Here's the way I'd place the candidates if I had to rate them on a scale of conservative/liberals
far right---------------------------------------------------------Moderate--------------------------------------------------------- far Left
ron paul, Perry Santorum Gingrich Romney Obama
Synopsis:
Ron Paul -an old school small government conservative. He wants to return to the pre-WW2 way of doing things. Small government, absolutely no corporate interference/regulation, and sure, lets bring back segregation while we're at it. (No hes not for segregation, he just wants to repeal any law that protects minorities in any way). That being said, he'd probably be the best candidate to balance the budget(if that matters) because he's against all government spending, even the good stuff, and against foriegn wars+aid.
Rick Perry- the "compassionate conservative" perry is george w bush #2. While he would reduce the best parts of our government (commerce, education department and damn I can't remember the other one), he would increase our military spending all over again and probably get us into a war with iran. This guys an idiot, but that's never stopped america from voting for a candidate before, and if we do we'll be well on our way towards growing more idiots since this guy killed education in texas, and will do the same on a national level.
Rick Santorum- Aside from the fact that he hates gays, this guys basically a moderate. He wants to reform government, not end programs altogether. He talks a good game, and he is the only republican who claims to want to help upward mobility for the poor. The problem is, his plan to do that is to decrease taxes on the wealthy, and get rid of corporate regulation(along with all the other republicans). We've already seen the results of that plan, a depression. His social issues stances are what really makes him a conservative. he is staunchly pro-life and anti-gay.
Newt Gingrich- Gingrich is freinds with many of the east-coast movers and shakers and you can expect that his policies will be mainly economic, mainly benefitting the ultra-rich, the most. his social issues stances are almost non-existent, telling me that he just won't bother with them much. he certainly has positions on social issues, but he doesn't legislate them usually, and I wouldn't expect it if he were president.
Mitt Romney- is probably the most moderate of the bunch. While he's flipped his stance on several social issues to appear more conservative, his conservative background is chiefly from his financial plan. Again he wants to lower taxes on the wealthy and get rid of corporate regulation. Wether I would consider him at all, is going to hinge on how he favors education (something he's been all too quiet about). I would expect that his presidency would not be concerned about social issues as much as it would be about helping his rich buds out during his tenure. Which means he'd probably leave abortion/minorty rights, alone.
Obama- As much as the republicans would like us to believe that he's a Socialist, Obama is really a moderate. his policies, even when the dems controlled both houses of congress, were never completely leftist. Like X-codes pointed out, many things enjoyed bi-partisan support. Sure, the republicans have become contrarians and started blocking anything Obama tries, but he always comes WELL into the middle ground before they even start making demands. He's done it on many issues; healthcare, budget reform, TARP, all were watered down versions of what a real liberal would pass. Obama's never raised taxes, not yet, something a liberal would have done by now. His social issues stances are also lukewarm, he stopped DADT, but he's never been for gay marriage. And he's basically been hands-off the abortion issue, as I would suspect most politicians to be-its mostly a third rail at this point.
For me, Obama's the only choice, I don't want to go back to a time with no corporate responsibility, and reducing taxes on the rich is not the way to go right now. Economic studies have shown that cutting taxes boosts the economy only by about half the amount in tax reduction. Whereas spending money on infrastructure has a better return in a weak economic climate. And the highest return on an investment comes from money spent in education- somewhere around a six-fold return to our economy. Dollar for dollar my choice would always be to help education over lowering taxes(something Obama did when he allocated Tarp money to schools). I'm not saying I love Obama, he's definately lost his chops as a liberal, but unfortunately, there's no other choice worth considering out there.
