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This discussion has been archived.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

    by dlsmith ( 993896 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:32AM (#22290388)
    By that standard, Mike Huckabee is irrelevant, too.
  • Re:Typical! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DurendalMac ( 736637 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:34AM (#22290452)
    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.
  • Ron Paul? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:34AM (#22290454)
    The discussion about Ron Paul on the internet is very interesting. It seems Ron Paul fans are not fans of Occam's Razor, as many seem to think there's some massive conspiracy keeping Ron Paul away from the public discussion, when there's a far simpler explanation - he's not going to win - he's not even going to get close to being chosen, so any discussion about this losing horse is wasted effort. Normal "what about Ron Paul??!?!??" service resumed in 3, 2, 1...
  • by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:35AM (#22290460) Homepage
    ENOUGH with the Ronulans...

    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.

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

    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.
  • He's still in (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SwansonMarpalum ( 521840 ) <redina@alum. r p i . 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.
  • 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.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EveryNickIsTaken ( 1054794 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:37AM (#22290514)
    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? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by kabloom ( 755503 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:37AM (#22290526) Homepage
    Because Huckabee won some primaries.

    Seriously, somebody's got to mod all of these Ron Paul complaints -1 REDUNDANT. Not that I have anything against the discussion of his merits, but these aren't posts about his merits. There's like a thousand people here who all posted the same complaint that he wasn't included in the summary, and that's it.
  • 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*
  • Re:Typical! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:38AM (#22290540)
    Freedom of speech applies to the government, not Slashdot. You are free to open your own discussion forum with its own rules.

    That said, I don't see Slashdot censoring any of the asinine Ron Paul comments, so you are pretty much completely pissing into the wind.
  • by jcr ( 53032 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:40AM (#22290566) Journal
    Ron Paul has a fanatical support base

    More like, an enthusiastic support base. Of course, compared to those who pick a candidate on a negative basis (EG, "anybody but...") are going to see those who've found a candidate to vote for as wildly optimistic.

  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by strikeleader ( 937501 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:40AM (#22290578)
    Another fine example of how the media is trying to decide for us who we should vote for. By not providing full and equal coverage of all the candidates they are able to influence the massive flock of mindless sheep who the best person for the job is.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nido ( 102070 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:42AM (#22290608) Homepage

    he's not even going to get close to being chosen
    Last I checked, Maine [] 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.

  • by ironwill96 ( 736883 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:43AM (#22290618) Homepage Journal
    Ignoring the missing option like we do in the Slashdot polls all the time..

    Ron Paul I think is the best choice because it would be a return to someone who actually thinks that the Constitution is relevant to today as much as it was 200 years ago. He also wants smaller government, less intrusion into our privacy, bring the troops home and stop our "police the world" policies of interventionism. Yes, some of his supporters are a bit odd and can be zealot at times, but there are many others who are normal people who support someone who sticks up for their positions (just look at his voting record over 10-terms - he does not waver from supporting the constitution!).
  • 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.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SpartacusJones ( 848951 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:46AM (#22290684)
    Some? As in more than one? Which ones?
  • by Helmholtz ( 2715 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:47AM (#22290694) Homepage
    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.

  • 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 footNipple ( 541325 ) <footnipple AT indiatimes DOT com> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:49AM (#22290754)
    Professionally and intellectually, Mitt Romney is probably the most qualified presidential candidate the US has had in over a century. I'd have to hit the history books to figure out since when.

    I say this because my group/company had done quite a bit of consulting work with Bain Capital many years ago. Having sat in a couple of meetings and presentations with him, and looking at what he has accomplished, I have a high degree of confidence in his ability and sincerity.

    As for Mormonism: Well, it's not my cup of tea, but I've NEVER met a Mormon I didn't like :-)
  • by jdunn14 ( 455930 ) <jdunn.iguanaworks@net> 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:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Helmholtz ( 2715 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:51AM (#22290782) Homepage
    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.
  • 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?
  • 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?

  • by jcr ( 53032 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:54AM (#22290822) Journal
    There's something else to tout McCain for, his stance on torture.

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

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • by jcr ( 53032 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:59AM (#22290920) Journal
    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.

  • by Mongoose Disciple ( 722373 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:01AM (#22290952)
    Yeah, sad to say Ron Paul is 2008's closest Howard Dean equivalent. Mad internet buzz and fundraising, seen as a nut by the mainstream, and little to no actual voting traction.

    The man's got some interesting ideas, and he's not afraid to take unpopular positions. You could have fairly said the same thing about Dean in '04. Just as Dean was out of the realistic running a long time before the primaries were over, so Paul is now. Maybe we're all poorer for that, but, that's the reality of it.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:01AM (#22290958) Homepage Journal
    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? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by qortra ( 591818 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:05AM (#22291030)
    I was under the impression that Huckabee has only won one caucus (Iowa is not a very populous state). I was also under the impression that a caucus isn't really a primary, though it does determine delegates. Is any of that wrong? I really don't believe that Huckabee has made even a showing in the race.
  • Fuck that, Ron Paul is still a candidate in this race, and deserves to be discussed right along with the other candidates. If Slashdot is going to start with the kind of bias and selectivity we get from Faux News, then fuck Slashdot.
  • Re:Huckabee? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:13AM (#22291168)

    and the Sheeple stopped voting for him.
    That word applies universally to those who use it.
  • 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.
  • Which candidate will never, ever be elected? Ron Paul. Discussion of this lost candidate is pointless.

