Let's start with Herman Cain. I liked his pro-life values and his successful business background. I liked the way he spoke (at least initially) directly and confidently. The more he was tested though, the more his weaknesses glared at me. He is not only unprepared for a political career, he is apparently a chauvinist perv too. He didn't have any solid plans regarding foreign policy---all he really had was his 9 9 9 plan for the economy. Pfft..done.
I initially really liked Rick Santorum because he seemed very conservative. And perhaps he is. He isn't going to win this primary, and definitely doesn't have the appeal necessary to oust B.O. My opinions on a few conservative issues has changed--or at least what is currently being defined as conservative. More on that later.
Michelle Bachmann. Sweet lady. Good heart, but I just don't think a woman (especially a pro-life woman) will ever be respected enough to be president. And I've never been too impressed by her in debates. In fact, the only thing I ever remember her saying over and over in her Minnesota accent is "as president of the United States of America I would do that..." Wasting precious time saying those 12 unnecessary words every time instead of directly answering the question and proving her stance/plan is better than others'. Add to that the controversy of her husband running a 'pray the gay away' type camp....not worth my vote. As previously noted, any candidate that makes gays an important topic (whether for or against) is not gonna impress me. You're either catering to the idiots that make 'gay rights' into a civil rights fight on par with racial segregation or the Salem witch trials....(BTW, can you do or read anything without being bombarded with gayness? It's as if it's discrimination not to be talking about homosexuals 24/7)..or you're making a joke of yourself with the 'pray the gay away' stuff. Whoever cares so much about this issue, has too much time on their hands but is too lazy to find a real issue to fight for, that might require a little more effort than slapping a rainbow sticker on your Subaru.
Mitt Romney. I've always sorta liked the guy. Just sorta though. He's the "..well, if we have to.." candidate to me. He does well in the debates. I just don't believe his stances to be sincere. I think especially coming from Massachusetts, he has had to change stances according to who's asking, and who's paying. His health care plan, which apparently Obama-care was modeled after, is questionable. I know his response would be that his model worked at the State-level, not necessarily Federally. The fact that he only recently claims he is pro-life, just seems all too convenient---I don't believe he would appoint strictly pro-life judges.
Rick Perry..ugh. Before I knew him, I liked him. lol. I mean, when I first heard his name being said as in the presidential running, I was hopeful. As a new resident of Texas, I can say this is the place to be. He has done a good job keeping this state afloat in a drowning economy. But again, the more I see of him, the more ridiculous and unprepared he seems. I get nervous when he speaks. In the debates, he seemed really umm...immature..like his answers weren't well-thought out and confident. It seemed like he was cornered and then just spewed out things that were irrelevant character attacks. I didn't like his attempt at mandating the HPV vaccine...His ad emphasizing frustration with "gays openly serving in the military" was the straw though. I guess there weren't any bigger issues on the table huh? Glad he has done a lot for the pro-life movement on the state-level, but that's where he should stay.
Newt Gingrich...I really liked Newt. Even back in 2007 I was hoping he would run. I didn't know a lot about his record (professionally, or otherwise...) but everytime I heard him speak or read his books, I was impressed with his knowledge. He did so well in the debates--his answers were poignant and delivered with calm confidence. His personal life is disappointing but didn't necessarily discount him as a candidate. The fact that he was Speaker of the House and had numerous ethics investigations is bothersome. He isn't something fresh and new. He's smart--I just don't quite trust him.
And Ron Paul. To be honest I sort of disregarded him in the beginning. Although I liked that he is pro-life and delivered thousands of babies as a doctor, his extreme views and support from annoying kids that just want to do drugs, turned me off. In fact, I even now see that Fox News really doesn't like him. Everyone on both sides treats him like a stigma. Which in addition to my disappointment in the other candidates, led me to investigate a little more.
If you ever see him in the debates, I think you'll agree that he is sort of like that grandparent that doesn't hold back--brutally honest at times. He's a guy that doesn't change his tune according to who's listening. He knows his stances in and out, no matter how many times people try to poke holes in them because they aren't understanding. After looking at the reasoning behind his polarizing views, you will see that they are actually the most faithful to the constitution and to American prosperity. It was hard at first to see things as they have been presented on the surface forever, and then acknowledge that the basis for those things was backward. This is getting too vague huh?
