Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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.

  • by frankie ( 91710 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:46AM (#22290688) Journal
    He obviously left out Ron Paul to get a rise out of the large libertarian contingent of /.ers. And it worked! IOW, YHBT, HAND.

    I am a registered Republican, and I will be most likely be voting for Ron Paul next week, but let's face facts. He's not going to win, and votes for him are valuable only as an indicator of dissent. He has good views on war, small government, and the Constitution, but he's also a creationist wacko, plus either a lying racist or so atrociously lazy and irresponsible about reading papers before signing them that it's hard to trust him.

    Unless a vast number of voters in Super Tuesday states have been systematically lying to pollsters, it's going to McCain vs Clinton. So, will Ann Coulter do what she promised, and campaign for Hillary?

    See also: Who's Nuttier: Apple Fanatics or Ron Paul Enthusiasts? []
  • Re:Pro and Cons (Score:3, Interesting)

    by damian cosmas ( 853143 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:55AM (#22290836)
    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 trained, etc.), and I see the economy and health care as being more important over the next four years, which is a natural fit for Romney, given his background and record in MA. McCain, OTOH, has probably finished reading Greenspan's book by now, and hasn't impressed me with anything substantive. He can only play "leadership and experience" for so long before he has to come up with good ideas.

    I still don't see how a Republican political story in slashdot doesn't turn into a flamewar, though.
  • My vote (Score:2, Interesting)

    by KSFreezer ( 1232850 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:56AM (#22290846)
    I vote for none of the above
  • 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04, 2008 @10:58AM (#22290898)
    The real question is not who is the best choice. It is who is attempting to control this election like the last two.
    6 Months ago when it was a wide open field, McCain was just another great republican according to Hannity etc. Now suddenly he is a worse choice to Hillary? Liberal Mitt is suddenly the answer. Sounds to me like the Puppeteer is pissed he might get someone he can't control. Just who is this? Saudia Arabia maybe? Who's agenda are these "conservatives", and I use the term loosely, really pushing. I don't know about you, but I am heartly sick of amateur hour in Washington. The only thing professional done is Washington these days is how quickly our money is disappearing. McCain had the right idea 8 years ago, and it is even more right today.

  • 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.
  • by nfinzer ( 1227014 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:03AM (#22290982)
    To deny that there IS a very obvious media bias against Ron Paul would be ridiculous. Two quick examples: during both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, CNN had up a pie chart for both the Democrats and the Republicans showing each candidate's percentage of the vote. Ron Paul had around 10% both times, yet his "slice" of the pie was solid black with no name attached to it, while Democrats like Biden who had single digit percentages had their names shown. Second example is Ron Paul's second place finishes in Nevada and Louisiana and the complete non-reporting of it. The articles I saw were along the lines of "Mitt finishes first, McCain third." with never a mention of second. And on the subject if it being crazy not to allow Ron Paul discussion in this, "me too!". He has just as much chance of winning the nomination as Huckabee (next to none, and yes I'm a RP supporter). I don't think Huckabee should be excluded either, they should both be allowed, if for no other reason that mathematically they all have a chance still, at least until after Super Tuesday. But also leaving him out will probably generate more discussion of him than including him. You know how we 'Paulbots' are,
  • 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
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:0, Interesting)

    by noshellswill ( 598066 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:16AM (#22291236)
    I contributed to the b*stard. An honest man, true enough. In favor of "health freedom". The un-vaccinated are free to get polio. Nuff said.
  • by lalena ( 1221394 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:24AM (#22291398) Homepage
    I've never understood why "Famous Temper" is a negative.

    Everyone says Washington is broken. He is the only one that seems to get upset about it.

    When someone spends billions on pork projects, tortures prisoners, or mishandles a war there deserves to be some screaming.

    I have a problem with a candidate that doesn't get emotional and has gotten used to "that just being the way things are".

    With everyone else, I don't know if they are saying things are bad just because the polling numbers told them to say it.

  • by DrLang21 ( 900992 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:27AM (#22291444)
    Amusingly I have heard from a handful of diehard Republicans that if it comes down to John McCain and Hilary Clinton, they just might vote for Clinton.
  • by Scudsucker ( 17617 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:33AM (#22291566) Homepage Journal
    Yes, that is exactly what I want. I think it would be good for the country if congress had to come up with a 2/3 majority to pass anything...

