Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Republicans Government Politics

Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans 1481

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Ron Paul? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MikeD83 ( 529104 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:29AM (#22290324)
    No discussion over Ron Paul? What is this Fox News?
    • by Brian Gordon ( 987471 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:30AM (#22290360)
      What's the big deal with Ron Paul? And what kind of libertarian votes?
      • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:53AM (#22290808) Homepage Journal

        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?

      • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Xyrus ( 755017 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @03:37PM (#22295848) Journal
        Define hypocrisy: Slashdot.

        How many times have we seen people bitch about the state of civil liberties in this country? How many time have we seen people complain about corporate interests and lobbiests? How many times have people bitched about Bush, Cheney, war propoganda, and ridiculous spending of our government? How many times have people bitched about the Consititution being eviscerated?

        Finally, we get a candidate who has a 20 year voting record on fiscal responsibility and supporting thee cconstitution and what is the response from slashdot? Ron Paul is kook.

        Huh? Why? He supports the Constitution. He supports balanced budgets. He wants to get rid of government waste. He wants to get rid of lobbiests. He wants to repeal the PATRIOT and the Protect America acts. He wants to reinstate Habeaus Corpus. He wants to do just about every freakin' think that the Slashdot crowd has been bitching about for the past 7 years and somehow he is a kook?

        He doesn't believe in regulating the internet and is endorsed by the NTU as the person who would actually reduce taxes, cut spending, and balance the budget. Ron Paul even has a sign on his desk that says "Don't steal. The government hates competition.".

        He's pro-life. So what? He believes that the federal government has no say in it. He's not convinced of evolution. So what? He doesn't believe the government should be mandating what should be taught. He's not convinced of global warming? So what? He doesn't believe it's the federal governments responsibility to do what state regulations should cover (see EPA vs. California).

        He also actually understands the world community. Anyone who thinks that terrorists attack us for our freedoms have drank the kool-aid. The US has been screwing the Middle East over for the better part of a century. We've overthrown democratic governments. We've supported ruthless dictators. I mean for heaven's sake we are the ones who supported and trained Osama bin Laden.

        Do you think a non-interventionist foreign policy is crazy? Do you think that saber rattling and bombing threats are a more effective means of negotiation than diplomacy? Do you really think the US can AFFORD its current aggressive foreign policy?

        How many of you know that according to the GAO, that this country will be bankrupt in (best case scenario) a couple of decades?

        There is actually an honest politician with a completely consistent record of supporting the Constitution and sound principles that actually echo what slashdotters as a whole have been complaining about and all you can say is he is crazy. Has everyone swallowed the blue-pill?

        I would like to see a well reasoned argument as to why he is a kook. If you disagree on some of his platform, then fine. But that does not make him a kook.

        Other than Ron Paul, name one candidate who has voted or would vote against the war in Iraq. Name one candidate who is willing to bring the troops home. Name one candidate who understands the monetary policy behind a fiat currency and WHY the Fed is destroying our currency. Name another candidate who has actually followed through to uphold the oath of office. Name another candidate that does NOT have lobbiests in his campaign. Name another candidate that has consistently voted against pork. Name another candidate that has consistently voted against giving congressional raises. Name another candidate that actually returns unused funds back to the budget at the end of the year. Name another candidate that REFUESES to use any FEC funds because he believes that taxpayer dollars should not be used for campaigning.

        Ron Paul has been the candidate you've been asking for. And yet he is a kook. Only on slashdot.

    • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FuzzyDaddy ( 584528 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:46AM (#22290682) Journal
      It's a ploy by the slashdot editors. By omitting Ron Paul, they ensure he's the only one people will talk about.
    • Least bad choice? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cryptoguy ( 876410 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:59AM (#22290906)
      It looks highly unlikely that anyone other than McCain or (less likely) Romney can win the nomination. If Huckabee were to withdraw, Romney would have a better chance. But it will probably be McCain.

      Conservative Republicans have a dilemma. The candidates most aligned with the conservative base are unlikely to win a national election against either of the Democratic contenders. Would they prefer McCain to beat Clinton/Obama in a national election, or Romney to lose to the Democrats? So do conservatives want to make a point on principle and vote for someone who has no shot at winning? Or do they want to choose what would be the lesser of two evils in the long run? Despite McCain's highly questionable conservative credentials, he is a far better option for conservatives than either of the Democrats.

