I want to see who you all think is most conservative. I will give my answer after I get some responses.
Grrr, the poll did not work. Here is the list: Herman Cain Michelle Bachmann Ron Paul Rick Perry Rick Santorum Newt Gingrich Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul is, obviously. There is no contesting this. However, he's so conservative that he's sort of insane. Still, if I had to choose one current Republican candidate to fuck up America, I'd rather he do it.
They're all idiots. Except Newt. He's really brilliant. Unfortunately he likes telling the truth, or maybe it's that he really dislikes telling lies, either way that doesn't work in politics. So he's an idiot too. And he's not really serious about running for President. Actually I haven't heard much from Santorum or Huntsman, so I retract the idiot remark for them. Doesn't matter much anyway. With the current GOP crop, Obama is a shoe-in. Best we can hope for is for the GOP to get veto-proof control of the House and the Senate. The one thing the GOP needs to remember is that in class warfare the majority always wins. Those with little or nothing to lose will risk it all in a conflict; those with much to lose will compromise rather than risk too much. The "fat cats" here remind me of the Japanese just prior to Pearl Harbor.
I wouldnt say they are all idiots, ones that are would be Santorum, Perry or Romney, or even Bachmann with her zeroing in on Obamacare. Ones that are sane are Paul, Cain and Newt(in some ways). I say the most conservative is Ron Paul(I am agreeing with *yawn*).
Ron Paul actually wants the US to return to a gold standard for it's currency. Yes, he is an idiot. Cain's 9-9-9 is a fat cat's dream of a tax plan. Can't get any more regressive - unless they tax only income under $250,000. Latest news on his "eye for the ladies" may finish him off. Newt is a smart guy. He's figured out that he can make a fortune running for the GOP nomination. His biggest concern is to make sure he doesn't screw up and actually win the nomination.
Never can tell who might be nominated, but I don't think Newt will be. Doesn't look like any of the current crop would oust Obama. Unless they come up with someone with a brain and no skeletons in the closet, the GOP nomination will likely be given to someone as a sort of political "lifetime award" in the same way McCain got it. They knew he didn't have a chance and so they didn't put money into his campaign. Watch the money (in the US it's always the money, always) put into the race. If it isn't comparable to the funds Obama will have, then you will know the GOP isn't serious. about winning the White House. I don't expect them to make a serious effort. Obama is going to run against a "do nothing" Congress. He certainly can't run on what he has accomplished. His campaign against Congress could be the reason the GOP gets full control of Congress. I do expect them to spend big time on both House and Senate races. The biggest mistake the socialists made was believing Obama's win was a popular vote for socialism. It wasn't.
It seems to me that almost everyone on this post is ignoring the actual question, including the one who originated it. Instead it has morphed into who is the smartest, or who can win. *Yawn*...God? made one comment that is an exception, but apparently he's confused about what a conservative is. lol. The way I see it, Ron Paul is MOST DEFINITELY NOT the most conservative. He is an extreme-issolationist, libertarian--not a true conservative. Now, obviously, there are many similarities between the conservative ideology and the libertarian one. And he IS rather conservative minded on most topics. But his position on National Security is so radically non-conservative that it knocks him down many multiples further in my estimation than most (if not all) of the other candidates. Now, being rather libertarian myself, I agree with a number of Ron Paul's somewhat "radical" stances... such as getting totally rid of the War on Drugs, and returning to the Gold Standard. Despite Bobbo's comments, I think you'd have to be a complete idiot to actually know America's history (on how the economy fared before and after the Gold Standard was abandoned) and still think that going back onto the Gold Standard is a bad idea. The only question is whether it is a feasible process--and I think the smart economists agree that it is feasible. By far, the biggest hurdle would be the political ones that deal with convincing the stupid politicians (or the corrupt ones who are essentially being bribed by the "fat cat" bankers who run the FED). I do agree with Bobbo that Newt is the smartest candidate... in fact, I think he's probably the smartest possible candidante in either party at any level of government. And I think he would make Obama look like a babbling idiot in any debate. But that doesn't necessarily make him the most conservative. Personally, Newt is my choice for candidate. And I think he makes a strong case for being the most conservative, but all of the candidates in this election cycle are very strong conservatives--even Ron Paul. lol. In fact, the last time around, I thought Romney was probably the strongest candidate. This time around, I think he's one of the weaker ones. I think the field is really that strong--and Obama is really that weak. Even with all the rampant corruption that Obama has put into place (for instance, after ACORN's corruption was proven so conclusively that even the most radical of liberals could no longer deny it without looking stupid--something that they rarely have a problem with--congress voted to defund ACORN. But Obama has illegally refunded them, by putting funding for them in one of his massive, slush-fund, spending bills.) Obama will also receive massive amounts of money from communist activists, like Georg Soros, and the activist UNIONS. It is likely that Obama's corruption will be able to put together a campaigning war chest that is larger than all the Republican candidates combined. But it won't be enough. Last time, Obama was just as totally incompetent as he is today, but there was no record of his gross incompetence. The liberal media hid all of Obama's many faults; and puffed up his credentials to sound like far more than what they were. This is obvious, or they would not have been saying that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be VP--since she was (still is if you ask me) more qualified to be President than Obama. (In my mind, four years of