Comments about ‘Romney, Huntsman thriving in N.H.’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 16 2011 7:02 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
David King
Layton, UT

Forgotten in this article is Ron Paul, who's tied for first in the latest Iowa polls and running second in New Hampshire. Ron Paul was the only one to have a positive State Strength score in both Iowa and New Hampshire and he's likely to perform well in both states. Remember that this time, unlike 2008, Republicans will award delegates proportionally, instead of winner-take-all. That means a strong second place finish can be powerful. It's a possibility that Ron Paul takes first or second in Iowa and then second in New Hampshire, giving him a lot of momentum and possibly the coverage he deserves. This could be a long and contested race.

FDRfan
safety dictates, ID

For those who only watch Fox News and/or listen to Rush Limbaugh, there are over 2 dozen millionaires in Washington now who are lobbying the super committee to raise taxes on the top 1%. They call themselves "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength." Sorry to get on camera and hold up a sign but this ought to be covered by DN.

David
Centerville, UT

Ron Paul, in my opinion, has a good fiscal policy. But he is not electable. A Ron Paul vote is a wasted vote. Go ahead and vote Paul, and watch Obama retain the White House. That will make you feel good, won't it?

Spoc
Ogden, UT

Personally, I do not want to be "worked" by any salesman and would tend to push back any candidate who provides anything more than information requested.

David King
Layton, UT

@my fellow David
Would you care to elaborate on exactly what makes Ron Paul "unelectable"? In a Public Policy Poll out today, Ron Paul leads Obama by 9 points among independents, and is the only Republican leading with that group. You can't win the White House with just Republicans voting for you. It would seem that if Republicans' only desire is to replace Obama with any warm body (a pretty shallow goal in my opinion, that does nothing to address the actual problems the nation is facing) then they would be remiss not to take Ron Paul seriously, as he has appeal among independents and Ron Paul voters won't just line up behind any Republican. It's best to keep them happy or the party will shrink.

David
Centerville, UT

David King: You asked a good question, I will give you a good answer..."In my opinion".

In my opinion a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote because he is unelectable. You may refer back to my original post on this.

Ron Paul is great on fiscal policy, but he does not elaborate well on other areas of politics, or his proposed policies are poor...again, in my opinion.

For example, have you studied his statements on the Middle East, Israel, Iran? His approach is not a balanced approach, but rather focused solely on fiscal policy. He would not have us involved in the Middle East...because of fiscal policy. He would not provide any foreign aid...because of fiscal policy.

I find this near sighted. I believe we must dramatically reduce federal programs and spending. But, there still must be some measure of balance to governing. I don't believe Ron Paul represents that...in my opinion.

He is unelectable. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.

In my opinion. I am just one voter.

David King
Layton, UT

@David
I am also just one voter, so unfortunately we will cancel one another's votes. It might be interesting to you to know that I have only in the past couple of years become a supporter of Ron Paul. I used to think he was a nutjob, especially on foreign policy. But as I have studied and looked deeper, I have seen he has a deeper purpose behind every position he takes. It is always about liberty and the Constitution. He opposes our intervention in the Middle East because the Founding Fathers warned against such things. Thomas Jefferson said we should have no "entangling alliances" but peace and commerce with all nations. George Washington said we should focus on own nation and not be fighting wars for the Europeans. John Quincy Adams said we shouldn't go about in search of "monsters to destroy" or ever march under any foreign banner, as we do in NATO or with the UN. You can argue that the world has changed since then, but such a notion accepts a living Constitution and is a departure from the advice of the Founding Fathers. This is also just my opinion. Thanks for your response.

David
Centerville, UT

Re: David King

I agree in avoiding entanglements, alliances, etc. as advised by our Founding Fathers. But I also feel to support Israel on a regional basis (maintaining democracy in the Middle East) and on a religious basis (I am sure the critics will come out of their corners on this but the Book of Mormon speaks of nursing fathers and nursing mothers who support Israel).

I also heard a presentation at BYU several years ago on missionary work. The LDS Church is present in virtually every country where there is some form of democracy. But where there is tyranny and lack of democracy, the gospel is not being taught.

Many will criticize me for bringing my personal religious sympathies into this, but I do feel like America has a responsibility to support and extend democracy to any nation that seeks it. Life is better when there is democracy. I feel that America is great because God has made it great, and God wants America to help other nations.

This can become very complex when the budget, and immigration, and other concerns are brought up. I don't support Ron Paul because he is an isolationist. I am not.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments