WDTPRS POLL: GOP Nominee – Whom would YOU choose? (Round 1)

Will some of you bloggers out there give me a hand with this?  It would be nice to have a large sample.  I am trying to keep this as neutral and as objective as possible.

The last TV debate before the Iowa Caucuses is history.  I have seen quite a few of the debates.  I still haven’t a clear idea about my support of a candidate yet.

I am curious about your view.

Here is a WDTPRS POLL.  It will be open for 1 week, until about midnight EST 23 December.

Anyone can vote, whether registered here or not.   Please do vote!  I cannot track who you are or how you voted.

NB: Students, seminarians, people sharing a computer or a single IP at an institution may be blocked from voting if someone you share with has already jumped in.  If wish, email me your vote.  I won’t identify who you are.

Add a BRIEF comment if you wish, explaining your choice.  Keep it BRIEF.  BRIEF.  As in AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE to make your point.

Also, for the sake of peace, do NOT… do NOT engage each other in the combox.  Do not respond to… do not react to… do not compliment, agree with, or disagree with any other person in the combox.  State your own view only.  I will go through and delete all comments which mention other commentators.  I impose this so that people won’t be afraid to state their opinion.

Please vote ONCE only.  Thanks.  People who cannot vote legally in US elections, … please don’t vote, but leave a comment in the combox if you wish.

I originally posted the candidates names in ALPHABETICAL ORDER.  If I change the poll default options for a different poll I may post, the order will probably shift around.  I will wait for there to be quite a few votes registered before I vote.  The RESULTS order of names will, I believe, reflect the number of votes. The order the candidates names appear in the RESULTS (after you vote) does NOT reflect my own preference or my vote.

Which GOP candidate would you more likely support today? In alphabetical order....

  • Paul (40%, 1,465 Votes)
  • Santorum (22%, 825 Votes)
  • Gingrich (18%, 676 Votes)
  • Romney (7%, 262 Votes)
  • Bachmann (4%, 138 Votes)
  • Huntsman (3%, 117 Votes)
  • Perry (3%, 111 Votes)
  • I COULD vote in a GOP primary, but I WILL NOT VOTE. (2%, 90 Votes)

Total Voters: 3,685

Loading ... Loading ...

NB: I am posting about Republican candidates because there is no Democratic race for President this time around.  Were there also a Democrat challenger to Pres. Obama, I would also put up a poll about that race.

I may repost this poll from time to time.

UPDATE: 19 Dec 1527 GMT:

I watched late yesterday as there was a sharp flood of several hundred votes for Ron Paul in a narrow time frame.  Then the sharp spike stopped.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in POLLS, The future and our choices and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Titus says:

    The whole process gives me vapors at this point. I’d pick a decaying log over the current POTUS, but I don’t have a clue who combines the best chance of beating him with the best probably results in office. I abstain.

  2. totustuusmaria says:

    Neither a libertarian nor a classical liberal. I do not believe that individual sovereignty is the principle of all governance. I do not have an undying faith in the free market. I think that government has a positive role to promote the common good and virtue among its citizenry.

    Yet I have supported Ron Paul since 2007. I trust him significantly more than any other candidate. I trust his judgment. I think he is a reasonable man and an honest man. I like his pro-life credentials. I also like that he permit the liberty of the Church and of Catholics by promoting the American vision of freedom of religion. I like that he will return the non-ennumerated powers to the states and help individuals and families regain their rights and duties. I like that he intends to help us stop policing the world and desires us to have an humble foreign policy. I approve of attempts to restore real currency. I like the elimination of executive departments and the limiting of presidential power.

    I am a subsidiarist philosophically. I hold that different levels of society have their proper duties, and that it is always wrong for a higher level of society to unjustly take over the duties and prerogatives of lower levels of society. The role of higher levels is to help the lower levels more efficiently and fruitfully achieve their ends.

    I think Dr. Paul, as a practical matter, will be very good for promoting subsidiarity in the United States. I am not afraid of him going to far, because the power of the executive branch is and should be limited by the congress and that the 50 sovereign states that form the Union.

    I’m voting for Ron Paul. I think he’s good for America. I think he’s good for Catholics.

  3. Lucas says:


    Why? I feel he has the best chance to beat Obama. Gingrich doesn’t stand a chance in a general election imo. Of course a couple months ago we said he didn’t stand a chance in the primary.

    But this election is big of a risk, I think Romney can been Obama.

  4. Lucas says:


    Why? I feel he has the best chance to beat Obama. Gingrich doesn’t stand a chance in a general election imo. Of course a couple months ago we said he didn’t stand a chance in the primary.

    But this election is big of a risk, I think Romney can been Obama.

  5. ipadre says:

    I like Santorum, but the media and the establishment will never give him the exposure he needs. Because of that, I would choose Gingrich. He’s not perfect, but I doubt we will ever have a politician who is. Some of Paul’s positions scare me, and Romney is just too polished, I don’t trust him.

  6. Ralph says:

    Dr. Ron Paul.

    1. Most important – I think he has real solutions to fix our nation.
    2. As a retired ob doctor with grown successful children, I don’t think he is in it for the money.
    3. Less governemnt

    My only hesitation in selecting Dr. Paul is that I am not sure he can carry a general election. But, I think if he was able to debate Pres. Obama 1 on 1 with no teleprompter or prepared texts, his intellectual brilliance would be apparent to the average Amerian voter. Or so I hope.

  7. kab63 says:

    I like how Newt’s battled for the conservative viewpoint in the debates, and I like that he aims for big ideas. I do not object to a TR Republican. Most importantly, Newt understands the danger Islam presents to us and to Israel.

  8. jeffreyquick says:

    I’d like to note that no other GOP candidate has the level of pure hatred directed against them that Paul does. It’s far beyond simple disagreement with a platform; it’s a direct attack on character. It reminds me a lot of the flak that the Catholic Church takes from the media. Now, I am not claiming that Ron Paul is anointed of God. But a certain somebody (whose name is an anagram for Santa) seems to be very interested in taking him out, which for me is just further encouragement to vote the way I would anyway. Though I would have to say that, if it were Mr. Gingrich, it would be very cool to have a First Lady who can sight-read music; musical literacy could be her First Lady cause.

  9. nanetteclaret says:

    Rick Perry: Pro-Life; Pro 2nd Amendment; Pro 10th Amendment; served in military flying C-130s for USAF; friend of Israel; concerned about National Security; wants smaller government/balanced budget; wants to secure border and has fought current administration because they refuse to do their duty; has also fought administration over EPA regs as well as other issues; got Tort Reform, mandatory sonograms, and Voter ID passed which currrent administration is now trying to overturn; has governed Texas for the last 11 years; has actual executive/governing experience.

  10. I am for Ron Paul because:

    1) He’s the only one I think is going to take a meat-axe to government. I believe he will not just make government solvent, he’ll reduce it. I believe the threats from big government at home are the gravest threats we face.

    2) He will work to promote jobs and growth as well as anyone, also a grave concern.

    3) He’s against torture and encroachments on the Bill of Rights.

    4) He’s certainly anti-abortion.

    And, yes, I acknowledge his weak points.

  11. trad catholic mom says:


  12. gloriainexcelsis says:

    Ron Paul worries me. He has many good points, but is too far out on others. Besides, he wouldn’t stand a chance of winning the general election. I WISH Santorum could do it, but I know he can’t. It’s Newt or Romney and I have to go with Newt.

  13. gloriainexcelsis says:

    P.S. We Must Win this election. We Must defeat Obama.

  14. Andy Milam says:


    I think that he has the most experience in dealing with the monster that is DC.

    He holds to the Repulican ideal.

    He’s proven he can cross the aisle effectively.

    He’s Catholic.

    Bottom line, he’s the most electable and the only one who will be able to “handle” Obama.

  15. Matariel says:


    Ron Paul? Really? I can’t believe that 33% would choose someone so radically socially liberal! He’s not pro-life; he believes that early chemical abortions, morning-after pills, etc. should not be illegal and that they are a free choice of the woman, he believes in the legalization of prostitution, drugs (and though he hasn’t said it, no doubt pornography) all of which the Catechism says the government has an absolute moral obligation to ban and outlaw. And I won’t even get into the issue of foreign policy towards Iran— Oh, the naïvité! The only person I could find on the GOP side more out of line with Catholic teaching than Ron Paul is Huntsman. But they’re pretty close. It’s obvious the Catholic choice is Santorum, a devout Latin Mass-attending Catholic who forms his social and political policies based on Catholic Social Teaching.

  16. Gregg the Obscure says:

    Until yesterday, I would have said Ron Paul, now I guess it would be Santorum. Why the change, in increasing order of seriousness:
    1. Though it’s old news, the Ron Paul newsletters of the 1990s would be red meat for the media and a major distraction.
    2. Paul’s isolationist foreign policy, while an understandable ideal, could lead to widespread international instability in its implementation.
    3. He voted no on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
    4. Andrew Sullivan endorsed him, which implies that the media knows a Paul nomination would hand the general election to Obama.

  17. AnAmericanMother says:

    My preference is for Perry. He has the right record – prolife, fiscal conservative. I thought at first he simply didn’t have the chops for debate, but he has improved steadily. He’s got the executive experience without Romney’s track record.
    If Romney can be elected governor of one of the most liberal and corrupt states in the Union, he cannot be a conservative or a libertarian. He loaned advisers to Obama to draft Obamacare, abortion provisions and all. No thanks.
    I am reserving judgment on Gingrich. I was not at all pleased with him when he was my representative. People can change and mature, and he has never been as far left as Romney, even in his weakest moments.
    Paul is a non-starter. Aside from the lack of executive experience and a legislative career as a backbench bombthrower who has made no allies, his foreign policy is very hazardous to our health. He believes if we’re just nice to our enemies, they’ll go away. Probably honest, idealist, but deadly.
    Paul also has some very unsavory associations with anti-Semites of both the Arab and the ANP/Stormfront variety, who have endorsed him and whom he has not disowned.
    Santorum strikes me as “not in it to win it”, Bachmann is too mercurial and too shrill, Huntsman is extremely liberal in most of his positions.

  18. ddeavy says:

    Dr Paul,

    I support him because of the following:

    1) Right on the economy and money.
    2) Right on shrinking the size of the government, and restore the balance of power between the 3 branches of government.
    3) His foreign policy position is spot on. As former Neo-Con I have to admit Iraq was a huge mistake, and 10 years in Afghanistan and no real change, what a waste of time, talent and treasure, we don’t need to be the world’s policeman we need to engage the world in trade and shared interests. Hearing all the others especially, Gingrich & Santorum, on Iran scares me and should scare any parent with children who are draft age.
    4) His positions on personal liberty and the proper role of States Rights v. the Federal Government.

    This country needs a revolution, or it is likely lost and destined to end up on the ash heap of history

  19. chuckc777 says:

    Newt. However, I am in favor of ANY candidate who can win in November.

    It is critical that our incumbent be defeated. I sense Newt may have the best chance of winning.

  20. jasoncpetty says:

    Ron Paul. He’s the only candidate for PEACE, he’s the most PRO-LIFE (jurisdiction stripping AND appointing true Constitution-abiding federal judges, whereas the rest only hope to appoint good judges), and he proposes real FINANCIAL SANITY (if you ran your household like the federal government does, you’d be bankrupt or calling Dave Ramsey–well Ron Paul is like a Dave Ramsey for the federal government).

  21. totustuusmaria says:

    Two more short comments:
    (1) As someone 25 years old, Iraq and Afghanistan constituted huge moments of disillusionment for me. The foreign policy of most of the Republicans scares me. I wish they would reassure the American public that they will do whatever it possible to get our troops home and stay out of foreign messes.

    (2) Anyone but Gingrich. I want Dr. Paul, but I’m alright with Romney, Perry, Santorum, or Bachmann — so long as they don’t get us into another meaningless and immoral war, of course. Character does matter, and Gingrich is not only not a conservative, but he has a lousy character. He should be in a monastery doing penance, not on the public stage trying to become president.

  22. lkapell says:

    I don’t expect to vote in the primary. Santorum is the only candidate I really respect, and I don’t think he has a chance of winning in the general election.

  23. Cathy says:

    Prayerfully, I would go with Santorum. I think he is the best candidate to uphold the natural law as the basis of liberty and freedom. I think that is the most basic and fundamental appeal between a social conservative and a libertarian. Our government is beastly, but I don’t think the solution is granting beastliness to the people.

  24. teaguytom says:

    Ron Paul. I will explain my choice.
    1. I am a paleoconsevative (old conservative) like Pat Buchanan and Paul’s policies are similar to the old conservative days of WWII before the neo-conservatives like Rove took over.
    2. Paul is the only one following Just War Doctrine. Newt and Santorum have praised BJP2 at the same time they are yelling for a war against either Iran or Syria. Its disgusting. The Baptist is more Catholic then the Catholics on Just War.
    3. Of the three frontunners (Newt, Mitt and Paul) Paul is the only one that has not flip flopped positions. You may disagree with some of his positions, but he has been honest for 30 years. Newt was a self proclaimed Rockefeller Republican in the 80’s and 90’s, but now is hardline conservative. He worked for Freddie mac before he was against it, he was for climate change legislation before he was against it, he could care less about the FED before Paul said audit them, he helped found the Dept of Education and now hates it, he was for Tarp before he was against it, he claims to follow BJP2 while he hounds us to take on Iran and he was an ardent FED health mandate before people hated Obamacare, and he was also a draft dodger going to college to avid Vietnam. Does he sound like a conservative to you? He sounds like a Democrat!. Romney is another Flip Flopper. He was for gay marriage before he was against it, he was for abortion before he was against it, Romneycare is what Obamacare was based on, Romney was for a Fed healthcare mandate before he was against it, and he used a Clerical excuse as a Mormon missionary to get out of serving in Vietnam. Does he sounds like a true conservative to you? Heck no!
    Ron Paul is an OBGYN who has delivered 4,000 babies, he has pushed for a personhood bill in Congress, and he has pushed for ending the endless wars that are draining our treasury and killing our young men. He has pushed to return to a gold standard and ending the FED so our money is backed with something and can’t be printed endlessly to fund pet projects. He has been honest and consistent to the people for 30 years and I will be voting for him in the primary.

  25. persyn says:

    Santorum. As a Catholic, my FIRST priority is life. Santorum is the most solid on that issue by far. I’m good with the others, would vote for Atilla the Hun to rid us of Obama. But choice one is Santorum.

  26. Ben Yanke says:

    I was really rooting for Cain, but now that the media has destroyed him (for now, at least), I’m not sure who I’m backing right now. Maybe Bachmann? Idk… I guess we’ll see what happens…

  27. In a perfect world, Rick Santorum would be wonderful. But this isn’t a perfect world. We need a candidate who can beat Obama. Therefore, if the Wisconsin Primary were held today, I would vote for Mitt Romney.

  28. Flambeaux says:

    Ron Paul. Right on all the issues, especially foreign policy. The candidate who’s proposed policies are most in conformity with Catholic teaching.

  29. Varda says:

    I like Perry but I don’t think he can win so I voted Huntsman. He is pro life, pro 2nd amendment, pro traditional marriage, anti-torture and is opposed to more nation building wars. The WSJ liked his economic plan the best and he supports the Ryan budget. He can talk and debate without major stumbles. I will vote for Mitt but don’t love him. Don’t think I can bring myself to vote for Newt.

  30. Dominic Bolin says:

    I once heard it said, “The best is that which the worst hates the most.” I also think it’s true.

    Ron Paul.

  31. irishgirl says:

    I chose Santorum, because he’s Catholic.
    My second choice would be Newt, again because he’s Catholic.
    All I want is someone who will defeat Obama next year. This country can not take four more years of him.

  32. I’m a Canadian, so my opinion isn’t strictly relevant, but Ron Paul would be my guy. I think he’s the only guy there who’s actually serious about working for a better future. The rest are more of the same- corrupt, greedy corporatist liars and thieves writ large.

  33. contrarian says:

    I voted none of the above, but I don’t mind Ron Paul.

  34. I really am at a loss.

    First of all, whoever wins will get my vote, if nothing else than to vote against Obama and for someone who can viably win. For the last 20 years I have been voting urgently against someone rather than for someone. I have encouraged others to vote, even if it were for a “hopeless” third-party person. Just think how different American politics would be today if in 1992 Clinton won with only 25% of the popular vote because all those who did not vote chose instead to vote for one of the many third-party candidates. If 75% of the people vote against you, you go about your job totally differently than if 48% voted for you. Think of how it would have affected the candidates the Republicans put forward for 1996, not to mention every election since.

    But now more than ever has it come to the point that someone has to be stopped. I almost don’t care who the Republicans put forward at this point. None of them are perfect. I clicked for Santorum on this poll. Why not?

    I urge you all to vote in the primary if you can and to vote your heart. Let the guy who wins know he/she gets the nomination with a disappointed base that largely voted against him/her. Then, send $10 to the campaign with a note saying that you voted against him (I’m tired of saying him/her) in the primary and have no qualms about voting against him again if he disappoints. And if he wins, we really got to hold him accountable in 2016.

  35. CarpeNoctem says:

    As a priest and in a state where one does not have the right to keep secret whether he is voting a “Democrat” or “Republican” ballot, I am choosing not to vote in these primary elections.

    While I could never see myself voting for a candidate or a party that would advance the attack against life and all the other social issues that are important to me, I am cannot say that the other party is doing an adequate job of representing my interests by their timid silence and calculated inaction, either. Thus, I will not allow myself to be identified by either party, thus I do not want my party sympathies to be a matter of public record which might very well lead folks to drawing unfair conclusions about my political leanings that they should not make, thus I cannot vote in this primary.

    Of the choices, I am not sure that I can get behind any of them at this point, anyway. I think any of the front-runners could beat Obama. In the general election, all things being equal, I will hold my nose, and whoever it is on the Republican side will get my vote.

    I think Newt would offer the most interesting race and win with the greatest landslide. I also think he is a deeply-flawed man, no better than a Republican version of Bill Clinton, whom I think we all want to forget.

  36. ArtND76 says:

    Gingrich. Yes, he has baggage but we know what it is and it appears to me to be significantly in the past. For me competence and presiding over passing a balanced budget trumps the baggage he has.

    Next would be Romney, followed by Santorum. I know something of Perry’s history in Texas and it concerns me, but he would be after Santorum. Then would come Huntsman, with Bachmann after that and Ron Paul last. Bachmann has some valid concerns and a good life story, but when listening to some of her arguments and attacks on other candidates I question the balance of her judgment. As for Ron Paul, I like the libertarian point of view a lot better than the alternatives, but when it comes to foreign policy he just loses me. I don’t like unnecessary interventions and wonder if we went too far with Iraq, but Ron Paul seems to think he can reason with people who believe committing suicide in order to kill as many infidels as possible can be a good and holy thing. To me that is a fatal, total disconnect with reality for Ron Paul, and if he won’t keep the country safe in a dangerous world, the rest of his views on government won’t matter much. Otherwise, he is the image of the honest politician that understands the same maxim the founders of our country understood: power corrupts.

  37. Ronald Reagan. Death is no excuse.

  38. moconnor says:

    I could vote in a Republican primary because I am still registered as one. However, I will not cast my vote for any of the likely nominees. The party has been hijacked by those who really do not espouse the views of our Church. Ron Paul? Really? He believes that government has no role in aiding the poor or unfortunate. It’s nice to think that churches would take this over, but it will not happen at the level needed. His isolationist views, regarding foreign affairs have been tried and found wanting. The others simply do not have the requisite experience or judgment to handle the office, much like its present occupant. I will wait for the general election and vote for someone I think would serve us well, even without any chance of winning.

  39. DelRayVA says:

    I chose Ron Paul. I disagree with him on many things, but among the candidates, he uniquely does not advocate anything intrinsically evil. Santorum, unfortunately, advocates torturing suspects, which Evangelium Vitae tells us is intrinsically evil.

    I believe Huntsman also meets my criterion, “does not advocate for anything intrinsically evil,” but I don’t trust him because he’s a Mormon. However, he’s a bit of a “Jack Mormon,” which is less troubling to me than that devotee of the false prophet, Romney.

  40. From a purely Catholic viewpoint, Sanctorum is clearly the best choice, but — perhaps for this very reason — has no chance. Not to mention he’s the only one who’s promised that, in return for the pivotal traditional Catholic vote, on his first weekend in the White House he’ll lead the following pack of presidential reporters to their first TLM.

    Rush had a good line today — that Bachmann did a good job last night night of making it clear that Ron Paul wears a tinfoil clown’s hat when it comes to foreign policy.

  41. greasemonkey says:

    I am shocked at all the Ron Paul support. He seems very incoherant in the debates, his foreign policy is suicide for the western world, he is a crackpot plain and simple. If he is the nominee then Obama 4 more! The electorate will look up from their tv next October and see the crackpot and not vote or vote Obama.
    I’m not a Mcain liberal either.

    Go Bachman!

  42. cowboy says:

    This is very difficult. Paul and Santorum are the only candidates I really respect, though neither is perfect. That being said, I think Romney and Gingrich are the only two that have a chance of winning the primaries, and only Romney has a chance of beating Obama (Gingrich would be destroyed by the Obama campaign). I can’t bring myself to say this and like it, but I’ll probably end up voting for Romney.

  43. everett says:

    Well, none of the choices are particularly exciting, but as of today, I’d take Ron Paul over Romney over Gingrich among the three current “front-runners”. While Paul has his own set of issues, I actually trust him to not show up in DC beholden to many different groups and will actually attempt to do things like focus on the principle of subsidiarity and debt reduction. Huntsman is somewhat interesting to me, but doesn’t have a chance, and Santorum doesn’t appear to have a chance either otherwise they’d also receive some level of consideration.

  44. chcrix says:

    In order not to engage others I have deliberately not read the other comments – so apologies if I reiterate something someone else has already said.

    There is only one candidate who can be trusted to keep his word and not double cross the voters – you all know who he is and I need not even mention his name.

    Jack Kennedy was a catholic. So what? In what way did his election benefit catholics, catholicism, or catholic teaching? And I don’t mean money or favors either.

    One should vote for a man of known principle.

    As far as electability – nobody will defeat Mr. Obama, unless they are willing to argue against the very intellectual basis of leviathan. Only one candidate can do that with credibility. In short, there is only one candidate that can defeat this sitting President.

  45. Deacon Nathan Allen says:

    Ron Paul, though I would happily vote for Huntsman. I emphatically will not support any of the others, even in the general election. My reason is this: I don’t see how I can in good conscience vote for any candidate who supports grave and intrinsic moral evil as a matter of policy. All the others support the policy of using torture on detainees that the Bush administration implemented. I will not waste my vote by voting for the lesser evil, because as I see it voting for the lesser evil (when it comes to grave and intrinsic evil like torture or abortion) is still voting for evil. It’s just a question of which sin against the Fifth Commandment a person thinks is acceptable government policy. I’m not playing that game.

  46. Mundabor says:

    Santorum would be wonderful, but even my cat has more chances.
    I like Perry a lot and can’t understand why people punish him so much for this or that little mistake. Ronald Reagan fell asleep during meetings, but he was Ronald Reagan.
    Would sign for Gingrich any day.
    No Flip-flop Mormons and “libertarians” for me, thanks.


  47. gleirer says:

    I voted for Rick Santorum, he is the only candidate that has fought his entire public life for “right t0 life”. While in the Senate for 12 years he was a consistent conservative both in social and economic issues and he also very experienced in foreign policy. He will do very well in Iowa and his campaign will pick up after that.

  48. trespinos says:

    If Santorum had a chance of winning, he’d be my choice. Analyze the polling: Gingrich loses in matchups with Obama because he cannot pull a majority of women’s votes. That’s the decisive point for me. Far too many independent women voters will shun Gingrich for him to prevail. In their minds, he will not be able to overcome that sense that he reminds them of the smart-ass man they can’t stand: maybe a schoolmate, a co-worker, a neighbor, an ex-husband. They don’t trust him, and his marital record irritates them.

    Romney does not suffer from the same problem. Women will vote for him and in sufficient numbers to make him the winner in the general election. He is the only viable choice, at the present time.

  49. dcs says:

    Ron Paul. I realize he has his weak points in his domestic policy — but so do all the others — and he is the only candidate with a sensible foreign policy. Plus I strongly believe that he is the only GOP candidate with a chance of winning the general election (which also explains the attacks on him — it’s clear that the media would prefer Romney or Gingrich to face Obama in November).

  50. LorrieRob says:

    I selected Santorum because I actually like him the best and agree with him on most things. Unfortunately I don’t think he has a realistic chance to get the nomination. In reality I’ll probably vote for Romney in the end. He’s highly competent although disappointingly political. So it’s hard to know what you’ll get but it will obviously be better than the current regime.

