Rundown of candidates - can we just post pros/cons w/no arguing?

Ron Paul because he supports the troops. And they return the favor by supporting him more than all the other republican candidates combined consistantly!

Support the troops vote Ron Paul!

Nuff said. :wavey:

 

Ron Paul - Pro - Not Obama
Mitt Romney - Pro - Not Obama
Rick Perry - Pros - Not Obama, Texan
Newt Gingrich - Pro - Not Obama
Rick Santorum - Pro - Not Obama

The real question for me is, last time around Chuck was for Huck, who is Chuck Norris endorsing out of this field of candidates?

 

Negatives

Romney- Romneycare
Paul- Isolationist
Gingrich-baggage
Perry-immigration
Santorum- ?

Positives

Romney- ?
Paul- ?
Gingrich- intelligence and experience
Perry-?
Santorum- most truly conservative of the group

Overwhelming positive for all of them- Not Obama

 

Hey! Paul is a Texan, too! He's my congressman!

 

Here's mine:

Pros:

Romney: None

Santorum: None

Perry: At least has some sanity on some things. Wants to at least reduce involvement overseas (though I believe he does not mean it).

Gingrich: Speaks well. Could trounce Obama in a debate.

Paul: Pretty much everything he says is in perfect line with the constitution. Consistently pro-life. ALWAYS does what he says, and stands up for the right thing, even if he is the only one voting for or against a bill. Even his worst enemies say his integrity is beyond reproach.

Huntsman: None

Cons:

Romney: He is a liberal in every sense of the word, who changed his positions on everything, just so he could run for president. He was outspokenly pro-abortion right up until his first presidential run. The man appears to have no integrity whatsoever.

Santorum: Extremely and dangerously inexperienced in both life, and in government. He would be the equivalent of a Noe-Conservative Obama. Has stated publicly that we "Need a big government" to enforce "conservative" ideas. Speaks of outlawing contraceptives, yet he campaigned for Pro- partial birth abortion candidates, and wants to allow baby murder in cases of incest and rape. Has zero appeal to independents, and therefore has NO chance whatsoever about Obama.

Perry: Comes off like a dumber version of George Bush Jr. Wishy washy on life issues. Has no chance against Obama.

Gingrich: Extremely unscrupulous man. Those who know him best, say he can't be trusted. Has extremely sordid past. Is seen as an "establishment" guy (rightly), and has frequently flip flopped on his positions. Extremely hawkish.

Paul: His age. Paul would need to get an extremely good VP pick. Also, since he does not regurgitate talking points, but speaks from his heart, he tends to be a bit more plain spoken. In a really fast paced debate, Obama would take him. (However, I think in a more relaxed debate, where the opponents were allowed to give more explicit in -depth answers, I think he would make Obama look like an immature little kid trying to talk back to grandpa...which I would love to see).

Huntsman: Just a non-person all around. He has no chance.

 

No offense, but I'm thinking more of a Texan in the classical sense (Jim Bowie, Sam Houston) you know, John Wayne types. IMO Paul is more of an Austin Texan if you know what I mean. Of course Romney does remind me of a mix between JR Ewing from Dallas and your local new car dealer, if that makes you feel any better.

(Disclaimer, all of this is tongue in cheek, If I didn't live in TN I'd have a spread in Texas, of course if it wasn't for TN there wouldn't be a Texas )

 

:laugh: I hadn't thought of him in this light. Now I can't get the comparison out of my mind. :laugh:

 

RonPaul AND Romney were both raised in Michigan.

Here is a video interview with RonPaul's brother, who stayed in the North, an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) minister:

Detroit Free Press: Meet the west Michigan brother of GOP candidate Ron Paul

 

Havensdad said:

"Santorum: Extremely and dangerously inexperienced in both life, and in government. He would be the equivalent of a Noe-Conservative Obama. Has stated publicly that we "Need a big government" to enforce "conservative" ideas. Speaks of outlawing contraceptives, yet he campaigned for Pro- partial birth abortion candidates, and wants to allow baby murder in cases of incest and rape. Has zero appeal to independents, and therefore has NO chance whatsoever about Obama."

I am still researching his reasoning behind supporting certain candidates, but I posted the following link in the Rick Santorum thread when somebody else mentioned the rape and incest. IF I understand this clip from a debate correctly, he does not support abortion for any reason. This is worth following to a definite conclusion. Thanks for pointing these out, Havensdad.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/santorum-abortions-only-traumatize-rape-vict

 

So apparently he is a flip flopper too... great.

From 2008 "Meet the Press"

Sorry, but a guy who has stated openly that we need bigger government to enforce, among other things, adultery and sodomy laws in peoples private homes, is a bit too much for me.

 

I agree with most of this. But I think there are some positives for Huntsman. But he is pro-abort which takes him off my list no matter what else he may have going for him.