    Hey, while you're at it, can I get the winning lotto numbers for tomorrow, and maybe some good picks for the horse races?
  • by dada21 ( 163177 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:16AM (#22291222) Homepage Journal
    Romney and Huckabee would be the best choice. They actually ran and lead an organization. McCain is just a puppet figure in congress who never had any leadership experience.

    I'm still shocked that Republicans would call for a leader, when it is obvious that the President's job isn't to lead, it is to keep Congress in check by using the veto pen more often than not. Presidents should be FOLLOWERS (of the Constitution), and only be called to lead when Congress votes to Declare War and tell the President how to run it. The President follows the laws as generated by Congress in execution. The President has no power or need to lead.

    Today's President has no connection to what would be the prior definition. Tyrant? Maybe. Dictator? Far-fetched, but possible.

    I don't want to be lead. I don't need Papa President to tell me what is good for me, or my family, or my home, or my community, or my life in general. I need a President who looks over the vast bills on his/her desk, and starts signing the veto line whenever he/she finds something that is not within the power of the Congress to create, or the President to execute.
  • 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.

  • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:18AM (#22291258)

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

    And yet, so many of the other candidates have failed to clear it!

  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:21AM (#22291312)
    I don't see the relevance of posting stories about US politics on a science/tech. site with global readership.
  • Re:He's still in (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JavaLord ( 680960 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:23AM (#22291380) 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.

    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. So conceivably, if enough well organized delegates wanted to pull off a coup they could....
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qortra ( 591818 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:25AM (#22291408)

    What happen to them when political reality comes crashing in.
    What reality? We have been watching polls, primaries, and elections for decades believing that there is no hope. Now, all of a sudden, we have a candidate that is actually viable. He may not win, but this whole process has communicated something to everybody on the internet; there are large number of people out there who share the libertarian ideal of a simple government. Ron Paul is going to change Republican politics forever even if he doesn't win.

    I feel sorry for the Paulettes
    I believe the more ubiquitous appellation is "Ronulans".

    They've been working to elect the unelectable rather than working to change the obvious choices.
    Despite its syntactical correctness, I am having trouble parsing this sentence. I'm going to take a shot translate this to "you should support and vote for a shitty candidate". To which I respond, NO. I will sooner not vote than vote for a popular candidate whom I believe to be bad for this country.

    totally would have dugg your comment
    Here, moderation is a privilege that is earned, fortunately. You don't seem like the kind of person who would earn it. Clue - don't mock people, especially the reigning majority here.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mwlewis ( 794711 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:29AM (#22291490)

    ...Paul is hoping that the Iraq war goes further south...
    A key reason why he won't do as well as his fans hope he will.
  • 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 xerxesVII ( 707232 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:34AM (#22291576)
    Because they are the majority of the populace.
  • by Entropius ( 188861 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:37AM (#22291660)
    McCain, sadly, is a warmonger.

    You can't be a warmonger and a fiscal conservative at the same time. Wars are fucking expensive.
  • by ChromeAeonium ( 1026952 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:38AM (#22291682)
    Well, religion is important in American politics because bullshit [] is one of the main things people are looking at. We can't be distracted with the real issues when there's petty bullshit to focus on.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:39AM (#22291694) Journal
    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 and Crysler.

    John McCain will ne the next President.

    I say this because he's got the Republican nomination pretty much sewn up, and he's a moderate.

    The Democrats will either nominate Obama (the most likely) or Clkinton. There are too many people, especially Republicans, who hate them both for either to be elected. And neither of them are moderates.

    McCain will be the next President of the US.

  • by OutSourcingIsTreason ( 734571 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:41AM (#22291732)

    Son of a famous politician, turned business executive, turned one-term republican governor, turned presidential candidate.

    Of course I'm talking about George W. Bush. And Mitt Romney.

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eric76 ( 679787 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:52AM (#22291944)
    He wasn't far behind McCain in Maine.

    I think McCain had 21% and Paul had 19%.
  • Re:Arguments (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rocketship Underpant ( 804162 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:03PM (#22292182)
    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 one man's policies versus another's. It's about 5 (or so) candidates who will say whatever they want and flip flop as often as necessary to achieve power, and one lone candidate who actually stands by his policies (whatever they may be).

  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:15PM (#22292492)
    Actually he said - []
    I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.

    I'm not really sure I disagree with him to be honest. I don't like the idea of forced vaccination. More importantly, I don't think it would work. If people don't believe a vaccination is safe they'll find some way to avoid it. Personally I'd take the vaccination if some terrorist group weaponized it, but the pros and cons of doing so seem to be sufficiently well balance that I don't agree with forcing other people to do do.