  51. Jason Keener says:

    I selected Ron Paul for several reasons, but I think he is especially astute when it comes to recognizing the difficult truth that many of our problems with Iran and Al-Qaeda, etc., are a result of the unintended consequences of our meddling in the affairs of other countries over the last few decades. The CIA calls this “blowback.” Also, Ron Paul will not send the members of our Armed Forces on any impossible nation-building adventures. It is also important that I am able to trust the person I am voting for. I believe that I can trust Ron Paul.

  52. stilicho says:

    Santorum would be my first choice, but I doubt that he will still be in the race by the time the primaries come to my state (TN). So my vote will be for Gingrich. Ron Paul’s stance on foreign affairs would be laughable if the situation abroad, especially in Iran, were not so serious.

  53. Iowander says:

    I will vote in my first Iowa Caucus next month. I said Santorum in the poll, but really, I’m not feeling very solid about anyone. I’m looking to be persuaded, so I’m going to actually go up and read some comments now.

  54. jray says:

    Newt. His past has been forgiven. As Catholics we should understand that. He seems to be the only one looking at the big picture, especially regarding foreign policy; perhaps because he is a history professor and also worked with Pres. Reagan. It amazes me that some Catholics are presenting Ron Paul as the candidate closest to “Gospel values”. After watching him in the debates I am getting the same impression I got with Jimmy Carter – a good man, but one underestimating what the job of president entails. And that is frightening with the present state of the country and the world.

  55. Geoffrey says:

    I chose Romney in the poll. I think he is the only one with a credible chance at beating Obama. He can attract the all-important “swing vote” of the moderates. I think Newt Gingrich will appear too polarizing in a general election.

  56. wbloomfield says:

    Ron Paul.

    1. Pro-Life
    2. Pro-liberty. The law exists to prevent violations against the rights to life, liberty, and property. The majority should not use the law to legally plunder their neighbors.
    3. Economics. Dr. Paul is well-schooled in Austrian economics and is the only candidate that recognizes the dangers and redistribution caused by the inflation produced by central banks (The Fed).
    4. Non-interventionist foreign policy. We are not the world’s policeman and no matter how well-intentioned Americans think we are, we must respect the sovereignty of other nations, stop meddling in their affairs, and only go to war after we’ve been attacked. I say this as a Navy veteran who deployed to Iraq, used to believe strongly in the mission, and now recognizes that we are sending our soldiers and sailors into nation-building exercises that they cannot win.

  57. sjg4080 says:

    Ron Paul is the only candidate I will vote for. He is the only candidate that understands sound monetary policy and the negative impact government intervention (particularly at the federal level) has on the economy. His foreign policy is right on point…American policymakers have put us in the situation we are in and yes I believe it was American militarism that fomented the hatred that those who attacked us on 9/11 had. Eisenhower warned us about the military- industrial complex when he left office.

    He believes in the Catholic principles of subsidiarity, just war and most importantly life. Returning to our roots as a republic, where the individual is sovereign vs. what we have now of corporatist democracy, where “society” is sovereign, will allow for more economic and religious freedom.

    Government at any level interferes with the free market. My first class of economics freshman year of college described the deadweight loss of economic prosperity that government creates. Politicians are innately narcissistic who think in some way they know what’s best for the rest of us. Ron Paul is the only one I believe I can trust (he has said so much) that he will be a President who will allow us to make the decisions we feel are best for ourselves and our families given our individual circumstances.

  58. teomatteo says:

    Dr. Paul, he seems to be the most sincere. I do not see his ego, or power hunger for the job like I sense with others.

  59. Centristian says:

    I voted for Governor Romney. He isn’t my favorite, but none of the others really inflames me with enthusiasm, either.

    Of all the GOP candidates, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are the only two who answer questions with their own minds, on the spot, and not from a script. Neither is electable, however. The first has been so irreparably demonized (and, I must say, through his fault, through his fault, through his own most grievous fault) and the other is considered by many to be a bit extreme and unhinged.

    Sure, I think Gingrich could wipe the floor with the President in a debate, but I’m not persuaded that this election will be about debates if Gingrich is the nominee. If Romney emerges as the GOP candidate, then the election will be about the economy and about the failures of the Obama Administration. However, should Gingrich become the nominee, the election will be about Newt Gingrich. That’s not what we want if we want to see the President defeated.

    The rest of the line up, well…I don’t see any of them, with the possible exception of Huntsman, giving the President a run for his money; not in a general. Huntsman doesn’t seem to be going anywhere in the primaries, however.

    And so Romney. He’s right enough and I believe he’s electable. Conservatives may not be thrilled to vote for him but they will most certainly vote against Obama, and the most important thing is that the incumbent be defeated before he can do any more damage. As I am persuaded that any of the GOP candidates would be a much, much better choice than the president, I would then, in that case, give my support to the most electable of them.

  60. Zilla says:

    I am supporting Rick Santorum because he is very strong on the issue that is most important to me which is recognizing and dealing appropriately with the threat we face from islamic supremacists who seek to completely destroy us both from within and beyond our borders. Newt is also very strong on this, but RS gets my official endorsement because in addition to being great on this issue he also has a long standing record of being consistently conservative and has no personal baggage for the left to try to use against him (if he had any scandals, they’d have been outed already by now).
    I officially gave Rick Santorum at my blog in a post that goes into great detail explaining why I believe that he is the best person we can put in the WH to deal with the dire threats facing our country. You can read about it here:
    Anti-Jihad Blogger Announces Official Endorsement for President of the United States of America
    However, having said all of that, I do believe that any one of the Republican candidates would be better than Obama (some more than others) and I will support whoever the eventual nominee is.

  61. JohnMa says:

    I voted for Paul in 08 and will vote for him again this time around.

    There is one main reason: he WILL reduce the size of the federal government. None of the others would do this. Just look at what Newt did as Speaker of the House.

    When I was a boy I remember seeing Santorum at Mass each Sunday in a suburb of Pittsburgh. I think he is right on most issues but I just don’t see him reducing the size of government.

    As far as the others go, I think I’d vote third party before I voted for Newt, Perry, or Romney.

  62. BT says:

    Ron Paul for me. I believe very strongly in the principle of subsidiarity as a central feature of Catholic social teaching, and Dr. Paul’s domestic policy views are the most in line with subsidiarity among the candidates. As for his foreign policy, the debate last night was a more than sufficient display of the fact that Paul is the only sane voice among the Republican candidates.

  63. acp39 says:

    I happily voted for Mitt Romney.

    Governor Romney, first of all, has the competence and demeanor necessary to be president. President Obama reminded us that the president is the chief executive of the country and it therefore helps to have someone who has actually ran something (unlike Obama). In that regard, Governor Romney has successfully ran two businesses, saved the Olympics, and had a successful governorship in the most liberal state in the country. He has the knowledge and leadership skills necessary to lead the country during these dismal times.

    With regard to issues of interest to Catholics, Governor Romney is, by all accounts, a man of impeccable morality and is a devoted family man. Since he changed his mind on abortion he has been a stalwart defender of life, and he did as much as he could to protect life in Massachusetts. He will appoint good judges to the bench. His justice advisers, after all, are Judge Bork and Professor Mary Ann Glendon (both beloved by readers of WDTPRS, I imagine).

    With regard to marriage, Governor Romney did all he could to stop same-sex marriage in his state. Contrary to Senator Santorum’s unfortunate attack, Governor Romney pushed vigorously for an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution (and then immediately began to push for an amendment to the national constitution). He stood up for upholding traditional marriage in schools and fought for Catholic charities in their adoption battle. Just ask Maggie Gallagher or the Massachusetts bishops and they will tell you that Governor Romney fought for marriage.

    For these reasons (among others) I am excited to support Mitt Romney. Not just because he is better and more electable than all of the alternatives (which I believe he is) but also because I truly believe he will be a great president.

  64. Theodore says:

    Romney is a technocrat who is more interested in becoming President and then playing around the edges of the problems that we face. He is eminently electable but whether he could pull the country out of the mess we’re in remains to be seen. I cannot point to anything vaguely consistent with modern conservative thought that he has actually done while in office.

    Ron Paul is no more than the latest libertarian fantasy. He is impossible on the middle east and national defense and would get us all killed if he actually was able to enact his theories. The constitution is not a death pact. He seems to be the white Alan Keyes and has about the same snow ball in-you-know-where that the latter did, plus he’s older than Reagan was when he left the Oval Office. For all these reasons Obama would clean his clock.

