Ok, here is the remainder of the candidates and my take on them.

Romney:

Pros:

-has experience running a state

-he seems to have good morals, no cheating on the wife, taking money from Fannie Mae, etc.

-he has business experience

-can admit when he made a mistake

-seems to have a bit of knowledge about the Constitution. He’s not stellar on this.

Cons:

-when he makes those mistakes, they are whoppers that affect millions and can’t be taken back

-likes big government solutions, but didn’t seem to absorb the understanding that even if a program sounds good on paper, and may actually get implemented well, in the beginning, the fact that it will be run by unelected regulators will make the program bomb.

-he calls the U.S. a democracy. Big no-no. We are a republic. Despite historical revisionist history, we are a republic and our founders were very, very clear on this. If you want to know why, watch this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY. It’s 10 minutes of your time that you will be happy to have spent.

Ron Paul:

Pros:

-knows the Constitution. At least when one debates him, it is about how the federal government should implement its duties, not try to get him to read the Constitution first, so one can debate. He knows it.

-understands the Federal Reserve. This is HUGE. He is the BEST candidate for fiscal policy.

-understands what Jefferson was talking about when he wrote, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” It had nothing to do with Jefferson’s Christianity (he was, in fact, a Christian…he wrote about it in his personal diary…but, this is another discussion altogether)…it had to do with personal liberty. Paul gets that.

Cons:

-his foreign policy is bat-crap crazy. If you want more on this, I’ll put up links, but basically, he thinks it’s okay for a country to have nukes, when the leaders of that country clearly state that as soon as it gets nuclear capability, they will bomb us in an effort to eradicate America from the world. This is but one tiny example of the lunacy that comes out of his mouth about foreign policy. He seriously thinks that if we are nice and reasonable to others, that they will be the same for us. This does not jive with the radical Islamic jihadist plan. Those people run Iran. The have great sway in many other countries. This is NOT good foreign policy for anyone who wants America to be safe. If you want some history about our centuries old history with radical Islamists, let me know.

-he seems to interpret the Constitution as did the Anti-Federalists. They were in favor of keeping the government more like the Articles of Confederation. The problem was that it was too weak of a federal government. For instance, it could ask the states to pay for the Revolutionary War, but could not make them. The lack of power allotted to the federal government to do its duty in the A’s of C are responsible for the horrible suffering of the soldiers, who were fighting for independence, at Valley Forge. The government is to be limited IN SCOPE. But, the feds MUST be allowed the power to carry out their defined roles…one of which is to pay and direct the military. The A’s of C failed there, hence, the U.S. Constitution.

Huntsman:

Pros:

-I don’t think he’s cheated on his wife

-he says the right things about getting the economy running again. He understands that private enterprise is being hindered now, wants to repeal Frank-Dodd (bad, bad bill…if you are a business, like having a job, or like being able to buy the things you need and want), shut down Fannie and Freddie, and end too big to fail.

-wants the US to be energy independent

-he understands trade around the world. For more on this, I’ll have to write another blog. 😉

Cons:

-wants to make us energy independent by getting rid of subsidies that are hindering alternative fuels (GOOD)…by giving other subsidies. BAD! That will get us more of the same.

-his foreign policy stinks in some parts. He promotes the idea of spreading “democracy” – see video, and HUMAN rights. Natural rights (from God…that’s what our government is based on) and human rights (those rights given to people from those who run the government) are diametrically opposed to one another. Human rights can be changed, taken away, altered…while Natural rights are from God. They are unalienable; even if they are taken away by a government, they still stand; they are enduring forever, never alterable; and are applicable to each individual human being on the earth.

For instance, Social Security. It is a made up “right.” The government under FDR decided to ‘give’ this ‘right’ to the people. Here’s the catch: the government can take this away AT ANY TIME. There is nothing in the founding documents that say that money of any kind is a right and there is nothing in the bill that created SS (or any since) that preclude the legislators from altering it or abolishing it. This is what we get when we talk about human rights. Also, see Darfur and so many other places on earth where HUMAN rights are being “protected.” Yeah, right. Natural rights are a different thing altogether.

That being said, he seems to understand with whom we are at war and that we need to actually fight in a manner befitting the current sort of engagements. I have no idea what his views are of the current rules of engagement that endanger our troops. Guess that will be your homework assignment. 😉

Gingrich:

Pros:

-he knows about the skeletons in the closets of other political leaders. He probably has dirt on everyone, which could get some votes. Sad, but true. Now, they know his dirty deeds also, but those are being trotted out by the media, so he has nothing to lose here.

-he knows a lot of history

-he talks a good conservative talk

Cons:

-no substantial private business experience. We have that now in our POTUS, don’t need another round of that.

-he is a self-described Progressive, models himself after Woodrow Wilson, agrees with FDR, and loves HUGE government solutions. He says he orchestrated the Contract with America, but I don’t see his fingerprints on it. I think he just happened to be there, and the people wanted it, so he didn’t disagree with it publicly. Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve (wholly unconstitutional on several ways, and the founders warned REPEATEDLY about making a private bank in charge of the money system). He called for insanely high taxes on the rich (they went over 73%), which, among other big government interventions, in turn lead to an incredibly horrible economy, and he used class warfare as his method of getting votes. Sound familiar? Why do we want a guy who models himself after someone who ran the country into the ground?? Also, Wilson had no private sector experience. Just sayin.’ If you want more info on this, it will have to be a separate blog. I think I have a 100,000-word limit here. Lol!

-he does not understand the founding documents

-he does not walk the conservative walk, and he switches gears in a heartbeat

-he knows a lot of history…but doesn’t seem to understand reality…hence the Wilson stuff.

I could go on and on and on, but he is NOT a friend to anyone who considers themselves a conservative, a Constitutionalist, or any person who wishes to be able to make personal decisions without having to consult a regulator from the federal government for, say, which light bulb to choose to buy.

-he does not believe that human life is sacred.

Any questions, comments, concerns, etc? Please, let me know! 😀