Rick Santorum: I like Senator Santorum, he’s a pretty solid conservative and has been consistent on economic and social issues, he has a realistic view on foreign policy and he has stuck by his principles even when it was clearly going to cost him votes. I think he is a basically good man and I would have no trouble in voting for him. However, he nailed his colors to the mast of no gay “marriage” and as such can never get elected. He led the charge to pass a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman (failed to pass) and the gay/lesbian community and their allies will never forgive him for that. The homosexual lobby is far too influential, mostly due to their predominance in the media.
Michele Bachmann: I have a mostly favorable view of Congresswoman Bachmann. I agree with her on economic and social issues and I have a better opinion of her than most, she’s a relative newcomer and has had less time to be corrupted. However, I am put off by how often she seems to resort to slogans and sound bites. Some might applaud her for staying “on message” but I don’t like simple repetition of slogans. She seems like a nice lady, I could vote for her and she does seem to be getting better. However, past experience makes me wonder if that is real growth or just becoming better acquainted with how to play the game.
Newt Gingrich: The Speaker shot himself in the foot early on but my biggest problem with him has always been on moral grounds. Recently he had a religious conversion and he’s made a documentary about Pope John Paul II and done a couple interviews on EWTN. If all of that is genuine -great. God bless him. However, he was having an affair with his current wife while still married to his second wife and he was having an affair with his second wife while still married to his first wife. After a certain point a pattern of behavior becomes evident. He’s wasting my time.
Tim Pawlenty: Again, during primary season candidates do nothing but try to tell their voters what they want to hear and Governor Pawlenty has been doing that. There is something about him that rather puts me off though. In the debate (Monday night) he backed down from criticism he made of Governor Romney only the day before and that made him come off as just cowardly. If he would say it behind his back he should have been able to say it to his face. That was a big negative for me.
Ron Paul: Okay, I will admit to a little partiality for the one Texan running, I don’t agree with him on everything though. On economic issues and constitutional issues absolutely no one is anywhere near as correct as Congressman Paul. He is the only one who fully understands why our economy is in shambles and who appreciates the danger of our devaluing currency. He worries me a little on social issues (not much, but a little) and he just plain worries me on foreign policy -though even there he is probably right more often than wrong, I just worry the wrong could get us killed. I could easily vote for him but the problem is that in our system one man, even as brilliant as Ron Paul, cannot fix things all by himself and no Congress would ever go along with the changes a President Paul would (rightly) want to make.
Mitt Romney: So far Governor Romney is the front runner and I have already heard members of my own family say it is time to accept the inevitable and for everyone else to hush up and fall in. Sorry, cannot do it. I have serious issues with Romney and he cannot explain them away. The best thing I can say about him is that he stood up for his religion in a bold way in the last campaign rather than distancing himself from it. I admire his courage in doing that but he’s a Mormon and frankly, well, I’ll just say it, Mormons give me the creeps. I don’t see how anyone can honestly believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers, American Indians are Jews or that they can be protected by their magic underwear. Call me a bigot but that’s how I feel. Anyway, on other issues, despite supposing to be an economic wizard, Romney was pro-abortion when running for Governor of pro-abortion Massachusetts and then became pro-life before running for President in the last election. That seems insincere to me and abortion is an absolute no-compromise issue with me. He was also pro-gay agenda back then but has switched now. He also gave Massachusetts socialized healthcare and now thinks socialized health care is a bad idea. Sorry Mitt, I just don’t trust you.
Herman Cain: Seriously? He’s…I mean we are … seriously? What do you do when you have run businesses and had your own talk show? Run for President of the United States if you’re Herman Cain. I have heard a lot of conservatives fawning over this man and I cannot really understand why. Granted, he makes a lot of sense and he is very honest (it helps having never been a politician) but his lack of any experience at all in government shows with some of the obvious mistakes he has made. I also cannot get over the feeling that Herman Cain is being touted by some people to run against Obama just as GOP cover for charges of racism -and that would be sad. Again, I like most of what he says but we are talking about someone by whom Sarah Palin would be an ‘elder veteran statesman’ in comparison. Now is not the time.
I was listening to BBC Radio the other day and they had an interview on with a Republican party presidential candidate who was openly homosexual. He plans to change the Conservative outlook on homosexuals and wants to put an end to "gay-bashing." I didn't see him here, so was that just a prank, and April's fool's joke or is he already out?
ReplyDeleteAlso, we Hungarian Monarchists have discussed how bleak it could be for an American Monarchist - as he/she can only vote for Democrats and Republicans (there's probably no chance that the Royalist Party of America will get in anytime soon..).
We reached a conclusion that Monarchists should not vote, since - let's be honest - Democracy is anathema to us. Legitimacy comes from God, not from 'the' people.
I don't know why you're being so harsh on Herman Cain. Yes, he's inexperienced but it's not like most of the other "experienced" candidates (except Ron Paul) will be a saving grace for us either. And look on the bright side when it comes to race. If Herman Cain does get to be chosen as the republican candidate, see it as the day when race relations in America got interesting to say the least for having the political version of Super Bowl XLI. Speaking of Ron Paul, I’ll take my chances on his foreign policy, which is right on the money. For the one we have now has already tried, and we know has got people killed and much more mess.
ReplyDeletePeople can vote if they want to, if they don't then they don't have to. There is no one legitimate monarch for the United States of America so most monarchists that are here accept the system and try to make the best of it like anyone else and save their monarchist sympathies for other countries where it is the tradition and there is a legitimate prince who could be restored.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I don't know why you think I'm being so harsh on Herman Cain. If you think what I said about him was cruel and unusual you better steer clear of my corner of the internet or you might have a nervous breakdown. I don't think a vast amount of experience is necessary but one of the reasons I am a monarchist is that I think some degree of training is needed to handle the top job. Obama seems to me a prime example of what can befall making someone president who had little political experience and no executive experience at all. The gaffe he made about 'no Muslims being allowed in his administration' shows that. He didn't actually say that of course but a more experienced campaigner would have known that is how the words could be spun. It doesn't mean he's wrong it just means that to have a chance of actually winning you have to know how to avoid trick questions like that.
Ron Paul is just not a 'foreign policy guy'. That is not his strength. He also shot himself in the foot when he said killing Osama bin Laden should not have happened. Whether you agree with that or not, the fact is that if he wants to get elected he shouldn't have said it. He did vote in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan to get OBL after 911 so being so against sending in a small team to Pakistan to get the same guy seems a tad inconsistent. I know some other things about him that I don't like but I still consider him, by far, the best man in Congress.
If we are not going to take conflicts seriously, I agree with Paul, we should pack up and come home. I disagree with him, however, that doing so will make us perfectly safe. I will reiterate again that at this stage I could go along with him and pretty much agree with even the most extreme end of his isolationism my only worry is that if it doesn't make the world love us and trouble gathers on the horizon he might not act to nip it in the bud.
And again, the above was me praising Ron Paul and if that seemed unduly critical I don't think you'll find much wherein I don't seem like a big mean meanie.
I have read your blog for two years now. Still no nervous breakdown. Don't take my post as vouching so much for Herman Cain but not to single him out (or Obama, not a supporter) as being unfit for the job. When it comes to executive experience, Herman Cain has none but look at the other candidates. Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann all have better political experience but none of them entered an executive post that's presidential material. Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty are governors but running a state is not the equivalent of running the country. Jimmy Carter was a Governor but his presidency was disastrous. And when you look objectively of all the presidents, Do you honestly think experience cut it for these guys. That's what I mean when talking about Herman Cain.
ReplyDeleteWith Ron Paul, foreign policy may not be his strength to the general American political discourse but it's a major strength that caught many people of him, including me. I think he meant that it was to bring Osama Bin laden to trial instead of killing him so hastily. For if it turns out Osama wasn't responsible for any attack on the US, we could just as well say that we wasted year finding and killing a man who did nothing to us. As of making us safe, we haven't been invaded for 200 years (I omit the attacks of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 for they weren't invasions and our foreign policy for 9/11 provoked it. Our retaliation of pearl harbor was justified in my opinion but should go no further than that. I would say in any attack, our retaliation should be prudent, at least than what it is now.) and if the British couldn't defeat the Americans during the American Revolution despite having a better armed forces, being the great power of that time and all happening in it's own colonies. What makes you think that even the might of China would be successful in invading the US and what it is now? We might as well be the indirect cause of another revolution. This time in China because if that were to happen and prove unsuccessful, I doubt Communist China would survive. Ron Paul does want a strong defense, granted hes want's the defense to acutely mean defense.
You might have lost me in paragraph two there, I don't think I'm picking up what you're putting down. I'm glad OBL wasn't captured -it would have been a circus and anything who thinks he could have gotten a fair trial is kidding themselves. I feel the same about the Nuremburg Trials or the Tokyo Trials. Were they guilty? Sure. Were the trials fair? Not a chance, it would have been more honest to just take them out and shoot them.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm not sure I'm following you but here is my effort: (a) The British could have defeated the American rebels. French support and war weariness caused Britain to cut losses and give up. (b) If the PRC ever decided to invade the U.S. they could win even if their soldiers were armed with baseball bats. We'd run out of bullets before we could shoot them all. (c) Guarding our own national territory and nothing else is not as easy as it seems. We have treaties, we have obligations, we have "entangling alliances" we have gotten ourselves into and we can't just toss someone the keys and say, 'it's all yours, we're going home'.
