Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by parkerskouson, Feb 18, 2012.
Mitt, Rick, or Newt. Why?
Tough one. I'd still have to go with Ron Paul though. I don't trust any of the others, and a lot of their beliefs and stances scare me. Now, that's not to say that I specifically trust Ron Paul, but he and I agree on more things than disagree, and the things we disagree about are of far less significance.
Agree with 9-5. Of the three, I would go simply with Mitt. He's the most moderate and thoughtful on issues.
Newt is a complete whack job (seriously, moon base?) and he just seems unstable especially in his debate performances.
Santorum scares the crap out of me with he moral beliefs. He claims Obama is waging a war on religion with the whole birth control thing yet we wants to impose his Catholic beliefs on everyone. You can't have it both ways buddy.
OK, touching the third rail here at AF. I would go with Mitt Romney. I live in Massachusetts and understand the political culture here. It is as corrupt as corrupt can be the last three Speaker of the House here have been ousted on felony charges). Instead of bad apples spoiling the bunch, you have to look for the ones actually doing good in spite of the culture. Very few have risen above the fray. Mitt Romney and Scott Brown are two great examples, and I will throw Martha Coakley in as well (as AG, she would have made a terrible senator but the Democratic machine wanted her there, like Liz Warren now).
Mitt Romney is pragmatic in his assessment of what he wants to be accomplished, what needs to be accomplished, and what can be accomplished based on the political environment.
I know the big rap on him is "Romneycare" but this is a fallacy. He maintains that it is a states issue, not a federal one, and he is correct. Mass had something like 3-8% of the population uninsured when it was passed (we already had one of the highest health insurance costs in the nation). For Mass at the time that made sense and our health care cost increases have slowed. The state was going after the few remaining without coverage that were consuming the highest cost care (no coverage=ER visits). At the time it was signed it was hailed nationally as a model for other states to follow, not the federal government.
I am currently leaning towards Santorum. I think the social issue thing is a distraction (albeit one that will be beat to death by the media and dems if he is the nominee), as President, he is responsible for enforcing the law, not creating it (someone tell this to Obama, please). Congress will never pass a law that corresponds to his beliefs regarding contraception, and I think he understands where he can and can't go based on what I am hearing in his speeches.
He is able to relate to the average guy much better than Romney and his economic message to middle class voters is a winner, even if I don't fully agree (too big government, compassionate conservative for me), and his performance in the debates has been fantastic. Furthermore he and Ron Paul are the only two "conviction" politicians up there, and I just can't agree with Paul's foreign policy, no matter how much I like his domestic/monetary policy ideas.
Gingrich is perhaps the most egotistical person I have ever laid eyes on, at least outwardly. I can't stand the fact he will probably win my state (GA), just because he is from here.
Romney would be my second choice. He knows business and money, and that knowledge would serve him well in helping get this country back on track. I am not at all bothered by the fact he is Mormon, since the morals of that church and mine, as far as what enters into the political sphere, are pretty much indistinguishable. But I do have a problem with Romneycare. I understand the fact that Romneycare isn't unconstitutional in MA, where Obamacare IS in the US (The supreme court might rule otherwise, but it would just be another instance where they change the constitution unilaterally, because its pretty clear the Founders would have never agreed to something like the individual mandate). But this country was founded on the principal of liberty, and I think mandates are against those principals. Plus the fact is, uncompensated care in hospitals is less that 4% of total health spending, it is a distraction from the real problems with healthcare.
LOL @ Santorum.
LOL @ the field of Republicans.
If Santorum wins the nomination, get ready for Four More Years of Obama.
The only guy that appealed to me in any way was Huntsman, wasn't particularly gone on him, but he was of character and was far more pragmatic then the rest of the field. Had more integrity then even Paul, and had good knowledge of the world (again, unlike the other candidates)
I really couldn't vote for any other characters, if I was forced, I'd do a tactical and vote Santorum, he can't win against Obama, but if I was genuine then I guess... Romney. I'd like to say Paul, but some of his ideas (immediate pullout from Afghanistan?? ) are rather scary, not sure he'd ever get support form either party. Romney is a smart guy, even if he is an absolute prick and I probably couldnt eat dinner with him.
I'll be interested to see where you are living next year then...
Enjoy Mexico! Canada doesn't like giving away citizenship so easily.
Ron Paul is probably the only candidate that doesn't have big money pulling on his strings, and sadly for that very reason is the only candidate that won't get legitimate consideration.
For that reason alone, I'd say Ron Paul. The last thing I want is a candidate that's in the pocket of big Oil/Pharmaceutics/Housing/any other special interest. I'm sick of candidates that are already in the pocket of Special Interest groups that want to bend policy to their needs and not to the needs of the American public, and that includes religious interests as well.
The candidate that does the most good for the most people is the best candidate, not the candidate that does the most good for their special interest group and political base. Ron Paul seems like the only candidate that will try to do the most good for America, not for his contributors. Granted, I don't agree with all of his platforms, but he seems the least likely to allow his campaign contributors to influence his decisions.
Really wished Mitch Daniels would have run (stupid thing called a family I guess ). He would have certainly given Obama a run for his money.
Santorum just doesn't stand a chance.
Believe Romney is vulnerable in his relations ($300 million junk bond financing) with Bain, Drexel-Burnham-Lambert and Michael Milken, the Bernie Madoff of his day, after the SEC filed a complaint against Drexel and Milken for insider trading
The relationship turned out well for Romney, Bain made a $175 million gain by 1997 on its junk bond takeover of Stage Stores, but by 2000, when Stage Stores filed Chapter 11 due to high debt, Bain & company had already cashed out.
A success story for Romney & Bain, but not for investors, pensions, mutual funds or workers.
As far as I can tell, Romney didn't break the law, but his judgement can be called into question.
I was speaking to Romney as governor of Massachusetts, not business. Interesting you brought up Milken though. His junk bond scheme wasn't illigal, his insider trading was. His premise was that you could take poorly rated borrowers loans (i.e. junk bonds) and groups a bunch of them together in a fund sell shares to that fund. The thought being that some or a few borrowers may default but enough of the loans in the fund would stay solvent to make the overall return safe. Worked great in a good / ok economy, but once there was a recession the whole think collapsed. Sound familiar (securitize mortgages). Lets take folks that cannot afford to buy a home and offer them unrealistic mortgages (zero down, no income verification 125% equity, etc), bundle them together and sell shares to the fund. Worked great for a few years, now we have the housing market crash, which has caught up far more people than junk bonds as more people have mortgages (who could afford the mortgage but are now upside down because of plummeting market values) than participate in the bond market.
That premise caused a 1/2 trillion taxpayer bailout. My understanding of what happened is Michael Milken and his closest associates willfully, deliberately, and systematically plundered certain S&Ls. A principal feature of the Milken operation was a variation on what mobsters refer to as a
Don't like any of them. They're all too extremist for me.
Not saying junk bonds or substandard mortgage loans are necessarily bad or evil, just the devil is in the details.
Too true. I don't know why the Republican party couldn't pick someone a little better. Even if Bush 2 ran again they'd have a better chance.
The only thing I want to say: A trustworthy candidate respects the heritage of his ancestors. I am for the preservation of the US Constitution in its original form and support those who hold the same opinion. I've even uploaded it to my android so it is always at hand. I use the version by XIMAD[FONT="].[/FONT]
Ron Paul 2012!!! Enough said.
Whelp, after yesterday's primaries, unless Santorum can get PA and perhaps GA, I think Romney has it pretty much locked in.
Hopefully if he wins he'll mandate all trees "are the right height".
Hmm... I keep thinking back to the times when Republicans seemed solid, trustworthy, the "voice of reason" in American politics (Nixon aside, thank you ).
That's vanished. I don't see any of them as being truly "better" than the others in those mentioned terms, although sometimes Ron Paul strikes me as having a philosophy that once stemmed from those things.
I admit to being dismayed by them all.
And then there are the Democrats and our current "president."
I think Nixon gets a bit of bashing over the whole corruption and lack of empathy debacle, as well as the way he used took the imperial Presidency to new heights. That aside, he wasn't terrible.
Nixon was a pretty close to being a master of foreign policy.
Domestic policy he has been compared to a few despots of the past.
But the thread is about who of the Republican field we like. I don't like any of them unless I abandon morals and sensibilities. Abandon those things and they're all great.
I've heard historians also don't necessarily think that JFK was as great as he's been made out to be. I guess because of the tragedy surrounding his assassination and because of his speeches, people judge him more optimistically.
Am I alone in thinking that it seems the Presidents of the past were more moderate and less influenced by special interests than the Presidents of the past 3 or so decades?
It would be interesting to see how the decisions of past Presidents would be viewed by today's liberal/conservative if the name of the President was removed from his action and just presented to someone as a general act. I wonder if a staunch conservative would consider the Emancipation Proclamation a liberal or conservative action. Granted, I've heard some people say he did it more to disrupt the South during war than for the altruistic reasons.
I also reckon JFK is a bit overrated - mostly due to his asassination and success with the Cuban Missile crisis.
As for that crisis, everyone forgets the US had nukes in Turkey before the Soviets moved theirs to Cuba.