-->

Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Herman Cain Takes Commanding Lead in PPP National Poll

While Public Policy Polling’s Iowa results showed Cain up large (30-22 over Mitt Romney), he had yet to lead that widely on a national level – until today. PPP released their monthly poll which shows Cain over Romney by the same margin as the Iowa poll – 30-22.

Important to note is that this monthly poll concluded on the 10th –  one day before the debate.  Performances in last night’s debate had no impact on the results.

Cain’s favorable/unfavorable numbers are the best of all the candidates at 66% favorable and 15% unfavorable. Ron Paul had the worst unfavorable rating as 54% of respondents found Rep. Paul unfavorable and only 29% favorable. The only debate candidate with a worse favorable rating than Ron Paul was Jon Huntsman at 20%.

Newt Gingrich‘s slow slog to the front is continuing. His favorable numbers have grown to 57% while his unfavorable rating has dropped to 30%. That put him in the second place spot for favorability among candidates in the debate.

Of the debate participants, Mitt Romney had the third best favorable rating at 31% and tied for fourth in unfavorability with Jon Huntsman.

When asked if the leading candidates were too liberal, too conservative or just right, the respondents answered:

————— Too Liberal Just Right Too Conservative
Mitt Romney 31% 51% 5%
Rick Perry 17% 53% 14%
Herman Cain 6% 71% 8%

It appears that Cain is out-middling Mitt Romney by the results in the table. Being so set in the Goldie Locks zone, it might seem logical to assume that Tea Partiers may find Cain unappealing. Precisely the opposite, the poll shows that Herman Cain is enjoying a large portion of his following from those that consider the TEA parties favorably.

When the all important question of who would you vote for was asked:

If the Republican candidates for President were Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum, who would you vote for?
Michele Bachmann ————-   5%
Herman Cain ——————–  30%
Newt Gingrich ——————- 15%
Jon Huntsman ——————- 2%
Gary Johnson ——————– 0%
Ron Paul ————————– 5%
Rick Perry ———————— 14%
Mitt Romney ——————–  22%
Rick Santorum ——————  1%
Someone else/Not sure ——-  6%

While the mainstream media is ready to crown Mitt Romney, the voters may have something to say about that.

 

Rich Mitchell is the Sr. Managing Editor of Conservative Daily News. His posts may contain opinions that are his own and are not necessarily shared by Anomalous Media, CDN, staff or .. much of anyone else. Find him on twitter, facebook and google+
Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Nice post. I used to be checking constantly this blog and I’m inspired! Extremely helpful information specially the ultimate phase :) I care for such information much. I was seeking this particular info for a long time. Thanks and good luck.

  2. Freedom Now says:

    DJ,
    You obviously have given this a lot of thought. You are to be commended as a true patriot and I thank you. There are way too many people that have hidden agenda and sling ill informed slander without bothering to look up the facts, just parroting the idiocy that comes from the left and right major media outlets. So thank you.
    Here are some of my thought on your comments.

    TARP was signed by Bush.

    GITMO prisoners have not been charged with a crime, war or other. We should do something about that. I have no problem with keeping POWs or enemy combatants or whatever else we want to call the bad guys. What I want to make sure of is that they are what the Government says they are. I dont like the idea of our CIA having secret prisons where they can do anything without over-site. I do not trust our government with my taxes, my healthcare or my money. Why would I be any different with actual lives? Being a patriot is not blindly believing everything that our corrupt government says.

    Cutting the departments of is a pen stroke for the President.
    Pulling troops out of foreign countries is a pen stroke for the President.
    So yes.. he can do it. It was a pen stoke that got us into these messes and the same came shut them down.

    Up until Richard Nixon created the DEA the federal government knew they had no jurisdiction over drugs. This is not the place of federal government. Legalizing drugs at the federal level does not mean that states would legalize them. Likewise it is not approval for their use and abuse. It is simply saying that the proper response to the problem does not rest within the federal governments prevue. It DE-authorizes federal law enforcement who now have a paramilitary presence inside our boarders and the boarders of many smaller countries throughout the world.

