Which Republican do you presently prefer for 2012?

Post Reply New Topic

When it comes to (most) civil liberties and foreign policy, then you're probably right (even though UN multilateralism is the more progressive position than pure isolationism). On abortion, income taxation, Medicare/Social Security/Medicaid, workplace health and safety standards, environmental protection legislation, and the Post Office, Obama is more progressive than Ron Paul - and Obama's no progressive.

Ron Paul is pretty much Barry Goldwater without the hawkishness and with a greater tendency to pander to the religious right and social conservatives (at least compared to 1980s Barry Goldwater). He invokes "States' rights" on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, which is code word for "since we can't win federally, perhaps state-level socon organizations will have more effectiveness" - Southern Racists really loved to yammer on and on about "States' rights". Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution (wow, I see you really don't need a thorough understanding of the core theory of biology to get an M.D.), said he'd veto any bill that funds Planned Parenthood as President, disbelieves in a "wall of seperation", opposes public schools, would gut various environmental laws, would gut various labour laws, and supports policies that'd have a deflationary effect. To boot, he's managed to have hsi cake and eat it too by voting against spending bills to maintain ideological purity while lacing them with earmarks for his district to avoid electoral consequences.

The anti-war left truly showed how single-issue it was when they started to fawn over Paul as a "good, honest, REAL conservative". While I don't question his honesty, I certainly question his virtue - this ad reveals what a typical, brain-killing Republican campaign Paul's capable of running.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDBp1OrCwI[/youtube]

Just for anyone who at all thinks this ad has good points - Rick Perry didn't back Gore in 2000, he backed him in 1988 (the ad - I think deliberately - fails to specify the year). In 1988 Al Gore was a conservative Democrat and quite different from the Al Gore of 2000, who was still different from the Al Gore of 2007-present.

Nevertheless, if you prefer the Man who stood with the Actor who Played President, by all means catalyze the RON PAUL REVOLUTION!! !

that would be an unfortunate loss for the country since almost all of them on the GOP side (and any "true" progressive you could possibly think of from the Democrats who could challenge Obama) don't have what it takes to fix this country's problems.

There is a chance he will win the nomination against Perry. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1452.html

RCP has him down for the last 2 weeks but do note that Palin came in late in the game, drove polls upwards like crazy, and lost disheartened conservatives on voting day.

Even if one is elected, it would take two terms in the white house to begin the process of healing and fixing it. Education reform, Energy reform, Tax reform, Health Care Reform, and Entitlement Reform and Immigration reform all need to be addressed. If a president can address the first four in his first term while reassuring them in the second and tackling the last three, this nation will be on track to outlive the prediction of its death in 2025.

The ad says after Reagan not after Clinton and that Perry wanted to undue the "Reagan Revolution", it's pretty clear he meant 1988. Al Gore views didn't changed that much between 1988 and 2000 btw, Gore has always been a big war hawk and that's why Perry supported him apparently which is funny since dorky democrats still fantasize about if only Al Gore was elected president the Iraq War would of never happened even tho the Clinton administration laid the ground work for the eventual invasion and "intervened" in like a half dozen other countries. If Gore would of been president, the invasion still happens and you'd have a large faction of the GOP crusading against the war (remember Bush in the 2000 elections) altho probably considerably less thanks to the dominant Trotskyite wing of the party. McCain, Graham, etc's bloodlust knows no end and they can work bipartisanly on the matter of killing mass amounts of people. Gore changing his tune after the fact is just him trying to score political points. It's all an act and 98% of these people have no principles.

and omg, did I just hear someone mention Romney-Lieberman ticket? I think I'm going to kill myself now and save myself the horror.

In a cynical way, it wouldn't be the end of the world if Obama won another term. He's a pathetic weak leader who has been completely neutered, we'd probably see 4 more years of deadlock. If someone like Romney, Perry, or Huntsman won; they'd probably pass more of Obama's legislation than he ever could.

Nor does Obama.

ruveyn

Great commentary. Should we vote for Obama just to make sure his legislation is stopped?

So far, Ron Paul is in the lead, with Jon Huntsman and Inuyasha each one vote behind.

Ron Paul does have something of a cult following, especially among people who participate in internet polls. The supporters of Libertarians tend to be among the most articulate around, and the most committed to their cause. But, when it comes to the general election, Libertarians generally garner about 2% of the vote. Although, Ron Paul does seem to be doing a bit better this time around than in past years. We'll see when the primaries actually start.

So, Rick Perry actually supported Al Gore, who is one of the vilest demon's in Republican mythology?

AND, he failed to support Ronald Reagan, who is Very God of Very Gods within the Republican pantheon?

These revelations could be more damaging to the Perry campaign than recent revelations concerning his sick and perverted antics with male prostitutes. Not to mention the titillation he experiences when causing a toilet to explode while another man is seated upon it.

I chose Ron Paul, but would also endorse Chris Christie if he would run. Ditto for Bobby Jindal.

Even though I vote Democrat, I for now say Romney and can see
a Romney/Perry ticket having the best chance
of taking on Obama in 2012.

If Romney wins, we'd be very much screwed.

If Mitt Romney were Evango-Fascist rather than Mormon, he'd have a very good chance. Against Obama, he would sweep the South, and run competitively in the North.

However, his Mormon religion, coupled with his attempt at health reform in Massachusetts, guarantees that he will not win the Republican nomination.

Jon Huntsman is doing well in our poll. President Obama comes close to endorsing him.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/ob ... 2-12650415

That would make for an interesting presidential race.

Last edited by pandabear on 11 Sep 2011, 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Their loss. So sad.

Republicans are dead set against any sort of health care reform, and want to undo the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Mitt Romney does seem to be on the defensive, having introduced "Romneycare" to Massachusetts, and feeling obliged to attack PPACA, but only being able to do so in a relatively weak way, to avoid appearing to be too much of a hypocrite.

It looks like Inuyasha and Mitt Romney are starting to pull ahead of the pack.

On further reflection, I'm thinking that Mitt Romney might be the best of a bad bunch.

At least he has some experience with health care reform, and may have some ideas to improve upon the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

He is trying to appeal to "Conservatives", so of course he has to try to put on a mean front, and try to snarl a lot. But, he may be the best choice out there.

Allen West he is the best choice the GOP has of beating Obama

Allen West is a legitimately insane neocon's neocon.