Stated perfectly!!!!!

The low probability of a party republican getting the seat is why Cruz is #1, if it were higher I would have to move to Walker for my preferred candidate.

I am also of the opinion that Cruz and Lee have plans they are working together and the alliance they have formed (and likely friendship) would be exceptionally helpful to Cruz in the white house.

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are the two most solid members of the senate today and I think they may just be able to really do something.

With the exception of his religiosity, I think Ted Cruz comes the closest to expressing Objectivist views. However, Obama has been so bad, and Hillary could well be worse, that it makes almost anyone look good by comparison. We shall see as the filtering takes place up until '16.

I think what we want is gridlock. Anyone who wants to be a candidate in this day and age HAS to pander to enough contributors in order to be able to pander to the electorate in the hopes of getting enough votes. Our system is based on cronyism now- each subgroup wants goodies from the others. The republicans have their subgroups that want goodies for them, and so do the democrats who wants different goodies for them. With gridlock, maybe there will be no change and no one can get goodies courtesy of the other groups !! It wont get better, but it wont get worse either, like it was with Obamacare when Obama ruled the roost

NONE, until I know who they are picking for VP.

Rand Paul, has some "issues"
Scott Walker, Many good points, but too much of a politician
Ted Cruz: Too inconsistent for me and waffles too much

Carly Fiorina, ARGHHHhhh, if she ends up GOP, or VP I will just vote HIllary.

Ted Cruz did read from Atlas Shrugged during his filibuster so clearly he is aware of her writings. I agree if he is a true Objectivist he would NOT be in government. But he does strike me as a person with solid fundamentals and will shoot from the hip and tell it like it is. Iran may think twice about taking him on with the nuke deal and shipping lanes. Cruz / Carson ticket is my ideal.

You'll have to catch me before you can eat me. ;)

Not for me. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. That may come off as somewhat disingenuous given that I live in Texas (always gonna be the GOP candidate vs. Obama/Bill/Hillary/Elizabeth/etc. or any other Dem for that matter). With the electoral college, there's no risk that my non vote will somehow be a vote for the other guy in this state.

That said, I will write in a name of my choosing before I will vote for another progressive RINO scumbag. I am proud to say that I did not vote for McCain or Romney

As for this one coming up, I would cast a vote for Cruz, Walker, Paul, and maybe a couple others (Haley, Jindal, for instance). I will NOT vote for Jeb, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, etc. under any circumstances.

Put another way, The RNC does not have a blank check when it comes to my vote. That is reserved strictly for me and my best judgement.

Agreed on every point but one. I live in Texas. There is exactly ZERO chance a Democrat could win Cruz's seat. Party Republican, i.e. Dem in disguise maybe, but no chance for anyone with D after their name in Texas. As for your preferred order, I agree 100% and exactly the same reasons.

True, jbrenner. Unfortunate, but true. I think Paul, is probably at this time the most in line with Objectivist principles, but his odds of being elected are not as good as others. I hope this will change. I am still hoping someone will really impress me regardless of party or elect-ability for whom I could vote for with my head held high.

I don't know how to articulate how these guys fit the Objectionist mold, but there are 3 stand out names that I could readily support for whatever office they want to run for.

For President, gimme Ted Cruz. He just gets it, and he's got a spine. Unlike many of the gutless wimps that stand for nothing that the GOP has been running for president since 1988, Cruz knows exactly what he's about. Although he may not be as popular (defined by the main stream media) as others, Ted Cruz is, in my opinion, a natural born leader. The only knock I have on Cruz is his lack of executive leadership on the resume, but I can live with that from him. I just think he is the real deal.

Next, for Cruz's running mate, gimme Scott Walker. Where Cruz has no executive position on the resume, Walker does in spades. To do what he has done in deep blue Wisconsin with billions of outside dollars working against him at every step is spectacular. Like Cruz, this guy knows exactly what he's about, and he doesn't compromise. There is no go along to get along with either of these two.

As an aside, I do admire one thing about President Obama. While I despise everything about the man and his politics, I do admire the fact that he is willing to fight for what he believes in, no matter how ____ed up it may be. If we are ever going to reverse this progressive nightmare, we need people with passion that runs deep and that will fight every bit as fervently as Obama does for his policies. I think Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are easily the cream of the crop when it comes to this, and that is why those two are essentially 1A and 1B on my list. Ideally, Cruz at the top of the ticket (more articulate) and Walker at VP, but I could easily support that ticket in reverse order as well.

The third candidate that is an absolute beacon for me is Rand Paul. I admire everything about this man's politics. Even on the very few issues where we disagree, I understand the principles driving his mindset, and that is something I can wholeheartedly respect. The reason I would choose to support Cruz/Walker as President/VP is because I think Rand fails the leadership/charisma test. If you look at his words on paper, he's the man. If you listen to him speak or debate, he comes off as whiny to me. Don't get me wrong, he's make a great Senate Majority Leader, with someone of courser material behind him as whip, but he just comes up short in the "I'm gonna ram this legislative reform down your GD throat whether you like it or not" test to me. I have no doubt he'd cut government spending and vote the right way every time in the Senate, but he just doesn't come off as bully enough for the presidential bully pulpit in my opinion. He's a rock star in the Senate, but come back and talk to me in 16 years about the White House when he's got some thicker hide.