    Gingrich is potentially a game changer if he could get elected. He has done great things in the past as a conservative leader and I feel that he could do it again. He reminds me of such field generals as Grant, Sherman and Patton. While they were not a great success in time of peace, they were the right men for the right time when the chips were down. All three had flaws (alcoholism, depression and narcissistic personality) but like Lincoln said of Grant, I say of Gingrich, find out what he’s drinking [or in this case thinking]] and give it to the rest of them.

    Here’s an interesting widget from the economist which measures strength by state in the GOP primaries on the basis of polling data. It changes with time:

    Final thought, I’d vote for my Labrador Retriever before I’d vote for the incumbent.

  65. Liam says:

    I voted in this poll for Ron Paul. I voted for him in the ’08 primary and will do so again in the ’12 primary.

    I understand fully that he is unelectable in a general presidential election. Nevertheless, I vote on principle rather than politics. Paul comes closest to the paleo-conservative ideals of the pre-WWII Old Right, ideals that I embrace. Those who criticise Paul for not supporting certain issues fail to understand that he operates from principles. When he opposes want looks like an otherwise good policy, e.g., DOMA, it is because he believes that government should not be involved in such things at all.

    In the general election I anticipate voting, as I have for the past several presidential elections, for the candidate standing for the Constitution Party. I have never voted for a Republican candidate in the general presidential elections…and, of course, the Democrat candidate is not even in consideration…unless the Dems suddenly returned to being the Democratic Party of the mid-nineteenth century.

  66. JaneC says:

    Ron Paul for me as well. None of the candidates are perfect, but Paul is as close as we’ll get, and he’s sincere.

    I don’t care if he’s “electable” or not. I will support a candidate who will do the right thing. If everyone else did the same–ignoring whether the media thinks a candidate is electable and just voting their conscience–we might actually end up with better politicians.

  67. Captain Peabody says:

    I am almost at a loss. There are really almost no candidates among the current roster I can vote for with a clear conscience. Right now, I’m heavily in the Undecided camp.

    I don’t trust Romney. He has changed his views on the most important issues of them all–among them abortion–multiple times, and I don’t trust him to stay consistent when it matters. Plus, I don’t think I can in clean conscience vote for a practicing Mormon; a Presidential win would give this religion–which masquerades as a normal, acceptable part of orthodox Christianity while preaching polytheism and other doctrines beyond the pale of even the most radical Protestant–a greater legitimacy and a greater soapbox than it has ever had before. I don’t want to be a part of that.

    I also don’t really trust Newt. His record is not the best; he’s a good politician, he’s smart, but he’s also seemingly been unscrupulous and downright immoral in both private and public life. However, now he’s a member of the Church, by his own admission repentant and absolved, and I’m obviously not fit to judge his sincerity or the state of his soul; but putting him immediately back in power, a position which he himself admitted led him to abuses and out-of-control behavior on multiple levels, doesn’t seem to me either charitable or prudent. However, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that I would be persuaded to vote for him. We’ll see.

    I respect Ron Paul as a person and a politician, but I can’t in good conscience vote for him. He is a libertarian, an open advocate of the legalization of drugs, prostitution, pornography, and the like; he once in a debate said that if we allow people the liberty to practice their religion, we can’t consistently disallow them the practice to take addictive drugs. That, plus his too-radical isolationism on foreign policy, and his too-radical reform plan for government (which would likely cause a lot of suffering and instability in the US and the world if ever implemented) mean that I don’t think it would be responsible for me to help put him power. I admire a lot of his aims, I admire his consistency and his principled nature, especially on the issue of abortion, but I can’t agree with either his ideology or his practical plan for America.

    If Huntsman was not a Mormon, he would have my vote now. He seems intelligent, reasonable, principled, and generally competent; he’s not perfect, and he’s not all that inspiring, but I look for “inspiring” in the Bible and the lives of the Saints, not in political races. However, like with Romney, his Mormonism is pretty much a dealbreaker. Admittedly, Huntsman seems to be a less practicing Mormon than Romney, so it’s not quite the same; but still, it’s a difficult thing to deal with. I could be persuaded to vote for him easily if my fears were in some way assuaged, but I’m not sure that’s going to happen. It’s mostly a moot point, anyway, as the electorate seems to have decided he’s not exciting enough, and I’m sure his campaign will be dead long before I get an opportunity to vote on the matter.

    Perry is a grey area. However, he’s too radical for my tastes on most issues, not all that competent, and would be torn to pieces in the general election. If he got my attention and proved himself to be a strong, viable candidate, he could potentially get my vote; but I really don’t see that happening.

    Santorum has lost a lot of confidence from me. He’s great on the life issues, but his support of torture and his strong stance on immigration have lost me; and all his debate performances have been frankly abysmal. Torture is a deal-breaker for me, and Santorum’s position steps over the line in a big way. If he were to give up on this position and in general show himself more competent at governance and politics, I could be persuaded to vote for him.

    Besides that, Bachmann is never going anywhere, and that’s how it should stay. So, for now, I’m heavily undecided, verging on abstaining. The political system in our country is rapidly becoming a bad joke, and we need strong, principled Catholics to stand up and live, vote, and run according to the Church’s teachings–all the Church’s teachings, not just the fashionable ones. Until the Catholic Church in America, and especially the Laity in America, begin to live and to act as Catholics, living out their unique and essential vocation to conform the world to Christ by conforming themselves to Christ, to conquer the whole world and everything in it for him and his laws, America will continue its descent into chaos, and no political leader is going to save us from ourselves. To paraphrase someone, if you want to save the world, save the Church. Compared to that, politics has little meaning.

  68. ContraMundum says:

    Ron Paul.

    However, I am not eligible to vote in the Republican primary because I am not a registered Republican. I voted for George H. W. Bush in 1988 and regretted it; I have never voted for a Democrat for president. Since then I have voted “3rd party”. My impression of the Republican Party is that it is very pro-life when (1) they are soliciting donations and (2) when they are collecting votes, especially in the primaries. Once they are elected, not so much; suddenly a crackpot economic scheme that won’t get passed anyhow is the most important thing and demands all their attention, or maybe they’re dreaming up new ways to violate the Bill of Rights and claim that Osama bin Laden made them do it.

    I don’t want someone who is pro-life just when he thinks it will win him the primary. I want someone who is pro-life even if he thinks it will cost him the election.

    St. Lazar of Serbia, pray for us!

  69. tcreek says:

    Mitt Romney.
    He was going to be the nominee from day one. The other candidates are on an ego trip or are vying for the vice presidents job which will probably go to Bachman. She will bring in the tea party and religious right voters that are not happy with Romney.

  70. Pingback: Why Catholics, and All Christians, Should Reject Ron Paul’s Economic Philosophy « Catholic Bandita

  71. Martial Artist says:

    Ron Paul. I am convinced that the economic situation will lead inevitably and unavoidably to a (probably global) economic collapse in many ways similar to the Great Depression. Dr. Paul is the only candidate (irrespective of party affiliation) who has proposed a plan that is commensurate with the task of minimizing the severity of such an economic collapse. Voting for any other GOP candidate is simply choosing to guarantee the inevitability and unavoidability of an economic collapse. Equally important to me is the fact that he is the only one with a foreign policy that might lead to a more peaceful world, and to a nation that respects the rights of other nations to choose their own form of government, whether we approve of their chosen form or not. Dr. Paul seems to be the only one candidate who actually wants us to treat other nations as separate sovereign states, and restrict our military activity to the actual defense of the nation, as opposed to looking for reasons to intervene militarily in other lands.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  72. Supertradmum says:

    Briefly, Ron Paul is honest and what you see is what you get….no surprises.

  73. PaterAugustinus says:

    Well, I indicated my vote for Paul, worrying that I would be one of a few “crazies;” how interesting, that when I put in my vote, I found myself amongst the majority! I hope others will take courage from this and not hestitate, especially in the Primary, to cast their vote for their truly preferred candidate.

    Why Paul?

    Ron Paul has many supporters whose zeal borders on cultish insanity. I’m not one of them. I am in near total agreement with Paul’s views on “Fiscal Conservative” issues. On “Social Conservative” issues, even though I think he could take tougher stances on clear points of Natural Law and right reason (i.e., certain delusions of the godless sodomites, etc.), I think that even here, he has the right (and properly American) attitude, in the main: i.e., left alone by the State, individuals living lives of personal integrity in community, will preserve social mores and institutions as well as is humanly possible; the only truly *enduring* threat to our moral health, is a State armed with enough power and presumption for a few degenerates to wield a disproportionate legal power, engineering our culture along “Progressive” ideals. Social conservatism is best served, in the long run, by preserving individuals’ rights to run their private affairs and businesses as they want (including making choices about who to hire and fire, and on what grounds, and what kinds of benefits and programs they will offer, etc.), rather than by trying to use government to enforce traditional morals too strongly. That same power can be used against them by an immoral minority, as we see happening now, everywhere. But if you keep the power for moral advocacy or engineering far away from the State’s power of coercive force, this immoral minority has very little power to wield against anybody. Finally, I actually disagree with Ron Paul on several points of foreign policy, but not as strongly or on as many points, as is the case with many other Republicans. And, on these points, I am relieved of all anxiety by one simple fact: the president can only work with what Congress hands him.

    The Republican party is in an identity crisis, and has lost almost all its trustworthiness. God forgive me, but too many of the candidates are Protestant ignoramuses, who have a “hunch” about what Christian morality and industry entail, but no context or discipline for a truly mature approach to any issue of any import; I miss many Protestants from my great-grandfather’s generation, who hadn’t yet pushed “Faith Alone” to mean “moral striving not strictly necessary,” nor “Scripture Alone” to mean “don’t bother reading anything else.” God knows that the Democrats are an abomination of desolation, in whom no good thing but His indefectible Image remains; still, the Republicans are wandering in the desert of anti-intellectual populism and Crossless Christianity. Paul seems to be the only candidate to combine an healthy intellectual life with unimpeachable personal integrity. Though he is personally not very charismatic, he is an effective communicator of the very attractive first principles of our nation; I have often been surprised to see Paul’s drawing power amongst different people – and especially those who were not previously interested in politics. In my opinion, his atttractiveness is underestimated in the case of the general election.

    And finally: of recent presidential candidates, only two have stricken me as honest men with a real commitment to their convictions: on the Left, Kucinich; on the Right, Paul. I think we all know that, when push comes to shove, the ONLY Republican candidate who actually will die on the hill of smaller government and civil liberty, is Paul. And I firmly believe that in this election cycle and this next presidential term, the time has come for us to die on that hill, or start making other plans.

  74. randomcatholic says:

    I am very ambivalent. I am 100% pro-life, but on economics and unions and labor rights and environmental protections I am much more of an “old-school” democrat, so the thought of voting for anyone on this list gives me agida. I hate being so disenfranchised.

    I voted Romney because I think he has the best chance of beating Obama, and we need to defeat the most pro-death president in US history…. even if it means I have to hold my nose and vote for one of these clowns.

  75. PostCatholic says:

    I think Democrats would be delighted with the top three choices here of Paul, Santorum and Gingrich.

  76. FXR2 says:

    If Pat Buchannan were running he would be my choice, but that is not the case. I am not a libertarian, nor could I support one, except to beat Obama. Paul is out unless he gets the nomination. I prefer Santorum, but it seems unlikely he will get the nomination. I pick Gingrich over Romney every time. My biggest fear is that we nominate Romney against Obama, and then there is no clear conservative, pro-life or Catholic choice. My guess, is that we end up with Romney with Christie as his running mate. Then we wind up with a choice between Obamacare and Romneycare: and neither Republican is pro-life. Yeah that’s right both Christie and Romney flip-flopped on pro-life. Anyhow, pray for Santorum, settle for Gingrich or we are all lost.


  77. Tominellay says:

    Ron Paul. I’m voting for peace and sound money and constitutional law. I find his positions are consonant with Catholic principles. All the other GOP hopefuls favor preemptive war, all but one other favor torture; I am repelled, and I should think these positions would be obnoxious to America, and not a “selling point” in someone’s campaign for nomination. My wife and I are retirees, living on fixed pensions. Deficit spending and monetization of debt devalue our currency, and that harms retirees and low-income folks particularly. Paul’s written, detailed plan to cut $1 trillion in his first year in office makes sense.

  78. Girgadis says:

    Well, here is my take, and it’s blunt.
    One governor from Texas who believed God told him to run for office was enough for me, so no thanks on Perry.
    Rick Santorum is consistent on the intrinsic evils including abortion and homosexuality, but the rainbow flag crowd will mobilize against him like nothing we’ve ever seen, so he doesn’t stand a chance. I also don’t see how he reconciles his beliefs on torture and immigration with the faith.
    Mitt Romney doesn’t know who he is or what he stands for from one day to the next. If the economy is the force that will drive this election, who’d vote for a guy who can make a $10,000 bet and doesn’t understand why that could be offensive to people?
    Converted or not, a one-time serial adulterer is not going to get the numbers of women to vote for him that he’d need to defeat the incumbent, and I count myself among those who’d just say no to Gingrich.
    Michelle Bachmann has chutzpah. What’s more she seems to have more testosterone than any of the men she stands with on the podium for these debates. A lady who can raise 6 kids of her own and foster 21 more, TEENAGERS at that, has it together. Unfortunately, her gaffes have made her the butt of many jokes and she’s not taken seriously. Still, I’d be comfortable voting for her.
    I have little interest in Ron Paul and he hasn’t said or done anything to make me regret that.
    When Newt Romney finish bloodying each other, the one candidate who could emerge and wage a credible campaign is Huntsman. The fact that he hasn’t caught fire and seems to have made little to no impact on the race is concerning, but he may be a dark horse. He could mount the most serious threat to Obama and he’s not a polarizing or alienating figure which would appeal to independents. He’d be my first choice.

  79. JuliB says:

    My top two choices are not showing: Sarah or Cain. Sigh. I will probably not vote in the primary, but will vote pro-life in the general.

  80. Joe in Canada says:

    As a Canadian I have no say in this, but I recognize its importance for the world. I notice a mix of practicality and principle in the responses. Could you have a separate poll, Father, just on principle, and include independent and 3rd party candidates? I would be very interested to hear eg why Joe Schriner isn’t acceptable by your regular contributors (and why he isn’t a Republican)

  81. CatherineTherese says:

    I’d vote for Romney. He’s far from ideal, but he can win, and I’d trust him to be serious enough to hold the office and not be reckless. Newt is too wacky. Bachman is great, but her election would only further emasculate the American male (see below – power vacuum). Santorum is also appealing, but he cannot win. Perry is a curiosity – if he survives, I could be swayed to his camp, maybe.

    Ron Paul is an idealist, and I understand the appeal of his subsidiarity ideas, as well as the gross problems of the Fed.

    But the reality is that the Fed exists. We’re not debating whether or not to institute a Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve already exists. To dismantle it / correct its failures will require more than just bluster from a president about why it is bad.

    But most troubling to me about Paul is the foreign policy naivete. Much as we might all see the futile and reckless nation-building efforts, the horrible position we’ve put our servicemen in by sending them into the lion’s den of impossible missions and bloody casualties… the fact of the matter is that nation-building and “the word’s policeman” are not the same thing.

    Pure and simple: If we recuse ourselves of the role of policing the globe, a power vacuum ensues.

    The fact is, the Islamist hatred for America is real. Whether it came about as a result of our interventionist hubris in the past is a moot point, because right now, it is a grave threat. It doesn’t suddenly subside peacefully if/when we elect a president who says “we’ll back off, and keep to ourselves. Sorry for bothering you.” If we don’t stand firm globally, we create a vacuum. (think Russia and China too – not just Iran). In this vacuum, our freedoms, our safety… it all becomes compromised and these other election platforms about currency, the economy, etc all don’t matter at all!

    At the presidential level, ideas matter big time. But mostly, a realism, a charisma and gravitas of leadership, nomination of judges (where ideas are even more important)… these are more important to me in the immediate. The cultural ideas we all mostly agree on will be affected by the president’s positions, but more importantly they will change (or not) based on a bottom-up movement, not a top-down presidential selection.

    My 10-cents.

  82. michelelyl says:

    At this point, I’d have to go with Gingrich. We just spent the last 3 years with someone who didn’t have the political experience needed for the highest office. Gingrich is an interesting mix with great debating skills and has publicly acknowledged his faults, sins, and asked for forgiveness. Ron Paul scares me. I don’t like Romney at all. The others are irrelevant. I still worry that without a very strong GOP candidate, we are going to be stuck with four more years of chaos.

  83. LoriEhrman says:

    As of now I am voting for Newt. He is getting smarter with age.

  84. BaedaBenedictus says:

    Dr. Ron Paul is my choice as the only candidate who will follow the Constitution as written.