    E.g. []
    The vaccine consists of the virus which causes the related, yet far milder, cowpox disease; this virus is appropriately named vaccinia, from the Latin vaca which means cow. This vaccine has functional viruses in it which improves its effectiveness but, unfortunately, causes serious complications for people with impaired immune systems (for example chemotherapy and AIDS patients, and people with eczema) and is not yet considered safe for pregnant women. A woman planning on conceiving within one month should not receive the smallpox immunization until after the pregnancy. In the event of an outbreak the woman should delay pregnancy if possible. A small, yet significant, percentage of healthy individuals also suffer adverse side-effects which, in rare cases, include permanent neurological damage. Vaccines that only contain attenuated vaccinia viruses (an attenuated virus is one in which the pathogenicity has been decreased through serial passage) have been proposed but some researchers have questioned the possible effectiveness of such a vaccine. Others point out that mass vaccinations would probably not be needed to counter a bioterrorist attack if many millions of doses of the current (possibly improved) vaccine could be delivered to victims within several days of exposure. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC, "vaccination within 3 days of exposure will prevent or significantly lessen the severity of smallpox symptoms in the vast majority of people. Vaccination 4 to 7 days after exposure likely offers some protection from disease or may modify the severity of disease." This, along with vaccinations of so-called first-responders, is the current plan of action being devised by the United States Department of Homeland Security and FEMA in the United States.

    And if you look at Gulf War I when soldiers were given masses of vaccinations, some of them developed Gulf War Syndrome. Now as far as I know the link between the two things is not proven, but I'd be very wary of a rushed max vaccination program in response to terrorist attacks. This MD certainly believes in a link - []
  • Re:Arguments (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:18PM (#22292552) Homepage
    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.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:24PM (#22292648) Homepage Journal

    Paul is not affecting this race.

    If you don't think that any of the other candidates are hearing the buzz around him and adjusting to steal some of that thunder, you're nuts.

  • by dada21 ( 163177 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:25PM (#22292662) Homepage Journal
    I'm a Christian, myself, but I'm also a non-voter (actually, an anti-voter).

    Nonetheless, what you wrote was pure drivel. Let's look:

    Well, as one of those right-wing neo-con theocrats, I would like to thank you for supporting a candidate (RON PAUL!!!1!!1!!one!!!) that believes in creationism, wants a constitutional ban on abortions, believes in prayer in schools, opposes gay marriage (or anything gay, for that matter), and wants to kick all the non-Americans out of the country.

    1. Ron's belief in creationism has nothing to do with how Paul would run education in the United States. Education is best left to the towns, and the school boards, not the States and for sure not the Federal government. Paul's idea to abolish the inefficient and pandering Department of Education is the first step to returning the education power, and responsibility, to the parents. Paul's not against "public" education, he's against inefficient Federal regulation of it.

    2. Paul hasn't taken a Presidential position on abortion, other than it shouldn't be a Federal issue. I am also against Roe v. Wade, even though I am not anti-abortion (I am not pro-abortion, either). I am against Roe v. Wade because it usurps State powers. In terms of abortion, I have one opinion: if you are against the idea of abortion, the best way to change the tide is to adopt unwanted children, and support the ability to adopt by financially supporting adopting couples. I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need.

    3. Prayer in schools has nothing to do with the Federal government. If an individual wishes to pray, the 1st Amendment is clear on their right to. Organized prayer in schools is another issue, but the Federal government is part of the problem: it nearly mandates that public education MUST be available. In Bible Belt districts, private education is a better option, but the Federal and State laws preclude the idea of dissolving forced financial support for local schools.

    I pay a LOT in property taxes ($5000+ per annum). I am very vocal at my school board meetings, and I happily call the teachers thieves when they ask for more money, and the administrators fraudsters when they lie about the budget. Over the past 2 years, I've brought around 30% of the parents at the meetings to my side, and I have a good feeling that we will elect a downsizer to the school board. Note, I still don't vote, but I am vocal in my detraction against theft for "education." I have no kids, yet, and when I do, I will have enough saved to make a wise education decision.

    4. Paul has no opinion on gay marriage, in fact he has said repeatedly in this campaign that if two people want to unite under contract, it is their right to. He also said it is YOUR right to ignore any contract you are not a part of. If you marry within a faith, most faiths have support structures in place for others in that faith to acknowledge your marriage. Marriage is NOT a government responsibility. If ten people want to intermarry in an orgy of love, so be it. I don't have to acknowledge it, except the law forces me to. Ridiculous. Paul wants to disconnect marriage and government completely. He would support gays marrying, as long as no one had to give them special treatment. He would be against straights marrying, if it forced others to give them special treatment.