      Despite his obvious popularity among heavy users of the internet, Ron Paul has no shot at the White House. National polls have his support in the low single digits. It's not going to happen.
    • by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:18AM (#22291262) Homepage Journal
      This candidate looks presidential - somewhat like John Adams.
      This candidate has Senate experience.
      This candidate hews to many of the accepted neoconservative principles.
      This candidate early on supported the Iraq war.
      This candidate's nomination would galvanize the conservative voters.
      Republicans, I present to you:
      Hillary Clinton (R)
    • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:23AM (#22291364)
      Screw Ron Paul, where's the CowboyNeal option!?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      I'm voting for him Tuesday, but you know as well as I do that it will be our last chance to vote for him, unless you live in his state. Nobody gets elected President, or is even nominated, unless the corporations want him there.

      And the corporations aren't for Ron Paul. Nor are they for the Constitution. Nor are their CEOs and presidents patriots; these are MULTINATIONAL corporations. Our President will be selected by fine upstanding patriotic American corporations like Sony and British Petroleum and Shell a
  • For Reps: McCain (Score:4, Interesting)

    by iknownuttin ( 1099999 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:33AM (#22290424)
    Huckabee - Caters to the religious nuts - no way.

    Romney: just a gut feeling about him and I can't really place it - he's way too smooth. And to be honest, being a Mormon creeps me out a bit (gold tablets from God?!?) - as much as a devout Christian, or anything else would.

    McCain: I don't agree with everything he stands for (he's anti-abortion), but I love his attitude of fiscal conservativeness and straight talking.

    • Re:For Reps: McCain (Score:4, Informative)

      by jcr ( 53032 ) < .ta. .rcj.> 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.

    • by jdunn14 ( 455930 ) <jdunn@ig[ ] ['uan' in gap]> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:50AM (#22290764) Homepage
      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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:56AM (#22290852) Journal

      McCain: I don't agree with everything he stands for (he's anti-abortion), but I love his attitude of fiscal conservativeness and straight talking.
      Sounds like Bush. He also claimed to be a discal conservative and to not want to police the world. Funnily enough, he's spent a WHOLE lot of money policing the world. I don't know why you trust McCain.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Entropius ( 188861 )
      McCain, sadly, is a warmonger.

      You can't be a warmonger and a fiscal conservative at the same time. Wars are fucking expensive.
  • He's still in (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SwansonMarpalum ( 521840 ) <redina.alum@rpi@edu> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:36AM (#22290486) Homepage Journal
    Ron Paul is still in the race, but has very few delegates. Barring unprecedented performance on Super Duper Tuesday he's got less of a shot than Romney, McCain, or Huckabee. That doesn't mean that he doesn't warrant discussion, though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JavaLord ( 680960 )
      Ron Paul is still in the race, but has very few delegates. Barring unprecedented performance on Super Duper Tuesday he's got less of a shot than Romney, McCain, or Huckabee. That doesn't mean that he doesn't warrant discussion, though.

      It's silly to talk about who has a 'chance or not' before super Tueday, because not even 10% of the delegates have been awarded.

      Also, I think people don't realize that many states may have a caucus/primary, but the delegates aren't bound to vote for who wins that primary.
  • Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Speedy8 ( 594486 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:36AM (#22290508) Journal
    I'm just going to ignore the "No Ron Paul" discussion. He is the best candidate to vote for.
  • Pro and Cons (Score:5, Informative)

    by Salgak1 ( 20136 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:37AM (#22290522) Homepage
    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)

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

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

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

    The entire "religious right" issue
    Lack of broad appeal outside the evangelical right
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Nice breakdown, but I'm a bit cynical about anyone other than McCain's chances tomorrow. Huckabee would be a good running mate for McCain to solidify his base, especially after the Hillary comments made by Coulter/Limbaugh/etc, but lacks the broad appeal to have the slightest chance outside of the Bible Belt. He's basically playing the Ross Perot to Romney's Bush I.