    And he is the Republican candidate with any credibility to confront Obama’s attack on civil liberties, his militarism, and his cozy relationship to corporate interests. Alas most of the other GOP candidates are just as or even more beholden than Obama to propping up the American empire at any cost and bowing to corporate power.

  85. gleirer says:

    I have been watching this poll, It may be telling when you see the news media choices are not in the lead here. Santorum is doing in this poll as I think he will do in Iowa.

  86. elaine says:

    Ron Paul for his foreign policy. War is not conservative.

  87. AnAmericanMother says:

    It became crystal clear yesterday that Ron Paul does not recognize the threat of Islam, at all. He took some digs at the other candidates on Leno, claiming that Bachmann “hates Muslims” – and Santorum hates “gay people and Muslims”. Basically because they acknowledge the threat that jihad poses to the West.


    You combine this with the series of newsletters that he edited for years (with Lew Rockwell) containing all sorts of conspiratorial and racist diatribes (although he now denies knowing what was in them), his association with Alex Jones and Stormfront, his speculation that either Mossad or the U.S. Government was responsible for 9-11 (though he doesn’t really care which), his disdain for Israel, and his libertarian support of drug legalization, prostitution, and homosexual license, it seems to me that we can’t afford to nominate him because he would be destroyed in the general. Aside from the fact that this kind of history is what you would expect from somebody who’s not quite on the bubble. He makes Barry Goldwater (‘in your guts, you know he’s nuts’) look level-headed.

  88. faithandfamily says:

    At this point, I would vote for Santorum, even if he is unelectable, he has the most experience and embraces orthodox Catholic teachings as they apply to society. I don’t totally trust him, after the Toomey/Specter fiasco that cost him his election in PA, but looking at the rest of the field…ugh.
    Ron Paul is an extreme libertarian and not reallly pro-life except as a personal choice, Gingrich is too full of himself and I think he is dangerous, Romney is a RINO, and so on. My second choice would be Rick Perry, who has made plenty of bad decisions in TX, but is electable and a better choice than Obama. Overall, a weak field of candidates.

  89. Pingback: Anonymous

  90. Rachel says:

    Ron Paul. It’s not that he thinks government should have no role in suppressing vice, but that the federal government shouldn’t get involved because that violates the 10th amendment.

    I doubt he can beat Obama; the media will certainly work to make people terrified of him. But we swallow too much that’s bad because we fear even worse. “Public opinion is what everyone thinks everyone else thinks,” but if we vote what we really believe, we might be pleasantly surprised. A good public show of support for such a candidate, even if he loses, would give more confidence to the cause.

    I agree with pretty much all his other views and I think he has considerably more integrity than the average politician. People fear that his isolationist views on foreign policy are dangerous, but it’s our constant interfering that brings all the danger. I have never bought the nonsense about the threat of Islam. We’re far more dangerous to ourselves than any foreign power can be. Terrorists do not attack us just because “they hate our freedoms”, and any president who claims that’s the only reason is lying dangerously.

    These comments have been interesting and enlightening for me to read.

  91. jflare says:

    I think I’ll put a few thoughts out there, THEN read other remarks.

    Perhaps a good summary of the situation for me would be to notice that this election cycle..looks a good deal like 2008 did. I didn’t have an opportunity to watch the debates much, but my general impression from listening to talk radio is that they ran about the same this time as they did last: Four, five, or six people, sitting around a table, all with some pretty decent ideas, but none with an overall “this is how we do it” game plan I can stick with.
    I’ve considered Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and so forth. I have trouble becoming very excited about any of them. I finally decided on Rick Santorum. Santorum hasn’t necessarily done so well in the polls thus far and he may not win the primary, but he’s as close as I can see to a good pick.
    I don’t like Romney too much, I’m not happy with his health care plan for Massachusetts. I don’t like Newt Gingrich all that much, I’m not happy with his way of being..relatively wish-washy about things. Granted, he apparently enabled the Republicans to get a little done back in the 90’s, but he doesn’t appear to have been able to take a complete legislative agenda from beginning to end and execute. He seems to have too many ideas for that.
    Michelle Bachmann..well, I actually saw her when she stopped in Council Bluffs last summer. She said some nice things and she’s done some good as a Representative. Perhaps it’d be best if she’d gain more experience as a legislator, THEN think about the Presidency. Seeing how the process works for a little longer might help her discern how best to approach governance.
    I don’t quite trust Ron Paul. Between his interest in legalizing marijuana and the Lego commercial that he ran last time, he doesn’t strike me as being a President. He’s almost more of a crank that a few people REALLY like, but who’ll bang heads with his own party too much to accomplish anything.
    Herman Cain already dropped out, but I’d already had misgivings about his tax plan. He seemed to me to rely a little TOO much on consumer needs to clear up deficits.

    Beings I only tolerate Obama because he’s the legally elected President, I imagine I’ll wind up voting for the Republican candidate, whether I like the man or no.
    So, I happened to hear Rick Santorum on Mark Levin’s show AND on The World Over. I like his stance on social concerns and I like his having managed to win in a heavily Democrat-favored Pennsylvania. He’s as good a choice as any, has plenty of background with the legislative process, and might do a much better job than Obama.

    True, not exactly a ringing endorsement, but I haven’t seen any genuinely impressive candidates in a quite some time.

  92. Philippus says:

    I voted for Dr. Ron Paul because he is the most Catholic in his beliefs about policies. I used to like Santorum, but I could not in good conscience advocate somebody who says:

    Torture is good, because it produces results
    Preemptive war is good and prudent

    Those two points alone are anti-Catholic views and cannot be reconciled–no matter how we like a particular candidate.

    As for Gingrich, he is not an honest man and has a hidden agenda which can be found out here:


    even without the above link, Mr Gingrich, since his conversion to the faith has:

    -endorsed pro-choice candidates over pro-life and conservative candidates
    -has given us an inside into how he operates, by endorsing “global warming” with Nancy Pelosi
    -Said his choice of presidents is Theodore Roosevelt (progressive who ruled by executive orders – just as Obama is doing.

    I am voting for Ron Paul because:

    I know he will keep the rule of law and due process, which all the other candidates are all too happy to take from us for our supposed safety.
    He sees torture as an evil.
    He is pro-life and actually means it–unlike our compromise happy Republican Speaker and his cohorts in the house.
    He does not believe in preemptive wars and believes that nations should be sovereign.

    By the way, George Bush ran on this same platform in 2000 and won. By 2004, it was a different machine–now the whole world has to be saved by the empire of the United States. I think it is dangerous and we are in for trouble if we go along with it.

  93. Pingback: How Ron Paul Supporters Spam Online Polls « Catholic Bandita

  94. stacy_cook says:

    Santorum. He’s the ONLY candidate that believes that abortion is still wrong in the case of rape or incest.

  95. ALL: NB: There was a sharp spike in the number of votes for Ron Paul in a very short time. FWIW.

  96. ALL: This is NOT a discussion thread. This combox is open so you can indicate for whom you voted and why.

    Again, do not engage each other in the combox.

    Keep it BRIEF.

  97. Jack Hughes says:

    I voted for Huntsmen (even though as an englishman I can’t vote in American elections.

    Reasons why:

    Paul: Decent pricipled guy with something resembling an intellectual plan for America, unfortunately he is too libertarian for my liking, elevates the constitution above the Word of God (seems to think that if something isn’t in the constitution then it shouldn’t be pursued) and from what I’ve read would puruse an isolationist agenda.

    Santorum: Nice guy, pro-life but also sadly pro-torture

    Gingrich : I’m sorry but I couldn’t ever vote for a guy that tries to wiggle out of cheating on and divorcing TWO wives by saying that he “loved america too much” If he cheated on two wives whilst in congress putting him in the white house would be placing temptation before the weak.

    Romney: Not so much his mormanism but the fact that he is for torture and has the charisma of a bank manager.

    Bachmann: This women thinks that nuking Iran is a live option, either she’s saying that to play to the base in which case we can’t trust her at all, or she’s serious in which case she’s nuts and shoudn’t be elected dog catcher.

    Perry: When I view Rick Perry’s ads I get the sense that comparing him to a snake oil salesmen does diservice to snake oil salesmen, that and his gaffes in the debates make me think that the mouth moves, the lights are on but Mr brain has long since vacated the cranium.

  98. I voted for Santorum because I trust him when he is speaking. In addition to being a good Catholic, he seems genuine, and that means a lot.

