U.S. Republican Primaries discussion

[Narei Mooncatt]

Since the Republican primary election campaign is ramping up with all the debates and surprises like Rick Perry joining the fray, I figured it may be time to get a thread like this going for those wanting to discuss/debate the various GOP candidates for the 2012 Presidential candidates in the U.S.

I want to be clear that this thread is meant for discussions relating to the Republican candidates themselves and how they compare and contrast. I don't mind references to the current Obama administration if it helps prove a point, but this isn't a thread to debate how you feel about his actions. That should be saved for a thread on the general election when the Primaries are over. Even though this thread is about Republicans, I don't mind people with other political views commenting as long as you keep things civil and on topic.

Possible things to discuss: Do you have a specific candidate picked out that you like yet? One you don't want to win the Primary? What issues are you considering to make your decision? Is there someone you'd like to see on the Republican ticket that isn't in (not democrats or Independents)?

[Narei Mooncatt]

To kick things off, I'm a Herman Cain supporter. While I would possibly vote for any of the candidates that make the Republican ticket, Cain is the one that stands out for me. I don't like to be a single issue voter, but the one thing that first stood out for me was he is a supporter of the Fair Tax. Everyone else seems to re-hash the same old ideas, so this is something I feel is honestly a different approach and one I've supported for a while now. From what I've heard from him in the debates, I also like his no-nonesense type answers. He's not a polititian, so he doesn't give non-answer answers like you so often hear from every politician. Instead of saying something vague like "I'll bring jobs to America" or "I'll cut taxes", he has a plan and spelled it out with his tax proposal and explained why it would work.

He's also the ONLY person I've seen explain in an interview how lowering taxes (specifically talking about wanting to lower the capital gains tax to zero) would be a benefit. Fair tax or not, any time Republicans suggest lowering taxes to help the economy, the people on the left come back with how it will result in less tax revenues and thus hurt welfare programs. When that scenario was brought up to Herman Cain, he called the bluff. He actually took the time to explain that by dropping the corporate taxes to zero, the revenues would be balanced (if not increased) by income taxes paid by all the new workers that would be employed as companies start to expand in the U.S. instead of overseas and hire more American workers. The only thing I could have added to that would be that as those workers are hired, it means less dependence on welfare, so it also allows the federal buget to be reduced and save on that end as well. A double edged sword if you ask me.

I know he's not doing so hot when it comes to the political pundits, but they always give him high marks after a debate. If he's not elected in the Primary and/or the general election, I'm gonna have to laugh a bit. Everybody always complains about how we need to get rid of all the politicians and get some people that know about the real world, especially business, in office. Well now we actually have someone like that, so I would have expected him to be polling better.

[Yip]

I'm not sure about the other candidates, but I sincerely hope that Rick Perry doesn't get anywhere near the presidency. He's an extreme religious lunatic. And I don't mean that as a jab at religion: people can be religious and still understand that the government needs to work fairly for all people regardless of what religion they may or may not follow, and that doing so requires keeping religion out of government. Rick Perry has no understanding of this concept, and I fear he might do an immense amount of damage to the country if he were allowed to.

By the way, as a glimpse into the character we are talking about here: this is a guy that thinks simply holding days of prayer is a valid plan to solve our problems. You know, instead of actually doing something that might work.  Incidentally, prayer has proven in a large number of studies to have no greater effect than random chance. So no, simply praying isn't a solution for anything, and it certainly isn't something that should be being sanctioned by the government.

[Chiscringle]

With the current list, I'd have to go with Ron Paul.  I disagree with a lot of what he believes, but at least he got there by what looks like a thought process.  He also doesn't talk to his constituency like they're idiots.  I don't think I've ever heard a slogan out of him.  I may dislike his philosophy, but it's consistent and well considered, so he has my vote if I could vote in Republican primaries.  I also want to see him become president because I think he'd scare the daylights out of the current GOP establishment.  A Republican president with genuine constitutional beliefs, difficult to corrupt and likely to actually DO something may be the reform the party needs rather than the reform it wants.

Herman Cain is fine by me, though I can't quite make out what most of his platform is.  He's a pokemon fan, and that strangely enough counts for something to me. 

The only other one I'd trust as far as I can throw is Romney.  Mainly because he's been around so much that he isn't likely to fly off the handle and do something colossally stupid.