      Iraq, which is seemingly McCain's only issue, is more or less a resolved issue (the surge is working, native Iraqi security forces are being t
  • Clarification (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lbmouse ( 473316 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:38AM (#22290528) Homepage
    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*
  • by victorvodka ( 597971 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:45AM (#22290656) Homepage
    I expect that new faith-based engineering techniques are going to be what it will require to do the things Bush has proposed with respect to manned space flight. In the past we used to worry about interplanetary radiation, food supplies for a six year voyage, and reliable rocket engines. But the advances in faith-based engineering (mostly spinoffs of the faith-based Iraq war) have made it possible to seal up a couple of dudes in a steampunk diving bell and fire them at Mars from a cannon, confident of their eventual return.
  • by Etyenne ( 4915 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:47AM (#22290710)
    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 ?

  • by Scudsucker ( 17617 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:52AM (#22290796) Homepage Journal
    Huckabee is a nutjob (amend Constitution to meet "God's standards", wtf?), McCain is a sellout and vies with Romney for title of the Worst Flip Flopper On The Planet, and all three are warmongers when America is pretty damned tired of war.

    And seriously, nothing is going to bring out the Ron Paul spambots like saying he's not invited to the discussion. And while Ron Paul is cookoo for coco puffs*, at least he isn't a fundie like Huckabee or a flip flopping asshole like McCain or Romney.

    The Republicans only hope this year is that it will be Hillary v McCain. Her whole campaign is based on experience, which McCain blows out of the water. And she can't really attack him for flip flopping, when she's gone back and forth for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and for criticizing the Administration's foreign policy after voting for Kyl-Lieberman.

    *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? Or how you'll be able to sue companies for the damage their pollution causes. Said companies will just use the cigarrette defense: how do you know is was my toxic waste dumped into the river that gave your wife cancer, and not the other three companies dumping into the same waterway?
    • $14,000,000,000,000 (Score:3, Informative)

      by way2slo ( 151122 )
      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 va

  • Arguments (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:59AM (#22290918) Homepage
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      In Europe, do your politicians' professed policy positions actually matter?

      My observation of US politics is that they don't, 99% of the time. Politicians say whatever they want and then all do the same thing -- raise taxes, increase the debt, bomb more countries, start more wars, build more jails.

      Ron Paul is unique this time around, because he has a consistent 30 year record of voting against those things even when it made him the least popular man in Washington.

      The election, as I understand it, isn't about
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Russ Nelson ( 33911 )
      I'm in favor of Ron Paul because he wants most government functions to happen at the state level, just as the Constitution requires. In that manner, the states can experiment with public policies, and we can find out what works best more quickly than if we try one thing at the federal level, wait ten or twenty years, decide that's wrong, and try something else.
  • by the computer guy nex ( 916959 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:00AM (#22290934)
    Best description of Ron Paul I've heard: Some things he says make a lot of sense, some things he says scare the hell out of me. He is way too radical to become president. He is also very weak on Iraq and national defense, which is scary because national defense is about the only thing our Government should do. Everything else should be private sector.

    Fred Thompson was by far the best candidate in terms of his views on the issues. He still is the only candidate to share his opinions on everything, and he was the only candidate on either side that didn't switch his views just to win votes. He has believed the same things for years.

    Huckabee raises taxes too much. Being a conservative means that you believe you spend money better than the government, and he doesn't believe this. No thanks.

    Romney I like, but would never win a national election due to his faith. I'm an atheist, but I know a Mormon isn't going to win a national election any time soon. This is unfortunate because after Thompson I think he is the best candidate.

    McCain is a senator, and I hate voting for legislators in a presidential election. This role does not allow you to demonstrate your leadership powers. Also legislators must become more moderate to appease the other side... I want a president who is going to have a clear stance on every issue.

    Bottom line: I would rather have a president I disagree with on some issues but I know in my heart is strong and stubborn than someone who will change their views based on popular opinion. What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right.

    Honestly as long as anyone but Hillary wins I can still live on.
  • Mike Huckabee (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Admin ( 304403 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:13AM (#22291162)
    As a resident of Arkansas, I can tell you the following.