  99. JohnE says:

    fyi…Did a search for “Ron Paul” and wdtprs in google:

    Catholic poll about… | Facebook
    Catholic poll about Ron Paul please vote! https://wdtprs.com/2011/12/wdtprs-poll-gop-nominee-whom-would-you-choose-round-1/ · WDTPRS POLL: GOP ..

    I don’t have Facebook though; Looks like maybe the post was taken down.

  100. XYZ321 says:

    Newt because: (1) he is a “big thinker” with creative proposals; (2) he is a historian who has demonstrated that we must learn from history; (3) he is a leader who can get deals done with the opposing party; and (4) he will appoint strict constructionists at all levels of the federal court system.

  101. DaveM says:

    I voted for Ron Paul, because he is right about the seriousness of the economic situation that we are placing ourselves into, and about the federal government taking on way too many activities that are not enumerated to it in the Constitution. He also seems to most closely follow the “just war” criteria of the Church, and would not have our country engage in torture. I am not as libertarian as Ron Paul, but the other branches of government would prevent him from going too far in that direction.

    Secondly, I would vote for Huntsman, and thirdly either Perry or Santorum. Santorum presents himself as a faithful Catholic, but he’s a war hawk. Huntsman seems to be a decent man with good ideas, with reasonable foreign policy prescriptions. Perry kind of buried himself early on with debating mistakes, but still would make a good President.

    In the general election vs. Obama, I would vote for any of them, with the possible exception of Bachmann. I would have to hold my nose to vote for Romney and Gingrich, as I feel they are “Democrat lite”

  102. Mary Jane says:

    Ron Paul. Others have already said it better than I could. He’s sharp, honest, pro-life. Doesn’t carry baggage like most of the other candidates do. He’s not perfect – none of the candidates are – but IMHO he’s the most on-track with respect to the most issues.

  103. GregY says:

    I concede that Dr. Paul is a good man. However, his isolationism is out of date, imho. In the 19th century, when the US followed this policy, there were no nuclear weapons. I do believe that the USA has a responsibility of sorts to keep madmen from acquiring nukes. So while I like Ron Paul I am not ready to vote for him. Of the rest, I think Newt is the best bet. Outstanding debater, sharp, and has demonstrated the ability to get things done in DC. The major concern for me re: Newt is electability. If all else fails, I’ll happily take Romney. After all, a middle of the road republican sounds like a breath of fresh air compared with the current administration.

  104. Supertradmum says:

    Can one imagine if 41%, what is expressed here, of the voting public favored Paul what a different country we would have?

  105. Indulgentiam says:

    Paul is unrealistic in the conflict department. His “I’ll just turn my back and wash my hands of the whole thing” concerning the war assumes that the other guys are just going to let him walk away. That is never the case with bullies, turn your back on them and they pounce because fear makes them bold. The only choice America has is to engage in war over there or over here. If you think it can’t happen here you’re forgetting 9/11. I come from a country where the government shrank from conflict with rebel forces. The defenders of law and justice retreated and the rebel forces gained ground as quickly as it was abandoned. Instead of engaging the enemy in the hills where they hid the government official’s cowardice bought the war into the populated cities where thousands died. The blood of women and children soaked the streets and the so called civilized politicians had no choice but to surrender in order to end the carnage. And so went down an entire island of people to the slavery that is communism. To this day there is no freedom there. Freedom is not free and peace must be guarded or lost.

    Romney voted for gay marriage in his home state and Romneycare is Obamacare with a few variations on the theme.
    Gingrich seems to be a Catholic in name only. A repeated vow breaker can not be trusted.
    Bachmann: her inexperience as a legislator is a problem for me.
    Perry’s one liners and playing to the crowd puts me in mind of an old saying, “all show and no substance”
    Huntsman strikes me as all diplomat and no teeth a very dangerous combination in our present situation.

    So I went with Santorum. Illegal immigrants have broken the law and the Church does not encourage the breaking of reasonable laws. U.S immigration laws are most reasonable. In Mexico those found to be in the country illegally are arrested charged with a FELONY and imprisoned for up to 10 years. Here illegal immigrants are slapped on the wrist with a misdemeanor deported and are back 2 weeks later. Many Mexican citizens, I know for a fact, go back to their country for birthdays and holidays. They go back and forth over the border like they own it. I’m an immigrant and we came to the U.S.A legally, assimilated and are law-abiding citizens and we are by no means unique. Encouraging a systematic disregard for any reasonable law is to invite chaos and ultimately widespread lawlessness. As for torture I’ve had family in almost every branch of the military in Desert storm and Iraq. They will be the first to tell you that combat is a whole other world and if you underestimate your enemy you DIE. I do not think it fair for those who sit safely in their living rooms to pass judgment on those who have a gun to their head. I am sorry I took up so much room but well I love this country it’s not perfect but its home and it’s important to defend my home.
    God bless you Father

  106. Kevin33 says:

    I am voting for Ron Paul because he is the only authentically conservative candidate in my opinion. He is pro-life– which does not simply mean anti-abortion. He is against abortion as well as the endless wars that have been perpetuated over the last several decades by our government. Here is what Pope John Paul II had to say regarding our foreign policy, the Iraq War specifically: http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html Also, he predicted the current economic crisis years before it happened– he saw the whole thing coming. And as far as electability goes, Dr. Paul consistently polls better than just about any other Republican (accept Romney at times, depending on the poll) against President Obama. I encourage everyone to take a closer look at Ron Paul, and not to be too quick to judge him based on how he has been portrayed by the mainstream media.

  107. Ron Paul. If he loses the primary, I’m writing him in for the general election.

    Merry Christmas to all in this thread! Venite Adoremus Dominum!

  108. Dec says:

    I am an Irish Student in the United States, and If I could vote I would definitely vote for Ron Paul. I agree with him on all issues but the main reason I am attracted to him is because he is Pro-Life and Pro-Peace. American foreign policy in the middle east is extremely dangerous and is feeding radical Islam. Support of the so called Arab spring will simply replace dictators with Anti-Christian Islamic regimes. Since the War in Afghanistan and Iraq began attacks on Christians in the middle east and in Islamic countries have increased. Even if military strikes are aimed at terrorists civilians will inevitably be killed. This provides massive recruitment for insurgents and terrorists. In Northern Ireland the British Army shot 13 civilians in 1972 and the IRA increased dramatically in numbers almost overnight. Stray American and British bombs and bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan are just leading to more recruits for Islamic terrorist groups. Just think of how many new recruits al-Qaeda must have gained since the wars began. A u-turn in American foreign policy is needed if we want to get rid of of the massive threat of radical Islam. We have to realize that radical Islam cannot be defeated through war and that war only fuels the problem.

    I used to like Rick Santorum until I saw this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAXBevBcwHU

  109. Kathleen10 says:

    Regarding Ron Paul. I must be not paying attention. I don’t get it. What’s with the cult following Ron Paul seems to have. I’m a Santorum/Bachmann/Gingrich/ fan, and I WANT like the dickens to love Mr. Romney (sometimes I do), but Ron Paul, maybe I just don’t know him well enough.
    But I believe I have heard he is not pro-life, is that true? I may be wrong on that, maybe it was some other issue that was controversial, but it seems like that was it. That wouldn’t make sense, because why would he be getting support from conservative circles? It seems to me there’s something wrong here…
    I am truly concerned we are going to blow it by being so split on candidates. Then again, a truly “leading” candidate at this point could never hold up all the way to the end of next year. Media scrutiny is too intense.
    Frankly I can’t imagine why anyone would want to be President. It can’t be the gig it used to be.

  110. Kathleen10 says:

    Thank you everybody. I just got schooled reading the comments.

    For me, Ron Paul is OUT. Out with a big fat capital O. No way, no how. I only needed two or three things about him to confirm my reservations, and I got lots more. To a social conservative, he’s a nightmare.
    I’d love Santorum. My only concern is his ability to debate and beat the…beat Obama.
    I still can’t help but like Romney, but his liberal record…still….he’s reasonable….he’d have smart people around him….and he can stay cool and debate….he’s got some super creds….and some liabilities of the liberal kind.
    Newt….oh Newt….you may be it. You could definitely keep your cool and debate Obama. I have listened to you and actually been very inspired, and that was way before you were running for anything.

    Newt would keep America’s interest first, and foreign policy would definitely improve. I do believe he is a social conservative.
    Let’s all agree that we won’t vote for anyone who can’t truly take the whole thing. There is no point dividing ourselves to oblivion. They say anyone could probably beat Obama at this point, but that may be just a ruse…

Comments are closed.