Perry, unquestionably.
People are blinding themselves to the sad realities of what a Paul administration would be like. Ron Paul is a hard liner, too extreme even for his own party; especially too much so for the Democrats. If he were given a term in the White House we would have dead lock and inaction worse than what we have today. His entire agenda would be DOA and nothing would get fixed. For reasons of mere practicality, Ron Paul could possibly be the worst candidate we could put in the White House...even more so than Obama.
Yes, because more legislation expanding the size of government even further is what we need.
On the contrary, I would argue that we need bills to deregulating and shrink the size of government. I'm only implying that Paul's hard line ideas for doing this, while intriguing, are completely incompatible with the way that Washington works. A vote for Paul is a vote for the status quo, because he will be completely frozen in place and unable to pass a single piece of major legislation. If the Ryan plan can't hack it, then what ever Paul concocts will be laughed out of the halls of the Capitol Building.
Washington doesn't work. That's your first problem.
If Paul gets elected, it a huge sign to both Republicans and Democrats alike. If Reagan could bring in Dems by going directly to the people, so can Paul. Paul is also going to bring home all those troops as the commander-in-chief. That's saves a buttload of money that Perry would refuse to do.
No more back room deals!
Poll