    I'm afraid that's one of those ideas that sounds nice on the face of it, but would be a disaster in practice. And the reason for that is the Senate, where the least populated states get the same two senators as California. Some people did the math [] and discovered that 3% of the population is enough to block legislation from passing. And that's with a 3/5 majority, much less 2/3.
  • Re:Arguments (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ScienceDada ( 1232890 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:43AM (#22291774)
    Europeans don't understand how conservative Americans think. "Religion" is a huge issue here, because we know that if your core is rotten, your tenure in office will be as well. The left in America tends to think the way most Europeans do (left or right) so this discussion forum will probably make little or no sense to you. For most conservatives, the issues that matter are issues of "right and wrong" such as (1) the value of human life and our children, (2) limiting the power of our central government so as to not usurp the power of the people (through kangaroo courts or outrageous legislation), and (3) fighting the movements to create a one-world government. The other issues are tertiary. This thinking is, for the most part, metaphorically (and literally) foreign to Europeans.
  • by (H)elix1 ( 231155 ) * <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @11:53AM (#22291972) Homepage Journal
    ... has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money

    Looks like people contributed a lot of money. The finances are worth mentioning for all the major Republican candidates. One of the things that surprised me as I drilled down [] into the numbers, is for all of the candidates, most of the funding was done at the individual level rather than PAC money. I was not expecting that.

    Romney, Mitt
    Q4 raised: $26,928,433
    Q4 spent: $33,713,503
    Total raised: $88,499,686
    Total spent: $86,068,239
    Cash: $2,431,447
    Debt: $35,350,000

    McCain, John
    Q4 raised: $9,714,246
    Q4 spent: $10,254,446
    Total raised: $41,102,178
    Total spent: $38,153,750
    Cash: $2,948,428
    Debt: $4,516,030

    Paul, Ron
    Q4 raised: $19,873,329
    Q4 spent: $17,478,711
    Total raised: $28,101,264
    Total spent: $20,262,084
    Cash: $7,839,421
    Debt: $0

    Huckabee, Mike
    Q4 raised: $6,637,063
    Q4 spent: $5,391,918
    Total raised: $8,986,532
    Total spent: $7,090,087
    Cash: $1,896,446
    Debt: $97,676

    By way of comparison, Giuliani, who recently dropped out of the race...

    Total Receipts: $60,929,240
    Total Spent: $48,152,428
    Cash on Hand: $12,776,812
    Debts: $1,166,509

    Wow... just wow... That sort of spending puts drunken sailors to shame.
  • On Romney (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RedHelix ( 882676 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:05PM (#22292204)
    As a Massachusetts resident who witnessed Romney's term as governor up-close, I'm absolutely certain that he's the best candidate, and it has nothing to do with his just being a "hometown guy." Heres why:

    Mitt inherited a multi-billion dollar deficit in his governorship and turned it into a half-billion dollar surplus by the end of his term. In so doing, he routed the deeply-entrenched Matt Amarillo (Big Dig bigwig) and crawled several miles up the asses of everyone with a hand in the project to get it completed in a reasonable amount of time, so the state could stop bleeding money into this massive endeavor. Meanwhile, his administration set up a subsidized health care program so pretty much anyone whose income is below or three times greater than the poverty line gets dirt-cheap health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Because of it's affordability, it is now illegal to not have health insurance in Massachusetts. Let that sink in for a second: Pretty much anyone can get access to health care in this state because of his governorship. Health care crisis in America? Not here!

  • by rizzo420 ( 136707 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:09PM (#22292326) Homepage Journal
    Even more amusingly, I have heard the exact opposite from diehard Democrats that if it comes down McCain or Clinton, they'd go for McCain.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KoshClassic ( 325934 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:13PM (#22292420)
    Ah yes, the same circular logic used by the main stream media to ensure that only certain people have a chance to win.

    a) declare some candidates "viable", and some candidates "non-viable"
    b) only discuss the "viable" candidates and refuse to discuss the "non-viable" candidates, ensuring that only the "viable" candidates have any visibility with the electorate, and virtually disallowing the average voter to even consider voting for the "non-viable" candidate
    c) Use the resulting poll numbers to validate the declaration that some candidates are "viable" while others are "non-viable".
    d) wash, rinse, and repeat

