Republican Primaries

[gilliam]

I was talking about a decade down the road.

Perry or Gingrich. They both at least talk the talk, so I can see myself begrudgingly voting for them.

No Pawlenty, Romney, or Bachmann.

The current front runners are:

• Romney (way out front, but it could be all name recognition right now)
• Pawlenty (although he may be actually running short on money already)
• Bachmann (has money and will power. May make it to the VP slot)
• Giuliani (if he gets past the early states)

2nd tier with a chance

• Huntsman (has the money to stay in for awhile and has the backing of the Beltway crowd. Had a pretty good track record as a governor and has foreign policy experience, the only one really in this pack. But this is an election year of economics not foreign policy and his economic background is much weaker than Romney’s )
• Perry (if he gets in. He has a good story to tell on economic experience with a large state and doesn’t have as much baggage as Romney has. Perry will have a good shot at going all the way if he decides to enter the race. His biggest problem is that he is a TX governor.)

I don’t see Cain or Gingrich being in the 1st tier much after Labor Day

I don’t think Palin will run

Paul will stay at about 7-9%. I expect him to fly in his supporters and win most of the straw polls. He may win some caucuses, but that’s it.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I voted for Ron Paul.

youtube.com/watch?v=UmsP95Bl9pM

If California want’s to experiment with legalizing drugs then so be it. Paul’s the most ardent supporter of states rights we will ever see. The federal government is not there to hold our hands it’s there to perform it’s duties granted to it in the Constitution. It is up to you and your fellow citizens in your state to determine what kind of community you want to live in. Leave my community out of it.

However, if it comes down to the wire and Paul’s not the candidate I will vote for the next best thing. Because we need to stick togethor and vote for the most likely pro-life candidate.

 

[ExLibris]

I would agree with your frontrunners list, though I don’t much care for it.

I’ll probably end up voting for whoever the Constitution Party throws out there, assuming Paul loses the nomination bid.

 

[Gift_from_God]

I’m Canadian, so I can’t vote for the Americans, but here’s who I’d like to see run;

Uncle Phil from the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air! He’s a prominent Republican

Man, was that ever a decent show

 

[gilliam]

I would agree with your frontrunners list, though I don’t much care for it.

I’ll probably end up voting for whoever the Constitution Party throws out there, assuming Paul loses the nomination bid.

Paul’s a Libertarian with an (R) after his name. He isn’t going to be the nominee of the Republican Party. The Republicans have changed a little in 2 years but they haven’t become Libertarians.

 

[ExLibris]

Paul’s a Libertarian with an (R) after his name. He isn’t going to be the nominee of the Republican Party. The Republicans have changed a little in 2 years but they haven’t become Libertarians.

I understand the unlikeliness, don’t get me wrong. But I won’t completely write him off, it would invalidate my prayer.

 

[SalesianSDB]

Paul is my first choice, but really the only other candidates that I could imagine supporting are Bachmann and Cain.

Unfortunately, from what I’ve read, Michele’s had historical inaccuracies in some of her speeches and will be floated around as the other Palin, and as a know nothing, racist, tea partier. Though, I must ask, if she is so stupid, how did she graduate from the College of William and Mary Law School (the nation’s oldest law school)? I don’t get the left’s reasonings on that.

What I don’t like about Cain is his comments on foreign policy. In the debate he made it sound as if he’ll just do what his generals tell him. As Ron Paul said, “I’m Commander in Chief, I call the shots.”

My problem with Pawlenty is ObamneyCare. Don’t go on a talk show on Sunday, criticize your opponent, then pretty much take back the comment you made the next day when on stage with your opponent. It shows weakness. His campaign had to know if he used it Sunday it would show up in the debate. He had an opportunity to get Mitt Romney on healthcare, but he didn’t take it. John King threw him a soft ball and he struck out.

From what I’ve been reading, Newt’s been taking some of Ron Paul’s ideas. Good. Paul’s ideas are becoming more mainstream.

The thing is, the more people say “He could never win,” he won’t win. If people have that mindset, it’ll never happen. If people in 2008 kept on saying, a black junior senator from Illinois could never defeat Hillary Clinton and people believed them, Barack Obama would never have become president. The more open mind people have of Ron Paul, the better chance he will have.

In the primaries I tend to support the person I agree with the most and the person I honestly want to be President, not the front-runner because he has the best chance. I save the general election for voting for the lesser of two evils.

I do think that Dr. Paul is the best choice for our country, and no amount of “but, but, he can’t win” will get me to change my vote in the primaries. This election is too important.

And just thought I’d mention, his strongest supporters are the youth.

 

[gilliam]

I agree both Bachmann and Cain are weak candidates. Cain especially. Bachmann did surprisingly well in the last debate and since then the press have been easy on her. She starts a bus tour next week I think, we will see how that goes.

But if she is the candidate against Obama I don’t see how she can stand up to the bashing she will get from the media. Perry may have a lesser but similar problem. Romney, Pawlenty, Giuliani, and Huntsman don’t have that problem.

 

[Seamus_L]

Ron Paul appears to be electable among Catholics if this forum is anything to go by.

 

[gilliam]

Ron Paul appears to be electable among Catholics if this forum is anything to go by.

Naw, the same thing happened in 2008. Most of the Catholics in the real world voted for Obama the rest voted for McCain. Extremely few voted for Paul.

 

[Nec5]

Romney, Pawlenty, Giuliani, and Huntsman don’t have that problem[press bashing them].

That’s because they’re democrat light or closet progressives. Their this election’s John McCain incarnation.

 

[gilliam]

That’s because they’re democrat light or closet progressives. Their this election’s John McCain incarnation.