being the worst President in American history does not improve one's qualifications for being President.) This time around, there is a clear and compelling record of Obama's incompetence (and/or corruption). And quite honestly, despite the massive funds he will have at his disposal, I think Obama would have a hard time winning even if he were running against Micky Mouse. But he isn't. Nor is he running against John McCain... which is only a very small improvement. The number of people who didn't vote because they didn't like McCain was very large. Obama won't get that pass this time around. McCain ran a totally passive campaign. Palin was the only element in it that actually tried to criticize Obama--and she was criticized for doing it. There is absolutely no possiblity that Obama will get that pass again. Nor will he have the media as blindly and passionately on his side. Even the guy who had tingles running up his leg when Obama spoke the first time around has publicly acknowledged that Obama isn't who he thought he was, and that he has been far less than a successful president. And finally, Obama's first run was historic. "Help elect the first black President." We've already done that, and he was a miserable excuse for one. He wont be able to play that card again. In fact, the whole race card thing will be difficult to re-manufacture--for there is a rapidly growing trend among blacks, which is to openly support the Tea-party and conservatism. I would be very surprised if Obama's support among blacks didn't drop by at least 3-5% this time. No! Too many of Obama's most effective weapons will be missing this time around. And the Democrats know it. I would not be surprised, in fact, if Obama was not the Democrat candidate at all. So, for the first time in a very long time, the real question in the Primaries shouldn't be which Republican Candidate has the best chance of beating Obama. This is always the BIG LIE that the progressives in both parties try to promote--and it has never been true. (They said Reagan was too conservative to win, but, because he was conservative, he won in a landslide) This time around, most conservatives understand the truth. Because they understand just how incredibly incompetent Obama has been. And so the real question will be (as it should always be) "Who is the most conservative candidate who is competent?"
It's very difficult to say who the most conservative is for a number of reasons: I don't know all the candidates well enough to have a well-informed opinion about them. Different Candidates are more conservative on specific issues. Differen people define conservatism differently. For example, a radical liberal (who has no idea what conservatism really is) will define it quite differently from someone who knows the constitution and is a true conservative. We who are deciding have different ideas about what is important to us specifically and to conservatism in general. But I will give my run down for the candidates. I've already dealt with Ron Paul. He is very conservative on many things... but he is also very non-conservative on other things: such as National Security and his position on Drug Enforcement. I don't know enough about Joh Huntsman or Rick Santorum to say much about them. But from what little I do know, I get the impression that they are reasonably conservative. They don't have enough of a chance to win to inspire me to learn more about them. Rick Perry, governs a fairly conservative state. And some of his positions (particilarly on immigration) have still been fairly liberal. Thus, my suspicion is that he may not be as conservative as many think he is. That's still pretty conservative. But this is a group of people who are all pretty conservative--and among them I'd place him closer to the bottom than the top. Conversely, Mit Romney governed in very liberal state, and for that reason, I suspect he might be a bit more conservative as a President than many people give him credit for. He gets blasted for Romney Care... but I don't hold this against him as much as many others seem to do. There is nothing anti-conservative about 1) letting a state experiment with something to see if it works. 2) passing legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by the people. And, as far as I can tell, that is all Romney is guilty of with regard to this issue. On the other hand, Romney is definitely part of the Good-old-boy section of the Republican Party, and so he is probably much more mainstream than what I would want in a President. I believe he would work to repeal ObamaCare, and there are other good conservative fiscal things that he would most certainly do to get the economy working again. But on most other issues, I strongly suspect that he would be content to basically maintain the status quo. Michelle Bachmann strikes me as someone who knows the constitution and is very conservative on virtually every issue. So she would definitlely be near the top of my list. And I like her as a candidate as well. She would be my 2nd or 3rd choice. She is a very smart person, but she doesn't strike me as being very creative; and her campaign so far has been a little too one-dimensional for me. Everything always seems to come back to ObamaCare for her. And by now, that's something that every single other candidate also supports. So it seems to me that she's gotten some very bad campaign advice from her team. Like Obama (during his first run), Herman Cain is a bit of an unknown, having no politican record on which to base one's opinion. But I think it is obvious, when you listen to his responses, that Cain thinks like a no-nosense conservative. He would also make it even more difficult for Obama to play the race card, so he is an attractive candidate for that reason. And, when he is attacked, as all Republican minorities invariably are, it will intensify the growing back-lash against the Democrats that has been building in recent years, every time they do that. He is one of the more articulate, and likeable candidates--and it will be tough for the liberal media to succeed in painting him as an Uncle Tom without the strategy back-firing on them. I believe Newt Gingrich is very conservative, but he is a practical conservative. If you asked Newt which is more desirable: 1) holding to your principles and demanding the most conservative law--which doesn't get passed; or 2) working with the other party to create the most conservative law possible--which does get passed... he would often