Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[eyeresist]

"One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay nearly half of everything they earn to the government." Ron Paul

Did they intend a nation where people could not be owned and sold as slaves?

Moral argument from doctrine is generally bunk.

[jowcol]

Paul has a reputation of voting against bigger govt, more spending and higher taxes. And he's served 12 terms or something like that. He's the only one that really knows what is going on with great clarity and proposes substantial solutions. He's a real patriot.

"One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay nearly half of everything they earn to the government." Ron Paul

I'll definitely give him credit for voting with this beliefs-- and I think I have already in a couple posts her

e.  But Voting against something is different than having a viable solution, and also a transition plan to help make sure that a shift to more private sector is done without causing undue damage, and provide the "trickle down" effect that is often mentioned, but seldom demonstrated.  This notion that any change needs to be both sweeping and ideological didn't do Obama much good-- and most of the other Republican candidates are also aiming for ideology as well.  I hate to say it, but I'd rather have an insincere chameleon (guess who) if they could convince me they are competent.

[jowcol]

I want to watch Goldfinger again before making a decision w/r/t Dr Paul.

Uh-oh-- I have an indelible image of Ron Paul  in a bikini sprayed with gold paint.  I need to get back on my meds

[Lethevich]

Certainly; I wish more people would look deeper then the surface and focus on the ideas. A lot of people are, which is why Ron Paul is getting a lot more votes this time around. But....I'm not naive when it comes to elections, either. A lot of people get convinced--and ultimately vote--for the politician who can ariculate his platform (or himself!) the most cogently and persuasively.  I think our current Prez did a masterful job at that his last campaign around.

The problem with Paul is that his attention-grabbing, highly-publicised (at least online) hooks made me interested in his policies, but "looking beneath the surface" revealed him to be an increasingly poor-looking option. A mass of good ideas don't outweigh an equal amount of terrible ones.

If he was just a standard, measured politician coupled with some good ideas he would've possibly even been president by now. But he has crazy stuff buried towards the bottom of his manifesto, and from being exposed to a lot of viral campaigning for him online, his supporters tend not to be keen to reveal these things, or even mention them unless they are directly questioned about them - which is curiously exactly like the standard politicial operators work as well. I don't see any greater levels of transparency with his campaigning.

[Karl Henning]

The problem with Paul is that his attention-grabbing, highly-publicised (at least online) hooks made me interested in his policies, but "looking beneath the surface" revealed him to be an increasingly poor-looking option.

Aye, he has certainly got the branding strategy down pat.

Romney is (quite naturally) playing up the "historic" aspect to his having edged to the top in both Iowa (with all its quirks) and New Hampshire (a state neighboring the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which he served as Governor — so, heavy name-recognition advantage).

But of course, in spite of his advantages, he didn't break to 40% (sure, fractious field, and all).  So . . . there's been no Republican presidential nominee who did not win either Iowa or New Hampshire.  History might be made there, too ; )

As sager souls than I have observed, at this point all of, what, two dozen delegates have been decided?  So the race ain't nearly over.  South Carolina and Florida remain entertaining contests to watch . . . .

[Lethevich]

Paul isn't empty rhetoric tho and his record backs that up; he means & does what he says .. the others don't, so placing trust (voting) for insincere people who don't really have core principles, answers or truly believe in anything .. isn't the way to go. Picking Romney will only lead to more of the same. It's a wasted vote. I said the same about Obama when he initially ran, so picking him again will be more of the same.

I agree, he seems to be consistently right in a lot of his predictions, but many of his policies suggested as solutions I don't agree with. Compared to Paul, the ones who backtrack or don't have a clue what is happening are no worse prospects for leadership, as their solutions while half-hearted are realistic and less bizarre.

I would prefer something in the middle of both, though.

[Todd]

So the race ain't nearly over.

Not yet, but if Romney wins a couple more primaries, it will be.  But it could be Huntsman's turn next.  He hasn't been the main anti-Romney guy yet.  That written, rich donors soon have to think about which Super PACs to fund to take on Obama.  Decisions, decisions.

[Karl Henning]

Paul isn't empty rhetoric tho and his record backs that up.

His record backs up his cockamamie ideas, yes.  His record also attests to his utter failure as a team player.  So: not empty rhetoric, but an empty portfolio.

Not that that will discourage them what have taken the Kool-Aid™

[Todd]

So: not empty rhetoric, but an empty portfolio.

What, you're not impressed with a 0.2% legislation success rate?

[Karl Henning]

Well, I certainly am. I'm not sure that the Paulies appreciate how unfavorable that impression is.

[Karl Henning]

2 basis points . . . is this any way to run a country? ; )

[Todd]

2 basis points . . . is this any way to run a country? ; )

This is no doubt a badge of honor to the Paulies.  You see!  He's not part of "The Establishment"!  It adds credibility in their minds, the inhabitants of Crazy World. 

[Karl Henning]

Yes, dysfunctional & proud!

[Karl Henning]

Ron Paul's eyes nearly popped from their sockets when he said of himself and his supporters, "We are DANGEROUS." He meant, of course, "to the status quo," but it's a problem when those outside your diehard fan club are actually terrified.

[Todd]

I don't think being a strict constitutionalist is such a cockamamie idea

Uh-oh, now the Constitution is being brought into it.  Tell us, James, from where in the Constitution did Thomas Jefferson derive the power to negotiate and Congress derive the power to fund the Louisiana Purchase?  Why even the red sage himself supposedly had misgivings, and unless you have a different version of the Constitution than I do, there is no express power to acquire territory by treaty.  Should we give it back?  (And that rascally Jefferson sent Marines to Tripoli without so much as a Declaration of War, too, showing an early penchant for naughtiness.) 

Also, do you favor repealing Marbury v Madison? 

Just want to get a feel for how strictly you interpret the Constitution.

[Todd]

Todd let's focus on the candidates and what they actually stand-for .. you've already told us how you vote and why Romney is "the best choice".

In other words, you can't answer.  Got it.

[Todd]

Bottomline, Romney. Got it.

That's good, glad to see you've come around. 

Now, please, I beseech you, educate all on this forum on strict constitutionalism, especially if it means we'd have to give back a third of the lower 48 and possibly revisit various legal precedents.

[Karl Henning]

. . . especially if it means we'd have to give back a third of the lower 48 and possibly revisit various legal precedents.

I think we've just solved France's capital reserves crisis.

[Todd]

Todd .. I'm not interested in your games;  .. you have told us how you vote and why Romney is the best choice .. that's the bottomline.

Does this mean you shan't be shedding any light on Constitutional questions?

[Mirror Image]

Todd  .. just curious, who did you vote for last time?

I'm not sure but if Romney wins the Republican nomination then you can best believe he'll vote for Mitt "Flip A Coin" Romney.