As for the others:
Ben Carson - extremely impressive man in his profession, but we differ on too many things politically.

Bobby Jindal - A lot to like about this guy, but like Rand Paul, not quite ready for prime time.

Rick Perry - He comes off as a dumbass good ole boy when he speaks, but there's no denying that Texas has it going on in terms of economic growth. I am a Texan and a Aggie (as is Rick Perry), and I sincerely thank him for his service to my state, but I can think of 4 or 5 others I'd rather see as president. Now, gimme Rick Perry as Ted Cruz's replacement (or better yet, John Cornyn's) in the Senate, and he gets my vote in a half a nanosecond.

Chris Christie - I get a scuzzy feeling about this guy. I do admire his tenacity and aggression toward the liberal media in New Jersey, but he strikes me as a RINO with some Tea Party snarkiness mixed in. The Bridgegate thing is pretty lousy as well. I would stay home before I would cast a vote for Chris Christie.

Carly Fiorina - I need to learn more, but she strikes me alot like Ben Carson. Somewhat impressive in her personal life but not especially right for the job in DC. If I though Dr. Carson were the best man for the job, I would support him in a second. Same goes for Ms. Fiorina. In both cases though, it just feels like the RNC is grasping at straws to find acceptable tokens to run as GOP candidates. I don't care one way or the other about who the first woman president or GOP black president is. I don't care that Ted Cruz is a Cuban/Canadian/American hybrid. I don't care that Bobby Jindal's family came from India. None of that matters to me in the least.

Marco Rubio - I love him as a Senator, but like Rick Perry, I don't want him as my president. Not a horrible candidate, but several better choices to pick from over Rubio.

Nikki Haley - There's a lot to admire about Nikki Haley. I could see myself casting a vote for her if she won the primary, but Cruz/Walker get my support up to that point.

Jeb Bush - Read my lips, "_____ NO!!!" You can keep your progressive policies and your stategerie. I just want my country back.

I would vote for a Scott Walker/Marko Rubio ticket. I lived in Wisconsin during his first win and rewin. I liked the way he stayed focused and on track. I like Rubio for VP, ben carson for Surgion General and Huckabe for the next Supreme Court Justice when Ruth the commie goes away.

I think I prefer, in this order

Ted Cruz
Scott Walker
Rand Paul

As I have learned more about Scott Walker he has moved up the list. I think any of these three have the ability and will to improve things.

I like Ted Cruze for his ability to debate issues and back up his arguments with facts.

I like Scott Walkers record as governor

I like Rand Paul but think he does not have the Charisma needed to lead in today world. He is more valuable as a legislator.

A side of me likes Walker best because we keep Cruz in congress and don't risk a seat to falling to a Democrat or a party republican.

Think twice. I need to pursue a better diet.

I think that is because to be a true objectivist, you would be pursuing your passion and getting into the political ring would be like mud wrestling in a wedding dress..

If so, I'm honored to be in your weight class ;)

So Far, Scott Walker for me, and I reserve the right to change my mind! It is early yet.

I would have to say Rand Paul would fill that bill.

blarman, do you have dino DNA?
In regard to the subject on this page, we think so much alike that we would likely have boring conversations. They'd go like--
Uh, huh.
I agree.
Hear, hear.
I concur.
Ditto.
Truer words were never spoken.
That dog can hunt.
Yep.

I can second Walker. He's really not a politician although he seems to be learning how to be. He seems honest, he mostly ignores the negative media and he accomplished a lot in Wisconsin while being harassed by all those bused in demonstrators. Results are what we need, someone to get rid of much of the government, like getting rid of the unions that protect the criminals like Lois and the others. I look at unions for government employees as just another form of democrats, against the workers, mostly interested in lining their own pockets. And a second on Surgeon General Carson.

They all probably know who Ayn Rand is but not a one of them is an objectivist so they can not have an objectivist view.

From http://ballotpedia.org/Possible_presiden...

I like Scott Walker so far (even though he hasn't officially declared). I would also vote for Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

I'm dubious on Ben Carson, but I think he'd make an excellent Surgeon General and I'd love to put him in charge of the VA. I'm also on the fence regarding Marco Rubio: his gaffes on immigration are a high hurdle for me.

I wouldn't vote for Carly Fiorina (I used to work at HP). Nor would I vote for Huckabee (he split the Primary voters in 2008, allowing McCain to get the nomination). He's the one person I blame most (aside from a complicit press) for giving us eight years of Obama.

Others should they run:
Chris Christie. Not just no but ____ no!
Jeb Bush. Even more ____ no!
Bobby Jindal (Governor of Louisiana) - Way yes! This guy gets it. I don't think he'll run yet, though.
Would also vote for Nikki Haley or Rick Perry. Can't see anyone else on the list I'd even think twice about.

Anyone with a (D) by their name is an automatic "when ____ freezes over".