Not to forget though, Newt Gingrich is the only candidate who’s the full package of fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and strong support of the U.S. as a worldwide military power. If he’s on your ballot, Newt is still the best choice.
IMO, Ron Paul is a raving maniac loose cannon on the ship of state’s deck.
RP is proRKBA. Willard isn’t.
RP is pro-life. Nominally at least. Willard isn’t.
RP thinks global warming is a scam. Willard is a Believer.
RP has warts. Willard has hemorrhagic fever.
Ron Paul will not be the nominee. He won’t even come close to being the nominee. Paul is not going to stop Romney from getting all the delegates he needs either. Are we really going to continue with this Ron Paul silliness for the next month? It’s just not going to happen. Not now, not ever. I know it sucks, but Romney is going to be the nominee.
If Ron Paul had come out last year and said, “As president I will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons under any circumstances,” he would have won.
But I really think Romney is much preferable to Ron Paul. The first duty of a President is to defend America against its enemies. Ron Paul doesn't seem to think we have any enemies. Barack Obama is an enemy. That sort of leaves Romney. Not great, but I really am for the perpetuation of the United States of America.
ML/NJ
I think Ron Paul is a one-trick pony (audit the Fed) and I can’t disagree with that. However, I don’t care for his position on defense or foreign policy, nor would I vote for him for president. That said, though, I may just vote for him in our upcoming primary, if for no other reason than to poke Romney in the eye. It’s either that or write in Newt or Sarah — either which way, our primary vote has been rendered meaningless because of how late it’s held.
Mittens would have the support of both parties for whatever socialist scheme that would make Ted Kennedy’s ghost happy. They would all bind together to make sure Paul got nothing.
Lawdy, lawdy!