    5. I disagree completely on Paul's immigration position, but I also hate paying for anyone's education, health care, and lifestyle unless they've personally come to me for help. My wife and I take the Muslim belief to give alms to the poor who ask for help. We give about 3% of our income to the poor who come asking for help. We also buy food, pay utilities in winter, and help poor people get jobs. I helped two neighbors (poor!) get jobs shoveling walkways this winter, and their families are over $1000 richer each. I help the poor with charity, not aggression or entitlements. The (legal or illegal) immigrants who steal from me are just as bad as the citizens who steal from me.
  • by Thoguth ( 203384 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:25PM (#22292672) Homepage
    News flash: Most public education is currently handled by the States. If the U.S. Department of Education went away, public education would still be around. Public education in some States would be worse for it, but other States would be greatly relieved that to have Federal interference out of their system.

    There is a meme-disease that has infested our society, spread by power-grubbing politicians and money-hungry corporate interests (including the sound-bite-driven media.) It is the idea that if there is a problem, the Federal government should fix it. Any problem, great or small, anywhere in the country, is in need of a Federal "fix." There needs to be a new cabinet-level department, or a Federal bill, or a Constitutional Amendment, or a Supreme Court ruling, or a "War On *" to fix it.

    You hear it from Obama. His resounding "Yes We Can" is saying "Yes, we, the Federal Government, can fix everything that's wrong!" You hear it from Hillary, or anyone else promoting Federal government-provided healthcare. You hear it also from McCain, Romney and Huckabee. You hear it, with a slightly different tune, from mainstream evangelical Christians -- the problems are different, but the solution, Federal Government enforcement of morality to "fix" immorality, is the same.

    The problem with the idea is that it overlooks all the other options for fixing a problem.

    When there is a problem:
    - You or I can fix it
    - You or I can educate people on its existence and what they can do to fix it
    - You or I can start a non-profit organization dedicated to fixing it
    - You or I can (potentially) start a business that makes money by fixing it
    - Existing local businesses can make money by fixing it
    - Local religious groups can (possibly) work to fix it
    - Local non-religious non-profit organizations can help to fix it
    - Local governments can help to fix it
    - Larger / regional businesses can make money by fixing it
    - Larger / regional non-profit and/or religious groups can fix it
    - State governments can fix it
    - National / Global non-profits can fix it
    - National / Global corporations can fix it
    - The Federal government can fix it

    If a flood wiped out your city, who would you be most relieved to see: someone from the Red Cross (National / Global organization) or someone from FEMA?

    If you just discovered you had heart disease and needed a triple bypass, who would you rather have handle it: your local top-100 heart hospital (could be for-profit, non-profit or religious), or the National Institute of Health?

    If your kid is getting a poor education, who would you trust to fix it: a private school (also could be for-profit, non-profit, or religious, or even yourself if you aren't averse to homeschooling), or the Department of Education?

    If there's a problem with people with drug addictions, who often turn to crime, who should fix it, a doctor, or the Federal government?

    If there's a problem with internet regulation, who should fix it, ICANN or the U.S. Government? (Even the suckiest-run nonprofits seem less scary than the prospect of the US Government meddling in that.)

    If there's a problem with one group of people who don't approve of the morality of another group of people, who should provide the solution? The groups who have the problem working it out with each other, or the Federal Government enforcing the will of the more populous group on the other?

    The Federal Government was created to make peace between the States, to defend the States from outsiders, and to guarantee "Liberty and Justice for all." As long as it sticks to that basic plan it can do a lot of good, but when we look at the Federal government as "Mr. Fix Everything" we are setting ourselves up for trouble not just in things getting "Fixed" up in the FUBAR sense, but also in conflicts of interest, some subtle and some not-so-subtle, between fixing-problems and "Liberty and Justice for All"

    I'm reluctant to water down the message by adding a cliche, but if eve
  • by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:26PM (#22292684) Homepage Journal
    Why do you (and others) have so much faith in polls of people who pick up their landlines when Caller ID says Unknown Caller?

    I trust them a lot more than the folks who see "Unknown Caller", then run and hide under the bed...
  • by dada21 ( 163177 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:30PM (#22292754) Homepage Journal
    That's pure poppycock. We have someone to run the organization call the United States of America: You. The individual. You are the true leader, the most important part of the Republic.

    The founders realized this, and that's why they were hoping for gridlock in the system they devised. It worked well, for a long time, and then started to show signs of failure after the system had changed (thanks to the traitor Lincoln and his mentors).

    The President is NOT a leader. The Constitution doesn't show a President to have the power to lead, but only the power to execute that which is Constitutionally valid. The President is supposed to allow YOU to lead so that you can make your life better for yourself and your family, and by secondary effect the lives of those you deal with.