    1. Huckabee does not hold prayer meetings on the lawn. He administers. He is perfectly able to distinguish between his beliefs and the need for
    administration. The schools are in much better shape now than they have been in the history of Arkansas. The roads are in better shape than ever.
    2. When he came to office, there was a 200 million deficit. When he left office, in spite of doing all the above, there was an 800 million surplus.
    This was true even though he cut taxes every single year he was in office. He balanced the budget every single year, as a good administrator should.
    This has nothing to do with being a preacher. it is simply the mark of a good administrator.
    3. His proposals for the rebuilding of American infrastructure, taxation, immigration, health care, etc, on the national level simply make sense.
    Using nothing but his history as a benchmark, I can tell you that unlike 99% of other politicians, he does not talk out of both sides of his mouth.
    He says what he believes and then stands behind it. It is my belief (obviously) that he is the best choice for American President.

    Huckabee vs. Obama would be a fight worth watching.

  • by DarrenR114 ( 6724 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:14AM (#22291188)
    Let us not forget that McCain isnt exactly scandal-free.

    He was one of the infamous Keating Five who played no small part in bring about the savings & loan crisis.

    That small debacle has ended up costing this nation $30 BILLION. It was very similar in nature to the current mortgage crisis.

    Here this nation sits on the verge of yet another financial crisis of larger proportions and people are supporting putting one of the biggest screw-ups from the last time in the Oval Office
  • by scorp1us ( 235526 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:15AM (#22291202) Journal
    The limiting of the consideration of candidates to those who are likely to win is wrong, and does not produce the government of desired characteristics. We are asked to vote for the one who best represents our position. That idea - that we put forward the candidates that represents us the best is the fundamental construct of the representative democracy.

    If we vote for who we think will win, then it is nothing more than a popularity contest, with the media controlling who is popular. If effect you become a proxy of the media. In order to keep the idea of a representative democracy working, we need to vote for who best represents our interests.

    I remember a time when the internet was claimed to be a democratizing power. It was supposed to restore the power to the people. Now we are complaining that Ron Paul supporters are too vocal. I find it ironic that the tech savvy of us are now rejecting this democratizing power.

    I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I realize his ideas might seem crazy, but they are based on sound numbers. All of the money collected in the personal income tax goes to pay for interest on the national debt. There is no reason why with a reduced federal government and responsible spending that we can't eliminate the personal income tax.

    When Ron Paul talks about canceling or reducing these federal entities, it is important to note that these are longer term goals, and won't be accomplished in a day. When these federal entities go away, this leaves more money to you and your local jurisdiction (states) where your money can be put to better use rather than being spent on a federal bureaucracy with minimal effectiveness. Here's an example. My sister is a public school teacher. She gets to deal with "No Child Left Behind". She hates it because it amounts to no child is failed. The act does not provide for any better education, but it forces teachers to doctor the numbers to look like success is happening. This clearly is not right. But what do you expect from a government that aims to educate ONLY 10% of the kids in D.C.? (10% is the number they calculated to have an operational city (D.C.) in 20 years.) Any local jurisdiction would find that figure appalling.

    The biggest problem with Ron Paul isn't his ideas. He doesn't go into enough detail for the masses to understand them.
  • by Torodung ( 31985 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:17AM (#22291246) Journal
    I would be greatly in support of John McCain over any of the other Republican candidates, except for one thing. He's 71 years old. After two terms he'd be 79. It gives me pause. Even then, he's the Republican that has me excited.

    I was recently discussing this at a political roundtable, and a WW-II vet rather pointedly told me that McCain was "too old," and I think this perception is common among moderates, and affects his viability. It certainly hurt Bob Dole in 1996. We're in for another round of "Depends" jokes if he is the nominee.

    Despite that, against Hillary Clinton, McCain has my vote for President. Against Barack Obama, I'd have to seriously listen to the debates, but I still favor McCain at this point.

    I think the best way to solve the mess in Iraq, and our country in general, is to elect a moderate Republican to repair the damage that radical, neo-conservative demagogues have done to both the office of the Presidency and the party in general. We need a President who will take the occupation/state building mission seriously, and not base his or her policy on impatience with the war effort in the general populace.

    I think we were utterly mistaken in going into Iraq in the first place, but I ascribe to the "you break it, you own it" philosophy. I don't think any sort of withdrawal is possible, certainly not without passing the buck to the U.N. and Arab states to maintain regional stability.

    On a final note, Ron Paul.

    I'm glad his supporters think a President can save the country, and I'll admit that he is the only man up there who truly supports small government and true U.S. Constitutional values, but though zeal is commendable, it is naive to believe he can do anything to fix the problems in Washington. The President is quite hamstrung in most matters without Congressional support, and if Ron Paul were elected President, he would be persona non grata on the Hill, and therefore could get nothing done.

    He has a compelling message, but no ability to affect many of the changes he discusses, much as the Democratic candidates cannot make good on their promises of universal health care without 60 votes in the Senate. It's all a bit daft for Presidential candidates to talk about anything other than executive policy and statesmanship. A Cult of Personality, without full political backing, cannot get things done in Washington.

    He has a great message, but no sense of how those values apply practically to the Presidency. Indeed, sometimes it seems he has no common sense at all.

  • The flamebait race (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ObiWanStevobi ( 1030352 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:32AM (#22291548) Journal

    Watching the Republican primary play out, I am thoroughly amazed the Republican party can remain intact. Since McCain has emerged as the front-runner, it seems like half the party is threatening to stay home. It was even worse when Huckabee won Iowa and was picking up steam. I don't understand how the party can survive with so many factions that hate each other.

    The fiscal conservatives despise Huckabee, the social conservatives despise McCain, the previously unheard of libertarian wing has found Ron Paul, and is despised by everyone, and likewise hates everyone else, for the most part. Romney gets dinged by everyone for blowing in the wind like John Kerry 2004.

    Each group in the GOP feels slighted by the other. Fiscal Conservatives have had to watch government and spending grow out of control the last 8 years. Pro-lifers only have one candidate left in the primaries and he is fading fast. While McCain has always been pro-life, he has not been pro-life enough for them. His willingness to compromise on judges is heresy to them. Romeny has only been pro-life as long as he has been running for president. The 'minutemen' wing of the party has gotten no real action on their pet issue over the last 8 years, and have no one to look forward to in 08.

    Regardless of who the nominee is, they will not come out the primaries clean, and will not have a good chance come November. The GOP is due for a cleansing and rebirth to become a more coherent party.

  • by aarongadberry ( 1232868 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:29PM (#22292742)


    I like the executive experience. I believe government should be run more like a business because businesses by and large have less waste. Their success actually depends on it, whereas government's does not. I like that he's a former governor, but the Mormon thing bugs me. I'm worried about voting for someone that believes God was once a man like us and that we will one day be Gods like Him. Also I dislike that he is in favor of gun control legislation, when the 2nd amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law." Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Romney though is his flip flop on abortion. I'm pro-life, but he ran on pro-choice and then did not stick to it once he was elected. I understand he had a crisis of conscience once in office with legislation in front of him, but now I see him as the type of individual that could change a stance on virtually anything if the argument was persuasive enough.


    The guy would make a good enough general, but a horrible republican nominee. He could not beat either Clinton or Obama. The country is sick of the war, and he wants to continue it and start new ones too. He's been accused of being less conservative than Clinton. He is one of the Democrats go to guys when they need a few more votes to push legislation through. Even on his understanding of the Iraq war he has flip flopped. [] Romney is much more electable, even with the Mormon thing.


    He wants to take back the nation for Christ. I'm not sure that it ever belonged to Christ, unless he's talking about the Monarchy we lived under before the Revolution. He supports a 23% flat (fair) tax. While I understand a consumption tax, I disagree with a 23% federal tax while in my area we already have a 7.75% sales tax. That brings my sales tax up to 30.25%. Huckabee is even less conservative than McCain. Granted, he has no flip flopping on abortion, gay rights, etc, because those are religious viewpoints, he literally wants a theocracy. He wants to legislate morality. That just doesn't work.


    He's the kind of man that founded our country. He wants to get rid of the massive amounts of government that slipped in during the last ~250 years. He wants to take us back to the time when elected officials were "serving". Unlike the other's running he actually is a conservative and doesn't change his positions. I honestly believe if there was no media bias that he would get more attention. I'm not sure if it's cause the FED gives money to media, or if the media enjoys their ability to lobby, or if it's something else If you look at his record on voting the major issues he has been consistent and right 100% of the time. It may not come out until later that he was right, for example on the Iraq war, but he has always made the right decisions.

    I guess it's obvious I support Paul, but the facts are the facts, and I think it's about time we had a man like our founding fathers in charge.

  • 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.

I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.