Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans Government Politics

Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans 1481

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the since-you-can't-build-robo-reagan dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans

Comments Filter:
  • Pro and Cons (Score:5, Informative)

    by Salgak1 (20136) <<ten.ysaekaeps> <ta> <kaglas>> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:37AM (#22290522) Homepage
    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
  • by Kr1ll1n (579971) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:41AM (#22290584)
    Hmmm... 2nd in Nevada and Louisianna.... Nah that's not strong support.... not to mention Roe of Roe V Wade endorsement, now that she is a pro-life advocate, American Conservative magazine endorsement, Barry Goldwater endorsement, Mark Larsen (Talk Radio - Florida) endorsement, and after Mark had a conversation with Romney which resulted in him calling Romney an elitist F*..... And second, you are annoyed by the supporters who agree with him, but choose to discredit him because of this? Damn how easy it is to not have any conviction and sell out... My God, If enough of us loved your mom you would probably want her crucified....
  • Huckabee? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:41AM (#22290600)
    Huckabee is a creation of the media. Look at his donation totals plus after IOWA they stopped plastering his face everywhere and the Sheeple stopped voting for him.
  • by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:46AM (#22290670) Journal
    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:For Reps: McCain (Score:4, Informative)

    by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:50AM (#22290762) Journal
    I love his attitude of fiscal conservativeness

    If you like what McCain says, then you'll love Ron Paul's voting record.

    -jcr
  • by EllisDees (268037) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:53AM (#22290814)
    >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.

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:13AM (#22291164) Homepage

    But he's pro-life. Big show stopper.


    I feel about this subject and Ron Paul the same way I feel about my room mate. He was adopted as a kid because his parents couldn't afford to raise him, so instead of an abortion they put him up. As a result, he is vehemently against abortion. However, he still thinks that it should be up to an individual state whether they want to honor Roe v. Wade...just like Ron Paul. He thinks it's an abomination that should be stopped, but thinking about what would be "best" for the country as opposed to what they personally would prefer to see happen. This is one of the things about Ron Paul that I really like.acknowledges that it should be the states decision, not the federal governments. Regardless, he still thinks it isn't the morally correct thing to do, but doesn't think it should be made outright illegal.

    I like that. They both have a very strong opinion about a touchy subject, but are

    For what it's worth, I am pro-choice but against late-term abortions (unless the mother's life is threatened)...by that time, you should have been able to figure out if you wanted the kid or not.
  • Re:He's still in (Score:1, Informative)

    by strtok_r (1223902) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:32AM (#22291544)
    I agree! Aspies for Ron Paul [aspiesforronpaul.com] really sums up why Ron Paul best represents the geek voter. We ALL need to get out there on Tuesday and show our support!
  • Re:Arguments (Score:2, Informative)

    by VirtusEtVeritas (1081599) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:38AM (#22291674)
    Romney - Many past leadership accomplishments: 1. 2002 Winter Olympics - $379M deficit turned to $100M surplus - Scandal turned to tremendous success 2. Saved a coworkers daughter - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/245/ [politifact.com] 3. Turned several businesses around 4. Deficit to surplus in Massachusetts as governor Also: A. Even though devout, doesn't push his religion on anyone. B. Not a unilateralist--seeks to understand in detail before acting -- Which may explain why he's so successful in business. C. Was vacationing in San Diego area (where I'm from) and took his own time (with no press or campaign people around) to help someone remove a large stump from their yard--I believe after the awful fires we had last fall. He wants to serve people.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:1, Informative)

    by strtok_r (1223902) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:42AM (#22291754)
    I agree! Aspies for Ron Paul [aspiesforronpaul.com] really sums up why Ron Paul best represents the geek voter. We ALL need to get out there on Tuesday and show our support!
  • $14,000,000,000,000 (Score:3, Informative)

    by way2slo (151122) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:46AM (#22291820) Journal
    Scudsucker wrote:

    Yes, Ron Paul is nuts. For example, how exactly is he going to move a $7 trillion economy back to the gold standard when there's less than $3 trillion in gold on the planet?
    Correction. The current US Economy is closer to $14 trillion. (NY Times estimate for 2007)
    Correction. The estimation of all the gold ever mined in the world would be worth closer to $4 trillion on today's market value. ((2001 estimate of "all the gold ever mined" + modest production for 6 years) x current market value)
  • by JavaLord (680960) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:53AM (#22291966) Journal
    ENOUGH with the Ronulans...

    Enough with the uniformed people calling Ron Paul's supporters names.

    Ron Paul has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money. And they are vocal all over the internet. However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.

    Ron Paul has broken double digits in many states, and finished 2nd more than once. You don't know what you're talking about.

    He has as much chance of getting the nomination as I have. And I'm not running.

    Nonsense, not even 10% of the vote has been counted yet. I bet you thought Rudy had a chance, yet Paul got more votes than him.

    I do think he has some good ideas, and some that are crazy. But I am really sick of the Ronulans spamming internet forums and polls. A lot of us are annoyed by you, and this actually harms your candidate.

    That is ok, we're annoyed by you too. Maybe you can go read about Ron Paul, or the primary process, and get somewhat informed before you go off whining about people who believe in something.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Firehed (942385) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:54AM (#22291980) Homepage
    He just took about 20% of the Republican vote in Maine (a very close third), and took second place in NV. I don't think that qualifies as 'not affecting this race'. He outperformed Giuliani nearly everywhere before Mr. 9/11 dropped out, and nobody suggested that he wasn't affecting things.
  • by evought (709897) <evoughtNO@SPAMpobox.com> on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:23PM (#22292636) Homepage Journal
    The complaint is as much about the concept of exclusion as anything. One of the points of a primary is to build consensus on a platform and debate issues, not just to choose a candidate. His movement has certainly raised issues and brought people to the party which used to be part of the core platform ("Free men, Free soil," anybody?) that haven't been discussed in years.

    These issues obviously have active support, he has out lasted three other candidates, including two "first tier," and his block of delegates (completely different from the number of votes and based on separate caucuses where he is actually doing quite well) will affect the national convention which almost certainly will be brokered, and Huckabee has actually changed some of his rhetoric based on Dr. Paul's platform. The idea of excluding anybody in the race from the *debate* is idiotic, win or lose.

    Even Giuliani supporters affected the issues and had a voice that needed to be heard. That's how a Republic (you know, "Republican") is meant to work, and that is why I support Dr. Paul's campaign as much as anything else.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Valdrax (32670) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:28PM (#22292714)
    Huckabee has won a state and is polling above 10% in at least some of the Super Tuesday states.
    Paul can't say the same. Paul is only relevant for the fanaticism of his supporters in spite of/because of his somewhat radical views.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ucklak (755284) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:37PM (#22292890)
    Huckabee won 1 Primary/Caucus - Iowa.
    Ron Paul has technically won 1 Primary - Louisiana.

    Basically, Ron Paul is the only Republican running.
    The other guys are running under the Republican ticket but do not have core Republican values.

    If McCain gets the nomination, the republican party deserves to be fragmented or even dissolved. This is a guy who wanted to be a Democratic VP 4 years ago.

    Anyway, what's not being reported that is relevant is:

    A) - Huckabee's rise with basically no money
    B) - Romney won Nevada with 52% of the vote - reported nowhere.
    C) - McCain, frontrunner to be, won South Carolina with what 36% of the vote which means that 64% voted against him.

    If anybody would get the nomination, it would be Romney
    If anybody should get the nomination, it should be Ron Paul - as he is the only candidate that will talk or bring about issues.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:02PM (#22293310)
    Known for drawing a hard line based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, fiscal responsibility and libertarian ideology, Ron Paul is considered somewhat of a maverick - once described by current opponent John McCain as "the most honest man in Congress."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-treul/an-interview-with-ron-pau_b_71108.html [huffingtonpost.com]

    Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:

    He has never voted to raise taxes.
    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

    He voted against the Patriot Act.
    He voted against regulating the Internet.
    He voted against the Iraq war.

    He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
    He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

    Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/ [ronpaul2008.com]

    Alot of candidates in this race like others in each presidential race have promised change and many time and time again abandon promises and by doing so betray the American populace.

    Regardless of issues you may have with Ron Paul he is by far the most honest of all the candidates and surely intends to do what he is talking about.

    Remember to vote this coming November!
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Informative)

    by ricree (969643) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:29PM (#22293608)
    Despite being completely blown off by the mainstream media, Ron Paul has managed to win delegates. Giuliani, who received a lot of press coverage, didn't get any before dropping out. How many has Keyes come up with?
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:4, Informative)

    by martyros (588782) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:30PM (#22293620)

    The way our voting system is set up, it guarantees that the stable state is exactly two dominant parties. If at any point a small party begins to draw significant support from a larger party, the vote is split, both parties lose, and the opposition wins. At that point, everyone either goes back to the old large party, or rushes to the growing, previously small party, and we have two stable parties again.

    At least we have two parties, which is better than one-party "systems"...

  • by kiddailey (165202) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:44PM (#22293830) Homepage
    I'm amazed that people still believe get the circular reasoning behind the media's excuse to not cover Ron. As you said, without coverage, he will never climb in the polls and the media has, since very early last year, made AN ACTIVE EFFORT TO KEEP RON PAUL OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.

    A growing list of media blackout events has been, and continues to be documented at RonPaulTimeline.com [ronpaultimeline.com]. The greatest grassroots movement for a presidential candidate in history, being ignored by the media, is also being documented there. Some examples:
    • Ron's name has almost never been mentioned and his photo almost never shown when listing the candidates since day 1
    • Newspapers have "accidentally" forgot to run full-page, grassroots ads for Ron
    • The media consistently has called him "fringe," "dark horse," and "having no chance" since day 1
    • Repeated attempts to exclude Ron from the debates have happened
    • A network re-aired a GOP debate with Ron Paul segments removed
    • A network have run Associated Press articles with Ron Paul references removed

    The reason that we get less-than-adequate choices for candidates year after year is because WE LET the media make the choices for us! If you don't believe this or don't understand why, then you're not really paying attention. With this article, Slashdot has proven that it is no better than any of the major news outlets, and the comments prove that Slashdot readers are as much sheeple as the rest of America.
  • by Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:44PM (#22293848)

    My biggest problem with Huckabee is the tax reform system he favors, called "Fair Tax," which issues a flat tax for all consumers with a rebate to the poor. While that may sound good, the reality is it shifts the tax burden from the rich to the middle class.
    The middle class already bear the brunt of the tax burden. The rich can afford to exploit the loopholes in the tax code to keep most of their money. Most of the middle class can't afford that kind of financial advice. Also, payroll taxes are capped at about $95,000 dollars. Fuel taxes? The middle class gets hit hardest by those. Same with liquor and tobacco taxes. Same with municipal property taxes. And let's not forget inflation, with deprives the middle class of purchasing power by destroying the value of what little money they manage to save after paying taxes and paying all the assorted costs of keeping up with the Joneses.
  • by jmichaelg (148257) on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:12PM (#22294286) Journal
    McCain was one of the Keating 5 which, unless Clinton is the democratic nominee, is sufficient reason for me to vote against him.

    Charles Keating bribed 5 Senators (aka The Keating 5) to carry legislation for him that relaxed rules on the Savings and Loan industry. The ensuing S&L meltdown in 91 was partially due to that legislation. The Senators kept their jobs while Keating went to jail. In my book, all of them should have gone to jail.

    To make amends, McCain teamed up with Feingold to "keep money out of politics." Together, they crafted the McCain-Feingold act which didn't do a thing to keep folks like Norman Hsu and Tony Rezko from bundling huge amounts of money for favored politicians. What McCain-Feingold did do was muzzle advertising critical of incumbents which comes as little surprise as it was written by two long-time incumbents.

    McCain might be able to beat Clinton but Obama would thrash him.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Informative)

    by enjerth (892959) on Monday February 04, 2008 @03:26PM (#22295670)

    Regardless of the party he's running for -- he's not a mainstream candidate, which can easily be seen from his views.
    If we ever got to see him given a fair shot, we could actually test that theory as to why he's not main-stream. For now, he's not main-stream because the main-stream doesn't mention him. And the better he does, the less he seems to be mentioned. For instance, second place in Nevada was reported as McCain, who actually came in third. Ron Paul was not mentioned, and he took second place.