Nope, they are conservatives. Well all but Huntsman anyway. Even McCain is a conservative. Take a look (all from this site: ontheissues.org )

Mccain’s chart:

Romney:

Pawlenty:


Guiliani



Huntsman


Ron Paul

Palin

Bauchmann

 

[gilliam]

For reference, here is Obama’s chart



Hillary Clinton



Bill Clinton


Rush Limbaugh



R. Reagan

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I came on this forum here to see who everyone was leaning towards and to my discomfort I see that Ron Paul is ahead .My only question is why? Is it because of his morals ? because I can assure you that there are plenty of candidates sharing the same morals as him . WE dont need to vote for him . This country made a big mistake by voting in Obama and one of the reasons why was because we did not have a good enough candidate . Ron Paul will not do the job . Michelle would give Obama a run for his money . Her christian morals line up and she is young . Voters these days dont like older . Ron should do us all a great service and drop out . Newt would have been great but his ship seems to have sailed plus the baggage he carries with him .Lets just a all think before hitting the booth . We pick another much older man then we mine as well prepare for another 4 years of Obama . Sorry guys but its the truth .

I already have a moral leader. locally, his name is Paul Loverde, globally Benedict XVI. For President, I want a person who understands the proper role of government and how the Constitution works. The only one I can see who has a consistent track record of both is Ron Paul.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Someone who is in favor of legalizing heroin is not going to be the Republican nominee. So face it, Ron Paul isn’t going to get the nod.

Good Lord, here we go again. ROn Paul is not for “legalizing” heroin. He is for decriminalizing it at the FEDERAL LEVEL. States can still do whatever they want. Businesses can still have zero tolerance policies. Federal employers can have zero tolerance policies. The federal War on Drugs has been an epic disaster and has done nothing but created an army of powerful, violent drug cartels in South America.

 

[kh79]

I can understand your frustration. And I admire Ron Paul for standing up for his beliefs all these years. But, just to throw this out: is it fair to compare Ron Paul with former presidents who had to deal with the political reality of their opposition? I mean, Reagan ran on reducing the size of government and ran smack into the political reality of Tip O’neill. Given that Ron Paul has never had to govern in a situation in which he had to compromise and engage in the political give and take that all presidents and governors have to do, is it fair to say that we don’t know how effective a Ron Paul type candidate would be if somehow he won the election? He might bring the full plate to the table, but after the inevitable negotiating with the opposition, what would be left on his plate? I think its a fair question to pose. Ron Paul (and any other 3rd party “full plate” true-believer candidate) has never had to deal with an real opposition and deliver on his promises as a chief executive. He can sit safely and comfortably where he is and say what he wants knowing that he will never have to deliver on his rhetoric.

Ishii

I don’t think he’d compromise. He never has and I doubt he ever will on a regular basis. There may be some instances where he might rationalize it as a marginal step forward, but I suspect that will not be standard. What you’d probably see is a record number of vetoes in his term, and by a long shot which is a refreshing idea in the era of “coming together.” I think you’d also see a significant number of executive orders undoing some of the mess, using constitutional arguments to justify them (bringing the troops home as an example). The main thing with Ron Paul is that he is everything the disenchanted voter claims to want; he isn’t bought and paid for, and his actions match his rhetoric. Instead of jumping on the wagon with both feet, they pussyfoot around because Fox News et al say he can’t win. Don’t let the media decide the winner!

 

[jam070406]

I already have a moral leader. locally, his name is Paul Loverde, globally Benedict XVI. For President, I want a person who understands the proper role of government and how the Constitution works. The only one I can see who has a consistent track record of both is Ron Paul.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Good Lord, here we go again. ROn Paul is not for “legalizing” heroin. He is for decriminalizing it at the FEDERAL LEVEL. States can still do whatever they want. Businesses can still have zero tolerance policies. Federal employers can have zero tolerance policies. The federal War on Drugs has been an epic disaster and has done nothing but created an army of powerful, violent drug cartels in South America.

So if abortion was illegal and someone wanted to decriminalize it, that isn’t legalizing it in some form?

The fact that the “war on drugs” hasn’t been won shouldn’t affect whether we just give up and go home. Try telling pro lifers that the abortion fight has been an epic disaster and we should give up.

You’re funny in a way because you said in another post that you acknowledge the personal responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves but you don’t like the government doing the same thing. What is a government consist of? People. What different should it make if a large group of people try to help others or a person?

This part of libertarianism is evil and in my humble opinion is unCatholic.

 

[estesbob]

Unfortunately, this thread has deteriorated immediately into the usual Ron Paul apologists raising him to demigod status and lashing out angrily at anybody that points out his shortcomings.

He is unelectable, his simplistic views from solving on solving the economic problems facing this country are unworkable and his simplistic foreign policy would put the country at risk. Couple that with his belief that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race and you have an absolute disaster if he were to become the GOP nominee.

In all of these polls formally. I’ve voted for Romney, but his refusal to sign the pro-life pledge has reinforced my uneasiness about his commitment to pro-life issues. I voted for Bachmann this time around, although I still think it is probable Romney will be the nominee unless Perry gets into the race.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Unfortunately, this thread has deteriorated immediately into the usual Ron Paul apologists raising him to demigod status and lashing out angrily at anybody that points out his shortcomings.

He is unelectable, his simplistic views from solving on solving the economic problems facing this country are unworkable and his simplistic foreign policy would put the country at risk. Couple that with his belief that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race and you have an absolute disaster if he were to become the GOP nominee.

In all of these polls formally. I’ve voted for Romney, but his refusal to sign the pro-life pledge has reinforced my uneasiness about his commitment to pro-life issues. I voted for Bachmann this time around, although I still think it is probable Romney will be the nominee unless Perry gets into the race.

Bob, I’m a bit frustrated that you talk those of us who like Ron Paul the same way Catholic democrats talk to you about supporting pro life candidates.