    Lastly,
    The second largest air-force in the world is owned by the US and is in mothballs. The largest of course is the US. We have 900 bases in 150 countries throughout the world. We have the largest navy in the world and the 2nd largest is the UK. We spend 6 times more than the runner up, china. If you add our allies the numbers become ridicules. We have some many nukes its laughable. If what you are calling “Military Spending” was a guarantee of our safety then I would think we should not have a worry anywhere in the world. Instead we have unrest everywhere. Is it possible that its not a lack of military might and more of political policies that are causing so much unrest and blow back?
    Does that not at least merit some serious consideration among thinking people?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

    -Respectfully

  3. Larry says:

    How do I get the debaate on line?

  4. Tak says:

    So Ron Paul’s plan today is the only one that gives specifics on what he is going to do. This should be very good for him. The people will finaly have someone to vote for that you can see what they are going to do and not what they tell you they want to do.

    RON PAUL 2012!!!

  5. Jeff says:

    Herman Cain praised TARP bailouts, chided “free market”:
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/flashback-2008-herman-cain-praised-tarp-chided-free-market-purist
    http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/7552-why-im-not-excited-about-herman-cain

    Herman Cain supports big-government liberal Republican Mitt Romney:
    http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20080410165959/www.northstarwriters.com/hc098.htm

    Herman Cain Tries to Be “Outsider” But Is Really A Political Establishment Insider:
    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/05/herman-cain-touts-outside-status.html

    Herman Cain supported the bailouts:
    http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc133.htm
    http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc129.htm
    http://www.newworldradical.com/2011/05/who-is-herman-cain.html

    Herman Cain doesn’t think the Federal Reserve should be audited (he’s a former Fed chair himself):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiAkeFJXwUk&feature=player_embedded

    Herman Cain has flip-flopped on the issue of the Federal Reserve:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caeNXivEGEg&feature=player_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiAkeFJXwUk&feature=player_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2Mqie_h9uU&feature=player_embedded

    Herman Cain doesn’t think the Federal Reserve should be audited but yet the Fed bailed out foreign banks, including Libya (Col. Qadaffi):
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/guess-who-benefited-most-from-feds-discount-loan-program-foreign-banks/

    More secrets about the Federal Reserve recently discovered that Herman Cain doesn’t think the American People should know:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/foreign-banks-tapped-fed-s-lifeline-most-as-bernanke-kept-borrowers-secret.html

    What else is the Federal Reserve hiding from the People that Herman Cain doesn’t want people to know:
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/03/08/us-aig-idUKTRE52624P20090308

    Herman Cain Breaks with NRA on the Second Amendment:
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/10/242793/anti-gun-herman-cain/

    CONCLUSION?

    Herman Cain is a Federal Reserve apologist, an establishment opportunist, and big-government RINO politician who puts bankers first and Americans last.

  6. TonyG says:

    Funny how all the polls We the People can’t actually vote on DON’T have Ron Paul winning in a landslide and only the establishment-owned, “trust-us-we’re’scientific’” closed-door polls do.
    Weird…

  7. DJ Redman says:

    “The Hurri-Cain” just keeps on keepin on. I firmly believe the country is ready for a true conservative as opposed to the moderate Romney that is being pimped so heavily by the MSM. The 2012 election could be a case of the voters pushing back against the establishment (and the MSM) by pushing Cain to a primary win. We pushed back against Obama and the Socialist agenda of the lunatic left in 2010. 2012 could also result in a major voter push back against the GOP establishment and their progressive puppets. While it is largely seen as a dangerous move, I feel it is the only way to truly right our ship in 2013.

    Congrats to Mr. Cain. He has earned it.

    • Sean says:

      lol ya hell be a hurricane alright.. maybe katrina 2 and destroy more homes and peoples lives.. the economy with it.. someone whose been part of the problem which got us here u believe will solve it? wake up.