    Not to mention the lack of news when it comes to Ron Paul's fundraising. The day he raked in $6 million was a very quiet day in the media. The day he raked in $4.2 million was almost as quiet. Pretty big numbers for a nobody.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:4, Informative)

    by superwiz (655733) on Monday February 04, 2008 @03:38PM (#22295862) Journal

    I'll bite... I have two Ron Paul topics... 1. Why is he running as a Republican? 2. Why is he STILL running?

    He is running as a Republican because he is a Republican. He was elected as a Republican to Congress TEN TIMES. The constant reminder that the media insists on that he is a "libertarian" forgets to mention that he was a libertarian for just one year of his life when he ran on their presidential ticket. Well, why don't they mention that Ronald Reagan was a Democratic-leaning Republican. After all, Reagan was a Democrat for a large part of his life, same goes for NYC mayor Bloomberg. Seriously, how is one year failed election indicative of the man's party affiliation if he served in another party half of his life?

    Why is he still running? Because his campaign is growing tramendeously. The polls don't say so, but the polls said Giuliani was the front runner and McCain was finished the day before NH primary (McCain won that). Ron Paul got 19% in Maine. That's double the 8% he got in NH and 10% he got in Iowa. If his numbers doubled in 3 weeks, why in the world would he not be running?
  • by shark swooner (1077115) on Monday February 04, 2008 @04:02PM (#22296344)
    OK, I'll bite.

    Ron Paul's most basic views on economics are flatly incorrect in ways that are trivially easy to verify.

    Examples:

    Ron Paul has claimed that going back to the gold standard will fix a large variety of economic woes. Two things he has said the gold standard will resolve I can think of now are inflation and he's said that it will "smooth" the boom-and-bust cycle of the economy. Yet obviously this country has already spent a lot of time under a gold standard, and it's very easy to verify that during this time inflation was about the same as it is now or slightly worse, and the boom-and-bust cycle was considerably worse. It's really easy to google for graphs of these things, it's not some obscure data.

    He also thinks that when the government runs a budget deficit, the federal reserve creates the extra money, creating inflation and thus constituting a silent "tax" on everyone's savings. This idea is simply counterfactual. When the government spends more than it takes in, the treasury department sells bonds. A bond is basically an agreement that says in exchange for X dollars today I'll give you slightly more than X dollars at some set point in the future. If the government literally printed up money every time it ran a deficit, it wouldn't owe anything when it was all said in done. Think about it: under this scenario, there would be no national debt. Isn't there, in fact, like a 9 trillion dollar national debt? The national debt is actually the sum of all of the outstanding treasury bonds. It's really easy to verify this story and it's not some subtle point.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Informative)

    by fugue (4373) on Monday February 04, 2008 @04:16PM (#22296598) Homepage
    Don't be too caught up on which ticket he is running on. Read his website. See what he has to say. He is a libertarian, which is what Republicans used to be before they allied with the religious fundamentalist nutcases. He believes in small government. He believes in eliminating every part of the federal government that is not directly and blatantly supported by the constitution. The division between Republicans and Libertarians used to be very slim indeed, and many Republicans still consider themselves that not because they believe that the government should be reformed according to the Laws of Jesus Christ but because they're obsessed with the idea of small, non-interfering government, and haven't adjusted yet to the fact that that is the least of the issues in Neorepublican thought.

    Now, if you believe that people will actually do the Right Thing without a government telling them what to do, then Ron Paul is your man. Of course, then History is not your subject, but (for different reasons) that's pretty much true of Neorepublican religious wackos as well.

    Hell, the Constitution is supposed to be THE CONTRACT between the states and the federal government. So he is right on target legally, as far as I can tell. My quibble is that the Constitution is obsolete (for environmental reasons). But Paul is probably the very best candidate by a long shot for bringing the government back in check and forcing it to limit itself to what The Contract allows it to do.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:4, Informative)

    by techno-vampire (666512) on Monday February 04, 2008 @04:47PM (#22297200) Homepage
    66% of provisional ballots went uncounted


    Presumably because they turned out to be invalid. People use a provisional ballot when the precinct isn't able to determine if they're registered to vote, or should be voting at that precinct. These ballots are opened and counted if, and only if it's decided that the person did have the right to vote there. As a former precinct worker, I'm not at all surprised that so many provisionals weren't counted; in fact, I'm almost surprised that so many were.

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Working...