Which Republican Candidate Is More Conservative?

[Garb]

ANY of the Republican "scumbags" as you call them is a MAJOR improvement over the current occupant of the White House. Some not who I want, but better.

The most urgent task HAS to be to get Obama out of office. While he is an idiot, he is a useful idiot to some rather shady VERY dangerous people. Their ability to make this useful idiot dance on a string for them has to end. And yes I know there are dangerous people on both sides. If this "man" is allowed to destroy the US economy (as he is doing faster, than ANYONE in US history, and on purpose I might add) the other problems (see below) become a moot point anyway. If we are relegated to living hand to mouth very few if any will care the least bit about being searched to get on a damn airplane, etc... Priorities man, priorities.

We need to get past the idea that the TSA, Patriot Act, the "government police state", The War on Drugs, etc... is going away anytime soon. Isn't going to happen even if Ron Paul is elected. Sorry if I burst anyone's bubble. If anyone thinks it will, please explain how.

I agree with most of what you said here. You're right, whoever gets in probably couldn't be much worse than Obama, unless they turned out to be Hitler reincarnate. I have a few problems with voting for anyone besides Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. First of all, those candidates are inconsistent and/or liars (take your pick). Just a few years ago, when George Bush was in office, the Dems were *****ing about how this spending is unsustainable. The roles have switched. Who here recognizes that about half of the platform that Obama ran on, the anti-war and pro-civil liberties half, disappeared after the election? Do you think that it's going to be any different with Bachman, Romney, or Perry? In comparison, both Paul and Johnson have excellent records. Paul doesn't have any monumental accomplishments, but his voting record is as consistent as you can get. Johnson left New Mexico extremely well off. I'll vote for someone who I don't agree on everything with. I won't vote for someone who is inconsistent (that doesn't mean they never change their mind) or who lies. What's more, by giving any of the lying, flip-flopping candidates my vote, I'm essentially telling them that they can get away with lying to me. If they have a change of heart on an issue, they need to articulate it, and vote consistently. I'm not playing to get Obama out of the White House. I'm playing to get a real leader in. Most of the Republican field ain't it.

 

[88GT]

Your point being none of the candidates is a conservative?

My point being that just because Jack calls John a conservative, doesn't make it so. More importantly, just because John calls himself a conservative doesn't make it so.

 

[jsgolfman]

Agreed, that was my supposition as well.

 

[pitbull88]

Conservative Criteria

Here is what I am looking for in a candidate. I'd appreciate opinions on what candidate comes closest to this wish list:

1. Remains strong on defense, doesn't cut our capabilities. I am okay with cutting waste, but not our capabilities. Would like someone who continues to invest in technologies (weapons, defense systems, communication, etc.) to ensure we are prepared as a nation to defend.

2. Fiscal hawk. Aside from defense spending, questions every expenditure. Looks to consolidate or eliminate departments.

3. Spearheads term-limit legislation to reduce Senate to no more than two terms (maybe 1); similar limits on House.

4. Fair tax. I'd be in favor of a simple uniform rate, e.g., 15%. Eliminate all loopholes, everyone pays the same. Eliminate the IRS.

5. Pro-gun/2nd amendment

6. Pro-life.

7. Constitution means what is says, limit the power of government. Appoint judges that adhere to the constitution.

 

[rambone]

Here is what I am looking for in a candidate. I'd appreciate opinions on what candidate comes closest to this wish list:

1. Remains strong on defense, doesn't cut our capabilities. I am okay with cutting waste, but not our capabilities. Would like someone who continues to invest in technologies (weapons, defense systems, communication, etc.) to ensure we are prepared as a nation to defend.

2. Fiscal hawk. Aside from defense spending, questions every expenditure. Looks to consolidate or eliminate departments.

Is this "fiscal hawk" allowed to cut the Offense budget?

 

[88GT]

Agreed, that was my supposition as well.

Not that you wouldn't be correct in your other post, but the definition of conservative is somewhat fluid and dependent on more than a few factors.

 

[88GT]

I agree with most of what you said here. You're right, whoever gets in probably couldn't be much worse than Obama, unless they turned out to be Hitler reincarnate. I have a few problems with voting for anyone besides Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. First of all, those candidates are inconsistent and/or liars (take your pick). Just a few years ago, when George Bush was in office, the Dems were *****ing about how this spending is unsustainable. The roles have switched. Who here recognizes that about half of the platform that Obama ran on, the anti-war and pro-civil liberties half, disappeared after the election? Do you think that it's going to be any different with Bachman, Romney, or Perry? In comparison, both Paul and Johnson have excellent records. Paul doesn't have any monumental accomplishments, but his voting record is as consistent as you can get. Johnson left New Mexico extremely well off. I'll vote for someone who I don't agree on everything with. I won't vote for someone who is inconsistent (that doesn't mean they never change their mind) or who lies. What's more, by giving any of the lying, flip-flopping candidates my vote, I'm essentially telling them that they can get away with lying to me. If they have a change of heart on an issue, they need to articulate it, and vote consistently. I'm not playing to get Obama out of the White House. I'm playing to get a real leader in. Most of the Republican field ain't it.

Not picking on you, genuinely curious: how do you determine the difference between a flip-flop and change of heart?

 

[NYFelon]

by examining whether or not the alleged "change of heart" was precipitated by a slump in poll favorability?

 

[Expat]

Not picking on you, genuinely curious: how do you determine the difference between a flip-flop and change of heart?

It is hard for me to believe people change their positions on major social issues where no new facts have come out when they are well along into adulthood. Do we really believe that Mitt was pro-abortion, pro-homosexual right, anti-RKBA, etc. as governor of Massachusetts but now he is on the opposite side of those issues when he runs for President. I could buy it if it was one issue and he could explain the rationale for the change. I never had seen an ultrasound of a baby in the womb or something like that.

 

[Garb]

Not picking on you, genuinely curious: how do you determine the difference between a flip-flop and change of heart?

Like I said, if they articulate their view change, and why. Bob Barr changing his mind on gay marriage is a great example. He said he realized he was wrong, and worked to get his own law (The Defense of Marriage Act) repealed. That's the best example I can think of. Mike Pence and Michelle Bachman voting to raise the debt ceiling under Bush and then fighting with the Democrats who want to do the exact same thing is a flip flop. They're playing partisan politics, not trying to make this a better country for us.