    I'm amazed that people want more leadership when it is past leadership that has caused this country to fail. These United States have been an amazing test to the power of the masses, billions of decisions made each second, with every choice you make. The markets flourish based on what people do en masse, but separate. Now instead of lions protecting our homes, we're sheep looking for guidance.
  • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:34PM (#22292814) Journal

    Do you really know who you're voting for? I mean, not that I mind: I'm a Republican, so I can live with all of the above, even if some of them have strong kook-factor. I'm afraid, though, that most Ronulans are ignorant of any of his positions other than the war in Iraq, or you'd think twice about voting for him.
    This seems to be one of those Ron Paul memes that everybody's trying to spread about him. "How many people would support Ron Paul if they knew his positions on issues except Iraq?" I have met several Ron Paul supporters, and none of them have been ignorant on his positions. They may not agree with all of them, but then again, who agrees with any candidate on every issue? The other Ron Paul memes are "Fringe candidate Ron Paul" and "Ron Paul can't win". Just imagine if every story written about Obama or Romney had those lines in them? The fact of the matter is, Ron Paul supporters know what he stands for, but the press does their best job to try and steer people who DON'T know what he stands for away from him by writing about him in this matter or else excluding any mention of him, much like Slashdot has just demonstrated.
  • by mikehoskins ( 177074 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:39PM (#22292918)
    I don't think anyone should ever be excluded from debate, polls, etc., until after Super Tuesday. After Super Tuesday, start trimming down to those that have a snowball's chance or better. Until then, the media is deciding the primaries for you.

    I also wish for polling blackouts, until the last polls close in the "last state's latest polling location", whenever that is. As soon as all polls are closed, let us drink from the firehose of polling data. I wouldn't call this censorship. In fact, covering every sneeze with a "3% margin of error" affects the outcome (kinda sounds like Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, a bit, but I digress). Let's go back to the spirit of the Secret Ballot, not just the letter...

    Otherwise, the race is being shaped by CNN, Fox, Slashdot, whatever. Want an example of that? Why did Giuliani get to debate, when Ron Paul didn't? Giuliani got 0 delegates (until just before he dropped out) and often got very poor polling data. (Tom Tancredo didn't get invited, either, after awhile, but that's another story, and he dropped out early).

    If the media has already told us who the winners and losers are -- starting with Iowa and New Hampshire (but to predict anything that early is utterly insane) -- then people start tending to vote for those that are "electable". Actually, until February 5 (this year's Super Tuesday), anybody's "electable".

    You know, Super Tuesday has so many delegates, that mathematically anyone left in the race could win, however likely or unlikely. It's extremely unlikely, yet mathematically very possible, that Ron Paul could be facing Mike Gravel in November (now there's a long shot).

    Am I glad that Giuliani's out? You bet! (If it were Giuliani vs. Democrat in November, I would have considered voting third-party for President).

    Yet this isn't the prerogative of the mainstream press. This is the prerogative of the voter, or *should* be. Do I wish that Ron Paul was winning and that he had a fair shake, from the beginning? Absolutely. (It's too late, now. And, I know it's entirely probable that if he had a fair shake, that he'd still not be in first place, but that's another matter).

    So, the media goes from reporting the news in an unbiased way (journalism), to making the news (editorial).

    Unfortunately, since the media once again decided for us already (instead of just reporting the facts), and since we are faced with lousy "electable" Republicans, I'd vote in this order, based on who's left:
        Ron Paul (but now cast as a loser in the media)
    ...write-in candidate Ronald Reagan (deceased and thus truly unelectable)...
    ...great distance...

        Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee (probably in that order)
    ...great distance...

        John McCain

    No, I'm not a "Ronulan" (except maybe in the Ronald Reagan sense) although I don't consider that an insult. He's just the best candidate this term, Republican or Democrat.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by KoshClassic ( 325934 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:48PM (#22293114)
    Yes, you are correct about his chances. But that's not the point. Its a chicken and egg problem. Does the main sream media not cover him because he has no chance, or does he have no chance because the main stream media refuses to cover him? I suspect its the latter, but its the former I have a big problem with. By what right does the media decide which candidates we should be informed about, and which we should not? Who are they to tell us who is viable, and who is not? Is that how a democracy is supposed to work? Sometimes I wonder why we even bother to hold the actual election. At this point, it seems that the MSM has already declared McCain the winner on the Republican side. I'm just saying, it would be nice if someone like Ron Paul could have his views and positions considered by the people, and then they could decide if they want to vote for him based on that. Instead, very few people even know what his positions are, and he's not factored into people's decision at all.

    By the way, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter at all - my state has a closed primary and I am registered democrat, so I cannot vote for him this Tuesday, and its pretty much a forgone conclusion that none of us will have the chance to vote for him in the general election. But even if I could I would not. Although he has a few positions I agree with, by and large his views are very much the opposite of my own. That being said, his positions seem to resonate with a lot of people once they understand what his positions are. The fact that the vast majority of people will never even have the chance to understand them ticks me off. And I would say the same for almost every other so called "minor" or "non-viable" candidate that has come and gone in this race: Gravel, Kucinich, Duncan Hunter, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson etc. etc. etc. As soon as you fail to finish in the top 2 or 3 in Iowa or New Hampshire, the media, if it doesn't ignore you, actively starts promoting your campaign as dead.

  • by natrius ( 642724 ) <`niran' `at' `'> on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:50PM (#22293140) Homepage

    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?

