Ron Paul vs Rick Perry

[psijac]

Its a question that has to be asked

[Oldgringo]

Two instant winners!

[RPB]

I'm not "against" either.
I've voted for both many times
I lived in Paul's district about 40 years or so, and he has lost lots of elections too.

I'm saying Perry because IMHO, there's a better chance of getting the CHANGE I HOPE for in 2012 with him on the ballot, as he does pretty well in elections I've seen ... KBH retiring soon

[mamabearCali]

I like them both. I have to go with Perry.

First it is not fair to put that heavy of a burden on someone close to my grandfather's age. Even if he thinks he is up to it. Just not fair at all. I totally want Paul somewhere in the gov't where he can affect our policy (maybe not our foreign policy so much ). I just don't want to lose him to a heart attack because of stress--he is far too valuable.

Second I think Perry will play better in the country as a whole. He is articulate (most of the time), and can do 10 word answers to tricky questions that the media will for sure throw out at him. Ron Paul has great amazingly well thought out answers to questions--they are complete and full in their scope of answering the question. The problem is that they are 2 pages long, and he has not done well condensing them.

I love Ron Paul I really do, but I don't think he can get the nomination. More than I want a perfect candidate, I want the current holder of that high office out, Perry is not perfect-- the NAFTA nonsense and the gardasil give me pause---but he is worlds better than what we have now. He at least tried to stop the TSA in TX, he has been decent on job growth in TX, he is fab on 2nd amendment, great on homeschooling, great on pro-life, decent on states rights, and does not scare the daylights out of me on his potential foreign policy (Paul does not see Iran as a serious threat--REALLY?!?). So I will take what I can get.

[texanron]

PERRY 2012

[i8godzilla]

There is no appropriate answer for me to choose. Just because I would not pick Paul or Perry does not mean "sorry not a Texas fan". If there was a viable candidate, from Texas, with the values and qualities that impressed me, I would vote for such.

[USA1]

PERRY 2012

+1

[The Annoyed Man]

Two instant winners!

Just out of curiosity, because I've a number of like posts from you lately but no constructive alternatives offered........ Who do you like among those who are actually running, Obama included?

[Rex B]

Mine was the very first response, but now it's gone.
What's up with that?

[The Annoyed Man]

There is no appropriate answer for me to choose. Just because I would not pick Paul or Perry does not mean "sorry not a Texas fan". If there was a viable candidate, from Texas, with the values and qualities that impressed me, I would vote for such.

Understood... but I'll ask you the same question I asked oldgringo then.... Who do you like, among all the candidates that are actually running?

[i8godzilla]

There is no appropriate answer for me to choose. Just because I would not pick Paul or Perry does not mean "sorry not a Texas fan". If there was a viable candidate, from Texas, with the values and qualities that impressed me, I would vote for such.

Understood... but I'll ask you the same question I asked oldgringo then.... Who do you like, among all the candidates that are actually running?

Currently, I am not really satisfied with those that have officially declared the candidacy. For me, notably missing is Charlie Crist. I think he would have a better chance against Obama then those in the race. Romney may be a frontrunner but in the long run he will be compared to Obama because of the MA Healthcare Law he signed. (Anyone that would strap their dog in a kennel on top of the car in the summer to go to the shore has a lack of judgement in my mind.) Bachmann lacks credibility to me--cannot get her facts straight and refuses to admit she could be wrong. (Her husband's political views will be a liability.) Gingrich is more aligned to my political view but his lack of commitment to running will keep him from the nomination. Gary Johnson (is he still in the race) cannot win the nomination because of his Pro-Choice and marijuana beliefs. Huntsman (again, is he still in it) believes in Gay Marriage and I cannot see the Republican Establishment giving him the nod particularly since he was an Ambassador for Obama. (Buddy) Roemer - do not know enough about him (is he still in?).

