Now all of these guys are going to be the same on several points, and I'll just address them now. All will appoint justices to SCOTUS who will be strict Constitutionalists in the cut of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas. All of them are going to be against Row v Wade. What I am going to look at are issues that are important to me, and my general feel for each candidate. I will likely not vote for the eventual nominee for President, nor will I vote for President Obama. I live in Oklahoma, and this state's delegates to the Electoral College will go to the eventual Republican nominee. I, therefore, am safe in voting for the Libertarian candidate, who will likely be former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson. BUT since Mr. Johnson will NEVER become POTUS, I want to look over the guys who actually have a shot.
Mitt is a business man, the former Governor of Massachusetts, and the CEO of the Utah Olympics.
Mitt's most attractive features, besides his hair, is the fact that the business that made him his millions was taking crap companies and turning them around in to money making machines. He showed that this could be done with bureaucratic nightmares as well when he took the Utah Winter Olympics, a failing money pit in one of the most rural settings the Olympics has ever seen, with absolutely NO chance of making any money at all, and turned it in to the most profitable Olympics that has ever been. On top of all of that Utah is STILL benefiting from Mitt's work. The SLC airport has become a hub for regional flights, the Utah Ski industry has grown from little known jerkwater mountains in to the number 2 place to ski in the nation.
While he was in Mass, he floundered a bit as he attempted to run a State like a business. After a while he got the hang of it and made some good progress for businesses in that state. His biggest achievement was that he was able to work with some of the most liberal "tax and spend" democrats in the nation to cut $3 Billion from the state deficit, and raised state revenue all without raising taxes.
My primary problem with Mitt is that he is TOO willing to cave in to Democrats in order to get things done. Who is the real Mitt Romney and where does he draw the line? He has shown that he is more than willing to move that line once he draws it.
The Issues I care about:
Mitt's stance on Gun Control has been very flexible. He said he believes in the Second Amendment, but, as Governor, he worked for the passage of a law that extended the so called "Assault Weapon" ban. He is quoted as saying that he would work so that "regular weapons more available to our citizens." Well, Mitt... define "regular weapons."
This is why you elect Mitt Romney POTUS. The guy knows how to set businesses loose. He knows where to regulate to prevent fraud and where to relax so that business can grow. He is very good at this sort of thing. He would be the one to lead congress to create legislation to really cut the red tape.
What Mitt would NOT do, however, would be to force Congress to take back their role as the creators of the regulations. He would want to keep the regulation creation and interpretation of federal law with the Executive Branch. Mitt is a guy who is after power, and this little gem of power he would be unwilling to relinquish.
Mitt would work to cut spending, but not to the extent that the Tea Party, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul want spending to be cut. You can expect Billion dollar deficits and a growing national debt under a President Romney. However the Trillion dollar deficits seen under President Obama should be a thing of the past.
Bailouts Mitt would have bailed out GM. He thinks that the bail outs of GM and all the bailouts of Chrysler (this is their Second) were a good thing. Expect more of the same from Mitt.
Mitt is for cutting of the Corporate tax, and other taxes, but keeping the basic tax structure that we currently have. Again, Mitt is a power guy and the tax code gives too much power to the Government to just give it back to the people.
Newt was a History Teacher, congressman from Georgia, Speaker of the House, Government Consultant, and Author. He has spent more time in Government than any of the other candidates.
Newt's most attractive feature is that, in 1994, he was the leader of the Republican Revolution that took back the House after 60 years of Democrat control. During his time as Speaker, he passed the Contract for America, the congress cut Welfare, and they balanced the budget. He was forced out of office on ethics violations that were all, eventually, shown to be false.
While Newt talks a good game most of the time, the ideas that he comes up with when he really gets going are just off of the wall. At his heart, he believes that Government is there not to protect people and defend freedom, it is to control people. He gives me the wiblies. One idea that gives me the most wiblies is that he says we can get $2.50 gasoline. How is the President going to do that? Newt says by opening up American markets. Sure, drilling more oil will drop the price of oil, but enough to get it back to $2.50? I don't think so. Really the only way to drastically bring down the price of oil is to increase the value of the dollar, and I don't think that Newt has it in him to do what is necessary to make that kind of deflation happen. Other than that, you can make $2.50 gas with price controls, but that is a very bad thing.
The Issues I care about:
Newt holds the line on gun control issues. He is a Government guy, so he has toed the line on keeping existing gun laws on the books. He is supportive of the CCW reciprocity bill in congress.
Newt proposes to improve the economy by a fundamental reforming of the entitlement system. He also wants to get rid of the capital gains tax, and the corporate tax. He says this will make companies want to invest in the US and let them keep more of their profits.
Ok, sure, I'll buy that
Newt says that regulations need to be loosened to allow for more American investment.
Ok, I'll buy that, BUT again, Newt is a government power guy, and he will do nothing to hand back regulation to congress from the Executive. It is just too big of a power stick to help his friends and hurt his enemies.
Newt is calling for drastic cuts in spending, and a balanced budget. He suggests that the most gains can come from entitlement spending. I tend to agree with him.
Newt would keep the Bush tax cuts, cut the corporate tax rate, and eliminate taxes on Capital Gains. He would then "move" to a flat tax. What that means I don't rightly know. Herman Cain is campaigning with Newt, so you have to think there is a lot of talk of Herman's 9-9-9 plan. All in all I think Newt wants to operate inside the existing tax code. He has more power and more control over people that way, and I think he likes that.
Rick was elected to congress at age 32 in 1990, and then to the Senate in 1995 in 2007 he was defeated in his re-election campaign by a HUGE margin. Before, and after, his life in politics Rick practiced law.
