Which GOP Presidential Candidate Should Drop Out of the Race Next?

Mewt Dingrich should drop out, it would be funny --sick-- watching Fox and listening to Limpaw, Vannity and General "Bonkers" Levin as they lead the charge for the bogey Muslim chasing, ready, fire, aim, retreat repukes and love on and adore OvoMitt-lite while trying to ignore the only sensible small government, rule of law, constitutionalists left in this race-- you know, the one that has proven he supports all the things the lying repuke party first hacks said they cared about for the last few years.

But OH Gawd No, we can't have an honest Jeffersonian man who isn't a status-quo crony big government fascist war mongerer as our president, he might cut a few $20k toilets from the crony corporate/military welfare program, cut foreign welfare, bring the troops home and actually make our allies pay for some of their own defense.

Okay, I'm back and I've viewed the ad. I found most of it true, but some misleading and I found one Paul's straw-man argument (to which the crowd dutifully cheered).

I agree with many of the points in the ad, because I've been arguing much of this for years. While the ad hits the other Republican candidates, it would be easy to believe, if one didn't know better, that President Obama was the instigator of the "Patriot Act." Not one picture or mention of Bush came up.

The fact that most of Bush's policies are still in place is because the Republicans have screamed and blocked every attempt of the President to bring an end to those policies. If you don't know this, then you need to listen to some news organizations and leave your favored propaganda network, Faux News.

Paul, too, leads the public to believe the conservatives and democrats want the government in your bedroom. That is false. Conservatives want it, but the democrats (other than the blue-dogs--stealth Republicans) are fighting to keep government out of the bedroom and out of women's uterus'.

Paul sets up his straw man when he said that "'They' want you to believe that a true patriotism means that you support everything the government wants." This is blatantly false. I challenge you to substantiate that statement and expose the person how said that.

Paul's next statement, that a "true patriot defends liberty and the people," would NOT be disputed by anyone of any party of which I am aware.

As for the economy, most of Bush's policies are STILL in place, the Republicans are fighting fang and claw to keep the economy in the tank and workers out of work. They have achieved a record number of filibusters in the Senate, and pushed almost any whim of a bill in the House that has NOTHING to do with bringing about a recovery. Remember McConnell's pledge when he took the Senate leadership? He said that his "number one priority," was not to create jobs, not to improve the economy, but to "limit the President to a single term?" How do you suppose he would do that? By sabotaging attempts to improve the economy! If the economy is bad in November and the jobless rate is still high, Obama is likely to lose. It is that simple. However, Faux listeners will never understand that.

All that said, I agree again with Paul that this country should close all foreign bases, end the wars, and bring our troops home. Also, I agree that the FED should be audited by an independent agency agreed to by a bipartisan committee.

I am, however, strongly opposed to his view that the government should be in charge of women's uterus', and disallow an abortion even in the case of rape, incest, or to same the woman's life. This is NOT a libertarian view. This is authoritarian and intrusive government at its worse. That is the view of Paul and the Republican party.

Paul's approach to the illegal immigration problem is off base, as are most "solutions." The way to solve the problem is through the employers that employ them. Force corporations to pay at least minimum wage so the jobs will be competitive for Americans, implement an instant check of citizenship, and severely fine employers who are found to be hiring undocumented workers. I believe that such workers who have children or family with U.S. citizenship should be allowed to keep their jobs and pay taxes.

Paul wants to bring down America's Social Safety Net (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid). I could not disagree more. Although I am not a Christian, I fully support the thrust of what is attributed to Jesus in Matthew 25:32-46. The religious right, more often than not, ignore those words.

I believe that the financially successful people in the U.S. should pay the same percent of tax that the middle class pays. Were this to be so, then there would never be a problem with funding the SSN.

That's enough for now.

Yes, President Obama did sign for another four years of the PA. He's done may other things I don't like, but he is far and away better, on my view, than any conservative. Like I said, I agree with Paul on several fronts, but on major issues of personal rights for women and gays (he hedges on the same-sex issue and doesn't answer it straight out yes or no). Too, he, like most "conservatives" wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15%. This is madness and a greater redistribution of the wealth to the wealthy than is now going on under the policies put in place from Reagan to G.W. Bush--policies that the Republicans block from repeal.

But concerning illegal immigration, Paul hedges a bit here as well, but, again, I don't like the direction he seems to take. My reasons are twofold: (1) If illegal immigrants are to remain in the shadows, they are taken advantage of for that very reason. Women are forced to have sex in some cases, men and women often work for less than minimum wage, and many do not seek medical advice when they need it because they are afraid of being turned in. Yes, they are illegally here, but they are human beings trying to make a living to support their families. I suspect you, were you in their shoes, would likely do the same.

In any case, although Paul didn't say it, I think he would not be opposed to the government, had they the knowledge of all who are illegally in the country, rounding up the millions of them, placing them in "processing camps," and herding them out of the country, regardless if they have children born here, going to school, and have integrated well into society, so, (2) I think that there is something very abhorrent about that sort of treatment. It smacks of other nations with whom we once went to war. Of course, since we are now, since Bush, torture people in the same manner as those we prosecuted for the same crime after WWII, I suppose processing camps and internment camps are right down our Straussian alley. Those policies have brought great shame on us, thanks to the neoconservatives.