Republican candidates for 2012

• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;904787 wrote:As Ronnie used to say, "there you go, again." You are once again linking conservatives to Republicans. Not the same thing. You do realize there are conservative Democrats...right?

  Well Boatshoes does know the differences among Marxism, socialism, and "contemporary" liberalism.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;904787 wrote:As Ronnie used to say, "there you go, again." You are once again linking conservatives to Republicans. Not the same thing. You do realize there are conservative Democrats...right? Reagan whooped Carter's ass with their support.
  
  By the way, how did those "Repubs In Name Only" fare in 2006, 2008, and 2010? Did conservatives turn their back on them or reward them?
  
  By the way #2: If the prescription drug benefit for Medicare is sooooo bad, then why didn't the super-majority of Dems during Barry's first 2 years repeal it? They would have much support from at least 1 Senate Republican that they needed.

  Who? And make sure we're using the same definition of conservative here.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;904711 wrote:Following a Conservative Strict Constructionist method of interpretation the enumerated powers only expressly grant Congress the power to fund an Army and a Navy. I think you'd be hard pressed using that method of construction to justify that vast and ubiquitous nature of the department of defense.

  Excellent point. This is where conservatives railing about the unconstitutionality of acts of the federal government need to take note. The greatest fear the founders ever had was of the military. It was the tool used to oppress them. Above all domestic issues they feared creating a military that would one day be able to force future generations into submission. You note that the constitution grants power to fund an Army and a Navy. In the Constitution the founders placed limits on the appropriation of funds for the Army. An Army was feared as a greater threat to suppress the people. But arms of defense not envisioned at the founding have no such limits today. They default to the least common denominator.
  
  Violations of the Constitution in the name of "Common Defense" are as prevalent as those in the name of "General Welfare". If the federal government adhered to the Constitution they would not be in the economic mess they are in today.
  

  BoatShoes;904711 wrote:FWIW the largest expansion of socialized medicine in the United States since the 60's occurred in 2003 with a Republican Congress and a Republican President.

  Myself and many conservative railed against this. You would be hard pressed to find anyone on the right on this forum who would defend it. What is your point? Just because some big government republican supported a large socialist expansion at the federal level does not make everyone on the right a hypocrite by default.
• majorspark

  

  Ron Paul and Herman Cain are currently kicking ass and taking names in tonight's debate.
• sleeper

  

  I would love to see Herman Cain or Ron Paul win the presidency in 2012. I don't really like Perry anymore, and Mitt looks like a douche.
• majorspark

  

  Yeah Perry just blew a great opportunity with the department of education question. He chose instead to hit Romney. Perry seems scared to stand up for his core beliefs. He is running away from what he said about social security. Romney is definitely way off the mark, but he did give a better answer than Perry on education. Perry is currently pissing down his leg.
• pmoney25

  

  Rick Perry is a joke of a candidate. He is getting destroyed.
• sleeper

  

  It's going to suck come November 2012 if its Romney or Perry against Obama. I will have to plug my nose and make a vote against Obama rather than have any confidence in my selection.
• majorspark

  

  Perry is losing me. He must have taken bad advice from some balless adviser. He looks like a foolish politician. Bachman has more balls the he does. Evan Govenor Cuntsman displayed more balls on the education issue than Perry.
• fish82

  

  In other news, the season premiere of Greys Anatomy is really good.
• majorspark

  

  I must say the blond chick in red asking questions for Fox is hot. Keeps my mind off the idiots.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  If Newt is the candidate, just give the keys to Obama and let him stay. Newt is not electable. His personal baggage says so.
• majorspark

  

  Writerbuckeye;907525 wrote:If Newt is the candidate, just give the keys to Obama and let him stay. Newt is not electable. His personal baggage says so.

  I agree with your assessment on Newt. Paul and Johnston were hitting it. Herman Cain really impressed me as well. If he got the nomination as a bonus the left would have their race nuts snipped.
• O-Trap

  

  majorspark;907538 wrote:I agree with your assessment on Newt. Paul and Johnston were hitting it. Herman Cain really impressed me as well. If he got the nomination as a bonus the left would have their race nuts snipped.

  LOL'D @ "race nuts snipped."
• wkfan

  One of the best things about a Cain v BHO election would be that the black vote would be neutralized.
• I Wear Pants

  ccrunner609;907684 wrote:Everyone has baggage.....nothing can compare to the 4 years of baggage that Obama has laid out. Not one of those pubs could lose to Obama.

  Yes, yes they could.
  
  Not saying they all will/would be several of them would most likely lose to Obama.
• I Wear Pants

  How do you guys feel about the gay soldier that got booed?
• I Wear Pants

  Lol you called SAntorum well rounded. He's a psycho.
• Skyhook79

  

  I Wear Pants;907753 wrote:How do you guys feel about the gay soldier that got booed?

  I feel they were exercising their 1st Amendment right.
• pmoney25

  

  I thought it was classless honestly. This guy puts his life on the line for our freedom and he gets booed for asking a question.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Romney is no different from Obama. Rick Perry is a joke. He doesn't believe any of the talking points he uses so of course he is going to look like a fool when challenged on them. Bachmann claims to defend the Constitution while voting for the Patriot Act and H.R. 1540 giving the President unilateral authority to wage war and assassinate United States citizens if they are deemed to be "associated forces" of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. Cain has some good ideas, but not enough, and he never says anything about our foreign policy, so I couldn't vote for him. Santorum is a clown. Gingrich talks a good game but he is the same old Washington politician. None of them even understand the mess we are in and certainly have no idea how to fix it. There is one guy who I will vote for out of the Republican candidates, and if he doesn't win the nomination I will vote for a third party. It would be a waste of a vote to vote for Romney or Obama when they are both the same candidate. Funny thing is, most of Ron Paul's 10-15% of the vote (depending on what poll you look at) won't be voting for the nominee if it isn't Paul, so that pretty much kills any chance of another Republican beating Obama.
• jhay78

  

  Cleveland Buck;907910 wrote:Romney is no different from Obama. Rick Perry is a joke. He doesn't believe any of the talking points he uses so of course he is going to look like a fool when challenged on them. Bachmann claims to defend the Constitution while voting for the Patriot Act and H.R. 1540 giving the President unilateral authority to wage war and assassinate United States citizens if they are deemed to be "associated forces" of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. Cain has some good ideas, but not enough, and he never says anything about our foreign policy, so I couldn't vote for him. Santorum is a clown. Gingrich talks a good game but he is the same old Washington politician. None of them even understand the mess we are in and certainly have no idea how to fix it. There is one guy who I will vote for out of the Republican candidates, and if he doesn't win the nomination I will vote for a third party. It would be a waste of a vote to vote for Romney or Obama when they are both the same candidate. Funny thing is, most of Ron Paul's 10-15% of the vote (depending on what poll you look at) won't be voting for the nominee if it isn't Paul, so that pretty much kills any chance of another Republican beating Obama.

  So is Ron Paul the best candidate, or is it all about the crystal ball telling us that pragmatically he's the only one who could beat Obama? Because my crystal ball of the last 100 years of history tells me that no third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt has garnered more than 20% of the popular vote in any presidential election.
  
  I have so many issues with Ron Paul and his candidacy, but not enough time here to hash it all out. I like a lot of what he says and I understand where he's coming from, but certain issues disqualify him for me.
  
  Like this:
  

  Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says he would consider putting the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in his Cabinet if he were to win the presidency in 2012.
  Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left — including Kucinich,
  who shares Paul’s general anti-war stance. Paul joked that if he brought the Ohio congressman aboard in his administration, he might have to create a "Department of Peace."
  "You've got to give credit to people who think," he said

  Yeah, the first thing I think of when I think of Dennis Kucinich is "people who think".:rolleyes:
  
  Paul's camp kind of recanted:
  

  Paul spokesmen Jesse Benton later said the remark was a joke, and said Kucinich is too ideologically different from Paul to be a candidate for a Cabinet spot.
  "Ron works with Dennis on some coalition issues, and respects him as a thinker, but was joking and would not consider him for Cabinet position. He made clear he did not want to name Cabinet officials," Benton said.

  Again, "respects him as a thinker" erases everything else in that quote. I really don't think we need a Code Pink wing of the Republican Party.
  
  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182939-ron-paul-says-hed-consider-putting-dennis-kucinich-in-his-cabinet
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;907753 wrote:How do you guys feel about the gay soldier that got booed?

  I would have booed him too. Your sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything other than who you want to have sex with. It shouldn't give you any special benefits or preferential treatment, nor should it prevent you from serving your country. It was a bad question, and he clearly just wanted special attention.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  jhay78;907979 wrote:So is Ron Paul the best candidate, or is it all about the crystal ball telling us that pragmatically he's the only one who could beat Obama? Because my crystal ball of the last 100 years of history tells me that no third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt has garnered more than 20% of the popular vote in any presidential election.
  
  I have so many issues with Ron Paul and his candidacy, but not enough time here to hash it all out. I like a lot of what he says and I understand where he's coming from, but certain issues disqualify him for me.
  
  Like this:
  
  
  
  Yeah, the first thing I think of when I think of Dennis Kucinich is "people who think".:rolleyes:
  
  Paul's camp kind of recanted:
  
  
  
  Again, "respects him as a thinker" erases everything else in that quote. I really don't think we need a Code Pink wing of the Republican Party.
  
  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182939-ron-paul-says-hed-consider-putting-dennis-kucinich-in-his-cabinet

  Paul has said that he won't run as a third party candidate, but his supporters aren't going to vote for an establishment Republican that is no better than Obama. That is at least 10% of Republican primary voters that won't just vote for whoever has the R by their name. None of the other candidates beat Obama with independants, and if that candidate also loses 10% of Republicans, how are they going to beat Obama?
  
  And you can vote for whoever you want, but of all the reasons not to vote for Paul, that one is pretty ridiculous. If his joke about Kucinich weighs that heavily on your mind then you deserve to vote for Romney and wonder what happened when we invade Iran to try and galvanize a country that is starving because our dollars won't buy food anymore.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  ...
  
  Domestic Policy
  Take Paul’s position on our drug policy. His critics argue that he favors the legalization of recreational drugs. They are mistaken. What Paul favors is an end to the federal government’s ban on drug usage for recreational purposes. That is, he believes that whether drugs should be legal or not is a question that properly, constitutionally, belongs to the states to address. If the residents of a state decide that they would prefer to maintain the current policy of the federal government, then so be it; they have the right, as far as Congressman Paul is concerned, to make that decision.
  
  
  As far as his positions on marriage, prostitution, gambling, and virtually every other issue go, his reasoning is identical to that which informs his perspective on drug policy: it is the individual states, not the federal government, that the Constitution entrusts with the authority to settle these matters. Thus, Paul argues for the dismantling, not of all laws governing such activities, but of all federal laws designed to do so.
  Paul’s Republican critics would be well served to attend to the Paul Derangement Syndrome that has overtaken them. You see, if Paul can be said to affirm the legalization of drugs and prostitution because of his stance that these are “states’ rights” issues, then, by parity of reasoning, every other self-proclaimed &#8220ro-life” Republican who insists upon making abortion a “states’ rights” issue stands convicted of fraudulence, for they expose themselves as proponents of abortion.
  
  
  That Paul is as strong and consistent a foe of abortion no one who knows of his record as an obstetrician would think to deny. This is telling, for it suggests that the distortions of his viewpoints spring not from ignorance, but bad faith. Anyone doubting this should just bear the following consideration in mind: Because Paul thinks that drug usage, prostitution, and gambling are matters with respect to which the federal government hasn’t the constitutional authority to speak, his objectors don’t hesitate to conclude that he champions their legalization. Yet when he makes the same claim about the federal government’s role vis-à-vis abortion — that is, when he makes the same exact claim that they do about this issue — his fellow Republicans do not so much as remotely suggest that he advocates the legalization of abortion. In convicting Paul of this, they would just as quickly condemn themselves. So maybe, just maybe, they do understand his positions on these other issues but refuse to justly characterize them.
  
  
  Foreign Policy
  It is really Paul’s position on foreign policy that incenses his critics to no end. As everyone knows, Ron Paul staunchly opposes what he refers to as “militarism,” a doctrine — sometimes euphemistically described by its apologists as “American Exceptionalism” — that calls for America to essentially &#8220olice” the globe against “human rights” violators or, what amounts to the same thing, the enemies of “democracy.” Since this enterprise has, within the last decade, been prosecuted in the name of combating Islamic terror, it is principally Paul’s objections against the assumptions, implications, and tactics of “the War on Terror” that have earned him both the contempt and fear of his competitors.
  
  
  To begin with, Paul emphatically rejects the proposition — treated as an axiom by the Republican Party — that Muslims hate us because of our liberties and freedoms. Rather, it is a hyper-aggressive American foreign policy, he insists, with its occupation of and sanctions and wars against Islamic lands, that accounts for the rage that culminated in the attacks of 9/11.
  
  
  For this position, Rick Santorum and legions of other representatives of the GOP establishment have blasted Paul for “blaming America” for the attacks. There are, though, at a minimum, three fatal problems with their approach.
  First, an understanding of an agent’s action need not involve praise or blame. Descriptive statements are distinct from prescriptive statements: Just because something is such and such a way doesn’t necessarily mean that it ought to be that way, and just because one thinks that such and such is this way doesn’t mean that he either approves or disapproves of it. In our daily lives, most of us have no difficulty grasping this simple conceptual distinction between, on the one hand, explanation, and, on the other, justification. For some reason, a little elementary logic of this kind manages to elude Paul’s Republican rivals when it comes to his stance on the motivations informing those Muslims who want us dead.
  
  
  Second, from Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 commission, from former CIA agents who spent decades in the Middle East to political science professor Robert Pape who, to date, has conducted the most extensive research into the reasons underlying Islamic terror, there is no short supply of authoritative sources from which Paul can readily draw in substantiating his position on the 9/11 attacks.
  
  
  Finally, let us say for argument’s sake that Paul did intend to blame the U.S. government for inviting the 9/11 attacks. That the government is not equivalent to the United States should be obvious to any and every lover of liberty. If, by ascribing blame to the government, Paul can be said to be ascribing blame to America, then whenever any other Republican holds the government accountable for objectionable policies or outcomes — something that occurs incessantly — they too must be held to be “blaming” America.
  
  
  As it stands, Republicans do themselves no service in conflating the federal government with the country itself. In hurling this bogus charge against Paul, they only contribute further to the growing perception among both the base of their party as well as independents that all of their talk of “limited government” and the like is just that: talk.
  
  
  Iran
  Paul has also taken considerable heat for failing to react with the same hysteria that the public has come to expect from Republicans when the subject of a nuclear-armed Iran arises. Now, few of us, including Paul, no doubt, want for Iran to be armed, and few of us, including Paul, support the Iranian regime. Yet none of this is in the least bit relevant to the question regarding how America should proceed in preventing a determined Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry.
  
  
  Paul recognizes that such preventive efforts must consist of actions that can only result in death and destruction: Whether America imposes sanctions or engages in military action of one kind or another, innocent Iranian (and possibly American) lives will be extinguished by our attempt to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear energy. He also recognizes that our military, already stretched to the snapping point, simply cannot afford (by any conceivable measure) to involve itself in but another “foreign entanglement,” especially in the Islamic world.
  
  
  But if, as his Republican nemeses hold, Paul’s perspective on this matter is so unacceptable, then how is their view any better? On the one hand, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran is one that they resolutely refuse to entertain: It is imperative that we prevent this state of affairs from materializing, they swear. However, on the other hand, not only have we long known that Iran was pursuing nuclear power, it began to expedite its pursuit during the Bush administration.
  
  
  And yet, to date, no action has been taken to deter it. Moreover, no concrete action to impede its efforts has even been seriously proposed.
  
  
  “Racism” and “Anti-Semitism”
  I usually refuse to dignify accusations of “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” and the like with a response, but they warrant some mention in connection with this defense of Ron Paul.
  
  
  Paul favors the elimination of all “foreign aid.” Because Israel is among the nations of the world to which the United States supplies financial assistance, some, like David Horowitz, have charged Paul with being “anti-Semitic.”
  It is strange indeed that those who never tire of lamenting the ills afflicted by the Welfare State against black Americans and others at home should find fault with a man who seeks only to liberate Israel (and every other country) from the oppressive burdens of the American Welfare State abroad. Paul is actually a friend to Israel inasmuch as he wants for it to be able to give unabashed expression to its sovereignty — something that will be forever impossible as long as it remains dependent upon America.
  
  
  Yet it is Paul’s detractors who want to maintain Israel’s dependence upon America who claim the moral high ground. It is they who are supposed to be the best friends of Israeli Jews.
  
  ...
  
  
  It is one thing to disagree with Congressman Paul. It is another thing to throw one baseless allegation after the other against him.

  http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/9097-the-case-against-ron-paul-is-defeated