Barack, Paul, and Romney

These are my favorite candidates for the presidency. THe funny thing is, they're all idealogically very different.

Barack is a Dem, one might say a radical Dem, except we really don't know what sort of Dem he is because he seems to be going in a direction that nobody else has really gone. (this is the main reason why I like him).

I like him for these reasons: 1) his LACK of time spent among the more jaded politicians in Washington, his integrity regarding lobbyists, his matter-of-fact way of stating his stances, and his willingness to be open with the American people. When he talked about how becoming more energy-independent will require some sacrifices on the part of the American people, I respected him. When he mentioned that he would consider meeting with various antagonistic leaders in the middle east, I respected him. When he mentioned that, if given no other choice he would authorize Americans going into pakistan after high-profile terrorists that have threatened the US, I respected him. Want to know why? All the other Dems would do the same thing, they just don't want to say so right now. Barack isn't going to fudge on these issues, he's going to be blunt and honest. Good sign, I say.

Mitt is a true, died-in-the-wool republican. He's pretty much the party-line toer out of all the republican candidates.

The reasons why I like him: He is a creative, flexible politician with the genius and experience that could help in the solving of several of our major problems right now: the economy, the war, and health care. And I love his health care plan-- keeping it free-market, but requiring everyone to have it. This will require insurance companies to cover those who they normally would not cover, and therefore, the rights and special needs of vulnerable groups will become a higher priority with them. The war has been mismanaged, and I agree with Mitt that we must stay in Iraq until things are more stable (if such a thing is possible.) We should never have gone it, but we can't just pull out without doing significant damage to our own national security as well as the security and safety of the region. Mitt's always been a brainstormer, willing to consider alternatives that others haven't thought of. In our foreign policy more than anywhere else we need some new, innovative ideas. I believe that, out of all the candidates, Mitt could come up with these.

Ron Paul is, for all intents and purposes, a Libertarian. But he's running as a republican this year. His platform is based around Limiting the federal government's power over the individual, something that badly needs doing right now. He's against the war in Iraq for all the right reasons. He advocated going into Afghanistan for all the right reasons. He wants to leave iraq and the middle east, pull all our troops out, and enter into a dialogue and trading relationship rather than a domineering, military-enforced one. I agree wholeheartedly... as soon as we can safely get out of Iraq. This is where Paul and I diverge... I think we need to stay for a while, he wants out ASAP.

All good men. All men who are campaigning based upon their own, real beliefs, and all unafraid to stand up and say what they think. (Or at least, that's my opinion.)