take the second choice. On the other hand, I also believe that (of all the candidates) Newt has the greatest appreciation for just how severe and widespread the crisis in America is and just how far and hard conservatives will have to push to bring this country back to being even a left-of-center country. I also think that he understands the importance of building lasting structures that will support future conservative efforts. Newt also has a strong (and fundamental) belief that his job will be to convince the American people of his policies, and then let them do most of the work of getting those policies passed through legal channels. Of all the candidates, I think Newt holds this principle the most strongly--and it is a very conservative oriented attitude. Some believe that Newt "isn't conservative" because of various actions or statements tha he has made. But almost invariably, the reason is because those criticizing him have taken him completely out of context, or flat-out lied about what he has said. (Or, in the case of conservatives, they have believed the liberal lies and repeated them.) For example, much was made about his comments about the Paul Ryan plan. But what he said is actually correct. If a law that the Republicans are trying to get passed was just as despised as ObamaCare was then it would be just as wrong for them to "finagle" it through using Pseudo-constitutional means as it was for Obama to do so. But having said that, Newt was a strong supporter of what Ryan was trying to accomplish in general, as well as the specific bill. This fact is not changed by the lies told by the radical liberals in the anti-new establishment--or the repitition of those lies by conservatives who weren't smart enough to do their homework. Another example is the Global-Warming commercial that Newt made with Princess Pelosi. As one who understoods the actual science well enough to know that Global-Warming was a complete fraud--even before the many scandals came out to demonstrate this fact even more convincingly to the average person on the street--I wish that Newt was a little more anti-global-warming. But having an open mind is not an anti-conservative attitude--and that is the only thing Newt is guilty of on this topic. No one has done more to promote the development of our own natural resources than Newt. For example, he was the author of the hugely successful "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" campaign. He is also against the EPA passing regulations to unconstitutionally regulate green-house gasses, etc. Wanting to exploit our resources in a responsible way--so that we don't pollute the planet we live on--is a very conservative-like attitude. In fact, it's were we got the name conservationist--which the liberal radicals abandoned when they took over the "ecological" movement and turned it into a propoganda wing for their ideology. In short, there may be single issues where other candidates are more conservative than Newt. There may be other candidates who are more rigid in their conservative positions. But I personally doubt that any of them are really more conservative than Newt. And I think he is definitely the one who is most capable of using clever (and constitutional) strategies to promote a return to conservative policies in America.
Looks like the Republicans are giving up on the election again. They gave the nomination last time to McCain as a sort of "lifetime achievement award" knowing that no Republican could be elected regardless of whether Obama or Hillary ran. Looking more and more like Newt will get that award this time. The Republicans thought mucking up the economy would hurt Obama; that effort has backfired. They may have finally figured out that the voters blame the current ecomomic mess on the "do-nothing" Congress and see the Republicans as the party of the 1%. Lesson to be learned by the GOP: principle always loses to pragmatism. People vote their wallets. It's the economy stupid.
Yes, we all know that radical liberals have 0% contact with the real world, and so they have no problem lying whenever they open their mouthes. Obama is the 1%. He received more campaign contributions from the fat cats on wall street than all the Republican candidates combined. I'm not sure he'll manage to get that again, although (American hating communist) George Soros will doubtlessly contribute millions, as will the more radical socialist based unions. As always, the Democrats will be able to buy a lot of dishonest propoganda. But even with everything he had going for him last time... Obama still only won by a relatively small margin. No way there are enough stupid people out there to fall for him again. Even a lot of those in the Democratic party have had enough of the fraudster in cheif. After all, it is the economy, stupid! And, "It's Bushes fault, Whaaaaaa." Just doesn't cut it any more. Nor do blatant lies like, "The economy is improving," "I'm a jobs president, I've saved or created millions of jobs," or "I've given you 17 tax cuts already..." lol. Talk about a stupid moron. But I do have to give him credit for being (if not the best then definitely the most) unflinchingly brazen liar in history. You've heard the joke: "How do you know he's lying? His lips are moving." Obama may be the first politician about whom that is not just a joke, but the literal truth.
Obama may not even make it past the primaries. As many Democrats are finally rethinking their support of him. Among other things they realize that his extremlely radical agenda has exposed them for who they are... or, if they aren't radical socialists themselves, it's made them realize that their party isn't what they thought it was. Heck, for that matter, Obama may not even make it INTO the primaries, as many states are raising legal challenges to him having his name on the ballot--since they contend that he does not meet the legal qualifications of being a legal citizen of the U.S. The liberals have managed to keep this issue under wraps--treating those who persued it as lunatics. But the persistence with which the scandal has hung around (and his overall lack of support) has allowed this to become a valid issue that may just reveal (for all to see) that the emperor (to wanna be) truly has no clothes. http://conservativebyte.com/2011/11/ballots-with-obamas-name-facing-more-legal-challenges/ If the democrats don't find an opposition candidate soon, this may be the first presidential race with only one party running. loL