      -RON PAUL 2012

      • DJ Redman says:

        Will Ron Paul throw a fit when he loses the Primary election and run as an independent? What will you Paul supporters do then? Vote for “four more years” just to diss the Republican Party? Unstable is as unstable does.

        • freedom NOW says:

          I am a Ron Paul supporter and I would not EVER vote for a republicrate. I will never throw away my vote on the half-baked idea that i must vote the lesser of two evils. That guarantees evil will prevail. Everyone that thinks like this IS the problem and the reason why no matter which party is in power they will continue to grow their power and steal ours. Wake up, the threat is not Iran they are freaking goat ropers that cant even manufacture a car, let alone wage a real war. No the danger to our liberty comes from within, from those who control the money, all the other arguments are deigned to divide and confuse us, so they can continue the, almost complete, domination of the worlds resources and subjugation of the worlds population.

          • Hank says:

            A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

            ~Marcus Tullius Cicero (Attributed)

            This applies as much to what you are saying as it does to Cain the Central Banker, Bachmann the Tax Attorney, Perry the Illegal Magnet, Romney the Socialized Medicator, Gingrich the Foreign Relator, and Santorum the Declaration Denier, not to mention Obama the Malignant Maoist

        • Hank says:

          If you and others are so worried about it, and you should be, why not just vote for Paul in the primary and encourage others to do so? Because, if you disagree with him, that would be an unprincipled thing to do! No less unprincipled than Ron Paul supporters voting simply for the lesser of two evils, which sends a message to the GOP that they can keep nominating moderates who keep screwing both the country and the party and their voters.

          Voting for the lesser of two evils is an act on the part of a SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL with a SACRED VOTE letting his FEAR, and not his PRINCIPLES guide HIS decision. Let that NEVER be said of me! Voting for the man that ‘they’ put on the ballot, simply because you THINK he is the only viable candidate, and not because he is your first choice, is no different than handing your vote over to the discretion of ‘them’ on the condition that they pick the lesser of two evils. But since every vote one casts, by right, BELONGS to that voter, the final decision should be his. MY vote is MY vote and is therefore MINE to give away to the candidate of MY choice. It is no different than if I have a dollar and I am given the false choice between buying a pencil and a key chain when what I really want is a candy bar.

          When it comes to MY decision to dispense MY property to whom I choose, Romney, Perry, Cain, or whomever have exactly no stake therein unless I voluntarily choose that they do so. Anything else amounts to coercion or propaganda, neither of which is the American way or consistent with our traditions of LIBERTY!

          So, since we have established that you vote your fear and not your principles, may I ask what it is you are more afraid of? Obama winning, in which case you would vote for any GOP candidate; or Ron Paul sending a message to the GOP, in which case Obama might still win? If you truly fear Obama enough to vote for anyone else and at the same time fear that Ron Paul will mess things up, your only choice will be to support him. What do you fear more?

          • DJ Redman says:

            First of all I probably identify with 85% of the Libertarian principles that Ron Paul has been preaching for over 35 years. Secondly, I do not vote out of fear period. Concern, yes fear no. I’ve seen too much reality in life to be afraid of anything, especially a bunch of weakling politicians who hide from the people while acting like they are better than the working man. If our government refuses to obey our constitution, we will have to take serious action eventually. With age comes experience and the ability to judge a person’s character. That means not being fooled quite so easily by the pre-planned political soundbites. I want an authentic conservative that shows an unflappable love for America first and foremost, along with the courage and determination to stop the Liberal- Socialist agenda of the lunatic left.

            Where Ron Paul loses my vote is in his character flaws. He shows signs of dementia or other mental unbalance more often lately. For a Congressman who has been wallowing in DC for what, 35 years now?, he should know who the hell was running the Congress he works in in 2008. He didn’t on Tuesday night when he stated that REPUBLICANS were running things when TARP was passed. Since Democrats swept both chambers of congress in the 2006 elections, and held them until the 2010 mid-terms, I would think he would have known that his party was NOT running things in 2008.

            Then he comes out with a statement ( Tuesday night) that the prisoners in GITMO are not convicted criminals so we basically have no right to keep them there. That statement alone says he is losing touch with the reality of the situation there. Just because Obama and Holder refuse to put those mutts on trail in a military tribunal does not mean they are innocent. Giving enemy combatants “American rights” just so Holder’s law firm pals and Democratic donors can put them on hundred million dollar show trials is a huge injustice against the American citizenry. Ron Paul says he wants to protect the people one minute, then makes a statement like that one.

            Ron Paul says he would cut one trillion dollars from the budget when he is President. With the spineless self-important power-hungry misfits we have in Congress today, no way in hell would they allow a 43% immediate cut in government on day one of 2013. They would just burn his “proposed” budget cuts to the ground, just like they did to Obama’s massive big government budget. Soundbites impress the naive and uninformed, but the reality of today;s situation is that we must make budget cuts over a period of time, say max five years, at 5-8% a year in TOTAL federal spending, until we actually achieve a balanced budget. That will give the federal workers time to transfer to the private sector and also give us the necessary time to actually cut redundant programs and streamline the entire federal government without hurting too many people at one time. Taking a hatchet to the budget in one fell swoop sounds good, but it can’t be done in an irresponsible way.

            The one proven constitutional conservative with the experience needed to get us swiftly back on track in America today, (IMO) is not running for the White House in 2012, and there is no perfect candidate , nor will there ever be. There are however, several new folks in Congress that now give me hope for a true conservative President in the near future. We are evolving as a nation and we have one of two choices: Split the various conservative voting factions and allow Obama four more years of tearing this country down, or get behind the most conservative candidate we can manage in 2012. If that is Romney, then we will just have to work extra hard to ensure we take the Senate, hold the House, and shove spending cuts bills up his ass 24/7 365 days a year until we turn this ship around. In the meantime we must keep showing the American people the dangers of Liberal policies of the past 5 years and how true conservatism is in all of our best interests. Telling those truths is easy, yet getting our misinformed youth to see the ignorance of voting for Socialistic policies is a whole other ballgame.

            Why must decent folks like libertarians Gary Johnson and Ron Paul always come with serious quirks that make them a turn-off for the voters? Johnson wants to legalize all dope and Paul wants to wave a magic wand and immediately cut government by 43% and reduce our military to the ignorant France-like levels. When the crap hits the fan, who is going to help protect America from hostile actions by other countries? NOBODY, that’s why we must have a strong military. I hate the fact that our troops are still in Afghan, Iraq, the Middle East and Africa. We wouldn’t have to have bases around the world keeping an eye on things if Europe and other democratic countries would pitch in more, but the fact is that they spend more money on Social policies than defense, knowing that good old America is there to protect them and footing the bill on top of it. What would happen if Europe was invaded by a Russia – China coalition? Without our military forces they are toast.

          • Hank says:

            Fear. Concern. Semantics. Period.

            Also, if you are not AFRAID of Obama, I am worried about you. You should have no problem admitting that you are fearful about what he has done or will do to this country. Even I will admit that there is fear there. All I am saying is that whatever fear is there, your principles should trump it. Now, if your principles are that ‘anyone is better than Obama because Obama is a hardcore socialist and all the viable GOPers running against him are only socialistic on a few minor issues’, I was wrong about you: you do have principles and they do guide you. But simply ‘having’ principles and letting them guide you is not good enough. They must be the right principles. I would argue, and again, this is my opinion, and I offer it in respect, that your principles are wrong. You would probably say the same thing of me. So it has come down to this: we are both sovereign individuals with the right to suffrage and our chief disagreements are as to whether Paul is viable or not, and whether his views are correct or not.

