Monday, March 21, 2011

What I dislike

I wanted to share the main concerns I have about each of the top potential Republican Presidential candidates. I presume that President Obama will be the nominee for the Democratic party. These are all of the candidates who are polling an average above 1%, according to the folks over at They are listed in order from the current highest average to lowest. Keep in mind these are just one man's opinions.

I would love to get feedback on this. If you have a horse in the race yet, tell me who and why. Some of the concerns I have may not even matter to you at all. This is a wide-open race, with no clear front-runner. It will be interesting (to me, at least) to see how the race develops over this year. If you want sources for any of the quotes, just let me know.

Huckabee – I like Mike Huckabee as a person. I dislike him as a candidate, other than his support of the FairTax. He seems to be the anti-Reagan in the following quote.
“The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. ...”

Romney– Mitt Romney comes across to me as a political opportunist, switching sides back and forth based on the political winds. I actually don’t have a big issue with “RomneyCare” because it was only state-wide, not nationwide. I don’t have a problem with individual states enacting whatever kind of health care they want (state’s rights at play here.) It is hard to pin down a policy position to oppose or support, because his positions on the various issues seem so fluid.

Palin – Oh, where to start? I actually really liked Sarah Palin at first. I still don’t take much issue with most of her positions. I do think she handles criticism extremely poorly, and I can’t stand that she has yet to be able to complete a full term in office. She seems somewhat vain, and somewhat vindictive. She also has the problem of the perception of her as not too bright. I said after the election in 2008 that if she took some time out of the spotlight and did a couple years of brushing up on her reading and gaining some knowledge, her next time out may go well for her. She hasn’t appeared to do that.

Gingrich – Newt Gingrich
"...believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected,"
according to his 2nd wife. I can’t support that in a President. Honestly I don't know much about his issue positions.

Paul – I voted for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries in 2008, despite his foreign policy stances. Over the last couple years, I have come to agree with him on that more and more. I do have a big problem with his defense of the whole Wikileaks situation. Other than that, Paul is good to go for me.

Pawlenty - Tim Pawlenty has lobbied the Governors' Ethanol Coalition to mandate higher ethanol use nationwide. While most people are looking for cuts in the Federal budget amid a growing defecit, Pawlenty wants to actually grow the defense budget. And in 2006 he said:
"The era of small government is over . . . government has to be more proactive, more aggressive."

Daniels – Mitch Daniels sounds good, a “fiscal conservative” who has asked for a “truce” on social issues. A couple minor negatives against him are that he isn’t opposed to raising taxes in order to balance the budget, and he is apparently a supporter of the War on Drugs. I doubt he ends up running though; he probably will stay in Indiana for a while longer.

Barbour – I like what he said recently about the need to cut defense spending. However, he also supports farm subsidies, corporate welfare, and eminent domain abuse.

Santorum – Rick Santorum has
acknowledged his quarrel with "what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right" and "this whole idea of personal autonomy." In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, "Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of 'Big Government' conservatism."


  1. Truth? You love the truth?

    Well, let's just see how much you love the truth. Every yardbird says they love the truth - but let's test it.

    Fairtax? You like it why?

    Did you know it's pure nonsense? A total and absolute farce? No? Well, it is.

    Don't feel bad, I was fooled too. At first, anyway. I believed-- probably like you do-- they hype. the sales pitch. ANd it sounds great.

    But then I looked further - and so did others. President Bush actually heard so many good things about it, he ordered a study done on it by Joint Committee on Taxation. Did you know that?

    No, of course not. The JCT report is avialable online, and if you want, I can send you a link. IT's pretty clear.

    JCT essentially said, yes, you can have a national sales tax - but the 23% is off. Way off. If you tax things you can really tax, with a sales tax, the rate would be more like 59% --not 23%.

    Now, even a 23% sales tax would destroy consumper spending -- according to National Association of retailers, and the Joint Committe on Taxation. But imagine a 59% sales tax.

    How did Fairtax come up with 23%? Well, to be blunt, they distorted the truth. SOme people call it lying. Call it what you will, it's nonsense.

    Fairtax says "only people pay taxes" right? Yes, and that is right. People pay taxes. Fairtax said "it is a cruel hoax to pretend to tax corporations"

    Cruel hoax -- remember that term.

    Fairtax says all over the place that it's a tax "on personal consumption". Uh huh

    Well - in their fine print, they have a massive, and I mean MASSIVE, tax not on people, but on city and state government. It's important to notice - they hid this.

    And it's important to notice, they hid it for a reason.

    California state government, for example, would owe 16 billion. Texas state government - 9 billion. And so on.

    Cities too -- Dallas city government would owe 200 million! Los Angeles -900 million!!

    Yet not one city official, not one state official knows about it. Not on.

    WHy? They weren't told.

    Fairtax hid this for 13 years, and only admitted it when questioned. And the excuse they give is that "well, it's only fair"

    Forget Fair! It's not possible! Only people pay taxes -- remember! The PEOPLE in cities, counties, states would be hit by this tax. Only people pay taxes.

    Why did Fairtax hid this nonsense in their fine print?

    Because they didn't want to tell you the real tax rate would be much higher than 23%

    Check out their OWN fine print. And then read the answers they give about their fine print.

    We will see just how much you care about the truth.

  2. Thanks for reading! I am glad to see you are so passionate about something.
    In fact I am familiar with the JCT report. And it has been refuted and re-argued back and forth time and again. You can see this at
    I don't think it is a perfect system. I think it is a lot better than what we have currently though. My perfect system would involve no Federal personal income tax at all.

  3. Good post, Tony. I hope some folks wake up to the notion of liberty, non-interventionism and fiscal sanity. *crosses fingers*

  4. You might want to check out Herman Cain.


I want to know what you think. Please comment, but please keep it clean. Thanks!