[deethythitoth]

Rudy Giuliani (R) 1 50.00%
John McCain (R) 1 50.00%

[kimaddison]

How are you for Ron Paul? Have you no idea his views on social issues?

[GSgCGxsF]

On the poll, I NEVER thought I'd say this a year ago, but Hillary Clinton is my favored candidate of the favorites so far (BLEAGH!!).

It's a shame, but McCain has shown off that he can flip-flop better than anyone in his quest to gain the religious right, Giuliani is an authoritarian nut, Edwards is an idiot (lightweight, stuffed shirt, whatever), Obama has no platform and is running solely on charisma (like Edwards basically did 4 years ago), and Romney is busy flip-flopping as well - from a moderate New England Republican governor to far right Republican candidate.

Really, if McCain and Romney decided not to flip-flop to cater to the religious base, they'd be far ahead of things IMO.

I guess there are always third parties, or hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

[ligeplodore]

There's always Fred Thompson, Imran.

[BenWired306]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We were both opposed to the war on Iraq, 'foreign entanglements.'

I'm not sure what you mean by social positions. From what I know all the folks up there are solid. Ron Paul favours putting the issue to individual states and letting them decide, which is something that I disagree with, given the historical precedent with the Dred Scott decision. As you said, Paul is for letting the states decide. Not just on abortion, but also gay marriage. He is against the Amendment to limit marriage to heterosexual couples as well.

I'm not sure on your views on the drug war, but Paul is definitely against. He is against the federal government making any drug illegal and sponsored a medical marijuana bill allowing states to decide whether to allow it.

He's also voted against laws to help catch online predators, saying that the government shouldn't be involved.

[AAAESLLESO]

Bill Richardson is interesting, but he's basically just keeping his name in the mix in case he eventually succeeds somewhere down the line. The problem with being a governor of a state most people don't actually identify as a state

[EmxATW5m]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'd be for restrictions. I believe tariffs and importations are something within the realm of the state, and that the state has a legitimate interest in securing their borders, and restricting the transport and trafficking of drugs. You realize he's a free trader, right?

He isn't for any restrictions by the federal government. States want to ban them, they can, but if a state wants them, then they should be allowed to.

From what I understand his defense is in the 10th amendment, which states that powers not enumerated belong to the states, and not the feds. It's a good argument, but I don't think it washes in the case of marriage. That particular issue came up with utah, and the necessity of a federal standard has been shown. Yes, but you failed to note that he DISAGREES with that 'necessity of a federal standard'. Which is part of the reason why it is surprising you'd back him. He'd veto any attempt at a federal definition of marriage.

[casinobonyanes]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Imran, are you unfamiliar with backing a candidate in comparison to the field, and in a certain situation? None (or almost none) of the politicians share my views, I try to vote for ones that
1. won't screw things up too badly
2. will influence the nation towards the things I am pro
3. will have their influence ballanced out by others for the things I am anti

JM Errr... you'll note that "Frank Thompson, Sam Brownback, Tommy Tancredo" share Ben's views far more than Paul does on the issues and are far more likely to win the nomination than Paul (who after did run as the Libertarian Party candidate in the 80s).

It's like chegitz saying he backs all these far left leaning Dems (imagine there are some ) and then throwing Joe Libermann into the mix.

[infelconi]

I could see myself voting for any of the top candidates, but I'm not excited by any of them. Most of the candidates I wanted to see run dropped out (eg, Bayh, Warner). Of all the candidates running, I suppose I lean a little more towards Richardson than any of the others, at this point, anyway.

[OGOGOogoloshennya]

Barrack and Romney

If it's them on the ballot in 08, I think America has a decent future ahead of it.

[77Dinaartickire]

why not ron paul imran?

[EHjEjdqe]

Another vote for Richardson here.

If the Dems nominate either Hilary or Obama, I could contentedly vote Dem in the general election. If they nominate Edwards, I'm going to have to hold my nose while voting -- just like every election (but one) since I've been able to vote...

[Kghyutgykim]

I think I would vote for anyone over Guiliani, well, of the "front runners".

JM

[DP5Ups8o]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think I would vote for anyone over Guiliani, well, of the "front runners".

JM Yeah, ol' Rudy seems a little scary to me too. He seems to be even more hard-line than Bush.

IMHO, say hello to more war and less civil liberties.

[suidinguilelf]

I hope Jello Biafra makes it into the Green Party Primaries again. It would be great to see someone like him run foreign policy.

Seriously though, Barack. I don't trust him to do much of what he says other than a few symbolic gestures, but I really agree with a lot of what I have heard him say, and I guess that counts for something. I like to think that it's a good idea to get someone new in there even if that means its someone with little experience, but I really don't understand the ins and outs of Washington enough to make a strong statement either way.

I guess my real hope is that if Barack is voted in he will get a racial modifier of +50 to all skills because no matter what he does he is going to be a very big representative for Blacks in America and the pressure will be on to perform. It could backfire though and he could just end up doing the Marion Barry thing. Though as bad as that sounds we would at least have some great fodder to rekindle late night television.

[fedordzen]

Mobius, no-one is talking about the UK's next Prime Minister (that 'contest' will be decided within six weeks and with no public consultation, and effectively uncontested), so why bring it up?

[Mypepraipse]

Originally posted by MRT144
why not ron paul imran? It's a similar problem as I have with the Libertarian Party candidates for President. Just too damned extreme on the issues. I don't want to give basically everything back to the states.

[q=Plato]I'm interested to know why you think this. Everything I am hearing in Nashville says that the major conservative money will back Fred if he runs. As this is kind of the center of things in the Thompson movement, I am interested to know how other parts of the country feel about his possible Presidential run.[/q]

He should have declared by now if he wants to line up the money. The way the primaries are now creeping up (every state it seems wants to be in the first month), it favors someone with lots of cash early. Hard for someone to build up momentum with the sitution now.

Hell, people were critisizing McCain for declaring as late as he did and how that hurt his fund raising potential.

It's hard to make up a lead that will develop shortly by Giuls, who I think is the man to beat on the Repub side.

[haittiweerved]

That's why, at this time in history, if I had a vote in the matter, I would not, for an instant, consider voting for a Republican, unless that candidate publically made a clear break with the religious right, and voiced opposition of the changes undermining the checks and balances of democracy that have taken place under the Bush administration. But then again, such a candidate wouldn't be Republican for long, now would he/she?

Back in 2000, McCain tried it and Republicans are STILL pissed off at him for it.

[meridiasas]

Republican Ron Paul is the man!

He is the lonely big #1. Usually people have to pick the least horrible candidate, but Ron Paul is a good candidate

[Agehoobionibe]

1. Hillary
2. McCain

after that Im not keen on the top 6. After Hillary I prefer Joe Biden among the Dems, then Richardson, I suppose. Im not keen on either Edwards or Obama - While Edwards is not terribly more experienced than Obama, I think at least he stands for something (even if he decided by calculation what to stand for) and he wants the Dems to have an identification with tangible pocketbook issues, and not just be the party of upper middle class process concerns (Harold Myerson recently did a good piece on this) OTOH Im a free trader.

Among the GOP, I guess Giuliani.