Posted on 09/20/2011 10:11:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A pro-abortion mormon is our best bet??? Fill out your profile page so we know what planet you call home.
Why are you not a Paul supporter?
I agree with probably most of his political positions.
I’m not exactly in line with some of his views. His views on use of the military, tactics regarding marijuana and currently illegal recreational drugs as well as the status of acts of sodomy are three that, IMHO, are wanting enough that I would not suppport him for President.
But he has many, many stances that are spot on or very good, IMHO.
Fair enough. Ya, I don’t agree on all issues with him either. I guess we differ a bit in that my personal focus is on economics, he seems to be the only one to truly challenge the current punishing taxation and stifling regulatory climate.
I like to think of it this way...
If a Congressman or President is of truly good moral character, the only way they would agree to a government action that overstepped the bounds of the Constitution, unwisely spent tax dollars, infringed on the rights of the people or did not make every good faith effort to oppose crime and defend the nation is if they did not have the competence to understand what they were doing.
So it follows that if the President and more than half of Congress was of this good moral character, we would have a minimal and efficient government that did not infringe on the rights of the people, provided for justice to be dispensed to those who would be criminals, thereby restraining them from pillaging and provided for the maximum safety for America.
That’s why I evaluate first based on morals, principles and character and I glean this information from the political positions a candidate makes, as well as what they say, how they say it, and whether or not the follow through or back down or compromise later. I’ve always found prosperity to follow when the moral foundation is solid and true, but fixing economics that are set upon a flawed moral foundation always ultimately results in economic failure anyway.
I tend to veer away from libertarianism at the point where it stops supporting a requirement for moral behavior in the public square, since immoral behavior in the public square does, in this day and age, intrude upon families who have every right to be in the public square and not be intruded upon in such a way.
Some people are hippies, druggies, perverts, etc., and they raise their children in the same way. Others think they like those things, but when they get married and have children they think better of it and come to realize that these ways of living have a dramatic negative impact on their children. They then start understanding how unfair it is for other people and the government to force these activities upon a family. But you usually can’t explain any of this to a young person without children who is adamant about their freedom to indulge but not so adamant about their responsiblity to likewise respect the rights of others who do not wish to partake of the same indulgences.
What should be important to Perry is that he is leading. What should be important to Romney is that he is not.
What should be important to conservatives is that all of republican candidates besides Perry and Romney are too far back to make a move. And Paul has been certified as weird.
Rollins was saying on O’Reilly that Bachmann will resurrect in Iowa, but Obama’s terrible performance makes this a different election year than the last presidential. I think that it will be a Perry/Romney fight because of the seriousness of the issues having gotten the voters into the discussion already. Bachmann will not rise again.
If Perry does well on Thursday, then Romney will pull out all stops. If Romney does well, then conservatives better start paying attention to his flip-flop history which has received a total pass so far from the media.
Unless Palin gets into this race, Perry is the only candidate between RomneyCare and ObamneyCare.
BTW, iirc this poll sample only about 600 and had a 6 point margin of error. It could be that Perry is still 13 points up over Romney or as little as 1.
It’s not a particulary helpful poll with such a wide MOE.
Here is an aggregate of all the recent polls. There are only two who come close to beating Obama -- and Perry isn't one of them. It's Mitt Romney & (like it or not) Ron Paul, and they are neck& neck with each other against Obama.
Perry is still relatively unfamiliar to many of the not-yet-involved folks polled, so that number is bound to change as his campaign gets more face time.
And that's where we disagree.
I think that Perry reached the height of his popularity the LESS people knew about him. For anyone with a civil libertarian or Constitutional bone in their body, they aren't going to get past that "forcing Gardasil on 12 year olds by executive fiat" issue any time soon. We want to get rid of a presidential dictator, not just exchange a Dictator Democrat for a Dictator Republican.
And he didn't do himself any favors in the last debate. He said that he only got $5K from Merck, the Gardasil makers, when in fact he got $30K in his campaign chest -- he lied. Worse than that, he said yes he would have done it all over again, but done it "differently." That's like asking someone if they are sorry they beat their wife and their response being, "No, but I am sorry I didn't do it differently". Geez, if ever there was a time for a mea culpa and I am sorry, that was it! But he blew it.
