Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Josquin des Prez]

I'm a lifelong Republican, that's why I'm interested in knowing how you concluded there are none here.  Let me guess, none are sufficiently conservative to meet your definition.

Pretty much, yes. I'm on the right of every republican who has been, or every conservative who has ever been in the last few decades. Like Johnathan Bowden, i believe the right, unlike the left, has severed any ties to a solid intellectual foundation because of the stigmatization of the far right after WWII. Most Republicans nowadays are afraid of endorsing real conservative values for fear of being labeled as an extremist.

That said, the reason why i am sympathetic to Ron Paul has nothing to do with my own political ideals, of which Ron Paul himself shares very little, if at all, and more on the fact he has a genuine interest in the wealth fare of America then most Republican candidates. I don't share many of his political ideas, but as an individual, he has my trust, and as a politician, he seems to be more honest then most. Its hard to ignore something like that.

[Henk]

You should probably dig a bit deeper than the current presidential candidates.  It appears that you have a typically European understanding of US politics; ie, you only know a little about current national level candidates.

I am talking about our current time. I think the republicans did good politics in the past.

But Todd, tell me, do you consider to change to Democrats side?

Henk

[Josquin des Prez]

I wouldn't call going from Republican to Democrat much of a change at this point.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I wouldn't call going from Republican to Democrat much of a change at this point.

True: the US spectrum of electability, at least on a national level, runs the gamut from establishment liberals to neocons.

[Todd]

Pretty much, yes. I'm on the right of every republican who has been, or every conservative who has ever been in the last few decades.

That makes it sound like you're close to being a Fascist, in the proper sense, especially if you think of yourself as more conservative than some of the far right people roaming around Idaho and Montana.  Such thinking is not in line with Republican thinking.

Your portrayal of the Republican Party prior to WWII is more than a bit off.  Some of the leading pre-war Republicans make today's batch look like far right fools.  Or just fools.  Robert Taft, Mr Republican himself, would likely not be conservative enough nowadays.  Elihu Root, as solidly conservative a Republican as has ever held any sway in this country, held some views that differed rather markedly from, say, Bachmann or Santorum or Gingrich, let alone even farther right wing, um, thinkers.  The same can be said for Henry Stimson, Wendell Willkie, William Howard Taft, and Theodore Roosevelt.  And these are just some of the old-time A-listers. 

I am talking about our current time. I think the republicans did good politics in the past.

I'm talking about the current time as well.  You need to look beyond the current national candidates.

But Todd, tell me, do you consider to change to Democrats side?

No.  I live in a blue state chock-full of left wing crazies and Dark Green lunatics.  I get a sneak peek at the less publicly welcome side of the Democrats and so-called liberals every day. 

[Todd]

The Republican party has lost it's way, Paul is about restoring it back to traditional values and following/defending the constitution of the founding fathers.

Right. 

Links to YouTube are certainly impressive - to some, at any rate - but they are not a substitute for an explanation by one of Paul's supporters as to how competing currencies make for good policy.  Again, James, I am familiar with Paul's outlook.  He's not new.  I am waiting for you, or another Paul supporter, to explain in different words why Paul's policies are good.  You see, I'm not especially interested in revisiting his explanations - which are not new or unique to him, by the way, and I've read even more sophisticated arguments supporting some of Paul's policies written by actual economists - but rather in seeing the extent to which his supporters can actually describe his policies.  Your steadfast refusal to do so offers all I need to know, really.

[snyprrr]

"Where did the money go?"

[The new erato]

"Where did the money go?"

On this board, that's a non-issue. It goes into CD buying.

[jowcol]

No, I don't think so.  It appears you don't know what a Republican is.

Given the recent year in the house, I don't think the Republicans know what a Republican is.   

[Superhorn]

   Rick Santgorum has appointed himself official U. S. busybody ,with the right to pry into the bedrooms of Americans 
to check on whether they're having sex the way he approves of or not, or whether they're using contraceptives, which he thinks are a no-no and should be illegal. 
   What an arrogant, self-righteous,sanctimonious ,narrow-minded,intolerant and  pompous  jerk !   Who does this little twit think he is ?
He says that freedom consists of "doing what you ought to do",not doing what you want to do ".  Sheesh !  Who is to say what you
"ought" to do? Sanctorum is making himself the supreme arbiter of morality and virtue in America , and if your sex life isn't what he wants it to be, he wants the government to stick its slimy nose into your  PRIVATE LIFE !
    And this  sack of excrement has the nerve to be calling for "freedom" and "limited government!"   This is "lmited government?" 
Unbelievable !    In fact, what Sactimonioustorum wants is  freedom for the governmetn to have unlimited power to pry into the bedrooms of Americans, as well as to police women's reproductive organs . 
    He wants "freedom", but not for Americans who happen to be gay !     How can any intelligent,thinking person vote for such an arrogant,  nosy little schmuck ?
   
   

[Karl Henning]

He wants "freedom", but not for Americans who happen to be gay !     How can any intelligent,thinking person vote for such an arrogant,  nosy little schmuck?

Don't hold back: tell us what you really feel.

