HitsRus;1069587 wrote:Newt Gingrich has picked up the endorsement of Herman Cain

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/herman-cain-to-endorse-newt-gingrich/2012/01/28/gIQAG2KnYQ_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

HitsRus;1069587 wrote:Newt Gingrich has picked up the endorsement of Herman Cain

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/herman-cain-to-endorse-newt-gingrich/2012/01/28/gIQAG2KnYQ_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

QuakerOats;1067932 wrote:give it a whirl ... http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game

jmog;1070227 wrote: In the general any of those 4 over Obama, but Romney and Gringrich aren't much better than BHO.

gut;1070276 wrote:I don't like Gingrich, at all. But I have hopes Romney could be the man for the job. Obama may have tried to be more moderate/govern from the center, but he lacks both the leadership and the ability to truly detach from his liberal agenda. More damaging is the fact that Obama doesn't have a clue when it comes to business and economics, areas where Romney is clearly fairly strong.

Point being, Romney could be similar to BHO, but a superior ability to execute and, more importantly, a practical approach and understanding that you have to make tough choices for that which you can afford. At this point, I don't really care what programs the POTUS pushes or funds, I just want revenues to = expenses.

I don't know that I have an issue with the liberal/social platform, it's the refusal to balance a budget. Obama is a failure, but I'm not opposed to giving someone with similar ideals a chance if they have a sense of fiscal prudence. Socialism and a balanced budget need not be mutually exclusive, we just have no efficiency and fiscal discipline.

A lot of this is likely better handled on the state level. If you don't like it, you can move to another state (which many people do in retirement, anyway). Not really practical or feasible to move out of the country, though. Also, the variety of state economies and drivers is better suited to have a variety of social structures that should be more efficient (for govt and citizen) than a one-size-fits-all Federal approach.

jmog;1070318 wrote:You better elect Ron Paul then, the only man that will get us even CLOSE to this inside of a single term.

gut;1070360 wrote:I don't know that I agree with that - I think you overestimate Ron Paul, for starters.

You're issue is that Romney can talk a good game but you don't think he'll execute. My issue is Paul talks a good game, but I don't believe he CAN execute if indeed he actually tries.

gut;1070360 wrote:I don't know that I agree with that - I think you overestimate Ron Paul, for starters. Some of his ideas beg of someone who's economics education stopped at 1950, but I won't go there.

jmog;1070227 wrote:I think I was #1 Santorum, #2 Romney, #3 Paul.

But in the primary I would honestly vote Paul, Santorum, Gringrich, then Romney.

In the general any of those 4 over Obama, but Romney and Gringrich aren't much better than BHO.

But Santorum testified in support of his wife when she filed a medical malpractice suit in 1999 that sought $500,000, twice the cap in his original legislative proposal. Karen Santorum claimed that a Fairfax chiropractor had left her with a permanent back injury that probably would result in a lifetime of pain medication and restricted mobility.

gut;1070360 wrote:I don't know that I agree with that - I think you overestimate Ron Paul, for starters. Some of his ideas beg of someone who's economics education stopped at 1950, but I won't go there.

You still have to deal with Congress. Romney wasn't just a successful businessman, he made his money in an industry that thrives off of cutting costs and eliminating waste. Political agendas aside, he is BY FAR the most qualified candidate for that approach, which Washington badly needs. I don't know that Paul's meat clever approach would be much better than Obama (opposite ends of the extreme, but each likely miserable failures), honestly, nor am I sure that Congress wouldn't neuter him, anyway.

You're issue is that Romney can talk a good game but you don't think he'll execute. My issue is Paul talks a good game, but I don't believe he CAN execute if indeed he actually tries.

sleeper;1070366 wrote:Ron Paul would simply not sign an unbalanced budget. I firmly believe he'd play hardball and veto anything that didn't fit his ideals.

Cleveland Buck;1070398 wrote:That statement begs of someone whose economics education never started. If you don't know anything about Ron Paul's economic views, and you don't want to read the real old guys like Mises or the guy who won the Nobel Prize in 1974, then you could always read guys from today like Bob Murphy and Tom Woods and Tom DiLorenzo.

Just because governments turned away from the use of free market economics a long time ago doesn't mean you should dismiss it. In fact, it means you should look into it. I don't know why you think free people and free markets and market money would have been of interest to politicians and the bankers that own them in the first place. It wasn't and never will be.

Footwedge;1069723 wrote:Male whores sticking together.:thumbup:

stlouiedipalma;1070017 wrote:Serial harrasser endorsing serial cheater. No surprise to me.

Footwedge;1070487 wrote:Kinda looks like the Repubs are gonna select a closet liberal against Obama. Willard will have his hands full.

gut;1070491 wrote:Again, I don't really see the problem as being a closet liberal so much fiscally ignorant. Romney is not fiscally/business ignorant, which gives him an infinitely better chance of success than Obama.

Footwedge;1070487 wrote:Kinda looks like the Repubs are gonna select a closet liberal against Obama. Willard will have his hands full.

believer;1070490 wrote:Do you suppose Gingrich can get endorsements from Bill Clinton and John Edwards too?

fish82;1070507 wrote:As will Bam.

sleeper;1070366 wrote:Ron Paul would simply not sign an unbalanced budget. I firmly believe he'd play hardball and veto anything that didn't fit his ideals.

Paul would also be the first president to be successfully impeached because the public wouldn't understand why he has doing what he was doing.

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

dwccrew;1070674 wrote:You may want to learn what impeachment actually is before you start throwing the word around. Two presidents have successfully been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

You must have missed that class at The Ohio State University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States