Well, basically Ron Paul's motto is as long as no one hurts another person, let people do what they want. The government's intended role has been laid out, but it has been given more and more power and control, that has led to a totalitarian way. Lead by example not force.
Here's a very educational video on why he takes the 'isolationist' stance he does:
His stance on making drugs legal---his argument is that most prisons are filled with people who had non-violent drug charges..How much money is being wasted on incarcerating people who committed non-violent drug crimes? He says making drugs legal won't result in everyone going to do heroine. He asserts that telling people "this is bad for you, so it is illegal" is not the American way-that it's a slippery slope to outlawing fatty foods, or any given thing deemed to be potentially harmful. To Ron Paul, you have free will to make bad decisions as long as you take responsibility for it. I agree.
His stance on foreign policy was a little odd to me. But it makes sense. He wants our troops home to protect OUR country. He wants to stop wasting money on wars and keeping troops throughout the world for no purpose. He wants to trim the fat---although I agree the troops need support, respect and good pay, there is a lot of wasted money and 'jobs' in the military. Watch the video and see--Ron Paul has received more donations from veterans than all the other candidates COMBINED. They appreciate that he listens to them.
Even his somewhat scary stance on 9/11 is understandable now. I don't think he ever said we 'deserve' to be attacked--but he basically shows that it was inevitable given our interference which began in the 50's. I never knew all this stuff. It is a little less scary to think that the Al-Qaeda just wants us out of their country, than wanting to kill us just because we are 'successful' or because of our Western values etc. If we could pull all our troops back in, reinforce our borders and strengthen our economy by cutting all the wasted foreign aid (because it isn't going to the people who need it---and those efforts would still be made by the private sector) our country's success might have a domino effect---to lead by example, not force. Our status hasn't improved in the world, no matter which party was in control--and yet billions are still being wasted on other countries.
He seems to have been predicting the troubles we are currently facing for decades. It's obvious how frustrated he is because as a member of Congress he has been trying to stop the wasted dollars--and he was always alone. Saying no to wasteful bills regardless of their popularity. He intends to cut a trillion off the deficit if he wins, and to do away with a few top governmental agencies that are wasting tax money and not serving their intended purposes. The primary reason being that the government was not intended to mandate health insurance, education or environmental policy, and most importantly, the Federal Reserve (but I think with the Fed it would have to be revamped, not totally done away with)--these are all issues to be dealt with at the state level. The government's job is to preserve liberty. Basically providing equal opportunity--NOT equal outcomes.
I liked this guy's take on why Ron Paul isn't racist--basically Ron Paul said he wouldn't vote for the Civil Right's Act ---seems racist but it's not. A business' success is determined by the free market --me and you--not the government. If a business were to only cater to whites, they would go out of business next-door to the business selling to everyone. Again, free will to make dumb decisions. If you can ignore this guy saying "know what I meen?" over and over, watch it--he's smart:
And I hate the daily show. Don't like Jon Stewart, but this was pretty good:
What do you think? He's changing more and more minds with his conviction and honesty.
Consider me a conservative-libertarian. :)
2 comments:
ok, well done! I think I'm with you on this, but I just really hope that what he would do with the money NOT spent on our occupation in other countries would be used to protect our borders. that would be great, although I still think there are a few countries out there who will be wanting us to occupy them and get their evil dictators out, north korea...scary
Yes I think his foreign policy regarding minding our own business is a very general application...there are circumstances where we may have to deploy troops in other nations, but there would have to be proof that our national security is endangered. There are horrible things going on around the world, and cruel dictators--and I think there are better ways to deal with them than war. Namely, who we do business with (once our standing in the economic stage is restored). He is really big on border security. I hope he doesn't disappoint like the others have. But you also have to remember, as a strict constitutionalist, the president doesn't really have as much power (or at least they weren't meant to) as congress really does. If you really look at the decisions that have rapidly changed this country, they have mostly been in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court and congress.
Post a Comment