    He doesn't want to go back to the gold standard. He wants to legalize competing currencies. [] If competing currencies were legal, the Fed wouldn't be able to inflate the currency at an irresponsible rate since people would switch to a currency that had a better inflationary reputation.

    I agree with you on the pollution thing though, but he'd still make a better president than all of the other candidates in either party. Ending the unconstitutional power grabs by the federal government and returning that power to the states will make government more accountable and reduce the massive waste and corruption we have today.

  • by The One and Only ( 691315 ) * <[ten.hclewlihp] [ta] [lihp]> on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:51PM (#22293170) Homepage

    Maybe that's his plan, but it sort of defeats the purpouse of having a gold standard if you arbitrarily raise the value of your bedrock commodity.

    That's exactly how the gold standard works! As a result of the gold standard, gold is considered more valuable because it is legal tender. Gold is just another form of fiat currency, albeit one that requires more effort to mine and store. Instead of artificially raising the value of gold by using gold as legal tender, some very clever people figured out that you could artifically raise the value of sheets of cloth paper with paintings of dead presidents printed on them, and it serves the same purpose without the market distortion caused by using a real commodity as legal tender.

  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:52PM (#22293186) Journal
    I sure wish Ron Paul would win, but that is extraordinarily unlikely.

    I wish someone except a Republican or Democrat would won, but that is even more unlikely.
  • by YourMotherCalled ( 888364 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:52PM (#22293192)
    (Not a flame.)

    What's the purpose of being an anti-voter? I mean, why would you take such a position and think that it is useful?

    "I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need."

    You've GOT to be kidding. You're basically saying that if a Christian doesn't offer an alternative to sin, they are responsible for the sin of another person. Unbelievable. I think you've got a bit of the crazy in you.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:01PM (#22293300) Journal
    That's Paul's best attribute. He would never get any legislation through congress, and would veto about anything they sent him.

    I think we have too many laws already, and anyone who will veto all the new ones is fine by me, whatever his politics.

    I'd like to see term limits on laws; all laws are automatically repealed after ten years unless reinstated by both the Senate and House. Do we really need to protect the sugar beet farmers against the foreigners?

    People vote for the President for all the wrong reasons. He's not Constitutionally mandated to pass laws; that's Congresses job. His job is enforcing the laws, and vetoing the laws he doesn't want to enforce.

    When the Democrats run Congress I want a Republican President. When the Republicans run Congress I want a Democrat President. That is, if I can't have a President from any of the other parties.

    Bush went his whole first term without vetoing a single bill. I never thought I'd see a worse President than Carter, but Bush proved me wrong.
  • by Belial6 ( 794905 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:18PM (#22293480)
    You really should vote. If everyone who doesn't vote now, would start voting for "The guy that can't win", whether that is a presidential, state, or local campaign, it would do wonders for scaring the other candidates into behaving better. When you say you are an anti-voter because you don't vote out of protest, you are playing right into the lead candidates hands. The true 'anti-vote' is to vote for someone that you don't believe can win. This both the effect of not supporting the current system which is mostly a 'vote for who you think can win so you can feel like a winner yourself' system, as well as throwing a little scare into those who will win.

    The true anti-voter votes for the loser.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:20PM (#22293492) Journal
    Paul is +10% in several states. He possibly won Maine, its just that the whole caucus thing was ignored by the media, he MIGHT have won Louisiana, 66% of provisional ballots went uncounted, it was enough to hand paul the win as 80% of provisionals that were counted went to Paul delegates. There is an official complaint filed by the campaign to find out what happend (Essentially all the people who signed up as Republican's late november paperwork went unfiled)
  • by Torodung ( 31985 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:28PM (#22293590) Journal

    It's not that he can "get anything done". It's that he can use the veto to try and prevent a whole lot of harmful spending legislation. I want someone in there who will veto any spending or tax increases and require a 2/3 majority to pass most things. I think it would be good for the country to have that for awhile.
    I'll tell you what that would do. We would suddenly find out just how similar the Democrats and Republicans are when it comes to spending our money on their self-ingratiation and continued power. Ron Paul would truly bring the two parties together.

    After all, we have no real political diversity in Washington, just a case two unchallenged and powerful rival gangs infighting over a hell of a lot of money, which we are bound by law to give to them in large dump trucks. ;^)

    But if the electorate can't figure that out without Ron Paul, it's doubtful they will come to their senses to elect Ron Paul. That's the problem. There's a huge Catch-22 involved here.

    People need to realize what is going on before they move to change it. Most people are too busy working, part of the problem, or too convinced that they are dependent on the considerable flow of cash from Washington.

    This all needs to start locally, with people who are ready for independency from Washington spending (and correspondingly growing Nanny-state control). Hell, Washington can't even afford it's own mandates at this point, asking the states to fund Real ID and No Child Left Behind. Our State governments are now being shaken down by the Washington beast.

    Ron Paul needs to found a new party, just like another famous man whose initials were R.P., and build a coalition with like-minded Democrats and Republicans, who understand that the two-party system is a dinosaur in need of extinction.