But again, all of that I would gladly risk if Ron Paul could put the country itself in order but, as I stated above, he wouldn't even be able to do that because no one else understands the situation as he does and no Congress would ever go along with what Ron Paul thinks (and I think) needs to be done.
I actually agree with you on Ron Paul. I think the problem with him ks not that he understands the situation, but hat he’s too devoted to Constitutionalism and too devoted to America’s Founding Ideals, something else he is alone in it seems.
ReplyDeleteDr. Paul has my respect for this of course. He is honest and, while he makes the same inconsistencies of thought, mistakes, and errors other men do, he tries to be honest and live by his Ideals, and I think he’s usually right 8 times out of ten. But the 20 per cent he’s wrong n usually boils down to his stubborn devotion to the American Founders.
EG, Dr. Paul is an Isolationist. So were America’s Founders except Hamilton and perhaps Adams to an extent.
His vision is still limited to 18th Century Liberalism, as it was understood in America by its founders, and suffers the same shortcomings of their own Idealistic Republicanism.
I think that’s were a good many of his Mistakes come from.
Still, he’s the best candidate.
I shant be voting, I find it deplorable. We pick our Leaders based on a Popularity contest. We all turn against each other in anger and say to each other we aren’t real Americans.
Yet this is the system that’s best?
And don’t get me started on how we loos our Freedom not in spite of he system, but because of it, irrespective of how we think “Democracy is Freedom!” and because we vote we are free.
I’ll just enjoy the side show.
Dr. Paul won’t win, and if Cain wins it will be because he’s black and the GOP wants to show its politically correct. I’ve nothing against Herman Cain, just being realistic.
What would actually make a difference is if the House and Senate each had a majority of people like Ron Paul. He can't win the presidency and he couldn't make the positive changes he wants to if he were president. If I had my druthers he'd be President of the Republic of Texas and we could sit back and watch the rest of the country go on sinking. Havn't got there yet though.
ReplyDeleteOhoho. I can't wait until you review the (D)'s sir.
ReplyDeleteYou may be waiting a while as I doubt anyone will challenge Our Glorious Leader for the Democrat nomination. Of course, if anyone thinks I've been too critical of the GOP candidates above they would surely get the vapors reading my views on actual socialists.
ReplyDeleteDoing a little digging, this Santorum fella is by far the friendliest face in this crowd. He's a genuine Catholic Conservative (the US-way of course). Are you sure he doesn't have a chance? :(
ReplyDeleteOh, btw here is the openly homosexual GOP candidate: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20046352-503544.html
I'm afraid not. The media will portray him as a hateful bigot for opposing gay "marriage", the feminazis will rally against him for his opposition to abortion and he's got nowhere near the money that Romney has. The "Tea Party" groups will support Bachmann or Cain and so Santorum will be left out. It's not fair but that's the situation.
ReplyDeleteAs for the gay Republican, most have never heard of him and the fact that anyone gives him any attention whatsoever is simply another sign of the leftist-slanted media.
DANG, and I was gonna vote for ...whats his name again?
ReplyDeleteSorry for off-topic, but I wonder what's going on between the US President and the Congress?
ReplyDeleteDoes the president ignore the Representatives' about the situation in Libya?
The media reports are not clear at all.
My first reaction was the quotation from the Cicero: "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?"
So sad...
Last I heard the White House was trying to get fuzzy on the definition of military action so as not to need the permission of Congress to continue. They have argued that since regular U.S. military personnel are not directly in harm's way (which even that I think would be debatable) the President does not need Congress to authorize the continued U.S. military role in the Libyan operation. I have not heard of any resolution over the definition of the definitions yet.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, I see no direct U.S. interest in Libya and if there are problems there I'd be happy with letting Italy deal with it. It's their "fourth shore" and, though it is rarely said, Libya was invented by the Italians. It had never been a united single entity before the colonial era.
Thank you very much for clearing the situation.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem unusual in that the Republican field for this election doesn't look terribly convincing even to Republicans themselves- can you say that anyone has full confidence in the leading candidates? Who would be the most electable candidate of the lot, or at least having the best chance against Obama?
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is that I don't. As I said, Romney is regarded overall as the front-runner and usually one gains that position by being seen as the most electable. However, at the recent meeting in Florida Ron Paul won another straw poll, which I think is good to see, but he often wins such straw polls. That shows, I think, that many conservatives most support Ron Paul but don't actually back him because he's unelectable.
ReplyDelete