            Since you have brought up concerns pertaining to these disagreements, I will address them:

            You say you agree with 85% of Paul’s views. I contend to you that this is inconsistent. Paul’s views are all derived from the same coherent philosophy. Some would simply label this as knee-jerk libertarianism. In reality, however, it is a continuance of the simple belief that the Constitution is a voluntary compact between the states and therefore any powers not enumerated in the Constitution, in pursuance of the Tenth Amendment, are reserved to the States. If Ron Paul’s views emanating from this tradition happen to coincide with what certain libertarians believe, I say God Bless those libertarians for stumbling upon the truth. But it does not make Ron Paul a ‘libertarian’. In fact, Ron Paul’s voting record is more in line with that of the GOP 1920 to 1984 than that of any single other current member of Congress or Candidate for president since that time. He is a lifelong Republican and only ran for the LP ticket during Bush Senior’s nomination as GOP. Please tell me you weren’t happy when Bush Senior got the nomination. Please tell me that you didn’t vote for him JUST to keep Gore out. Bush and Gore in 1988 were one and the same. How else could such a consistent man such as Rick Perry support both of them without unblinkingly?

            Anyways, outside of this Constitutionalist (I do not mean the Constitutionalist Party USA) tradition, the powers of the Federal Government are completely arbitrary and at best can only be slowed down every two years, rather than arrested in its progress on day one. Romney, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, etc., for all their supposed good, all have yet to demonstrate to me that they have the correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. None of them, to my knowledge, even knows what these Clauses are, let alone agrees that they are important or that the original intent should be enforced. So, the difference between all of them, and Obama, is much smaller than most would give credit for. The problem with Obama is not that he was so different than Bush, but that he was the same as Bush in principle, just not degree. Until Romney, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and Bachmann distance themselves from Bush, they will also not distance themselves from Obama. And until they all fully disavow No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, Nation Building, Unbalanced Budgets, Open Borders, FEMA, and the Federal Reserve, among other things, they cannot claim to truly have distanced themselves from Bush, all the rhetoric notwithstanding. Some of them have disavowed some of these things, but none of them has disavowed all or even most of these things.

            But you are right, Paul is certainly showing the signs of age. But dementia is defined as loss of cognitive abilities beyond what might be expected. Given how old Paul is, his life experiences, and the pressures of a campaign, Paul is in much better shape than probably the other candidates would be at the same age. Hell, Rick Perry, though rehearsed, should be considered an early case of Alzheimer’s by your standards. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were simply relaying the common (and media-drievn, i might add) perception of Paul rather than your own opinion. Paul is certainly not the most articulate candidate. But if you look at the Constitution, articulation is the farthest thing from a qualification, especially when you consider that amongst our worst presidents in the last one hundred years are the great orators and rhetoricians.

            Having said that, he perhaps should have been more careful with his words. Not because he was completely wrong when he said what he said, but because what he said defies the conventional wisdom. When you consider that Bush was still the President, the GOP still co authored and openly supported TARP, and that Bernanke and Paulson were both Bush appointees, Ron Paul’s words are more accurate than what you give credit for. They may defy the conventional wisdom, but the accuracy, upon closer inspection, is indisputable.

            And whatever you think of the rats at GITMO, Paul’s statement was nothing but the truth. Most (but not all, I trust, and therein lies the stickiness of the situation) of them may be ‘guilty’, but until they are proven so, something has got to give.

            Assuming all the detainees at GITMO were captured ‘over there’, and under some sort of legitimate suspicion, the legal alternatives are as follows, consider

            If we are truly at War (which we are not, given that there has been no Declaration of such), and they were captured during or after having taken part in some combat as part of that war, it is either because they were terrorists or because they see us as invaders. If they are terrorists, but captured in War, they should be treated as prisoners of war. But if you object that because they had no uniform, they are not subject to the rules of war, how can you claim we are at war with them and how can you claim that he is not merely a criminal? And if he is a criminal, what is there to lose, apart from some sleep, in giving such a person a fair trial?

            If we are not at war in the conventional sense and in reality we are simply using our military to enforce the law, why, once again, is there an objection to a fair trail?