[Narei Mooncatt]

I don't know a ton about Romney, but I'd be on the fence with him. On the one hand, he had "Romney Care" in Mass, which was a failure, causing a lot of doctors to up and leave (or at least quit practicing in) the state. This was a similar plan as what Obama wanted with his healthcare refore. On the other hand, I seem to remember him addressing that issue in one of the debates, citing that healthcare should be left up to the states and he woudn't agree with even his plan as a federal law. That part I do agree with.

[Drake Blackpaw]

I'm a democrat, but I do have views on the current republican candidates.

Michele Bachman - Too focused on a religious agenda for me to feel comfortable with her in the White house.   She also hasn't done much in the house even though she has been there for awhile.  Often has her facts wrong about lots of things.   Nominating her would likely be handing the election to Obama.   Too many people have issues with her and would be motivated to vote against her.

Rick Perry - Again, another candidate who is too focused on a religious agenda for me to feel comfortable with in the White House.  Unlike Bachman, he is a shrewd politician and campaigner.  He says a lot of things that while liked by the hardcore Republican base, will likely have trouble with during the election.  I think he has a chance to win if nominated, but he does keep giving ammunition when he talks for Obama and other Democrats to run against. 

Herman Cain - I don't really know much about him.  Non-politicians tend to not do well as president, for example, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.  If he is really serious, he should first try for the House or Senate.  I don't see him as having much of a chance of winning the nomination.  To hard to catch up to Perry and Romney.

Mitt Romney - I view him as the Kerry of the Republican party.  Does Romney really excite anyone?  His positions shift to match the prevailing winds of the Republican party.  His is the first of the nominees that I think would make an okay president.  I think it is between him and Perry for the nomination, and with that being the case, I hope it is him since I think he would be the better president if elected.

John Huntsman - I like Huntsman, but I don't think he has a chance at winning the election.  He seems like someone you'd want to hang out with.  He's intelligent and knows a lot about what's going on.  I don't agree with all of his policy views, but I respect him. I'd feel pretty good if he somehow ended up getting the nomination and winning the general election. That said, I think he is too moderate for the current Republican primary environment and he doesn't have enough name recognition as well.   Any primary voter who is afraid that Perry is too conservative to win the general election would likely vote for Romney, who has a much better chance of beating Perry.

Newt Gingrich -  His time was in the 90s.  He's smart but too impulsive for his own good.  He doesn't seem to really want to win the nomination anyway.  At least not enough to do the on the ground work all the other candidates are doing.  I bet he is the next to drop out of the race.

So I think it really comes down to Perry and Romney.  Perry will get the hardcore religious conservative vote, though Bachman may siphon a few away from him.  Romney will get the moderates and the fiscal conservatives who are turned off by Perry. 

[Fenny the Fox]

I would be most in support of Cain, simply for the fact that he actually has been a successful businessman, and not a career politician - which is a big selling point for me, so to speak.

Knowing he has, sadly, no chance in hell of actually being voted for GOP candidate, nor for president even if he did (sorry, just being realistic): I think I like Paul over Romney.
Though Romney actually seems a good candidate in terms of position (in support of ObamaCare repeal, in support of large and long-term health-care overhaul, in support of SS reform, pro-gun ownership -but within reason-, etc.), I can't look past his opinions on a few factors that would directly impact me -such as his position on national recognition of same-sex marriage (deadset opposed) and domestic partnerships. But I admit, he at least acknowledges state priority in the decision.

Paul seems to support much the same aspects that I agree with. While furthering that by actually claiming government should be out of marriage entirely, which is a bit of a co-out, most likely...

The rest of the candidates I am rather opposed to, to be honest.


To be to the point though, I don't vote by party lines anyway, so the GOP vs. Dem thing really just confounds me. I don't see why they even bother with it...the candidates seem so very similar in so many ways - with only a few small, only vaguely differing issues ("hot button" topics like gay marriage and gun control). While the while only pandering to the moderates with promises of "tax cuts" or "tax reform" or blah blah blah. They all end up doing the same things in the end: raising the national debt, claiming they want it lowered while not cutting spending in any real way, and then claiming it was the other party's fault when people point it out.

[Narei Mooncatt]

This is kind of a tangent, but still relavent I think since it's about the primaries. Can anyone explain why they have the order they do? I would think having them all on the same day like the general election would give everyone time to vet the candidates. I got to wondering because with Florida moving their date up so early, it seems like it's causing a lot of rucuss with the other early primary states now feeling like they *HAVE* to move up too, to save their place in line. Personally I don't see what the big deal is, other than bragging rights for the first few states. According to the news, it basically sounds like they're now gonna be competing with the holidays for attention from the public, which brings up its own concerns.

[Alsek]

I also want to see him become president because I think he'd scare the daylights out of the current GOP establishment.

I'm pretty sure He already does.  


"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense.  As a former Air Force officer,  he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country"
-Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan

[Rocket T. Coyote]

Ron Paul has said some whacky stuff in recent months that would put him at odds with Reagan IMHO. Offering to give Kucinich a job in his administration doesn't resonate well, for example. Fortunately, he stands a snowball's chance of landing the GOP nomination. Huntsman should just call it a day as well.
  I've heard Herman Cain on the radio out of Atlanta, GA. Enjoyed his show when I could tune it in. He's holding his own in the polls too. Romney seems a bit too slick, but that's just my perseption.

[Necryn]

I'm a Libertarian, not a Republican, but...

My first choice would probably be Cain, and I'm overjoyed to see there are some other furries that support him.  I like a lot of his ideas, including his tax plan, and I think we need someone in the White House who has a better understanding of economics.  I was also a fan of his radio show when I managed to catch it.  He's definitely a good speaker, which will probably help him convince other politicians to vote his way and make some real changes.

I like Ron Paul as well, but I disagree with him on a couple of issues.  Still, I really respect the fact that he firmly stands for what he believes, he does not sway his opinion based on his audience, and I do agree with him on most issues.  I mainly disagree with him on foreign policy.

[Rocket T. Coyote]

That's about my take on Ron Paul too.

[Jovi Sparks]

Jumping in kind of late to the discussion here. I'm so far still for Obama, am an Independent (and will be all my life,) but from the Republicans POV I am actually a big fan of Ron Paul. Mostly because of my knowledge of him knowing about this economic downturn back in 1998, and no one believed him because things were fine. He was voted crazy old man at that point, and then when it started to happen I'm sure he just sat back and said "I told you so." I like the way he supports home schooling, while I was a public school kid, I think that the public schools are starting to go a bit astray. I also don't think that Paul would cut any kind of funding for public schools or what have you. He's also silently pro-gay which is very important to me, while all of the others are very outwardly anti-gay. His foreign policy doesn't necessarily make me too nervous, at least not nervous enough to have it be a real issue to me. I think he knows what he's doing.

Now, I've seen many other people in support for Herman Cain, that's cool and all, but I really don't see the 999 plan working out in the long run. At least, it will take longer for it to work than he could be in office. It wont be the quick fix everyone probably assumes it is. That taxes will instantly drop to 9% and everything will be hunky-dory. It'll take a year or two to get the taxes down to 9%. You can't just say BOOM taxes are now 9% without expecting the economy to completely collapse on itself. Those are my thoughts on that.

As far as Mitt Romney goes, I feel like he's just another GW. All of his beliefs and everything he's talked about is very generic. He doesn't impress me. Michelle Bachman is too much like Sarah Palin for me, even if they have stated she's "stepped out of Palin's shadow" she really hasn't.

[Chiscringle]

Cain bothers me.  He acts as if the Federal Government is simple.  Then again, most of the candidates act as if the American voting public are simple, so he might be keeping it quick for that reason.  999 sounds like it wouldn't work, though.  A flat 9% sales tax would ruin a lot of people.  It's odd that no one talks about the possibility of a VAT.  It's complicated, but far less so than what we've got now.

[Narei Mooncatt]

I haven't had a chance to look in to the 999 plan completely yet, but I've heard it's phase 1 of his over all tax plan. While I can't comment on the plan as a whole, there are some things about it that are similar to the Fair Tax in concept. The flat rate of 9% income and corporate tax rates are likely to lower the amount of taxes most people pay, and so far sounds like it will be simple to comply with. What scares people is they see the 9% national sales tax and think the products they buy will suddenly spike in price. That is not likely the case I'm guessing, or at least not so much that it becomes a net loss on personal income. Since corporate taxes are being slashed, and their compliance costs will also go down (the accounting and regulatory book keeping expenses), prices at the shelf will drop rather quickly accordingly. If it's like the Fair Tax, throw the 9% national sales tax in and you have "at the register" prices about the same as they are now. Not to mention, people could actually do their own taxes again and not have to rely on tax preparers that could cost hundreds to make sure they got it right.... Well, that's assuming they can get it right with out complicated system.