[jowcol]

   Rick Santgorum has appointed himself official U. S. busybody ,with the right to pry into the bedrooms of Americans 
to check on whether they're having sex the way he approves of or not, or whether they're using contraceptives, which he thinks are a no-no and should be illegal. 
   What an arrogant, self-righteous,sanctimonious ,narrow-minded,intolerant and  pompous  jerk !   Who does this little twit think he is ?
He says that freedom consists of "doing what you ought to do",not doing what you want to do ".  Sheesh !  Who is to say what you
"ought" to do? Sanctorum is making himself the supreme arbiter of morality and virtue in America , and if your sex life isn't what he wants it to be, he wants the government to stick its slimy nose into your  PRIVATE LIFE !
    And this  sack of excrement has the nerve to be calling for "freedom" and "limited government!"   This is "lmited government?" 
Unbelievable !    In fact, what Sactimonioustorum wants is  freedom for the governmetn to have unlimited power to pry into the bedrooms of Americans, as well as to police women's reproductive organs . 
    He wants "freedom", but not for Americans who happen to be gay !     How can any intelligent,thinking person vote for such an arrogant,  nosy little schmuck ?
   

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" don't always equate to big or small government.  Social Conservatives are no different, in my book, then progressives in their desire to use government to enforce some social norm. 

I also find it ironic that the "anti-government spending" people often defend any program for defense, as that doesn't seem to count as  government spending.

[Karl Henning]

Jno Capehart on Huntsman

[Karl Henning]

"Who had the worst week in Washington? Michele Bachmann."

[Todd]

Google Todd

I didn't find a lot on Paul when googling 'Todd'.  I found nothing on Paul, as a matter of fact.

It's good to see that you are so enamored of YouTube, but it doesn't address the fact that you still refuse to even try to explain Paul's policies.  But let's cut through all of this garbage, shall we.  Let's take a look at some of Paul's stated policy goals:

1.) Abolish the Fed.
2.) Return to the gold standard.
3.) Abolish the IRS.
4.) Shut down five government agencies in year one of his presidency.
5.) Layoff 10% of government.  To start.
6.) End automatic citizenship for people born in the US if the parents are immigrants.

Paul is a man of the 19th Century.  So much so, in fact, that his new slogan should be McKinley 2012.  (Except that McKinley would never have dreamt of going after the 14th Amendment.)  Alas, for him, there is no modern day Mark Hanna or Elihu Root for him to rely on.  Well, maybe one of the Kochs could take the role of Hanna.  Ron Paul is a charlatan, plain and simple.

And you know what, he's actually at least somewhat realistic, and certainly more so than you are.  He admitted in an interview in Iowa that he didn't expect to win.  But then he pointed out that isn't even his goal.  He wants to influence policy.  Maybe even be a kingmaker.  But he won't.  If Romney or any other candidate has to cut a deal with him for delegates, a deal will be cut, and then Paul and his acolytes will be thrown under the bus, and there will be no significant consequences, just as it should be.  Ron Paul is a sideshow.

Now all Romney has to do is shut down the horrifying Santorum and then clinch the nomination.  (I really hope that Santorum does not get the VP nod.)  Romney is hardly a dream candidate, and he faces a pretty good shot at losing, but he's head and shoulders above everyone else on the Republican side right now, Jon Huntsman excepted.  That so many Republicans can't see just how awful many of the candidates are is perhaps the most troubling part of the whole process.

As an aside, it will be enjoyable to watch the supposedly sophisticated, tolerant 'liberals' start assulting Mormonism if Romney wins the nomination.  We can show the world how far we've come in terms of religious tolerance.

[Karl Henning]

LOSERS

* Ron Paul: The Texas Republican Congressman got plenty of time to talk in each of the debates. But that was the problem. Paul proved — again — that he really is off on an island in this race. His views are simply nowhere near the mainstream of the Republican party. Like, not even in the same zip code.

That's all and well good if you are already a devoted Paulite — RON PAUL — but less good if you want Paul to actually be the GOP's nominee in 2012.

RTWT here.

[Sergeant Rock]

RTWT here.

Asked what that would be doing on Saturday night if they weren't debating? "....Gingrich would be watching the "college basketball championship" and then corrected himself to say the "football" game. Romney went along with that answer as did Santorum. The problem? The national championship football game is Monday night."

  Wow...and they pass themselves off as just normal Joes, men of the people, not like those elite liberals 


Sarge

[Karl Henning]

Pardon me, but do you have some Grey Poupon?

[Todd]

Wow...and they pass themselves off as just normal Joes

I've always thought of Romney as an average Joe.  I mean, he has to replace his $12 million beach home with a new, bigger one.  Who hasn't been there?

[ibanezmonster]

I've always thought of Romney as an average Joe.  I mean, he has to replace his $12 million beach home with a new, bigger one.  Who hasn't been there?

I hate when that happens. I have one just an hour away at the beach, and I have to replace it almost every year.
It's always something- if it's not a hurricane, it's poor craftsmanship by those lazy Mexican workers. Don't they understand that when I'm there, being served $15,000 bottles of wine by my servants, everything else needs to be PERFECT as well? I mean, why be almost perfect, when you can be perfect?

And no, it's not true that I taser them when the weather is not to my liking... wait, that is the socially correct answer, right? Sorry, I sometimes get confused...