Ok, I am a Conservative Constitutionalist (a.k.a. the same kind of Republican as the original…not *GOP faithful.* I vote according to who I feel will follow the Constitution, as amended, the closest, who has the best character, and, if applicable, best voting record.

Here is how I see the candidates as of today. Tomorrow, I may feel differently, but I’m pretty sure Santorum is going to keep my top spot. No matter what, I’ll vote whoever is running against Obama*.

Rick Santorum: Spot number 1.

Pros:

-has a consistently conservative (social and fiscal) voting record

-has a clean record, no messy divorces, etc. Walks the walk.
– as far as I can tell, ALWAYS votes his conscience – even when he ticks off the establishment GOP
– has won several races ‘against all odds’ and he says that it happened because he told the truth…I really like that!

– seems to really understand the Constitution really, really well – this is crucial to me

– has an understanding of foreign policy that is awe striking. He is willing to call a spade a spade and deal with the issues at the source.

– believes that the average citizen is not a moron

-he scares the heck out of the establishment GOP because he won’t conform and follow orders, if that means compromising his principles. He will cast his vote for the best outcome for the American people.

Cons:

-polls low…for now. But, so did Reagan and see what happened there?

Michele Bachman**:

Pros:

-Superb voting record

-Has read the Constitution and seems to understand it quite well

-loves her husband and 4 million children (okay not that many, but she has had, I believe 5 kids, and has fostered, what 23 or something?  A. Lot.)

-her foreign policy is the second best of all the candidates

Cons:

-her voice. I know this should not matter, but dangit, it just grates on me sometimes. Maybe if she’s elected I’ll get over this. Plus if this is her biggest “con,” I’ll take it!

-she used to talk around the answer to a question to finally get there. She’s more on point now, which is nice. But, I think the tendency is still there.

-She has mouthed off (more than once) about something before she had all the facts, or verified sources. This is not huge as our own president condemns doctors, policemen, and average citizens without any facts at all, and just about everyone forgives him. I’ll do the same here.

Rick Perry:

Pros:

-has experience governing a state

-has recently began reading the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and economists like Hazlitt and Williams, so he is starting to realize that Keynesian economics fail. Every. Time.

-didn’t use his back surgery as an excuse as to why he did poorly in the debates even though he was in lots of pain. No wonder he looked like he had a rod up his back and didn’t turn his head much…

-recently has done some pretty good governing of the state of Texas. Here’s the catch, basically, he just let Texas prosper and didn’t do anything to intervene, “help,” or, whatever.  Of course, that’s what he’s supposed to do, so there ya go.

-stated that he wants to make the federal government as inconsequential to each American as possible. Which means, he has read he Constitution.

-he’s not a pansy

Cons:

-he has had some crappy views in the past, a couple of the super crappy. But, people are capable of change, so…benefit of the doubt?

-apparently he has lots of cronyism going on in Texas (but I don’t really know what…just what my sister, who has lived in Texas for decades, told me. She can’t stand him. I got here only 4 years ago, so I figure I’ll go with her take for now.).

– he’s not great on the immigration issue, but is coming around. Just wish I knew what to expect.

-there are more, but I have run out of time. Suffice it to say that he is not the devil, but he’s not an angel either. He would be a better president than Obama.

So sorry, but I don’t have time for the rest right now. I’ll get to it, I promise!!

* He states unequivocally that he does not believe in following the Constitution; he, along with the Congress, have increased the debt by incredible amounts (added, so far over $6,000,000,000,000.00 JUST TO THE DEBT); and he keeps using FDR and Wilson economic playbooks when he should be using Harding and Coolidge. He is calling for policies that have proven to elongate recessions/depressions.  One of the required reading books for WH staffers is a Saul Alinsky book, titled Rules for Radicals; he called the TEA party people (basic slogan: let us keep more of the stuff that is already ours!) names, but supported the OWS crowd (basic slogan: gimme their stuff!); he claimed doctors will cut off diabetics’ feet just to make a buck; and said, when he had no facts of the situation that he knew the police “acted stupidly.” He is an anti-colonialist. The list goes on and on. If you want more reasons, just say so and I’ll go on.

**A dear, dear friend of mine noted that Michele’s family’s business benefits from federal subsidies and that she is hypocritical for accepting that money, while lobbying for their abolition. I did some research because I thought she had a point. It turns out that if her family run business gives up the subsidies while others get them, they would be bankrupt overnight. Here’s the deal: the government has made such a mess of the economy that if they don’t take the money, they will be gone. So, what she is advocating is that everyone play by the same rules. YES, take away their subsidy, but do it across the board. To do it alone is economic suicide. Also, she gets no money from the family business…it goes to her mother.

There are those who condemn her and her husband because they have what is known as a ‘pray away the gay’ clinic. There is more to their business, but we’ll just go with that description for time and space purposes. Even with the best of subsidies available today (which I am not sure if the business does or not get, you’ll have to research that for yourself), that business would go under if it didn’t have willing consumers. It’s not like GM. Whether you agree you can pray away the gay or whatever, if people willingly want to try, why should I stop them? I don’t stop people who wish to BE gay, and according to the Christian religion, homosexual acts are an abomination in God’s eyes. Let people have some personal liberty and choose for themselves. I came to this conclusion after researching and pondering. I don’t claim to be always right, but that’s how I see it.