By Douglas V. Gibbs
I was asked that now that Herman Cain is out of the race, who is my favorite. . . as if Cain was my favorite while he was running. I have no favorite in the GOP Field. There are candidates I like, and ones I don't like. There are things I like about the candidates, and there are things I don't like. They are all flawed.
Herman Cain
As long as Cain was in the race, I held a certain favor towards him. I like him. I think he cares about America, and I think his business background would be favorable for him as the executive of this nation. However, I was not real hip about his 999 plan. I believe a national sales tax creates the infrastructure for a Value Added Tax, which I think is a very dangerous animal, and has been devastating in Europe. As for a flat tax, it will only work if the rate is 8% or less. 9% is too high. Besides, among the deductions, if we must have an income tax, I look favorably upon the mortgage interest deduction because it encourages home ownership without necessarily giving loans away to people who can't afford them, as the liberal left seems to always push. Besides, the best way to reduce taxation, and ultimately eliminate the income tax, is not to change it, but to cut federal spending until a direct tax is no longer necessary. I would love to see, someday, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
When it comes to what pushed Herman Cain out of the race, by the way, interests me. Think about it. It is amazing how convenient the accusations against him were. The harassment scandal never produced any evidence, it was just a bunch of accusations, and by women exclusively from Chicago - think about it - think about it. When they didn't work, when nothing became of the accusations and Cain refused to step down, an affair scandal conveniently appeared, once again with little evidence. I don't know if Cain is innocent, or not, but it just seems damn fishy.
John Huntsman
Obama with an "R" after his name. Not even a consideration.
Mitt Romney
Great, he was a successful businessman, saved the Olympics, and has presidential hair. So, a lot of people think he'd be a good fit for fixing our economy, and he seems the most presidential of the bunch. However, he's a big government guy. Of course the liberal media says he's the best candidate. They always like the more liberal republicans. Remember, Romneycare was the model that Obamacare was based on. He was pro-abortion, and then conveniently changed to pro-life when it seemed to be needed. I don't trust Romney. His politics are too shaky for me. He may not be as liberal as the democrats, but he still is. He would still gives us a ride to destruction, just on a slower train.
Rick Perry
Perry has pretty much become a non-issue for me. Sometimes I even forget he's in the race. I didn't like him at the beginning, and now that he spends nearly as much time with his foot in his mouth as Biden, I like him less. He has challenged the wisdom of securing the border, he has supported funding for educating illegal aliens in American universities, he has questioned E-Verify, and at the State level he is a big government guy. How can I believe he won't be big government at the federal level? Besides, he didn't create jobs in Texas. The conservative legislature did. . . despite Perry.
Ron Paul
I like the squirrelley old dude quite a bit. Ron Paul is a fantastic representative, understands the Constitution ten times more than all of the knuckleheads on the stage, and I agree with him 100% that we need to end the federal reserve. However, though I agree with him that we need not involve ourselves in foreign entanglements, he seems to lump all military operations into that definition. I disagree with him on Iraq, for example. He also misrepresents the Constitution when he says the President illegally waged war when he didn't get a declaration of war from the Congress. And Paul votes against the Constitution more often that he lets on. I don't think he should be president. However, I would love to see the Republican that wins this election in 2012 make Ron Paul head of the federal reserve. Talk about auditing the fed. Paul would turn it upside down, and have the international bankers quaking in their boots. Forget Ron Paul for President. I say we start a new campaign: Ron Paul for Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Rick Santorum
Rick is the quintessential conservative. He believes in limited government, family values, and a loving God. Problem is every answer he gives goes back to the importance of the family unit, of which he's right, but he doesn't go any deeper than that. Besides, he has no national traction, and he does not possess the charisma to get him over the top. Love him, but unfortunately he is unelectable.
Michele Bachmann
True Conservative that would fight for conservative principles, never place party before her principles, and she would be a fantastic president. I absolutely love her. However, she underestimates Islam, does not fully understand the Constitution, and as a representative she does not possess the national stature that would get her over the top. However, she may make a fantastic running mate. As much as I like her, she teeters between electable, and unelectable. It's a real shame, to be honest.
Newt Gingrich
Newt says the right things, has the right experience, and carries enough baggage to choke a horse. However, not all of the baggage is true. For example, the liberals will tell you that he handed his divorce papers to his dying wife while she was undergoing cancer treatment. That is an all out lie. She was not on her deathbed, she did not go through the kind of cancer treatment the liberals say she did, she was having a benign tumor removed. Newt didn't serve her with divorce papers, either. She is the one that filed for divorce, and the process began long before she was in the hospital. He cheated on her, and deserved the divorce his wife handed him. The power of politics apparently went to his head. The details of this can be found in Newt's daughter's book that came out a couple years ago.
Gingrich has shown us a history of being a party guy. I want someone that puts principles before party, but I don't know if I can trust Newt Gingrich to be that guy. His support of Scuzzyfava in New York's District 23 last year was an example of him putting party before principles. She was more liberal than the democrat, and Doug Hoffman was the conservative in that race. He betrayed his principles when he sat with Pelosi over the global warming hoax as well. So the question is, can he be trusted? Has he changed as he says he has. Were those truly decisions he regrets?
I would rather vote for someone that made mistakes, learned from them, has repented, and is the better person for it. I hope that is what Newt is. But if he isn't, voting for him could be a set-up for a huge let down, and a monumental mistake for the conservatives.
However, he's the best of the rest.
Like I said, I have no favorites. I am just telling you what I think of the candidates. They are all flawed, and there is no ideal candidate. But at this point, Elmer Fudd would be better than Barry Obama. Elmer could probably beat ol' big ears, too.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Source URL: http://indahrahmadewi.blogspot.com/2011/12/debate-wars-newt-hope.htmlJohn Huntsman
Obama with an "R" after his name. Not even a consideration.
Mitt Romney
Great, he was a successful businessman, saved the Olympics, and has presidential hair. So, a lot of people think he'd be a good fit for fixing our economy, and he seems the most presidential of the bunch. However, he's a big government guy. Of course the liberal media says he's the best candidate. They always like the more liberal republicans. Remember, Romneycare was the model that Obamacare was based on. He was pro-abortion, and then conveniently changed to pro-life when it seemed to be needed. I don't trust Romney. His politics are too shaky for me. He may not be as liberal as the democrats, but he still is. He would still gives us a ride to destruction, just on a slower train.
Rick Perry
Perry has pretty much become a non-issue for me. Sometimes I even forget he's in the race. I didn't like him at the beginning, and now that he spends nearly as much time with his foot in his mouth as Biden, I like him less. He has challenged the wisdom of securing the border, he has supported funding for educating illegal aliens in American universities, he has questioned E-Verify, and at the State level he is a big government guy. How can I believe he won't be big government at the federal level? Besides, he didn't create jobs in Texas. The conservative legislature did. . . despite Perry.
Ron Paul
I like the squirrelley old dude quite a bit. Ron Paul is a fantastic representative, understands the Constitution ten times more than all of the knuckleheads on the stage, and I agree with him 100% that we need to end the federal reserve. However, though I agree with him that we need not involve ourselves in foreign entanglements, he seems to lump all military operations into that definition. I disagree with him on Iraq, for example. He also misrepresents the Constitution when he says the President illegally waged war when he didn't get a declaration of war from the Congress. And Paul votes against the Constitution more often that he lets on. I don't think he should be president. However, I would love to see the Republican that wins this election in 2012 make Ron Paul head of the federal reserve. Talk about auditing the fed. Paul would turn it upside down, and have the international bankers quaking in their boots. Forget Ron Paul for President. I say we start a new campaign: Ron Paul for Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Rick Santorum
Rick is the quintessential conservative. He believes in limited government, family values, and a loving God. Problem is every answer he gives goes back to the importance of the family unit, of which he's right, but he doesn't go any deeper than that. Besides, he has no national traction, and he does not possess the charisma to get him over the top. Love him, but unfortunately he is unelectable.
Michele Bachmann
True Conservative that would fight for conservative principles, never place party before her principles, and she would be a fantastic president. I absolutely love her. However, she underestimates Islam, does not fully understand the Constitution, and as a representative she does not possess the national stature that would get her over the top. However, she may make a fantastic running mate. As much as I like her, she teeters between electable, and unelectable. It's a real shame, to be honest.
Newt Gingrich
Newt says the right things, has the right experience, and carries enough baggage to choke a horse. However, not all of the baggage is true. For example, the liberals will tell you that he handed his divorce papers to his dying wife while she was undergoing cancer treatment. That is an all out lie. She was not on her deathbed, she did not go through the kind of cancer treatment the liberals say she did, she was having a benign tumor removed. Newt didn't serve her with divorce papers, either. She is the one that filed for divorce, and the process began long before she was in the hospital. He cheated on her, and deserved the divorce his wife handed him. The power of politics apparently went to his head. The details of this can be found in Newt's daughter's book that came out a couple years ago.
Gingrich has shown us a history of being a party guy. I want someone that puts principles before party, but I don't know if I can trust Newt Gingrich to be that guy. His support of Scuzzyfava in New York's District 23 last year was an example of him putting party before principles. She was more liberal than the democrat, and Doug Hoffman was the conservative in that race. He betrayed his principles when he sat with Pelosi over the global warming hoax as well. So the question is, can he be trusted? Has he changed as he says he has. Were those truly decisions he regrets?
I would rather vote for someone that made mistakes, learned from them, has repented, and is the better person for it. I hope that is what Newt is. But if he isn't, voting for him could be a set-up for a huge let down, and a monumental mistake for the conservatives.
However, he's the best of the rest.
Like I said, I have no favorites. I am just telling you what I think of the candidates. They are all flawed, and there is no ideal candidate. But at this point, Elmer Fudd would be better than Barry Obama. Elmer could probably beat ol' big ears, too.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Visit Indah Rahma Dewi for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
