As a disclaimer, I have been a registered Democrat all my voting life-- first election I got to vote in (had to be 21 back then) was 1964, and I've voted regularly ever since-- like the choices or not. Whoever the Republicans choose for their nominee, I will obviously have no say in it. The stand on issues required by these candidates is pretty much the antithesis to how I feel about what should be done; so none of them could get my vote in the November '16 election. Still some are worse than others to me, and every year I always hope the Republicans will nominate someone who I feel good about-- even I disagree on the issues.
You might think the candidate I'd like least would be Trump, but he's not. First on that list would have to be Huckabee as a religious ideologue who literally would throw out the Constitution for his personal interpretation of the Bible. He defends child molesters and those who refuse to do their job despite the oath they took,while he panders to the right wing religious types who mostly have no idea what the Bible even says. You may think that's extreme to say; but they ruin people's view of Christianity which, if they really followed Christ, would offend no one. Huckabee would be a disaster if he got in but he can't; so he's not the bigger concern I have right now.
No, what worries me is how the right wing are so shallow in how they respond to these candidates. It's the voters who worry me more than the possible candidates. And this is not just true of the low information voters so prevalent on the right (even as Rush says that's supposed to be me), but also those who know a lot but they want their agenda to get in there and they listen to the ones who sound the best regardless of their history.
Carly Fiorina fits this to a T. She is running as a successful CEO, who evidently (in her own grandiose mind) was pushed out of her job due to sexism not her failure as a CEO. She strikes me, having seen how she operated at HP and before that at Lucent that she is a sociopath. That isn't necessarily a drawback to the right wing.
She uses her personal history as it suits her. So she claims a daughter died of drug abuse. Sad sad for Carly. Except the divorce from that daughter's parents came after Carly met the girl's father. The girl's mother had custody. Carly was her stepmother, a stepmother who might have broken up a marriage-- only two people know if that is true and they aren't apt to tell the truth.
A little personal history on Fiorina might be beneficial for those so enamored by the persona she projects.
If you worked at HP, you would have opinions on her too. This is a woman who took a company known for its innovation, for how it encouraged creativity and recognized the value of all levels on the teams. She turned it into one who wanted to buy technology. She stifled teamwork. She valued her own image more than the company's, and she walked away a wealthy woman due to raising her own pay and a golden parachute.
Her willingness to use anyone has worked well for her as a CEO-- not. Will it be any better as a President? Republicans are willing to gamble to give that a try. But then they would have foisted Sarah Palin onto our country as a Veep and possible President if McCain had died in office.
I could say a lot more about Fiorina and probably will if she looks likely to get the nomination, but for now-- how can the Republican party seriously consider a candidate who says about Social Security and Medicare-- I won't say what I'd do about either until I get in office. I'll tell you what I call that-- a pig in a poke. This woman is a lot more than that on the rest of her resume.
Hopefully the right will start to pay attention to her actual record-- all of it-- and not just her rhetoric. She ranks right down there with Huckabee in my mind for what a disaster she would be for the country if she truly gets into the White House as other than a visitor.