    Then we have to stop Pat Buchannan from sabotaging it this time around. ;^)

  • by evought ( 709897 ) <{moc.xobop} {ta} {thguove}> on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:02PM (#22294102) Homepage Journal

    I never meant to imply that the Department of Education did a wonderful job. However, I am saying that I am more confident in their ability to run an infinitely better school system than either individual states or the private sector. The Department of Education hasn't always done a bad job, just under the current administration. A competent president can, and hopefully will, turn it around. [emphasis mine]

    Then (I assume) you haven't seen charter schools, private schools under a decent voucher system, Montessori schools, or active homeschool groups (with shared activities and teacher/specialist swapping, shared seminars) in operation. I have, and the quality of education I have seen far outstrips what comes out of (most) public schools. The small underfunded private school I went to growing up ranked 3rd overall in the state. We regularly beat public schools in scholastic competitions and the high school had no idea what to do with us because we already had HS/Regents credit in a number of courses when we got there, freeing us up for APs in High School, even though I left two years early. When I got to college, a friend of mine was younger than I was, was homeschooled, and already had his AA. The charter elementary school my company was helping wire a few years back had phenomenal tech education and computer labs (they taught UNIX/Linux, basic programming). A small homeschool group I tutored medieval history for had eight-year-olds reading Virgil in the original. I am working on possible weed walks and field biology outings for a group here. There are more and I have yet to see one bad example, though I know there must be. A local public high school regularly graduates people who can't read more than road signs, and they get decent grades. That has been true before the current administration and I don't see it changing any time soon.

    Are all private schools good? No, but they do have to compete and that puts them under a good deal of pressure, to rank well, educate well (get kids into good colleges), and keep costs down. For the most part, that process works. Public schools can dip into your wallet whenever they want. You have a chance of influencing that locally-- you directly elect your school board-- but your effect over the Department of Education is negligible.

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

    by weltschmerz ( 1217082 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:30PM (#22294636)
    Exactly what I was going to point out. I'm disgusted at how the Mainstream Media and others are creating this self-fulfilling prophecy by declaring Paul unelectable, and failing to cover him. For instance, the other day they were talking on CNN about fund raising, and completely ignored the fact that Ron Paul led all candidates in both parties last quarter in fund raising. They showed the GOP candidates and had Romney, McCain, and Huckabee in a 3-pane view -- and LEFT OUT the one candidate who beat them all. I hate to sound paranoid, but that is overt and clearly purposeful.
  • by argoff ( 142580 ) * on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:39PM (#22294788)
    I want a pro constitution pro honest money pro limited government candidate. One who will end the war on drugs, One who will cut back the constant unrestrained growth of government that has happened over the last 60 years. Never once has the size of the federal government ever shrank. Never once has the amount of spending gone down. One who will get the Iraq war off our back, reign in the USA empire and bases all over the planet, one who will drastically reduce taxes AND spending, but not screw us over regarding the value of our money, and not load the future generation with 10 generations worth of debt.

    Dammit. WTF is wrong with people? The fact that I don't even need to mention this candidates name should tell everybody everything that they need to know.
  • Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rinisari ( 521266 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:48PM (#22294908) Homepage Journal
    I cannot consciously support any candidate who does not make the Constitution central to how he or she looks at and handles the issues. Therefore, I cannot support any candidate except the candidate who has been excluded from this debate without advertised reason. I also cannot support a debate that does not discuss all of the candidates. Bad form, Slashdot, bad form.

    No candidate of these three has done all of these:
    • Is a constitutionalist.
    • Has never voted to raise taxes.
    • Has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    • Has never voted for the Iraq War.
    • Has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    • Has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
    • Has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    • Has never taken a government-paid junket.
    • Voted against the Patriot Act.
    • Votes against regulating the Internet.
    • Voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
    • Votes against the United Nations.
    • Votes against the welfare state.
    • Votes against reinstating a military draft.
    • Votes to preserve the constitution.
    • Votes to cut government spending.
    • Votes to lower healthcare costs.
    • Votes to end the war on drugs.
    • Votes to protect civil liberties.
    • Votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
    • Votes to eliminate tax-funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade.
    • Votes to protect religious freedom.
    If one of these three candidates has all of these qualities and has had these qualities throughout the entirety of their political career, please call me out on this and cite your sources so that I may read them and learn from my mistake myself.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EveryNickIsTaken ( 1054794 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:52PM (#22294984)
    McCain is a staunch conservative? I think you must be confusing him with someone else.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by packeteer ( 566398 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @03:13PM (#22295414)
    1. Why is he running as a Republican?

    Because he embodies the true ideals of conservativism that the neo-cons have robbed from modern Republicans.

