-
Open Invitation! Who is YOUR Candidate?
22 Jan 2012 by Jessica Hughes in Balance of Power, National / 10 Comments
There are just four candidates left and with three different winners in three different states the race is wide open. I would like to invite you, the reader, to make the case for your candidate here at the site where others can see your reasoning and an open and considerate debate can take place. This is open to all and to participate simply email your column including any sources or links you would like to contribute. All submissions will be posted provided they do not base their arguments on personal attacks against those who may disagree. Email to jessica@freezethefascism.com with the subject line “My Candidate.”
About the Author: Jessica Hughes
-
10 Comments
ROSALIE HOWERTON
I AM SUPPORTING RICK SANTORUM BECAUSE I BELIEVE HE WILL SUPPORT OUR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES. HE IS PRO-LIFE, PRO-MARRIAGE PRO-GUN, FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT AND FOR A STRONG MILITARY. NONE OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES MEET THOSE CHARACTERISTICS. HIS CHARACTER IS STERLING AND THAT COUNTS AS MUCH OR MORE THAN ANY OTHER OF HIS STANDS.
23 Jan 2012 06:01 pm
Larry Varner
While Rick is a social conservative, I do not think that will be positive in the general election. our country has srayed too far from God and His principals that , that is a negative. otherwise we would not have the present idiot in chief. While I share your values and conscern I do not think he is electable. I am for Newt Gingrich as I think he has the ability to work across party lines and make a difference in getting this country back on course.
23 Jan 2012 07:01 pm
Ann Odom
While I appreciate Mr. Santorum’s stances on areas that are important to me, I just don’t believe he could win a debate with President Obama. I am planning to vote for Newt Gingrich, because of his knowledge and debating skills. I know that he has “baggage,” but none of us are perfect, and he’s stated that he’s gone to God to seek forgiveness, and is at peace with himself. In my opinion, it takes someone of character to admit their mistakes and what they’ve done about them. This nation CANNOT stand another 4 years of Barack Obama, who, BTW, is NOT the first Black President, but the first MULATTO President. Check out the definition in a dictionary. We MUST have a candidate who will be able to win debates with the current POTUS, who will be lost without his teleprompters! I have yet to figure out how people believe he’s such a superb, excellent speaker, as I’ve yet to see any sign of him reaching these standards, even with teleprompters. Remember Navy Corpsman, pronounced corpseman by the POTUS???? What an embaressment, and I’m sure someone got chewed out for not telling him the correct way to pronounce Corpsman before he gave the speech. Sorry for getting off on a rabbit trail, LOL!
23 Jan 2012 07:01 pm
Janice Beck
I am also a Rick Santorum supporter. It angers me that our candidates are determined by their TV appeal rather than a proven record. Santorum has that proven record. Newt’s voting record throughout his career has been a “one-step-back-two steps forward” for unconstitutional legislation. Romney’s record also shows he is not a conservative. Our country is in big trouble. Compromise isn’t the way to save it.
23 Jan 2012 07:01 pm
Lorraine Nessman
There is not an ideal pick in the bunch. Though Rick Santorum does stand for Judeo-Christian ethics, he is utterly amiss on many issues, such as immigration, which is a huge problem Romney, while pseudo-conservative in some ways, utterly misses it in health care – which is a huge problem. Newt Gingrich does know how to talk the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk, with his involvement in and around the process that grew the housing bubble illustrates – though there are many other similar issues (he’s an establishment man, in spite of many good efforts in some aspects of life – none of which make up for a mistake that occurred in the thick of one of the most hypocritical moments of his life, publicly speaking). – - – - That leaves Ron Paul, who has issues of concern, particularly in regards to foreign affairs, though I’m coming to see those differently than I did thanks to a local PAC leader……… What Ron Paul gets right is the fact that we need to reverse Marxist laws and amendments, and return to constitutionalism. He ‘gets’ the economic issues overall more effectively than anyone else, and whereas I might draw the line differently than he does on some very important social issues, he’s not exactly a liberal either……… So, with some misgivings that Michelle Bachman didn’t have a chance (with her platform which was also flawed) – mostly due to ‘spin’ from the media, which everyone responded to ridiculously well………, anyway, in light of those things, I’m for Paul.
23 Jan 2012 08:01 pm
Larry Varner
Well, Ron Pauls foreign policy issues are just too much to swallow for me, he just does not get it. we have military stationed around the globe for strategic reasons. isolationism is not the answer. he does have some good points though, especially on restoring the constitution, but wrong on being against the patriot act!
23 Jan 2012 08:01 pm
Barbara Harless
Larry, I don’t understand your comments which I seem to hear many Americans repeat. I don’t understand how we can say we support restoration of the constitution but not the parts that define the U.S. foreign policy. The constitution is not a menu to pick and choose from.
To me the Rule of Law means the supreme law – the constitution – the guidelines by which the government was created and limited; limited by the power inherent in the People. If the People don’t enforce the constitution, the government absolutely will not.
So, my question is this: Which part(s) of the constitution do not apply? Should Congress be saddled with the duty to declare wars? Should appropriations for wars be for more than 2 years? Congress passes a NDAA every two years in their attempt to satisfy this clause in the constitution, but does monetary appropriations made by congress – under the broad brush of aggregate funding, without detailing exactly which wars receive what amounts of money for 2 years – actually comply with the spirit of the war clauses?
I am not a constitutional scholar but I will state that I am more aware of the rules in the Constitution than I am of the 2011 Official Playing Rules and Casebook of the NFL, which I regret to say is not a common trait among Americans. If just 5% more Americans were as educated on the Rule Book that fits in your front pocket (constitution) I think America would look quite different today. What is the reaction at a football game when the referee makes a bad call? The reaction of the fans is outrage, even some will shed blood over the blatant abuse of the NFL rules. Wouldn’t it be comforting to know that these same people would be as outraged over violations to the government rule book – the constitution?
Why should we expect 2 football teams to conduct 60 minutes of playtime on a 100 yard football field while both are held to the same NFL rules, but we don’t expect the government to abide by the rules and powers granted to them by the People?
What will America look like when the constitution is enforced, again?
24 Jan 2012 09:01 am
t.j. hopson
amen! america could be a wonderful place again, if the constitution were really the "bible" of our society. really good post. thank you. vote ron paul 2012!!
24 Jan 2012 11:01 am
Leave a Comment