Republicans like Rick because of his stance on social issues. I like Rick's stances on eliminating Fanie Mae and Fredie Mac's government backed role in home mortgages, and reducing the role of the FED in the economy.
I HATE Rick because of his stance on social issues. The guy is so homophobic I honestly think he might lean a bit that way. He is so anti-abortion that not only should Row v Wade be overturned, but it should be a federal crime to have such a procedure.
The guy touts "family values" and a life that is "centralized on faith" as his big campaign slogans. He actually said that Satan had America in his cross hairs. I honestly think that Rick would move the US to some sort of "Escape From LA" style theocracy. I agree with some of his stances on other issues, but holy cow this guy thinks religious freedom is deciding on with sect of Christianity you want to profess to.
The Issues I care about: Gun Control
Rick is a big supporter of gun rights, and supports the CCW Reciprocity bill in congress. While he was in congress Rick did a lot in the way of tort reform protecting Gun Manufactures from lawsuits brought against them by people who were hurt by the manufacturer's product.
Here is where Rick gets kind of fuzzy... Reading his campaign literature is tedious, because he mentions family and faith more than anything else. What this has to do with the economy or getting business working is very difficult to see... I don't think that Rick really knows what government can do to help businesses out or that the FedGov's place is at the interstate level. Regulation
Rick has said that he will roll back regulations brought on by the Obama Administration. Does that mean handing the regulatory responsibility back to Congress?? No. Spending
Rick is all for cutting spending in the way of Paul Ryan and Rand Paul. I really really like that. However, Rick, like Ryan and Paul, is set on passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. I don't like this for a number of reasons, but what about a federal law for a balanced budget? That might work.
Rick is big for the major reform of entitlement programs, one for the money they save and two... because entitlements destroy families by making a father unnecessary. Seriously. He says this crap. Tax Reform
Rick is for cutting everybody's taxes and, *palm slaps forehead* TRIPLING the child deduction. Sounds great for a guy with seven kids... On top of that he would (from his web site)
- Cut and simplify personal income taxes by cutting the number of tax rates to just two - 10% and 28% returning to the Reagan era pro-growth top tax rate
- Simplify the tax code and reduce middle income taxes by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
- Simplify the tax code, encourage savings and investment and reduce taxes by eliminating the Death Tax
- Lower the Capital Gains and Dividend tax rates to 12% to spur economic growth and investment
- Reduce taxes for families by tripling the personal deduction for each child
- Reduce and simplify taxes for families by eliminating marriage tax penalties throughout the federal tax code
- Retain deductions for charitable giving, home mortgage interest, healthcare, retirement savings, and children
- Eliminate the cap on deductions for losses incurred in the sale of a principle residence
- Cut the corporate income tax rate in half to make our businesses competitive around the world, from 35% to 17.5%
- Eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers – from 35% to 0% - which will spur middle income job creation in the United States and will create a job multiplier effect for workers
- Spur innovation in America by increasing the Research & Development Tax Credit from 14% to 20% and make it permanent
- Eliminate the tax on repatriated taxable corporate income – from 35% from 0% - when manufacturers invest in plant and equipment; and reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 5.25% on other repatriated income and allow for 100% expensing for new business equipment
Rick gets more because he is one of those guys who screams FREEDOM, but then talks about how he would use the power of Government to restrict the very thing he says he wants to grow. Rick wants to address the "pandemic" of porn in American society. Sorry Rick, but the First Amendment, you remember the one that says Religion you should know that one, protects our right to watch OR not watch porn. You must take the good with the bad, because it is the CHOICE that is freedom.
Ron Paul is a Physician, and a Congressman.
This is Dr. Paul's third time to run for POTUS. Twice as a Republican, once as a Libertarian. I like Paul on just about all accounts. The only thing about him that I don't like is that he is very isolationist. I think that the US needs to be involved in international politics, on a HUGE scale. What I like very much about Dr. Paul is that he wants military intervention to be preceded with a Declaration of War. I absolutely agree that the President has been given unconstitutional power to wage war with the War Powers Act. It is amoral to wage a half-assed war. In a declared war Congress and the President have SO much more flexibility to fight it. Why hamstring yourself? Because they can and it is politically expedient. Dr. Paul would not have such a situation.
Issues I care about:
Ron Paul goes almost as far as I do in terms of Gun Control. He believes that the 2nd amendment grants every citizen the right to keep and bear arms. He has been passive on the removal of federal restrictions on the owning of automatic weapons, so he does not go all the way, but he is, by far, the most pro gun of the candidates.
Dr. Paul's stance here is to get rid of the FED and return the dollar to a hard currency. This would make dollars very valuable, and not attached to the economy in any real way. With an independent currency prices would stabilize and be much cheaper (seaming) then before. For instance, a gallon of gas would only cost about a dime, because that dime would now be tied to an amount of gold.
Dr. Paul would throw back to congress the power of regulation. In other words, congress would actually have to write laws that specifically stated how they would be implemented. Current law that requires the Executive to define their regulations would be cut to the absolute minimum required by law.
Dr. Paul and his son Ryand Paul have a plan to cut spending over a Trillion dollars a year. Dr. Paul has said he would never sign a budget that is not balanced, nor would he EVER sign a bill that raised the debit limit.
Entitlement spending would be brought to an absolute minimum.
Dr. Paul has been in favor of the FairTax, but only if the 16th Amendment could be repealed. However Dr. Paul has said that if we follow the Constitution, the effective tax rate on most citizens should be 0%, so there is no real need for tax reform if spending is brought to where it needs to be.
I like Ron Paul the most. I really do, but his reforms as POTUS just couldn't happen with out a revolution in congress resulting in super majorities of Libertarian leaning Republicans in both houses. Outside that, his ideas are very pie in the sky. I like where his pie is, because most of his views are my own.