Cain bothers me.  He acts as if the Federal Government is simple.  Then again, most of the candidates act as if the American voting public are simple, so he might be keeping it quick for that reason.... It's odd that no one talks about the possibility of a VAT.  It's complicated, but far less so than what we've got now.

While the Federal government will never be as simple as his proposed tax plans, it could be made a lot more simple and efficient than it is. The problem is once government has a power, it will never give it up willingly. So even bloated and unproductive programs are kept around because it gives politicians an excuse to say they actually accomplished something and the general voting public goes "Ok!" It's not that the general public is simple (though aren't exactly the most intellegent either), it's that our government is that complicated.

When it comes to the VAT system, that was talked about some in the Fair Tax book. On paper, a VAT sounds simple, and I guess in a way it is compared to our current system. The down side is the VAT is added on to the price at every step of the way from manufacture to shipping to store shelf. In the book, they referenced Europe's way of using the VAT and were saying what happens is the tax is "hidden" in a way. Where in our system, the tax rates are more or less advertized, the VAT can be changed for a given segment of the supply chain and no one would really know or be able to protest it. I think I heard Herman Cain say that his 999 plan would be part of a constitutional amendment, and the Fair Tax certainly would require that. The tax rate would be part of that amendment I think, so it's not like the government would be able to easily turn it in to a 10-10-10 plan, then 12-12-12, then 20-20-20, etc. Even if the actual rate wasn't part of the amendment, EVERYONE would be able to tell when the government is messing with the rates. Right now, they are able to say they're cutting rates on one segment while rates actually go up, and our system so complicated that not many people would be able to tell what's really happening.

[Jovi Sparks]

With the way that the economy fluctuates that makes me nervous, because without the liberty to be able to raise or lower taxes when possible, say in times of good and we'd be able to go lower than 9%, even changing it to a mere 8% would require an entire amendment bill change and that's a long process in itself. With Globalization coming to a head and becoming more successful as the years pass on it's going to be important to have that ebb and flow available for movement within our own borders.

[Chiscringle]

The Amendment process is there for times when a fundamental right has been overlooked, a massive change to the structure of the government is required or when something needs to be written in that we cannot trust Congress not to repeal later.  The tax code is none of these.

[Narei Mooncatt]

I think I may have got my plans mixed up (Fair tax vs 9-9-9). It's the fair tax, not the 9-9-9 plan that would involve the constitution that I've seen so far. And I've already mentioned Cain would move towards the fair tax after 9-9-9 is in place. The Fair Tax would repeal the 16th amendment, which basically set us up with the system we have now, and I think replace it with the Fair Tax structure. In either case, neither plan would have the rate set as part of the amendment process. Not only alevieating some of your fears on the rate being so hard bound to the constitution, it also will help keep things in check.

Since the rate is known by everyone, any time tax rates are debated to change, people will be able to make more informed decisions when letting their congressmen know how they feel. Right now, if they raise taxes on a business, or special item, the general public doesn't follow the money and realize that it still hits them in the pocketbook.

Rule of thumb in economics: Businesses don't pay taxes. It's always the customer that pays it.

[Jovi Sparks]

Yeah, unless they're going belly up. Anyway, the 9-9-9 plan just isn't going to be the instant fix like Cain it putting it off to be to the general public. What I've noticed through my own personal surveying, especially people in the early age range of 18-30, don't look deeply enough into campaigns to see what possible long term effects a candidate may have if elected. Heck, I knew some people who voted for McCain just because they thought Sarah Palin was hot. Baffles me. That's off topic though. I'm interested in seeing how Cain is going to continue to hold up over the next debates.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Well, with Cain suspending his campaign, looks like I may be putting my vote to Ron Paul. Note that I said vote and not support. The economy is a huge issue right now, and Cain was the only one who had a plan I really agreed with. I'm not sure yet about Paul's economic plan, but from what I hear, he sticks to the constitution more than any other. I do admire that and would be willing to vote for him. Though if any of the other GOP candidates get the nod, I may vote not to vote for the primary election. And you can't say anything about it! I say not voting because you don't like who's running isn't the same as not voting because you just didn't want to. Honestly, none of the other candidates really inspire me.