Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans

A few days ago we posted a story for you to discuss the best presidential candidates for Super Tuesday, but I figured it would be an interesting idea to try that again, but split the discussion into 2 halves. This is the Republican half — please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only.

Ron Paul?

[MikeD83 (529104)]

No discussion over Ron Paul? What is this Fox News?

Re:Ron Paul?

[FuzzyDaddy (584528)]

It's a ploy by the slashdot editors. By omitting Ron Paul, they ensure he's the only one people will talk about.

Re:Ron Paul?

[dlsmith (993896)]

By that standard, Mike Huckabee is irrelevant, too.

Re:Ron Paul?

[EveryNickIsTaken (1054794)]

Polls a few days ago showed Huckabee leading in a few southern states. Granted, it's highly unlikely that he'll carry enough to actually do anything.... but he's splitting the conservative vote with Romney and handing the nomination to McCain in the process. Paul is not affecting this race.

Re:Ron Paul?

[Helmholtz (2715)]

Actually, the post says "...discuss the best presidential candidates...". Granted, you may define "best" as having a chance of winning the nomination, as judged by your personal criteria. Perhaps other people define "best" differently, such as a candidate that actually talks about _why_ the current policies are not working and _why_ his policy recommendations will help to fix the problems caused by the current (and past) policies. I consider that kind of candidate to be "best". Much more so than ones that seem to be more concerned about keeping the mentos tooth sparkle at full gleam, while their sycophants kiss their glove.

Re:Ron Paul?

[dada21 (163177)]

Actually, Kabloom, Paul is definitely NOT out of the running.

As of today, no major newspaper has correctly reviewed the process at which actual delegates to the actual national convention are chosen. Most of the time, they come up with "estimated" delegates based purely on voter percentages. What isn't seen is that many States currently don't offer actual delegates, or delegates remain unpledged/uncommitted, or the number of delegates is unknown because the public voted for delegates to choose delegates to choose delegates.

The power behind Paul as of right now is the hope that he can last out Super Tuesday with enough delegates to force the national convention to pick a candidate. This is truly an interesting perspective, solely because Paul is basing his campaign on two issues: the Iraq War and the Economy disturbed due to too many taxes, regulations, and restrictions. The rest of his policy (civil liberties, etc) aren't huge issues right now.

If Paul can last to the national convention, and a brokered convention is required, Paul is hoping that the Iraq war goes further south, and that the economy continues to plummet. In this case, he has many wildcards available to actively compete for delegates once the first round of the brokered convention is over.

Also remember that Paul is the only candidate other than Kucinich who still has the anti-war view. As more and more Americans start seeing the negatives of a trillion+ dollar war, people may start changing their minds, even this summer.

I'm not here to espouse Paul's views, just to provide WHY Paul is still important to vote for if you're a Paul supporter -- a brokered convention will be huge.

Also, if Paul supporters don't vote for Paul, and he runs third party, it can have an even worse effect on who will win. I love the chaos, so I support pushing the candidate selection to as late as possible. I think the national convention is in September, which could mean only 2 months to campaign against the Democrat. Nice!

Re:Ron Paul?

[Moryath (553296)]

The problem with that strategy is, there's no way that Crazy Uncle Paul wins a brokered convention.

Scarier, however, is McCain winning the nomination. Sad will be the day when the Republicans run a feminine version of Hillary Clinton.

Re:Ron Paul?

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

What's the big deal with Ron Paul? And what kind of libertarian votes?

Ron Paul isn't running as a Libertarian, he's on the the Republican ticket. That's what the big deal is. Malda is as guilty of media bias Fox News, CNN and all the rest. Congrats, Rob. You've managed to sell out and join the mainstream media. Isn't that something you swore you'd never do when you started Slashdot way back when?

Ron Paul

[Speedy8 (594486)]

I'm just going to ignore the "No Ron Paul" discussion. He is the best candidate to vote for.

Pro and Cons

[Salgak1 (20136)]

McCain
Pros: experience in Washington
Bush's Donor list
"Maverick" Reputation broadens appeal to moderates, independents

Negatives: Famous temper
Conservative base loathes him
"Washington Insider"
Senators rarely do well as President
Will hit funding bind (accepted Public Funding)

Romney:
Pros: Executive Management experience
Can rely on personal funds
Not a "Washington Insider"
Governors often do well as President

Negatives:
Reputatation for switching positions
Some will take his religion against him
Slick image

Huckabee:
Pros: Willing to look at new solutions (i.e. "The Fair Tax")

Negatives:
The entire "religious right" issue
Lack of broad appeal outside the evangelical right

Clarification

[lbmouse (473316)]

Is it "The Best Presidential Candidate" or "The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance"?

The Best Presidential Candidate ~ Ron Paul
The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance ~ John McCain *sigh*

The US bizarre fascination for religion in politic

[Etyenne (4915)]

I am not an American (I live north of the border) and I do not know much about the candidates in this race. However, I find it utterly bizarre and disturbing that religion take such a huge place in American politics. I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.

In this light, how is Huckabee received in geek circle ? I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational. Does he received any support from this crowd ?

Arguments

[mwvdlee (775178)]

About 100 posts in, and only opinions and "go this-or-that-guy!".

