Which Republican Candidate has the strongest character?

[Avatar4321]

Im not asking for who you think you will win or who you want to win. But who has character? Who says what they mean and mean whats they said? Who do you think is the most honest?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Wow.

Listing them and trying to come up with even one who has shown him/herself to be honest, ethical, moral ... None of the ones you list are any of those things. Seeing that list really cements that as fact.

Roemer and Johnson - one of them would likely be my choice.

But hey, I've read there are something like 240 candidates. Like Diogenes, maybe we could find an honest man/woman among them.

 

[BDBoop]

Huntsman, far and away.

 

[Political Junky]

Huntsman, do doubt.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I have to go with Ron Paul.. He definitely says what he means, and means what he says.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have to go with Ron Paul.. He definitely says what he means, and means what he says.

I don't know about that. He says he opposes earmarks but he has gotten millions in earmarks for his district by attaching them to bills and then voting against bills. That's always been kind of shady to me.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Huntsman, far and away.

.

Wilson??

 

[Photonic]

I laugh at the assumption that a politician can be honest and not be called insane.

 

[paulitician]

Can this even be close? Obviously it's Ron Paul. The rest are Democrat-Light Neocon shams. Do people actually trust Newt Gingrich? Why would they? Do they really trust Romney? And Perry,my God what a dumb stump he is. It should be a very easy victory for Obama. These Neocon stiffs the Republican Party keeps marching out there don't stand a chance. It's very sad but it is what it is.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I have to go with Ron Paul.. He definitely says what he means, and means what he says.

That's why no one dares to fuck with him...

Hes clean and pure hence he gets no attention.... The MSN focus' on republicans with alleged baggage...

I'm sure Ron Paul is as disturbed at the lies as I am...

 

[Mr.Nick]

I only wish Paul had a sense of humor....

 

[spectrumc01]

I got to go with Ron Paul. Shame he won't get the nomination. He's the closest I've ever come to voting Republican. He seems the only one not catering to the religious right.

 

[occupied]

Politicians do not have character, at least not genuine character, they all practice their honest, sincere faces in the mirror. They polish their public persona the same way soldiers polish their brass insignia. Quit looking for genuineness in politicians, it does not exist.

 

[paulitician]

With the exception of Ron Paul i'm very disappointed with the Republican field. All Big Government Neocon stiffs. When is the Republican Party gonna finally dump this Democrat-Light stuff? It has become so lame.

 

[Mr.Nick]

With the exception of Ron Paul i'm very disappointed with the Republican field. All Big Government Neocon stiffs. When is the Republican Party gonna finally dump this Democrat-Light stuff? It has become so lame.

Agreed...

I like Cain too tho..

 

[dblack]

I have to go with Ron Paul.. He definitely says what he means, and means what he says.

I don't know about that. He says he opposes earmarks but he has gotten millions in earmarks for his district by attaching them to bills and then voting against bills. That's always been kind of shady to me.

Have you ever really thought about that though? He's totally up front about what he's doing. He's radically opposed to the kind of government where we send our tax money to Washington and than have to send our reps to get it back. But it's the kind of government we have. As long as the tax and spend bills are getting passed, he'd be fucking over his constituents not to try to get their share. It's a subtle approach, but it's not sophistry, it's not equivocation, and it's not shady - in the slightest. It's the only reasonable thing to do in a very unreasonable situation.

Perhaps a sports analogy would help. Let's say you're an old-school football coach and you've always disliked the forward pass. You've always felt like it betrayed the true nature of the game. Every year, at the rules committee meetings for the league, you argue passionately for banning it and going back to what you consider real football. But in the meantime, you've got a team to coach and they'd lose every game if you didn't utilize passing while the other teams are. It doesn't make you a hypocrite for passing. It makes you a good coach.

The frustrating reality of the situation is that Paul's integrity and character are among his greatest weaknesses. he almost never backs down from a position and always gives a genuine explanation - even when it would be better for him politically to equivocate and stick to stupid sound bites (like the commercial candidates do). You can knock Paul for a lot of things, but the last thing his is 'shady'.

 

[WatertheTree]

Im not asking for who you think you will win or who you want to win. But who has character? Who says what they mean and mean whats they said? Who do you think is the most honest?

Ron Paul hands down. He has been fighting the good fight for a very long time.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I have to go with Ron Paul.. He definitely says what he means, and means what he says.

I don't know about that. He says he opposes earmarks but he has gotten millions in earmarks for his district by attaching them to bills and then voting against bills. That's always been kind of shady to me.

Have you ever really thought about that though? He's totally up front about what he's doing. He's radically opposed to the kind of government where we send our tax money to Washington and than have to send our reps to get it back. But it's the kind of government we have. As long as the tax and spend bills are getting passed, he'd be fucking over his constituents not to try to get their share. It's a subtle approach, but it's not sophistry, it's not equivocation, and it's not shady - in the slightest. It's the only reasonable thing to do in a very unreasonable situation.

Perhaps a sports analogy would help. Let's say you're an old-school football coach and you've always disliked the forward pass. You've always felt like it betrayed the true nature of the game. Every year, at the rules committee meetings for the league, you argue passionately for banning it and going back to what you consider real football. But in the meantime, you've got a team to coach and they'd lose every game if you did utilize passing while the other teams are. It doesn't make you a hypocrite for passing. It makes you a good coach.

The frustrating reality of the situation is that Paul integrity and character are among his greatest weaknesses. he almost never backs down from a position and always gives a genuine explanation - even when it would be better for him political to equivocate and stick to stupid sound bites (like the commercial candidates do). You can knock Paul for a lot of things, but the last thing his is 'shady'.

Your mommy is your mommy and our government isn't your mommy..

 

[Mr.Nick]

I don't believe old democrats give a fuck about this nations youth - yet ironically they expect the youth (er anyone younger than they are) to care about them......

 

[spectrumc01]

I don't believe old democrats give a fuck about this nations youth - yet ironically they expect the youth (er anyone younger than they are) to care about them......

The older wealthy generation of both parties give less than a f&%k about anyone be they younger or not. Unless their is a war they need us to fight.