican Party. 
            Soooo, no comparison. 

          • Anonymous

            Different? How so? Quick trivia – Civil Rights Act of 1964… Did GOP vote for it at a higher % than Democrats? Or the other way around?

          • applegreen

            since Stan_LS has no reply tab by him, i will reply to myself…. 
            Are you asking me, or telling me? 
            i’m not sure what you mean, so i cant really address it. 

          • Anonymous

            No reply button under your last post either, so I am replying to your older post again (so you’ll get the notification).  You’ve made the claim that republicans are different from the time of Lincoln. I am trying to show consistency by suggesting you look up the congress vote stats when it came to passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you are too lazy to look them up, then humor me and guess which party voted more overwhelmingly to pass it. GOP or Democrats?

          • NSF

            How is it relevant? Not one mention of George W. Bush has emannated from any candidate’s mouth. They cite Ronnie Reagan, but seem to have forgotten that Bush got this nation into the mess it’s in now! Obama’s doing whatever he can with little cooperation to remedy the situation.

          • Anonymous

            “Obama’s doing whatever he can…” – funny how you mention the effort, but not the results. Being the President is not like participating in special olympics – you don’t win by merely trying. How’s the unemployment/debt under Obama?

        • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

          Look, lets be honest here ok? Just put the cards on the table. I’m not claiming Obama is Jesus or the answer for anything. He was far to inexperienced for the office and not nearly as effective as we all hoped but just who are we fooling here?

          His inexperience aside he’d have been a LOT more effective if the GOP was even slightly concerned with the American people. They arent. They are concerned only with power and with obstructing Obama and his policies at every turn. If our Government worked as the founding fathers intended and there was actual BALANCE between the 3 Branches, if there was any sort of REAL compromise then we’d have seen progress. 

          The sole mission of the GOP for the last 4 years has been 100% obstructionism. They intentionally set out to make Obama fail no matter what he did or said so they could grab power. It’s fucking disgusting. 

          If Obama didn’t extend the olive branch in his first two years and actually used the majority they had to pass real legislation to solve problems by ignoring those wackjobs we’d have a very different country today.

          No, Don’t you fucking dare saddle one man with the situation we’re in today. He was given a big pile of shit to work on, and they just kept dumping more on him every chance they got.

          • Anonymous

            Obstructing Obama at every turn? As if dems were fawning over Bush when he was in office. There’s nothing wrong with opposing policies that are contrary to one’s philosophy. “and
            actually used the majority” – you mean he didn’t when he pushed through nationalized healthcare and the 750+ billion bailout without any GOP support? 

          • applegreen

            Stan, I’m replying to - 
            Link to Ayn Rand being a self-interested hypocrite – here - http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/

            The origin of the bill was called in by a democratic president – JFK, Congressman Celler, a democrat from NY, strengthened the bill. Keep in mind, those democrats that were in favor of the bill were from the northern states or states with no slave history. The democrats that you are reffering to, that were opposed to the bill, were from the South. Particularly Strom Thurmand, a former KKK member (if my memory serves me correctly) and were voting on the bill based on where their constituents’ hearts lay. 

            So dont give me that out-of-context-see-how-the-democrats-were-then. If i take a democrat from the deep south today, 2:1 he/she will be pro-life. And if i take a republican from the north (say Romney) chances are good that he/she will be pro-choice. 
            The politicians that we elect to represent us, are supposed to do just that, represent us (Even when they are representing backwards ideals). Unfortunately, that is not really the case. Both parties have lobbyist groups giving them money, and major corporations funding their election campaigns.   

          • Anonymous

            Yea, that article doesn’t address my post at all. It merely rehashes your claim. So again, if she’s been forced to put $ into the social security, why was it wrong for her to utilize it? 

          • Anonymous

            What’s the difference if those democrats were from the south or not? From what has been insinuated on this (and other) thread, racists would be voting for GOP, right? So why in the world would they be electing democrats? As for former KKK member, that was Senator Byrd. The longest serving US Senator and a Democrat. I guess him being in the KKK and then filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (this is after renouncing his KKK ways!) was no biggie.