    IMHO, any of the remaining candidates, including Ron Paul and Huckabee, is in reality a viable candidate. If any of them had a miraculous turn around, there are still more than enough delegates available for them to secure the nomination. So until someone has secured the nomination, I'd thank you to not tell me or anyone else who is or who is not a "viable" candidate.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by BobVila ( 592015 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:14PM (#22292466) Homepage
    Paul is not hoping the war goes further south. Paul does not want the economy to plummet. Some of Paul's nuttier supporters might be thinking that way though. Paul wants the war to end. Paul wants the economy to succeed. He has especially been trying to warn people about the economy his entire career. Paul just wants the other Republicans to listen to him before they do more damage. They already have taken some notes down from Paul. The other candidates didn't start saying things about state's rights and some of the finer points of fiscal conservatism until Paul did it first. Paul might not win a brokered convention. But if he stays in to the end, the other candidates might have to change their tune on the war a little bit to win over his delegates. It depends on just how many delegates he has at the end. He needs enough to actually be relevant in this way.
  • by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:20PM (#22292578)
    And on the subject if it being crazy not to allow Ron Paul discussion in this, "me too!". He has just as much chance of winning the nomination as Huckabee (next to none, and yes I'm a RP supporter). I don't think Huckabee should be excluded either, they should both be allowed, if for no other reason that mathematically they all have a chance still, at least until after Super Tuesday. But also leaving him out will probably generate more discussion of him than including him. You know how we 'Paulbots' are,

    I don't pay attention to any of the election stuff. Some one mentioned that it was an election year so I had a brief look at who was under each party. I can't tell you how shocked that Huckabee was on the list. I didn't know. I'm from Texarkana and actually went to the Baptist Church that Huckabee preached at for years before running for governor. At times like this, I'd like to say that I was paying attention to give the guy from the state a pat on the back and say vote for him. The only state programs that my family made use of was some state college scholarships, WIC (Women in Childern I think. Basically coupons to get pregnant and new mothers healthy food. Best state program ever.) and ArKids which is a low cost state health insurance.

    I can't really tell you that I've noticed anything else that he has done. On a side note, most people around here actually liked Huckabee. I can't tell you a single person around here that thought Clinton would be good for the country or anything. I think that most folks from Arkansas supported Clinton for two reasons: He was from Arkansas, and it got his family out of the state. I thought the whole Huckabee running for president was a joke. After thinking about it though, I think that he actually has a fair shot at it. I think that he would make a better showing if he was some one's VP. Huckabee is moderate middle of the road kinda of preacher. Guys like him would be useful for the moderate Republicans and the middle of the road Christian crowd. His most useful things is that he can bend to get some things done, and that he can play that religion card against folks that are far more religious extremist than him.

    O.k. those that hate anything doing with religion and would instantly vote against any church member, much less a preacher, will never like Huckabee. Those that understand how a preacher can bend and get most of his followers to at least give it a try for a while will see that Huckabee could be good for the general Republican party. I think Huckabee and Ron Paul both have that snowball's chance in hell of actually winning, but I thought Clinton had the same chances of winning and that Huckabee had that same chances of winning his bid for governor so what the heck do I know?
  • by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) <(gterich) (at) (> on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:24PM (#22292644) Journal
    First of all, Slashdot should be telling us who we can and can't talk about. Of course, this is one of the fundamental facets of liberalism (to which Slashdot fervently subscribes) - control of speech.

    That said:

    Romney: Would be a good President, and I hope would run it like a business that is supposed to have clean books and a balanced budget. He has flip-flopped on some issues, but his record of taking Massachusetts from deficit to surplus stands, and that is precisely what we need in the immediate term to combat the free-falling dollar and declining value of US assets across the world.

    Huckabee: Just doesn't have it right in my mind. I am not inspired by his brand of religious evangelism, and am quite frankly scared of that kind of religious zeal threatening the separation clause. He also has no plan to improve the state of our economy on a global landscape.

    McCain: Is not a republican by any stretch of the imagination

    Paul: Is far more concerned with legalizing drugs than he is with coming to the amazing realization that, despite the fantasy land in which he lives where the US can be completely isolationist, the reality of the situation is that there are numerous kids in the sand box and they all have to play nice together.
  • 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 Nikker ( 749551 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:30PM (#22292758)
    Since I'm not a US citizen I feel amazed that even I am more aware of Dr. Paul's politics than you even if you aren't a US citizen.

    Dr. Paul is actually stating that he himself is not gay and he does not act in the lifestyle but if you wish to all the best. He would like to see prayer in schools but he does not want to enforce it. He does not want to enforce any of the subjects you state (ie abortion) he feels it is ultimately you and your states decision on how you carry out your life but if you ask him he would rather you keep your baby.

