My Choice As A Moderate

[Dr. Shane]

After following the GOP race I am inclined to favor the candidates in the following order:

1. Jon Huntsman

2. Mitt Romney

3. Rick Santorum

4. Rick Perry

5. Newt Gingrich

6. Ron Paul

Of those, the only one that would guarantee I vote for Obama would be Ron Paul. However others in the list could convince me to vote for Obama if they get too radical. I heard both Gingrich and Santorum going into that kind of radical territory today.

[Bravus]

Guess I must be a moderate too, 'cos that's pretty close to my order. I might slide Paul up a bit, but that's about it.

[phkrause]

Well Huntsman will get his turn soon to see how he will do in NH, or is he not running there?

[Dr. Shane]

Huntsman is running in NH. He is low in the polls and probably won't do much. The far right-wing is against him and he has made a couple of self-destructive comments but I think he would do fine as President.

Huntsman, Romney and Perry are the governors in the race and governors have a good record for becoming elected.

Bravus: I call myself a moderate but I do *lean* to the right despite what some of the conservatives in here may say. I don't think anyone can be right in the middle. I think every moderate leans one way or the other.

[lazarus]

If I had to pick a republican to be president:

1. Ron Paul (by a long, long, long, way)

2. Jon Huntsman

3. Mitt Romney

4. Rick Santorum

5. Rick Perry

6. Newt Gingrich

[phkrause]

If I had to pick a republican to be president:

1. Ron Paul (by a long, long, long, way)

2. Jon Huntsman

3. Mitt Romney

4. Rick Santorum

5. Rick Perry

6. Newt Gingrich

Interesting order Lazarus

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

If I had to pick a republican to be president:

1. Ron Paul (by a long, long, long, way)

2. Jon Huntsman

3. Mitt Romney

4. Rick Santorum

5. Rick Perry

6. Newt Gingrich

Interesting order Lazarus

Yes. Very Telling. Very telling. It speaks very loudly. Ron Paul would kill so many people off on this planet - I suppose though - it might improve the economy.

Back in the days of George Bush - some members here called him a murderer. But at least he was willing to fed the starving in Africa due to a famine. Paul would do away with ALL such help.

His policy is to stop ALL foreign aid. Only the TOTALLY selfish could support such an isolation policy.

[Dr. Shane]

The idea behind foreign aid is that it helps fight poverty and stabilize foreign governments. One of the biggest causes for war throughout history has been poverty and unstable governments. So the whole concept of foreign aid is to reduce war and there has been substantial evidence that it has worked to some degree. The idea is that if we send our dollars overseas we won't have to send our soldiers.

[bonnie]

Quote:

If I had to pick a republican to be president:

1. Ron Paul (by a long, long, long, way)

2. Jon Huntsman

3. Mitt Romney

4. Rick Santorum

5. Rick Perry

6. Newt Gingrich

TRUE??

Here’s what Paul told CNN on December 21:

PAUL: I never read that stuff. I never — I would never — I came — I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written… Well, you know, we talked about [the newsletters] twice yesterday at CNN. Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, and what I’ve said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn’t write them. I disavow them and that’s it.

Paul’s denials, however, are not supported by the public record. When the newsletters first arose as an issue in 1996, Paul didn’t deny authorship. Instead, Paul personally repeated and defended some of the most incendiary racial claims in the newsletters.

In May 1996, Paul was confronted in an interview by the Dallas Morning News about a line that appeared in a 1992 newsletter, under the headline “Terrorist Update”: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.” His response:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.

Paul’s failure to deny authorship was not an oversight. He was repeatedly confronted about the newsletters during his 1996 campaign and consistently defended them as his own. A few examples:

– In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

– Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

– Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “moron” and a “fraud.” Paul also said Jordon was “her race and sex protect her from criticism.” In response, Paul said “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference.” [Roll Call, 7/29/96]

– “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]

Contrary to his statements to CNN last week, it was not until 2001, that he first claimed that newsletters were not written by him. He told the Texas Monthly in the October 2001 edition that “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me.” The reporter noted, “until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret.”

There is no evidence that Paul denounced the newsletters in clear terms until he ran for president in 2008 when he said “I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.” Paul has never explained how this blanket denial squares with his vigorous defense of the writings in 1996.

Further, some of the disturbing ideology embedded in the newsletters is reflected in Paul’s legislative record. In 1999, he was the only member of Congress to oppose the issuing on a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. In May 2011, Ron Paul said in an interview that he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[lazarus]

Yes. Very Telling. Very telling. It speaks very loudly. Ron Paul would kill so many people off on this planet - I suppose though - it might improve the economy.

Two countries receive one third of US aid. Israel and Egypt. I don't think they will starve. Ron Paul is attacking the politricks of US aid.

[lazarus]

the whole concept of foreign aid is to reduce war and there has been substantial evidence that it has worked to some degree. The idea is that if we send our dollars overseas we won't have to send our soldiers.

Can you post some of the evidence.

[Dr. Shane]

Not sure if this link will work. This is a topic often discussed in political science classrooms. It is one of the chief reasons to support foreign aid so it should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the topic.

Link doesn't work. You will have to Google "Aid, Policy and Peace: Reducing the Risks of Civil Conflict" to find it.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Yes. Very Telling. Very telling. It speaks very loudly. Ron Paul would kill so many people off on this planet - I suppose though - it might improve the economy.

Two countries receive one third of US aid. Israel and Egypt. I don't think they will starve. Ron Paul is attacking the politricks of US aid.

I wasn't referring to military aid.

Just because one might want to do away with military aid - it doesn't mean one has to do away with humnaitarian aid. This is just an example of the poor leadership of Ron Paul. He goes way overboard on most issues.

[Bravus]

I suspect the most likely trajectory for Paul is that he does not get the Republican nomination, runs as a third party candidate, splits the conservative vote and gives President Obama 4 more years.

[Neil D]

Looks like Michelle Bachman is out...stepping aside...

I thought Gingrich might be the more centralist/political savy of the bunch, but he's made too many enemies to get elected.

Mitt Romney is too mormon and too much of a suave millionair for the republicans to elect...but 8 votes more than Rick Santorum

If I was to predict who is going to be the Republican leader, I'm leaning toward Rick Santorum....He has the Palin male looks [he's pretty], and the conservative jargon down...

[Bravus]

Cain and Perry have both boomed and busted already. IMO Santorum is next.

[Woody]

Go Santorum. Whippeeee ! !!!!!

[Woody]

I like Santorum. He's a Christian and gives the glory to God.

[Dr. Shane]

I suspect the most likely trajectory for Paul... runs as a third party candidate, splits the conservative vote and gives President Obama 4 more years.

Paul ran as a third party candidate four years ago. He is likely to get the nomination of one of the minor parties as he did four years ago. I doubt he will impact the general election much.

Obama is in real trouble. His approval numbers are below 50%. I don't know if any President has ever been re-elected that had numbers below 50% in January of the election year. Keep in mind that normally the majority of undecided voters will vote against the incumbent. So having approval numbers below 50% is very bad.

[Bravus]

That's true, but I have to wonder whether there's ever been as uninspiring a field of challengers...

[Woody]

That's true, but I have to wonder whether there's ever been as uninspiring a field of challengers...

We will just have to wait:

[Dr. Shane]

I think Romney is quite inspiring. Perry and Gingrich are also inspiring. Santorum is very inspiring to those that agree with his views.

What Obama has going against him is that everyone knows who he is. If he isn't polling over 50% now it is going to be hard for him to impress those that are not already impressed. Whoever the Republican candidate becomes, they will have handlers that will define them, to a certain extent, to the American people. Most Americans really don't know all that much about Romney, Santorum or Perry. Gingrich is the most well known than that will probably work against him.