Honestly, I haven't put much thought in which presidential candidate I think is best, other than one night when I checked out each of their respective websites, and whatever I hear on TV and radio and, occasionally, read on the Internet.
I can say right off that I will not vote for any of the democrats, and my reasoning there is that I don't think that more government is the solution to the problems that ail this nation, especially considering it was government that caused most of the problems that ail this nation.
John McCain is a great man with great intentions, but he was opposed to the Bush tax cuts that helped to stimulate the economy back when it was sputtering when Bush first was elected. He also supported George Bush's amnesty program, while 77% of Americans are against amnesty.
He's for amnesty for the same reason that Bush was for it, and that is the hope to win the Spanish-American vote. Ironically, that's the same reason the democrats support amnesty. And the truth is, all the illegal immigrants granted amnesty will be poor, as I described in a previous post, and they will end up voting democrat anyway.
Mike Huckabee was a tax and spend governor who is popular with many due to his stance on abortion. But now, like McCain, he is proposing governmental solutions to the problems that ail the nation, as opposed to programs that will encourage and help those in need solve their own problems.
Again, more government will only compound the problem. Like the proposed democratic government healthcare programs that are supposed to save people money and provide better healthcare. Yet, when all our taxes go up, we will not be saving money.
Hillary has proposed a plan to extend Bush's tax cuts, and she promises to not increase taxes on the middle class. But when the true cost of all her government programs are revealed, and they always cost more than "they" say, there will be no choice but to raise taxes on the middle class.
Hillary, Edwards and Obama are telling people that the government can solve their problems. This is an empty promise.
Basically, Huckabee and McCain are catering to independent and democratic voters by telling them he will have the government solve this problem or solve that problem. They are hoping these voters get all excited and say, "Hey, Huckabee or McCain want to solve my problems, I'm going to vote for him for sure."
Yet, all that will result from more government programs is more ailing. There will be more bureaucracies formed, and more money going to these bearocrats instead of to the problem. Sort of like Welfare, instead of solving poverty, has actually made it worse by trapping poor people in poverty.
Instead of getting off the couch and going to find a job, they are provided a disincentive to do this because getting a job would mean they would no longer get the government check. And so they never get out of poverty.
This McCain and Huckabee approach, often called populism, is the same approach the democrats have used. They are trying to be like democrats to win the republican nomination. And, as the theory goes, in order to win white house you have to cater to the middle class, so some are saying who would be a better candidate than McCain.
Thus, if McCain is the nominee, and his policies are no different than Hillary or Obama, then conservatives might be so disenchanted they might just stay home. And, without the republican base, McCain would lose.
But think of it this way: Reagan did not cater to the voter in the middle, he preached about an America that was great and, if government got out of the way, people would find a way to better their lives and the American way of living would prosper, and the economy, in turn, would prosper. And, get this, he won 49 of the 50 states.
And that is the reason I have limited my choices down to Romney, Guliani and Thompson. I think they all would be good republican candidates that I would be proud of.
There are reservations about Romney because he is a Morman. There are reservations about Guliani because he is pro-choice. There are reservations about Thompson because he is a poor public speaker.
Still, one of these three, I think, is the candidate we need to lead us into the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment