What's your oppinions on this?

 

1) That you spend far too much time watching Fox news.

2) That his public persona and speech pattern is that of an evangelist or gospel minister, a big turn off to a lot of electorate.

3) The odds are stacked against him owing to ethnicity in some of the republican heartlands.

4) That he's far from convincing on policy issues.

 

Who?

-DA 

What's your oppinions on this?

 

As a (former?) CEO of Godfather Pizza and having occupied executive positions with Pillsbury and Burger King, he at least has a respectable background as a candidate. This we need more than ever.

 

I have only caught a little of his participation in the debate. All I can say is I naturally like the guy.

 

I wish Federal Express founder Fred Smith would run. He seems to know what our economy needs. But Cain may have the right background.

 

 If you think the objections to Romney are based on "he's too intelligent" you are delusional.

 

The health care mess he signed into law in Mass. is plenty enough reason for him not to get the nomination. That debacle is just Obamacare on a small scale and is wrecking health care and the state budget. 

 

The fact that he doesn't appear to have a core principle to stand on is why people object to him.  I did vote for him in the primary in 08, but that was only because the rest of the options were appreciably worse (Huckabee, McCain, Paul, ugh).

 

I don't think Palin or Bachman are likely choices either. They both have glaring flaws (and have exhibited serious foot in mouth syndrome). I'm thinking someone like Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels of Indiana are good choices. 

 

I don't have objections to Cain since he's pretty smart, as well as well spoken. However the complete lack of political experience is likely to be too much to overcome. Of course given what we've traditionally seen from politicians, I'm not sure why experience in that field would count as a plus. 

 

Though on the converse vis a vis Cain, Perot did get pretty damned far in 92, and really took himself out of the race by withdrawing and re-entering. He also didn't have a lick of political experience.

From what I've read it was close between Pawlenty and Cain. 

I love Cain. He could use a few more moves, he came across a little bumperstickey or talkingpointish.

I had reservation about Paul last cycle due to the whole "if-not-for-ourselves-then-no-terrorists"...but I'll support either one of them without reservation at this point.

 

Hammering at, and breaking down the socialist propaganda was refreshing. I'm looking forward to more debates.

 

 

There is a good amount of what Ron Paul says that I like.  However he veers off course far too often for me to support him. His views on foreign policy are myopic at best and delusional at worst. His idea that Congress would do a competent job of reforming the Federal Reserve is questionable. He pushed hard for that when the Democrats controlled congress and that was simply insane. He also tends to have the classic libertarian delusion that people overseas would never hate us if we just stayed at home. It's as if he's never heard of envy.

 

I do like his positions on limited government, but I think he's out of touch. 

 

For example, a while back he suggested during a speech (at CPAC I believe) that people be given the option of signing a form that they never would take any benefits from the federal government, and in exchange their tax rate would be a flat 10%. Given that 51% of citizens are net beneficiaries of federal support, this is an insane proposition on it's face. Unless his goal is to see the government collapse with even greater debt sooner, he couldn't have even bothered to consider the implications of the plan.