Didn’t see this question at first. Bachmann has more favor partly because she’s more visible - she’s gone to lengths to promote herself. Ron Paul is also kind of seen as a loon - his economic and fiscal policy, while conservative by nature, is a radical departure from the current economic structure. Bachmann is speaking to more common conservative concerns, mainly on social issues, and she wouldn’t push a gold standard.
That is why I am voting for the man. He has more integrity than any politician I know. He is consistent and does not tailer each speech to the crowd.
If you like Paul’s foreign policy I think you will hate Perry’s. My understanding is that Perry is in the “bomb them all and let God sort them out” camp.
And you base that on what?
Ya…I don’t think so. My confessor has already dispelled this myth.
And, most of these are jingoist points that confirm that the man leans to a “bomb them all” position.
In addition, I think he may truly be the only pol who understands banking and money. He also predicted our current economic crisis many years ago.
You may note that I put “lesser of two evils” in quotation marks. Frankly, I do not consider the Republican candidates of which I know to be the “purveyors of evil” at all. One may be so fervent about his policy ideas that he thinks all others are promoters of “evil”, but there is really nothing inherently evil about the policy positions of any candidates I see except:
What is neoconservatism, anyway? The godfather of the movement, Irving Kristol, wrote in 1996 that, “with the end of the Cold War, what we really need is an obvious ideological and threatening enemy, one worthy of our mettle, one that can unite us in opposition.” “This was a movement founded on foreign policy,” says Max Boot. Intervention, wars for democracy, and a passionate attachment to Israel are what neoconservatism is all about. Foremost among the traditional ideas true conservatives must discard are those in the Farewell Adress, Washingtons’s admonition that we stay out of foreign wars and avoid “permanent alliances” and “passionate attachments” to nations not our own.
No principled vote is a wasted vote.
I guess some confessors or other told the Kennedys that it was okay to promote abortion, too. Probably Pelosi found one of those as well. And Biden.
And one can somehow be “principled” in voting for abortion or in failing to oppose it. Nonsense.
Not nonsense.
That’s a whole lot of terrorism there. Not that the threat isn’t real, but in our history recall, let’s remember that fear is the perfect opportunity for the state to impose further restrictions on individual freedom.
“Pro-life” encompasses much more than abortion and euthanasia. It also includes a candidate’s foreign policy as well as their understanding of just what makes a sound economy, as well as their undertanding of and respect for and willingness to defend the Constitution. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a voting record (rhetoric is meaningless) worthy of Catholic support. And you are 100% wrong to think that by NOT supporting the lesser of two evils or the lesser of two candidates WHEN there is a third way, that that in some way that makes me a “tacit promoter” of abortion and homosexual marriage or “complicit” with evil. What offensive logic. There can be no compromise with evil.
As a devoted Democrat, Rich, you would have an interest in people who oppose Obama throwing their votes away in the general election. I get that.