            FDR treated CONFIRMED German spies and espionage agents, who attempted harm within our borders against civilians better than Bush and Obama treated SUSPECTED Afghani terrorists (is it fair to call them terrorists if they did not commit acts of terror? I am not saying that they are as clean as the wind driven snow, just that not every evil and violent act should be considered an act of terror. The definition of terrorism is
            ‘the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. Commonly, i.e., when not used hyperbolically, it refers only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear, are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants/civilians. Can we safely say that everyone held in GITMO committed whichever act they are suspected of in full pursuance of this definition? I reasonably doubt it. We must err on the side of caution. A fair trial, albeit heavily guarded), who may have harmed, outside of our borders, non American civilians (not my, your, or the taxpayer’s responsibility) or all-volunteer American non civilians, whom are viewed as invaders by both the terrorists and the average Abu in the Middle East.

            All I am saying is that there is a way to preserve justice, uphold law and order, and win in the end. GITMO is not the answer.

            And if you object to us paying for their trials at 100s of millions of dollars, why not object to going to war in the first place at 100s of billions of dollars?

            Protecting the American people and giving a fair trail to suspected terrorists are not mutually exclusive. You are making the assumption that if we give these guys a trial that they will all come back, cross the border, grab a bomb, and plant it in Times Square. If we look at this hypothetical properly, we should see that there are more Constitutional and practical ways of preventing it. For example, the Constitution delegates the Federal Government the authority to repel invasion and prosecute infractions of international law. It does not delegate them the authority to unilaterally define any of these terms to its own convenience. Currently, however, in holding suspected combatants at GITMO, but allowing the border to go unchecked, they are doing the latter. I would contend that until American’s have respect for the Constitution, including the aforementioned legitimate delegated powers, they don’t deserve ‘protection’ as you define it. Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

            You are missing the point of Paul’s proposed budget. It does not matter that his budget will not pass, but he knows that it is his Constitutional prerogative and duty to propose a budget. It will then be on the hands of Congress to make a counter proposal. If barely passed, he may veto. If passed, he may use executive orders to freeze executive discretionary spending to a greater level than he otherwise would have. It is a win win. If his budget passes, good. If their budget passes, he may still make huge inroads into spending, inroads, for the sake of the compromise needed to pass his own budget, he otherwise would have ignored. But I contend once again that his budget, perhaps after some adjustment, could pass. Republicans could vote for it for fear of accusation that they don’t want a balanced budget. Tea Party activists would jump on them because they sincerely want a balanced budgets, and Democratic activists would jump on them because they always like the opportunity to accuse Republicans of hypocrisy. Democrats could vote for it because it finally as the Defense cuts in it that they always claim will lead them to vote for something that cuts their favored line items. They would similarly be jumped on by Tea Party activists, but also by Republican activists with accusations of hypocrisy, and by sincere Anti-War Progressives.

            Your suggestion that small cuts must be made over a larger period of time is theoretically correct but still naive. It would require a plurality of administrations and congresses all adhering to the same austere practices unflinchingly for half of a decade, in your estimation, but likely more if the unexpected occurs. As unlikely as it may be that Paul’s budget won’t pass, it is still more likely than your dream scenario. Even if Paul’s budget at 43% doesn’t pass muster, he could lower the percentage in cuts until it did. Best to start with a proposal of 43% and work down to 8 or 5, than to simply start with 8 or 5. Compromise should be a last resort. So, as unlikely as your dream scenario is, it is more likely to occur with a Paul presidency than a Perry, Romney, or Cain presidency. Also, more than balancing the budget, Paul’s proposals would slow the growth of the National Debt, partly by canceling what is owed to the Federal Reserve. The only negative economic effects this would have would be against those that benefited from the Federal Reserve’s policies. A few corrupt politicians and teat-sucking corporate parasites would be out of a job in the short run, and inflation would be curtailed in the long run.

            When you consider just how many unnecessary and redundant and Unconstitutional programs there are, there is nothing irresponsible about using a hatchet. Cutting just a few Obama era programs is reactive and defensive. Ron Paul would be cutting proactively and put Democrats and RINOs on the defensive.

            Who is your ideal Constitutionalist? Please tell me it is not Christie or Palin!