As a european I don't have a vote in this, but us europeans will have to deal with whomever you USians vote into office. That didn't turn out particularly well the last few times, so it'd be nice to know what we can expect this time.

Give some arguments please!

What policies does X support and why does Y think that's the wrong way to go?

It doesn't matter whether you like somebody's smile, what their F-ing religion is or how rich they are. What matters is what they plan on doing if they become president.

Re:Typical!

[DurendalMac (736637)]

Oh my God, freedom of speech definitely applies to a PRIVATE website setting outlines for discussion! Holy crap, your rights are so abridged!

Fucking moron.

Re:Typical!

[thePowerOfGrayskull (905905)]

so you are pretty much completely pissing into the wind

This great little phrase is best enjoyed when you take the time to actually envision it.

Re:What about Ron Paul?

[tomhudson (43916)]

Speaking of Ron Paul, etc ...:

Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes. Who's saved?
A. The United States.

(Disclaimer: Honestly, I think with the way things are going, nobody can "fix" this mess)

Re:My candidate is not allowed?

[bunratty (545641)]

Switch the the new Opera browser! It's fantastic! It has a new de-Ronulizer feature that removes all those annoying Ron Paul posts! Why haven't you switched to Opera yet? Get it now!!!1!!! It's da best! It's liek the Ron Paul of the browser world!1!!!!1!

Re:My candidate is not allowed?

[EllisDees (268037)]

>However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.

He broke double digits this past weekend in the Maine caucus, getting 19% of the vote [yahoo.com]. He trounced Huckabee, who only got 6%, yet Paul is supposed to be excluded from this discussion for some bizarre reason.

He's on the ballot here in Ohio, and I'm going to vote for him since I agree with him far more than I agree with any of the other candidates.

Re:Ron Paul?

[nido (102070)]

he's not even going to get close to being chosen

Last I checked, Maine [cnn.com] came out with 56% for Romney, 21% for McCain, and 19% for Paul.

McCain should hang his head in shame and drop out right now. 2% better than the dark horse candidate? That's pathetic.

The establishment hates Ron Paul because his platform is to take their toys away. The economic collapse we are now experiencing makes the likelyhood of Paul running away with the Republican nomination increasingly likely as spring turns to summer.

 

Re:To all those complaining about Ron Paul

[jcr (53032)]

You cannot deny that the guy has a couple of screws loose.

Not for me to deny it, it's your assertion so it's up to you to prove it. Give it your best shot.

what Ron Paul is suggesting is completely restructuring the entire nation, top to bottom.

Resuming the rule of law, and actually following the constitution is "restructuring the entire nation"? I'll admit we've got a lot of things to fix, but I don't see that our situation is quite as hopeless as you seem to.

-jcr

Re:To all those complaining about Ron Paul

[jcr (53032)]

I can't help but feel he has some motive that he is hiding, something he is waiting to spring up on us.

The man has a very long track record, and I checked out his voting record. If he has some hidden agenda, could it be worse than undeclared wars, debasement of the currency, violating the rights of habeas corpus and the right to keep and bear arms, imprisoning thousands of POWs of the War on (some) Drugs, or arresting cancer patients?

Things are so bad that even when a politician says what I want to hear (and in a sincere way), I still can't trust him.

I know how you feel. Reagan let me down on draft registration, and several other very important issues. Nevertheless, RP's record is exemplary.

-jcr

Re:Those candidates are lame

[Helmholtz (2715)]

Yeah, because "No Child Left Behind" is working _so_ well. Okay, I guess it is working well, in turning children into fact spewing test takers with little to no capacity to manipulate or assimilate information outside the confines of a multiple choice test.

Re:For Reps: McCain

[jdunn14 (455930)]

There's something else to tout McCain for, his stance on torture. It's nice to hear someone just flat out say torture is bad and we shouldn't be doing it. Don't hem and haw about how what is torture and what isn't. <nancy>Just say no</nancy>. It doesn't get you reliable information and it's kind of hard to hold moral high ground with some guy blindfolded and strapped to a table in the next room.

Re:For Reps: McCain

[jcr (53032)]

There's something else to tout McCain for, his stance on torture.

Man, talk about a low bar to clear...

-jcr

Re:Incoming Flamewar in 5...

[nfinzer (1227014)]

To deny that there IS a very obvious media bias against Ron Paul would be ridiculous. Two quick examples: during both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, CNN had up a pie chart for both the Democrats and the Republicans showing each candidate's percentage of the vote. Ron Paul had around 10% both times, yet his "slice" of the pie was solid black with no name attached to it, while Democrats like Biden who had single digit percentages had their names shown. Second example is Ron Paul's second place finishes in Nevada and Louisiana and the complete non-reporting of it. The articles I saw were along the lines of "Mitt finishes first, McCain third." with never a mention of second. And on the subject if it being crazy not to allow Ron Paul discussion in this, "me too!". He has just as much chance of winning the nomination as Huckabee (next to none, and yes I'm a RP supporter). I don't think Huckabee should be excluded either, they should both be allowed, if for no other reason that mathematically they all have a chance still, at least until after Super Tuesday. But also leaving him out will probably generate more discussion of him than including him. You know how we 'Paulbots' are,