As for the Texans, Ron Paul cannot beat Obama. While he is a good watchdog in Congress, to me he is not presidential material. I have a hard time forgiving Perry for the Trans-Texas Corridor. This reminded me of the Railroad Barons of time past--take a way all the property along the route even if it is not necessary. Add that to wanting to give half of it to a company headquartered in Spain. Did you know the TTC was to be almost a .25 of a mile wide? Talk about government getting in to you life. Did I forget to mention the HPV vaccines? Perry cannot beat Obama! The left-wing press will portray him as GW Bush reincarnated. While we know that is not true, those that get their only news from the the networks will believe it.

Well, who does that leave? Herman Cain and Rick Santorum. I believe Cain understands the fiscal issues facing the country, however, I do not believe that he has a chance of getting the nomination. He has not other experience other than the fiscal side. That must mean that my only choice is Rick Santorum. Not my ideal choice for a candidate but it is what I am left with. He believes the Second Amendment is an individual right. He voted, in 2005, to limit lawsuits against gun manufactures. He is pro-life and supported the Ryan budget. He also believes that the U.S. is not the world's protector.

Did I give you a long answer to a short question?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Mine was the very first response, but now it's gone.
What's up with that?

I checked the logs and you haven't had a post deleted so I can't tell you "What's up with that?" Next time send a PM to a moderator or to me.

Chas.

[AEA]

Herman Cain cannot win and shouldn't even been in the race spouting his tax reform spiel.

His latest is a 9% flat income tax, 9% Federal Sales Tax and 9% something else..... He calls it 9/9/9.

At least he has cut back on saying "Number 1, Number 2, Number3, Number 4" which aggravates me to no end. Can he not make a point without numbers?

I lived in Canada for 13 years where they have the GST (Federal Goods and Services Tax). Believe me, you do not want to see this in the USA.

It takes the Provincial (State) sales tax and adds ON TOP of that the GST and you are actually paying a tax on a tax on EVERYTHING you buy! CRAZY!

EDIT: I do not know what the GST started at (%) or when, but when I left Canada in 2003 it was 13.5%!

Try filling up your tank with that. Gas price (including Fed gas tax, State gas tax, State sales tax) and on top of that Federal Sales Tax!

[Jumping Frog]

I am on the ABO plan.

"Anyone But Obama".

I'll support a green Martian if I thought it could beat Obama.

[GTRich94]

Currently, I am not really satisfied with those that have officially declared the candidacy. For me, notably missing is Charlie Crist. I think he would have a better chance against Obama then those in the race. Romney may be a frontrunner but in the long run he will be compared to Obama because of the MA Healthcare Law he signed. (Anyone that would strap their dog in a kennel on top of the car in the summer to go to the shore has a lack of judgement in my mind.) Bachmann lacks credibility to me--cannot get her facts straight and refuses to admit she could be wrong. (Her husband's political views will be a liability.) Gingrich is more aligned to my political view but his lack of commitment to running will keep him from the nomination. Gary Johnson (is he still in the race) cannot win the nomination because of his Pro-Choice and marijuana beliefs. Huntsman (again, is he still in it) believes in Gay Marriage and I cannot see the Republican Establishment giving him the nod particularly since he was an Ambassador for Obama. (Buddy) Roemer - do not know enough about him (is he still in?).

As for the Texans, Ron Paul cannot beat Obama. While he is a good watchdog in Congress, to me he is not presidential material. I have a hard time forgiving Perry for the Trans-Texas Corridor. This reminded me of the Railroad Barons of time past--take a way all the property along the route even if it is not necessary. Add that to wanting to give half of it to a company headquartered in Spain. Did you know the TTC was to be almost a .25 of a mile wide? Talk about government getting in to you life. Did I forget to mention the HPV vaccines? Perry cannot beat Obama! The left-wing press will portray him as GW Bush reincarnated. While we know that is not true, those that get their only news from the the networks will believe it.

wow, +1

IMO, Perry is a RINO, goes with whatever way the wind blows and I just don't trust him any farther than I could throw him. Sure he may be striking all the conservative bells right now, but I don't believe him for a second. To me, he reminds me to John Edwards. He's all spit and polish, but it seems like there is something slimy there and I just can't put my finger on it.

I'd take Christ or Ryan. I think Ryan would run economic circles around the president in the debates. However, the media knows that and will/are doing everything they can to destroy him.