Did you hear that the Texas GOP cancelled their straw poll for "lack of interest"? Right, two of the top three presidential candidates are from Texas and there is "a lack of interest"? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. It's because Rick Perry knows that he is less popular in his own State than Ron Paul is, and he doesn't want to give Ron Paul that win --nor does Romney.
IMHO, Rick Perry is a flash in the pan like Herman Cain was. It's going to come down to Romney or Paul -- and it's really going to depend on just how pissed off the Republican electorate is with the status quo as to which one it's going to be. Romney is an empty corporate suit, middle of the road, inoffensive to stupid & uniformed people and the best looking. Paul is idealistic, intellectual, but he comes off as a nut to those who don't have a clue about what he's talking about -- and he's old.
Yet IF he could win the Republican nomination, I actually think that Paul has the best shot against Obama and would produce the most positive change in DC. But that "if" is an obstacle the size of Mt. McKinley.
I can agree with that, it is interesting the effect of having children can have on political viewpoints, I have seen this happen with friends and family.
I do think most libertarians would have some restrictions on what can be done in the public square, however a private house is a different matter.
Paul is not even in the picture. Watch his style, listen to his foreign policy answers, listen to his answer for social security, for gay marriage, for abortion, for anything.
He’s not in the picture.
Bokebabe, I have an inside tip for you: every single candidate of every stripe takes large donations from large donors. You know Romney does, Bachmann does, Perry does, Palin does, Paul does,...all of them.
There is no way to run a national campaign without hundreds of millions of dollars.
Bachmann received money from Gardasil’s competitor. She received 30 grand from American Crystal Sugar. There are many, many others.
By your standard, there is no candidate currently running that you will vote for. Not one. (Except maybe Cain...he’s not been in a campaign before, iirc.)
Of course, they all do. I am certainly not naive to that. Although, some have more grassroots, small donation support than others. It wasn't the Merck donation that was at issue with Perry-- it was the fact that he made a big deal of it only being "$5K", when it was $30K, and it was connected to a pretty ugly action of his as Governor.
Paul is not even in the picture. Watch his style, listen to his foreign policy answers, listen to his answer for social security, for gay marriage, for abortion, for anything. He’s not in the picture
I also know that many -- including the MSM and major corporations, and more than a few neocons -- would like to treat Ron Paul and his supporters as John Stewart termed "the 13th floor in a hotel". I think that this is a BIG mistake for a number of reasons, even for those who don't like Ron Paul.
No matter who gets the Republican nomination -- Perry, Romney, Bachmann, even Sarah -- just what percentage do you think that they can reasonably win by? Because from everything that I have seen from the aggregate polls, at very best, it's going to be a very close race against Obama.
Let's say that Ron Paul has only ten to fifteen percent support among Republicans, (more among Independents and former Obama voters, and before anyone argues this number, look again at the aggregate polls on RealClear Politics)). Ron Paul supporters have had to, and continue to endure such humiliation and even outright lies, not to mention this "pretend Ron Paul is invisible" campaign, that most have been convinced that the game is rigged and they "really aren't Republicans". Unlike most rank & file Republicans, most Ron Paul supporters may hate Obama, but no more than they hate Romney, Perry and the rest of the rigged system. And the more that rank & file Republicans treat Ron Paul supporters like "aliens & kooks", the less you are going to be able to count on them to remove Obama on election day. I know many who basically say, "It's Ron Paul or I don't care, because all the rest are coporatist shills anyway regardless of Party". This has happened because they have been so abused and ignored for doing nothing other than supporting a guy who supports the Constitution that Republicans themselves have convinced them that they aren't Republicans if they support Ron Paul.
So for anyone who really wants to get Obama out of office, I think that they better wake up and realize that why their stupid little photoshops and insults may make them feel good, they are alienating voters that they are going to desperately need on election day if they want to win.
And you never know. I believe that whoever gets the 2012 presidency, it's going to be a rocky ride far worse than what we are currently going through. People will want and need someone that they can trust and rely on, a known quantity who tells the truth, even more than they will want a pretty boy with nice speeches. Do Americans realize that and have that kind of foresight? I don't know. But I do believe that if the economy does get much worse and we don't find someone that not only can win against Obama, but also can unite the country and be trusted, I am really afraid that this country may be headed toward a civil war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.