And to ME, Paul's answers in debates are far superior to the others and he would completely anniliate Obama. Paul speaks in terms of principles rather than in buzz-words and catch-phrases. But alas, the average citizen has a short attention span, so I guess his long statements with references to Mises and Heyak and Austrian Economics and individual liberties would hurt him oddly enough.

 

I totally understand and agree with your stance on the big gov't, Havensdad. He is far from my perfect candidate as well. As I look at his character though, and everything else I have read so far on his social conservative views, I hope to think A. he misunderstood the question/statement a few years ago, or B. he changed for the better. But I could be wrong and missing something- flip flop could fit here, but I'm not seeing it clearly yet. However, he signed the pro-life pledge where Romney refused. After looking at the bigger pictures I have seen thus far, I see Romney as the true insincere opportunistic flip flopper here. Thanks again for your posts.

 

Don't get me wrong. I will not even vote for Romney (even if it is him or Obama. I will abstain, or vote third party). His views are no different from Obama.

If given the extremely unpleasant choice of an Obama vs. Santorum scenario, I would vote for Santorum, just because of the life issue. However, him stating things like the Supreme Court should not enforce rights, and that the "majority" rules (it doesn't) in the United States, is unbelievably scary, and shows an ignorance of our Republic.

I am pushing for Paul, who I see as not only the only consistent pro-life candidate, but also as the only person who has conservative ideas, AND a proper understanding of the role and meaning of the Constitution. I also believe he is the only person (though it is extremely unlikely) that has a possibility of unseating Romney. No one else has the money, the organization, nor the ability to draw independents and moderate/semi-conservative Democrats.

 

Push all you want.

Paul has no chance.

 

Thanks, Havensdad. There are many, many things to like about Paul. But, my daughter has been doing some extensive reading on his writing from the eighties and she is no longer a supporter. She has been telling me of her concerns on racism, but I have no links from her right now, and have not read anything directly myself yet, so really can't comment too much. I am a bit bothered by Paul's desire to legalize heroin, and his view that outlawing abortion should be left to the states. I am a strong supporter of states' rights, but can't wrap my brain around limiting the most basic and obvious right in the world - life - to that category. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have.

 

Santorum is the only true conservative on the list.
Paul- liberal
Romney-liberal
Gingrich- unstable
Perry- just not ready

 

Interesting that everyone is so against "Romneycare." Bottom line, this is a state based program, not federal, which the residents of the state of MA wanted to have. It passed overwhelmingly in the MA legislature. It keeps private insurers insurers in the state and does not infringe on the patient/physician relationship.

As a result, the uninsured population in MA is only 4% -- considerably lower than the rest of the nation. Actually, Romney vetoed 8 sections of the legislation, all of which were eventually overturned by the legislature.

Yes, healthcare is expensive in MA. But then again, so is everything else. Ever paid for a hotel room in Boston?? Also, they have the best medical facilities in the NE - if not the entire US, so the costs are not that surprising.

Does this model work in every state? Probably not. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue.

Lastly, Romney has publicly stated that, if elected, he would overturn Obamacare.

 

As someone from his district, Paul is definitely NOT a racist. He has actually been a bit of a champion of civil rights around here...even before it was "cool" to be such. The writings that you are referring to, were not written by him, but are found in a handful of the 17 different newsletters that were being published under his name. They are not directly "Racist" but are certainly racially insensitive. As soon as Paul found out about them, he denounced them.

On the abortion issue: That is NOT his stance. Paul is a STRONG (in my opinion, the strongest) advocate of life. I have already gotten into an argument with the American Right to Life, who have apparently deliberately misrepresented his position, in order to push their pet candidates.

Paul's plan, specifically, was to define "life" as being from the moment of conception, rather than having to pass a bunch of abortion laws. This is better. Why? Because it would immediately make unborn persons in every single state, privy to the same rights and privileges as everyone else under the Constitution. Rather than a doctor being tried for "Abortion," a doctor would be tried for the same crime of murder, according to the laws of each state. However, this does NOT mean that states could legalize abortion. Far from it. They would be required, by there OWN laws, to prosecute the crime just as any other murder.

Now, what does this mean? It just means that there would be different punishment from state to state, just as there is now, with murder. In Texas, we might put you to death. In California, or New York, you might get a more lenient sentence, such as 20 years in jail. The American Right to Life has done a great disservice to our cause of life, in spreading this false propaganda about Paul, in order to prop up their own candidates.

As far as legalizing drugs; Paul believes indeed, this should be a state issue. For myself, I think it is far more unjust, to imprison young men and women and ruin their life over drug use. They have to go to prison, but liars, adulterers, etc., get to go free. We need to recognize the concept of personal accountability; legislating against personal sin, does not work. Because if we did it consistently, we would all be in jail.