Voting for Paul is valid even if he does not win, the more votes "outsider" candidates get, the more comfortable people feel voting for them in the future. Change is slow, but can happen. The proof of this before our eyes, is Paul polling consistently over 10% - it is the media who makes it out as though he cannot win, and Big Media has a lot of vested interest in keeping the status quo. ( Paul is polling much higher this go-around than in his previous attempt... and it isnt because he changed his message).

I will agree that his chances of being elected are slim, nevertheless it is clear that the Libertarian wing of the GOP is growing in organization and strength. This trend needs to be encouraged, even if victory is not yet at hand. People who accept "lesser of x evils" as all we deserve or can ever have from our elected leadership are the problem, not the solution in my view.

However, Paul has completely ruled out running as a 3rd party - so the need to support him only lasts while he is still in the race.


Now, as to who to support between the other three. First I will say, NOT PERRY. I have said elsewhere that Perry scares the shit out of me. I was supposed to put together a detailed dissertation on why, but just got too damn busy and then got lazy. But Reason #1 is he hired Doug Feith and Donald Rumsfeld as his foreign policy advisers, and I do not think any more wars will do us any good. Perry will take us to war with Iran. So the reason not to support Perry is pretty cut and dried.

This brings it to Obama vs Mitt. This is a bit tougher. If anything Jet, I would think you would not be quite as hostile to Mitt. He is pretty moderate, and used to be more so. Given the track record of our past few Presidents, if anything, Mitt will be far more moderate in office than he tries to sound on the GOP Primary trail, which is exactly why he has not had the enthusiastic support of certain segments of the GOP base.

My problem with Romney is that level of uncertainty regarding his principles. I worry with good reason that his only true principles, much like Obama and Bush before him, are getting elected. His life philosophy might just be " I need to be the most important guy". The reason I love Paul so much, even if I do not agree 100% with him, is he is at least honest with real principles. You don't take such an outlier position, stick with it for decades while trying to convince people of its merits unless you actually believe it.

Anyhow, back to Mitt. The economic plan he outlines the other day actually is not all that bad. He said on the GOP debate, in a confrontation with Perry that he sees a need to save and support Social Security, so he is pretty electable. His Mormonism doesn't bother me, at least he isnt an Evangelical NAR/Dominionist like Perry. He is a reasonably intelligent and capable person. Also, he isnt as virulently anti-abortion or anti-gay. I take "supports a Constitutional Amendment" as code for " I am paying lip service by endorsing something that will never happen so I wont be called on it".

So, I do not fear Mitt quite like I do Perry. Certainly not perfect, but more or less reasonable for a politician and at least not likely to pursue ridiculous legislation of raise my taxes even higher.

Mitt vs Perry : Mitt hands down.

Now about Obama... the thing about Obama is, he swore on the campaign trail to curtail the federal Surveillance state, but instead expanded it. He has ended up not giving two shits about civil liberties in general, nor has he brought the troops home. So whats left? Obamacare. Unneeded and overbearing regulatory additions. Thinks printing more money is the answer to most economic problems. If he had adressed the employment issue out of the gate, I would at least respect him even though liberal employment plans are doomed to fail. But if he tried in his own way, well it would be something. Instead of helping the USA, he helped Pelosi enact her agenda. We now have Obamacare.

Two good things he has done, are signing the new nuke treaty with Russia. ( Opposing this is a strike against Mitt, there's not fucking reason in the 21st century to be picking unnecessary fights with Russia. It makes no strategic sense, thank John McCain for agitating for anothr Cold War.) Also, not bending over for Bibi Netanyahu and Israel's completely incompetent government. Obama has bent over for them more than I would like, but any GOPer other than Paul would probably be even worse in this regard so thats a point for Obama.

In the end... Obamacare is just to disastrous and damaging to the point where it may even be in our interest as a nation to accept another GOP war if it meant getting rid of it... and I do not say that lightly. War is bad, but its also nice having a job and some money. Which much fewer people will thanks to Obamacare and Obamas policies in general. Or maybe I should more accurately say Nancy Pelosi's policies, as Obama has more or less been her sock puppet ever since he took office.

Of course not everyone thinks it will be that bad. But here in Ohio its already pretty bad, and getting worse all the time. Lots of people who have had coverage are seeing their coverage degrade, lots of people are losing what coverage they had as a result of employers who are going to take the tax penalty... leaving them to fork over big dollars out of pocket or pay the Fed. Lots of employers shedding people due to the regulatory burdens, and not hiring for the same reason.

So, Obama vs Mitt..... if it wasnt for Obamacare, Obama would probably edge out Mitt in my book with the caveat that the Dems not control both houses of Congress.

With Obamacare, I have to hope for a Mitt victory and a general GOP victory all around. Hopefully enough to gut Obamacare. Yes, lots of other shit will come with that.. but in this case the devil you dont know is less scary than the devil you know.

Generally speaking, they are all shit. I would support whichever condidate was not likely to have control of both houses of Congress.

Clinton did well because when he was inaugerated, the GOP managed to fillibuster his initial bouts of insanity. For the rest of his term, niether the GOP or the Dems could get the most insane aspects of their pet legislation passed.

The trouble comes when one party has full control. Under Bush, we saw it.. under Obama we saw it... the most destruction occurs when one party rules all. The best case scenario would actually be having Obamacare totally thrown out by the SCOTUS , the GOP keeping the House, the Dems keeping the Senate.. and after that Obama vs Romney would matter a lot less.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)