          • applegreen

            Its not “wrong”, by all means, if she payed her taxes than she should receive Social Security. 
            I never used the term “wrong” by the way. 
            I called her a hypocrite. Since she was against Social Security and spent her life attempting to convince others that it shouldn’t exist and then she ends up benefiting from it. That’s hypocrisy. 

          • Anonymous

            Where is the hypocrisy? If she had a choice of paying SS taxes or not, and she  chose not to, but then tried to take advantage of it – that would be an example of hypocrisy. But you are suggesting that she shouldn’t have tried to get some of *her* money out after being *forced* to pay it into the system in the first place? That doesn’t make sense.

          • applegreen

            Stan - 
            She was not the only one who was preaching the evils of SS and medicare, but she was one of those who didnt refuse it when she needed it, even thou, some of those who did the same refused on principal. 
            She benefited from both in the end. And never retracted her opinion of it. 

            i guess, for me its a matter of principle. If you are so against it, then refuse it. But if you choose to accept help, and still attempt to bite the hand that feeds you, THAT is hypocritical. 

          • applegreen

            First of all, i would be very much obliged to you, if you did not attribute things to me that were never spoken by me. 
            I do not speak for all the liberals or their ignorance. I can only comment on what i know, read and have seen in history. (yes just like republicans, there are ignorant liberals as well, yes its possible)

            also, you either do not read my posts and just reply to whatever happens to be in your head at the time. 

            i will repeat, however, that the democrats (and republicans of which there were few in the south) of 1960′s Southern States (meaning those that were once part of the confederate republic) represented their constituents (which, ohmigosh, were against the civil rights)

            Those democrats and republicans that were from the north (meaning those states that were part of the union, or had no slavery history) represented their constituency and their desires for this bill. 

            When i said that the republicans of the Lincoln Era were different than the republicans of Reagan Era and furthermore still more different than the republicans of today’s flavor, I meant to point out, that today, If Lincoln was alive, and running  for office based on those ideals that he was elected in the 1860′s, he would not be seen as a Republican.

            And Reagan, would not even come close to being elected. 

            Today’s flavor of the republican party is not the republican party of the past, the ideal of –  “Government should stay out of the boardroom and the bedroom” are long gone. 

          • Anonymous

            What did I attribute to you that you did not say? On one hand you paint the whole Republican Party with the same brush (by saying that they are no longer the party of Lincoln), but then start getting nuanced (north vs south) when I bring democrats in. Why the special  treatment?  

            As for “Government should stay out of the boardroom and the bedroom” – I think that still holds true.

          • http://twitter.com/nicktherat Nick the Rat

            Obama had an entire year with congress and senate being a majority of democrats. he wasted it, lied, and I hope that dick head obama dies of cancer :P NDAA 2012 bill = FUCK YOU OBAMA

      • Bookgirlnyc

        I voted for Obama in ’08 and plan to vote for him in Nov. I’ve voted for Republicans for Congress, etc in the past but this current crop, both in Congress and in the Presidential race are too obstructionist and hypocritical for me to ever contemplate supporting. Many of them are suggesting the same fiscal policies that both Reagan and Bush put in place and that brought the largest deficits including the one we’re currently struggling with. So, no thank you, I’ll stick with the Democrats; I trust them more than Republicans with the purse strings.

        • Anonymous

          I am not going to argue the merits/demerits of Obama’s policies in this post, but I’ll ask this. Which of his campaign promises has he fulfilled? Economy? Unemployment?  Debt? Listening to our generals? Uniting the country?

          • levp
          • Anonymous

            First of all that’s not safe for work and is most likely blocked here so I won’t even attempt clicking on it. Secondly, note that I am not posting links to wingnut sites to support my assertions. Why not just post some answers to my questions, instead?

          • levp

            PG version of the same site:

            http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com

            Interesting that you call it “wingnut site” while admitting that you haven’t looked at it.

          • Anonymous

            Interesting that you are insinuating to have looked at it, but instead of describing what you’ve learned there you are just dropping the link. Note that I am not responding with links anywhere.  So, how about it? Did you really look at it?

            As for my assumption about it being wingnut – the url is quite telling. Feel free to accuse sites that go something like bushisthemostawesomeever.com to being wingnut sites.

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B

            I have 100 internet links that claim Martians are walking among us. Guess they are!

          • levp

            Yes, I do look at every site I link to, including this one. So no insinuating there.

          • Anonymous

            So why not actually respond to my questions with what you’ve learned from the site?

        • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B

          I won’t argue Bush, but, the economy was in a 10+ year funk until 1983 or so, then it began to zoom. That was the Reagan administration. Give him credit? Who knows, I can’t say, but I don’t see how you can blame him for extreme economic growth and lowering interest rates during his administration.

             By the way, the Reagan era was termed by the liberals as “the age of greed” because they had to come up with SOMETHING to explain how well everyone began to do. But what makes me laugh, as soon as Clinton became president (4 years after Reagan), suddenly the “age of greed” became “oh yeah, things are great, everyone is doing so well”.. I chuckle at that one still.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul!!!!  All the other candidates are just talking hair pieces.  But who cares, this blog is Obama country.

    • Dom

      How can you be for Ron Paul? The guys’ ideas are completely whacked out. 

      • Anonymous

        I know, balanced budget, smaller government, no more stupid wars…crazy sh!t.

        • Dom

          Every politician says they want a balanced budget. Small government is only good until you need the government for something. And some of our wars are crazy, but we are the world police, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And with Ron Paul as president they would be no humanitarian effort on our part anywhere in the world and Bin Laden would still be alive. 

          • Anonymous

            Every politician might say they want a balanced budget in theory, but can’t come one with 1 penny worth of cuts to make and I don’t recall Ron Paul saying he wants to get rid of government completely.  Being the policeman of the world costs billions of dollars, I would rather that money be spent on policing Sheepshead Bay.  As far as huminitarian help, if you cut taxes, effective private charities would have a lot more funds to go in and help the people that need it, not governemtns handing out money and losing billions in corruption and bribes. As for Bin Laden, Ron Paul voted to go after him.

          • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

            You can’t create a power Vacuum without drastic consequences all around the world.

            The money we have needs to be spent more efficiently instead of not at all.

          • Dom

            That’s one place where Ron Paul is serious, I really believe he would make cuts, unlike Perry who was just pandering. The problem is that Ron Paul would cut stuff that people actually need and expect some charity or religious group to pick up the slack. Which would never happen. Sheepshead Bay is already pretty safe, and it wouldn’t take billions to protect it. What does cutting taxes have to do with  freeing up charities. Charities are tax exempt and often receive tax money. And what vote are you talking about. When was there a vote whether to go after Bin Laden or not. Obama  decided to give the go ahead to our Navy Seals to go a get that fucker. I pretty sure he used those exact words. A measure that Ron Paul has openly said he would never have taken.

          • applegreen

            Ahhhh, the myth of the balanced budget…… 
            Since the beginning of this country, we have had a debt. A debt is necessary. Perhaps the debt that was incurred under G.W. Bush is a bit excessive, (quiet a bit), let us not forget how we got there. 
            Tax breaks and two unnecessary wars. 

            To say now that the best way to balance a budget is to make further tax breaks, is on the insane side. 
            “if you cat taxes, effective private charities would have more funds to go in and help the people that need it”… thats a fairy tale. Sure, there may be a certain decreases in some waste in how these private charities are run, but do keep in mind, private charities, are not non-profit. If we deregulate charities, we will be causing more corruption than if they had some regulation placed upon them. And what will happen to those organizations that are helping those that are not particularly popular in this country. I speak of the LGBT community for example, or people with an unpopular disability or illness. Private charities, will pay more attention to  things such as breast cancer, simply because more people are afflicted with it and (pardon the insensitivity) are much better advertised than others. Also, I imagine you have no idea how much the Pentagon spends on Science Research. Yes, the Pentagon is predominantly military oriented, but many laboratories specializing in cancer research, biology, etc get alot of their funding from there. The funding is such, that many smaller labs would not exist without that government funding. 

        • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B

          it’s so sad, all you have to do is say “I think we should have a balance budget”, or “I don’t think we should spend money we don’t have”, and people will go into an utter outrage. I don’t mind being disagreed with, but when a simple value like that causes people to go nuts, something is wrong.

    • Andrew Kent

      Ron Paul named his son after Ayn Rand.  That’s pretty frightening in itself.  Yes, he has some good ideas, and he sees the nakedness of all the emperors, but I think he’d be a disaster as president.

      • Anonymous

        Ron Paul is not my choice, but there’s nothing crazy about admiring Ayn Rand.

        • applegreen

          yeah, except conveniently forgetting that she died broke, alone, AND on Social Security, that she incidentally was against. 
          if that doesn’t say hypocrisy, i dont know what does.

          • Anonymous

            Broke and alone? Link? As for social security, was she of age where she was eligible to receive social security? Was she a tax paying citizen before that? Why would a tax paying citizen that has been forced into paying into the system for their whole life refuse to get some of their money back? Please, explain.

      • RonPaul2012HellYeah

        “Rand” is short for Randal which is his actual name. Ron Paul didn’t name his son after Ayn Rand :/

    • applegreen

      Although, I will concede that Ron Paul has some good, and refreshing ideas, that are not frequently heard on the Republican party side, I cannot back him. If anything, history has taught us that both sides of the swing of the pendulum (communism – no gov’t involvement) are dangerous, to say the least (Totalitarian states under the guise of communism is really what I mean, otherwise, pure communism is just a fantasy).
      A country with a small federal government involvement, is not a country, but a group of “state-countries”, might as well start printing our own state currency. Just from the top of my head: some of the results of such a situation may be that each state would have to provide its own militia, no more USA Military; Decrease of science research funding (which comes from the pentagon); possible deterioration of interstate highways (perhaps the building of it) etc…. Whatever it is that Ron Paul is proposing, seems to me to be breaking up the united states of america, and we might as well start calling ourselves the Union Of Independent States in America. 

      Besides, its not realistic. Even if he would get elected, (which he wont, as a Republican please dont forget the Tea Baggers) how is he going to decrease the role of the Federal government, when he has all these Senators, Congressmen, Lobby Groups, that may not agree with such an action, and under whose direct influence he is under. And once in office, all these promises are not likely to be fulfilled. (The executive branch, although having the most powerful person at the helm, is actually the weakest when it comes to power, at least it was so before George W. Bush, who actually increased many powers of the executive branch, that weren’t there before)In reality (sadly) there isn’t much difference between the Republicans and Democrats, except for the ideologies of the people backing them. 

    • levp

      Not necessarily “Obama country”, some of us (OK, me) will write in Bernie Sanders, “The People’s Senator”.
      http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/12/bernie-sanders-filibuster

  • Howard in Midwood.

    I will probably vote for Mitt Romney in April and possibly November 6th.

  • Andrew Kent

    Romney is the most electable, but, because he and all the other Republiclowns are substantially flawed, the best candidate, from a progressive standpoint, would be the one who is the least electable.  But, then, Obama has lost much of his luster such that, despite his incumbency, this could well be an “anybody but” election.  It’s very scary that, with the world in the worst economic, social, and political turmoil in decades, our next president may be elected by default.

    • Anonymous

      Andrew, “our next president may be elected by default” -  how ironic! That’s what happened in 2008.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Tinman25 Neil Friedman

    None of the above should also be an option.
    Nonetheless, Michele Bachmann is no longer a candidate (Ding dong the witch is dead) and should not even be a choice.

    • Anonymous

      Research Ron Paul. If you haven’t then you haven’t given him a fair shot. I will bet money that if you research him completely you will agree with a lot of the things he says. 

      • Guest

        I lean towards the liberal side and I agree with a lot of Ron Paul’s ideals. However, the ideals that I don’t agree with are the ones that would prevent me from voting for him. A combination of Obama and Paul is the best candidate. They both have their strengths and their weaknesses.

  • applegreen

    Rick’s my man (santorum, that is). I was gonna go for Bachman, but she pu$$3id out. 
    :D

  • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

    None of these candidates are true republicans. None of them are concerned with cutting spending and cutting government interference in our lives. They’re all a bunch of fucking wackaloo’s.

    • Anonymous

      You are wrong Arthur. There is one who wants to cut spending by 1 trillion dollars his first year in office. That’s Ron Paul. He wants to get our debt under control and stop government waste. Research him and you’ll see that what i’m saying is the truth.

    • Anonymous

      Nothing says cutting spending/government like nationalized healthcare.

  • Libertarian_1776

    Let me guess, you probably watch the psyops corporate whore media presstitutes on CNN and FOX, whilst believing everything they say.

    RON PAUL 2012 the only choice left for America, the only candidate who has consistently voted with the Constitution during his entire 25+ Congressional service. He has the courage to address the private “Federal Reserve” offshore banking cartel, which has looted this nation. Not a warmonger, will cut five departments and one trillion during the first year.

    There is a reason why Ron Paul has been constantly demonized, lied about, and cut out from the rhetoric in mass media pentagon script-reading Operation Mockingbird con artists… They are AFRAID of him!

    I am 18, voting for the first time in my life, and proudly supporting Libertarian ideals which have been unfortunately frowned upon by my countrymen.

    RON PAUL 2012 REVOLUTION !!!! May Liberty spread through the land, and all the inhabitants thereof.

    http://www.infowars.com/early-nh-results-show-ron-paul-in-strong-second/

    INFOWARS.COM

    • ES

      Are you sure that’s not you, Jared?

    • wut

      infowars is a crap site filled with tin foil hatters, but if I had to go for a republican ron paul would be it

      • Libertarian_1776

        INFOWARS.COM is the tip of the spear, leading the attack on the globalist system of dehumanization. If you think that you can run a “non tin foil hat” website reaching 3 million people a day, staring respected guests, and uncovering information that keeps you in you controlled political reservation better than Alex Jones, go ahead and do that.

        Until then, their is no alternative media website/ Radio Show that outlines the struggle and solution to the globalist banker takeover, and your claim remains just that, a straw man argument.

        Look at Alex Jones’ film Police State 2000, an incredible 12 years has already elapsed since its release, and every single prediction has come true. NDAA, an open declaration of Martial Law, along with the federalization of local police; DHS takeover and complete domestic spying via Threat Fusion Centers… all just in time for them to crack down on domestic groups, which they have been Fearmongering as the next OKC.

    • Allanb

      If you’re libertarian, then vote Gary Johnson, he’s far superior to Ron Paul, and a true libertarian.

  • Harleyman105

    We should still try and spend down the budget some more. If we just go in deep say another 28 to 30 trillion we will be fine..

  • levp

    Republicans: Buddy Roemer!  “Corruption Must Be Fought.” Now that’s a refreshing message for a either a Republican or a Democrat.

    Obama:
    http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
    ‘Nuff said.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

      Too bad Roemer is a non starter. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he had been able to actually campaign.

      • levp

        On the upside, we can have fun watching Rick Perry plan to re-invade Iraq…

  • Anonymous

    This poll is outdated. Michelle Bachmann withdrew from the race last week.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t see Bill Clinton on the list….

    LIKE this comment if After all these years,  YOU WOULD STILL VOTE FOR BILL

  • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B

    I had to look up to see if Pat Paulsen was still running for president. Unfortuneately, he’s died in 1997…. We need a new icon for president. I may write in “The Situation”.

    The reason people can’t decide who was worse, Obama or Bush, my gosh, they both wrecked the economy, the tandem couldn’t have done worse. The debt has zoomed up, and look what you’re getting for your money over the last 12 years.. They’ve set things up for a Greece-type disaster.

     We need a fresh guy with fresh ideas, not  “hmmm, I have a plan to balance the budget, it will merely cost a few trillion”. Gingrich is a loose cannon, I wouldn’t want him for president, but I do like the fact that he brings some good fresh ideas concerning the economy. I’m afraid Romney is just going to be more of the same, as the budget continues to exceed the value of what we produce in a year (it just went over that amount, I read).

  • http://twitter.com/nicktherat Nick the Rat

    RON PAUL, FUCK YEAH. only politician you can trust

  • Local Broker

    Obama violates our constitution with NDAA and SOPA and there are still zombies that want to vote for him. That is just as scary as those laws. Ron Paul is the only guy in this race that makes any sense.