Phony Candidates

[Peralin]

I think one thing that is extremely important when deciding who to vote for is to consider which candidates actually believe what they are saying and which candidates have changed their views in order to gain public support. I've thought a lot about this and here are my opinions:

Barack Obama believes in what he is saying. He spoke out against the Iraq war at the very beginning when not many others did. He risked losing lots of public support, but spoke out anyway because he believed that it was a bad war. Also, health care seems to be a strength of his. It would be much easier for him to say "everyone must have health care" like Clinton and Edwards do instead of explaining how his plan will still insure everyone who wants health care. I have great respect for Obama.

I'm not so sure about Clinton and Edwards. They both voted for the Iraq war (going along with the popular action?) and are now against it. It could be that they saw the error of their ways. Or it could be that they realized America's opinion was changing and that theirs must change as well. But in the last debate Clinton and Edwards both said they voted for a bill but were glad that it didn't pass. What's that supposed to mean?

I think John McCain is another candidate who is credible (although I strongly disagree with his foreign policy). McCain has said again (as he did in 2000) that the Confederate flag should not be flown over South Carolina. This risked a decrease in popularity in SC and possible damage to his results in the primary. McCain stood his ground because he believes in his stance, whether it gains him support or loses it for him. (Lucky for him, he won SC!)

Romney's just a rich guy who wants power. I like what he's saying now, but I don't trust him because he's a flip-flopper. I think he became pro-life when he realized that he might someday have a shot at winning the Republican nomination for president. Plus, he pours millions of his own dollars into his campaign. PHONY!!!

Huckabee seems real to me. He's very into the social conservatism, which I despise. But at least he's consistent.

Ron Paul is 100% real. Paul's entire motivation is to help the country. He doesn't seem power-driven, and he consistently talks about lessening the powers of the federal government. He's a very respectable guy (and I hope he wins the Republican nomination! Go Ron!).

Giuliani? Is he even in this race? Thompson? Hasn't he dropped out yet? I don't have any opinions about the credibility of those two.

I'd like to hear everyone's opinion. Please try to keep this on topic. This thread should be about which candidates are real and which are phony, not about who's best fit for the presidency or who has the best policies.

 

[IndyAgent]

Thank you for the invitation. I enjoyed your thoughtful post...some ideas centrist, some not so.

Obama is extremely attractively inspirational...but I find that, so far, there is little specific to define this. I love his appeal for unification, and after seeing a new TV ad today, more understand his definition of "change"...which is also rather vague and sounds about like everybody else's definition so far. But everybody agrees that "Washington" is disfunctional. Still, he strikes a chord in all of us that two party politics is at a stalemate, and cripples progress in any direction. I admit I am concerned about which direction Obama's direction may be, as it is hard to figure out what the substance is in his message. More of that please, sir. Every candidate better realize that business as usual is a formula for failure in the campaign and the country.

I find it pretty much impossible to accept Clinton on any level. That opinion is rather biased because I am a vet who served from the Carter through Clinton administrations, and dealt with each's political influence in unique ways. The Carter years were horrible. There was no money to even keep airplanes repaired and in the air. We were terribly unprepared for any conflict because we almost never flew. The Regan years were a complete turn-around. The senior Bush years were unremarkable. The Clinton years were very peculiar, patially due to the president's priorities, but Hillary made an interesting impression. Officers stationed at the White House during the Clinton years report bizarre stories. There was great disdain for all military personnel by the Clintons, but especially Hillary. She so hated the military that a policy was changed to forbid White House Military staffers from wearing their uniforms. They were required to wear civilian clothes. The president loved to expend very expensive weapons such as cruise missiles to keep from endangering military personnel, but never replaced any of them nor allocated funds to do so. President Bush inherited that military deficit. For many reasons, I distrust Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Edwards has some engaging ideas. I can't say I know what to do with them or how he would use them, but they seem genuine.

McCain is interesting to me, but seems a mixed bag. Six months ago he seemed like Fred Thompson to me; no real passion for this job. Now he seems much more alive, but I can't read him. I'm not sure that even his foreign policy and national security policies are not miopic and unispired.

Romney has my attention for serveral reasons. More later.