    2. Why is he STILL running?

    Because he still has a good shot, the only thing holding him back is when news outlets don't mention him at all. News outlets such as Slashdot.
  • by emtilt ( 618098 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @03:25PM (#22295662)

    1. Ron's belief in creationism has nothing to do with how Paul would run education in the United States. Education is best left to the towns, and the school boards, not the States and for sure not the Federal government. Paul's idea to abolish the inefficient and pandering Department of Education is the first step to returning the education power, and responsibility, to the parents. Paul's not against "public" education, he's against inefficient Federal regulation of it.
    What you say is true, but his disbelief of evolution is relevant in another way. It suggests one of several things: an inability to effectively reason, a willingness to publicly take a stance on something about which he is ignorant, or a complete disregard for reason. Not good qualities to have for a president. So while his stance has no direct implications for his presidency, it certainly has indirect ones.

    2. Paul hasn't taken a Presidential position on abortion, other than it shouldn't be a Federal issue. I am also against Roe v. Wade, even though I am not anti-abortion (I am not pro-abortion, either). I am against Roe v. Wade because it usurps State powers. In terms of abortion, I have one opinion: if you are against the idea of abortion, the best way to change the tide is to adopt unwanted children, and support the ability to adopt by financially supporting adopting couples. I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need.
    I think his views vs. actions with regards to abortion on contradictory. He claims that he wants it to be a state issue, but he then tries to get around that by redefining the concept of life at the federal level []. So either his stated position on abortion is just pandering , or he somehow doesn't see a contradiction here.
  • by dkleinsc ( 563838 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @03:33PM (#22295788) Homepage
    Funny, Dennis Kucinich's supporters have been talking about precisely the same problem.
  • 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:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04, 2008 @05:49PM (#22298324)
    I agree, Ron Paul would probably win the election if the media wasn't so biased and if American's weren't so lazy that they don't even look into the people that they vote for.
  • by sentientbrendan ( 316150 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @07:04PM (#22299476)
    I see a lot of Ron Paul supporters spouting a bunch of hyperbole about Ron Paul. While he's a good speaker, and makes his points fairly intelligently, most of his economic policies are downright stupid, and any real economist will tell you he doesn't know what he's talking about.

    Libertarians are not who you should go to for economic advice. They paint the federal reserve as the source of all of our economic problems, and suggest going back to the gold standard. This is ridiculous. We had enormous monetary problems before the federal reserve came into play and we had a way of regulating the economy. However, if you hear Ron Paul tell it, things were all roses before the federal reserve, and the fed has done nothing but cause inflation. Inflation predates the federal reserve.

    Ron Paul suggests the Federal Reserve causes inflation, but *his* plan is to have congress print money whenever they feel like it, as if *that* won't case the exact same problem even more so. At least the Fed is run by trained professionals with a long term interest in maintaining the stability of the banking industry and the economy at large. Congress is not qualified to determine how much money to dump into the economy, since they will just spend like crazy if they have the right to print money.

    >1. Why is he running as a Republican?
    >Because he embodies the true ideals of conservativism that the neo-cons have robbed from modern >Republicans.

    Yes, the Republican party used to be the conservative party, and before that it used to be the *liberal* party. The name of the party means nothing, his views are not represented or sponsored by its members. The Libertarian party represents is more representative of his views at this point.

    Ron Paul calling himself a Republican is like an ante-bellum southern Democrat calling himself a modern Democrat. Before the war Democrats were the social conservative pro slavery party, now they are not.

    In any case, the neo conservative and libertarian economic policies are both equally stupid, so it's not like a return to 19th century economic policies would improve our situation.

    >2. Why is he STILL running?
    >Because he still has a good shot, the only thing holding him back is when news outlets don't >mention him at all. News outlets such as Slashdot.

    This is a bunch of bullshit. Ron Paul isn't taken seriously because his views *can't* be taken seriously and because he does not appeal the the vast majority of voters.

    The vast majority of voters do *not* want to end social security, do *not* want to end the FDA which is responsible for maintaining the safety of the food supply. Many people want a smaller more efficient federal government, including myself, but most people depend on the federal government for various services and do not want to see it dismantled.

    Also, his policy that we get rid of the income tax and just have massive tariffs is stupid. I'm not saying that we should never have tariffs. However, the IRS takes in 2.5 trillion annually. This is not possible with tariffs. Even if we raised tariffs to the level where we could take in 2.5 trillion in one year, the next year we would have to raise tariffs again because trade would *decrease*. Small tariffs to spur internal industry makes some sense, but the kind of tariffs Ron Paul is talking about would *end* international trade and destroy this country. No country can survive with an isolationist policy in the modern world.

    I liked how he talked when I've heard him, and I appreciated his opposition to the war and his willingness to buck the party line, but this guy is advocating economic policies that just don't make sense.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SlowMovingTarget ( 550823 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @07:28PM (#22299850) Homepage

    Because he still has a good shot...

    Ron Paul has no shot at the nomination, he doesn't have anywhere near the number of delegates of Romney (92) or McCain (97) (Paul has 6 []). It is not a problem of press coverage; Romney (92 delegates) and McCain (97 are just that much more popular. Huckabee (29) has no shot either, but he seems to be hoping to score a VP nod.

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker