Who out of the nutters would do best against Obama?

[redcommander]

My guess would be Santorum since he actually presents his views in a coherent fashion.

[TJ in Oregon]

Yeah, against this bunch Santorum is definitely a moderate Republican.

[TheGlobalizer]

Perry, mainly because he hasn't yet compared homosexuality to bestiality.

All would lose, badly.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Perry, obviously. He's insane, but in a friendly way.

[useful idiot]

Perry, mainly because he hasn't yet compared homosexuality to bestiality.

All would lose, badly.

I have yet to figure out why people are so angry with Santorum over his remarks regarding bestiality and homosexuality. He stated that homosexuality was NOT like "man on dog".

Do liberals think that homosexuality IS like "man on dog"?

Quote from the AP:

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

Of course taking his statements out of context and shouting "SANTORUM THINKS GAYZ RAPE ANIMALS AND CHILDRUN!" is satisfying to those who really don't care if they're being disingenuous...

[Eraserhead]

Perry.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Perry.

[Yelnoc]

That's rather uncharitable to Perry.

[krazen1211]

Perry, as he has never lost.

[stegosaurus]

Perry, mainly because he hasn't yet compared homosexuality to bestiality.

All would lose, badly.

I have yet to figure out why people are so angry with Santorum over his remarks regarding bestiality and homosexuality. He stated that homosexuality was NOT like "man on dog".

Do liberals think that homosexuality IS like "man on dog"?

Quote from the AP:

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

Of course taking his statements out of context and shouting "SANTORUM THINKS GAYZ RAPE ANIMALS AND CHILDRUN!" is satisfying to those who really don't care if they're being disingenuous...

He was saying that marriage was not "man on dog, etc", not homosexuality. The implication being that marriage is one thing, and one thing only and that it's not only homosexuals who are being excluded from it's definition.* Either way, it's rather dishonest and petty to take that statement and twist it into something that it clearly wasn't. The only thing that Santorum is guilty of is poor wording.

*at least this is how I always interpreted it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Perry.... just.

[tmthforu94]

I'll wait till Perry's campaign develops more, but I'd probably feel more comfortable with Santorum running than any of those for now.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Santorum hasn't talked about seceding, or called the Fed head treasonous, or executed innocents, or forced little girls to get STD shots.
And need I even mention Bachmann or Palin? (Why didn't Cain make the nutter cut for this poll, eh?)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Palin would probably do the worst. What would be the point of Palin running, anyways? Bachmann is a somewhat smarter version of Palin.

[Zarn]

Romney

[bgwah]

Probably Perry, followed by Santorum. Bachmann in third and Palin in fourth.

[King]

Perry probably, but with the right handlers. Santorum is the best politician of the four.

[opebo]

Wait, you all still think Parry would lose?

[MJM58]

Probably Perry, followed by Santorum. Bachmann in third and Palin in fourth.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Hate to admit it, but probably Santorum.

[Frodo]

Rick Perry above and beyond all the others. 

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Rick Perry.

[TheGlobalizer]

Perry, mainly because he hasn't yet compared homosexuality to bestiality.

All would lose, badly.

I have yet to figure out why people are so angry with Santorum over his remarks regarding bestiality and homosexuality. He stated that homosexuality was NOT like "man on dog".

Do liberals think that homosexuality IS like "man on dog"?

Quote from the AP:

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

Of course taking his statements out of context and shouting "SANTORUM THINKS GAYZ RAPE ANIMALS AND CHILDRUN!" is satisfying to those who really don't care if they're being disingenuous...

He was saying that marriage was not "man on dog, etc", not homosexuality. The implication being that marriage is one thing, and one thing only and that it's not only homosexuals who are being excluded from it's definition.* Either way, it's rather dishonest and petty to take that statement and twist it into something that it clearly wasn't. The only thing that Santorum is guilty of is poor wording.

*at least this is how I always interpreted it.

IMO, he was saying that gay marriage is more like marrying your dog than straight marriage.  He rightly deserves the ridicule.