            No, the choice is between sending a message to the GOP that we are sick of their squishy moderate backbiters, allowing Obama an undeserved win, and electing a squishy moderate backbiter, telling the GOP that next time we have a situation where a strict Constitutionalist is needed, that they can just send us another squishy moderate backbiter. But this choice is only likely to come around if Paul is NOT the nominee. So it will be as much on those who DIDN’T vote him in the PRIMARY election as it will be on those that DID vote for him in the GENERAL election. Regardless, there will be a Republican House and a Republican Senate. Arguably, if Obama is in there, they will fight his every word and deed, and rightly so, but if Romney or Perry or Cain is in there, they will approve his every word and deed, even if it is Obamesque. Not so for Ron Paul.

            When you say…

            ‘If that is Romney, then we will just have to work extra hard to ensure we take the Senate, hold the House, and shove spending cuts bills up his ass 24/7 365 days a year until we turn this ship around. In the meantime we must keep showing the American people the dangers of Liberal policies of the past 5 years and how true conservatism is in all of our best interests.’

            …I want to counter that the same could be said and done if Obama was elected. For Romney and Obama are not a far cry apart. Both Social Medicating Commies. Perry is in the same boat. Cain, Bachmann, and Gingrich, admittedly are much better than Obama, but still not far enough away from him for it to matter as to whether I vote for Paul.

            As to our youth (I am one of them, just age 20, and NO, I do not support Paul because I like smoking Dope. Never even tried the stuff): which GOP candidate would it be easier for them to support? Paul, hands down. A whole other ballgame, yes, but easier than is generally let on.

            I agree that these quirks may be turn-offs for some, but that is because these minor perceived flaws are falsely believed to outweigh the actual benefits a Paul or a Johnson would bring to the table. Johnson is more a libertarian than Paul, but both simply wish to resort to the Constitution. If an Amendment was required to prohibit alcohol, why was it not required to prohibit any other substance, many of which are considerably less dangerous and less addicting than alcohol? The answer is: because the Government no longer values the Amendment process or States Rights because they are not conducive to the consolidation of power. If Marijuana is bad, and it is, why can we not trust the States to make it illegal? Sure, some would legalize it (but still heavily regulate it), but likely not all. People with whom legalized drugs was an issue could simply move to a state where drugs were still illegal, or stay and petition their legislators to make it illegal. As painful as this process may be for some, it is actually the whole reason why the Union kept states in the first place: so that when one became too much for some of its residents, they could relocate.

            Ignorant France like levels? The only reason France’s military is so small is because we have basically promised to police the world and bail them out any and every time something goes wrong. Are you saying we should still be in Germany and Japan and England and France? This is the bulk of what Paul wants to cut from our military spending in peacetime. Most of the rest comes from waste and abuse that are inherent in inefficient government programs. We already spend five times as much on our military than China, which has five times the population.

            And since when were a bunch of Eurotrash labor-socialists our concern? Let China and RUssia rape and pillage them. Who gives a crap? Let the Russians and the Chinese pick up the tab for the rest of the world. Then they will be the ones who are bankrupt, and not us. Same goes for Africa and the Middle East.

            And when the crap hits the fan, whatever you are implying by that, why must it follow that we are screwed? You are assuming that if China takes over Asia, Russia takes over Europe, Venezuela takes over South America, the Muslim Brotherhood and Mugabe split Africa, and Iran takes over the Middle East, a hypothetical and unlikely nightmare scenario, that somehow, by being in those countries we will be more safe than if we simply had deterrent nukes, anti-nuclear defense shields, and a decent border guard, as well as a militia of free men, that we will need someone to come save our butt?

            Every 100 Billion Dollars spent Nation building Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Libya, Germany, and Japan is 100 billion Dollars that could be spent on trade, which would facilitate the American way of life and non-forcibly spread that message to others; on border security, which would keep physical troops out, and weapons technology, which would serve as a deterrent. Utopia? Perhaps, but tell that to Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge.

            I do not suppose that I have convinced you of much, if anything at all, but at least you know where I stand, and I hope that you will respect be for it.

            Cheers.