    So really you are the "circular progressive" in this case (the one with his head up his ass ;)) His positions from the beginning have been that of a fatherly figure stating that he does not want to interfere with your life as much as possible but is willing to offer advice if you ask.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Xonstantine ( 947614 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:34PM (#22292818)

    If Slashdot wanted to "perpetuate the status quo", they would not make public comments the centerpiece of the site. Instead, they would do what most right-wing bloggers do, which is not allow any comments at all, or worse, moderate the comments to only allow those that are in agreement. Now that's how to perpetuate the status quo.
    Uh huh. Like Democratic Underground or Daily Kos doesn't do exactly the same thing? Yeah, it's just those evil Republicans that support censorship. No one would ever drop the ban hammer on DU for deviating from the party line.
  • Re:Least bad choice? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Frizzle Fry ( 149026 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:47PM (#22293080) Homepage
    Huckabee's support base is Evangelicals who support him because he is "one of them". There is no way that in his absence they would be voting for a Mormon.
  • by dada21 ( 163177 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:34PM (#22293670) Homepage Journal
    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 vote in every election, but I only write myself in. The only candidate who cares about me is me. We have quite a movement in my community on anti-voting. By 2012, I hope that "Other" ends up with 20% of the vote because people are sick of voting for force, so this gives them the chance to get other people questioning the act of voting for evil. All politicians are evil, because government is the use of force, plain and simple.

    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.

    I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in sin as defined in the Bible. Even if you believe in sin, it is not your place to judge anyone else. Ever. We're not Pharisees, we're not Saducees, and we're surely not God, so it isn't our place to call out another person's actions. It is especially not our place to steal from people to try to make the world sin free.

    Biblically, the first place of judgment comes from you to yourself. If a Christian harms you, you are called to talk with them. If they ignore you, you are to speak with a few brethren within the Body to talk to the Christian. If they still ignore you, you call them out to the congregation. Expulsion is the last step.

    If a non-Christian harms you, you are to accept the abuse. Love your enemy. Christ brought forth two Commandments that stick for Christians: Love God, love others. Hoping for government to help a few means hoping for government to hurt the many. YOU should help those you know are in trouble, but don't force non-Christians to.
  • Re:For Reps: McCain (Score:2, Interesting)

    by disbelief0 ( 1010857 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:41PM (#22293794)
    I remember one of the Republican debates on Fox where they asked all the candidates about whether they would condone torture under certain circumstances. What I found appalling and bizarre is that nearly every one of them effectively said they'd be willing to commit war crimes (or be accessory to war crimes) -- because they condone torture.
  • by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:53PM (#22293968)

    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.
    I agree that the feds ought not interfere with education. I disagree that Towns and local non academic school board should decide curriculum. Curriculum ought to be decided by teachers and academics. Not nosy political bodies. Having a creationist president can be really bad for science and education as the last 7 years have shown but if we had one who did not interfere with education or science, that would be best.

    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 like your stance of providing support rather then condemning people. If there were 100 mil more of you and 100% less of the religious zealots we would be far better off and there would be far fewer abortions. The primary motivation for abortion is sheer panic, the lack of social support and the social stigma of being a young mother (single or otherwise). If this pressure didn't exist, if parents could be upset but provide support for these girls/women we'd have far far less abortions. I don't think anyone is truly "pro-abortion" but "pro-choice". I doubt any sane member of the pro-choice groups thinks there should be more abortions.

  • Re:Arguments (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Dragee ( 881700 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:01PM (#22294092)
    Just speculation here; perhaps many people have reached the same sad conclusion about US politics that I did, years ago.

    For years, I never bothered registering to vote, because I didn't think I could believe *anything* a political candidate said while campaigning. Put another way, it never mattered to me what they *said* their viewpoints were or policies would be, because too many just went and supported whatever special interests gave them the most money.

    When people feel that they're no longer voting for what the talking heads are claiming, they start voting based on whatever they can grab on to in order to feel like they have *some* chance of being represented by their government. Sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's the person's home state, and sometimes it's, "Wow, a blue tie!"

    I finally did register to vote when I felt the need to vote *against* a presidential candidate. I don't even remember who I voted for, but I most definitely voted against Bush in 2000 and 2004.

    And yes, we as Americans should all be bothered to go look up the way candidates voted on every major issue in their career, rather than listening to what they are saying today. The problem is, that doesn't always tell the whole story. "X candidate voted against gun control, then voted for it!" What isn't spelled out is that both of those issues may have been tacked on to something altogether unrelated and more important, like declaring a war. Also, I really think most people don't do this research due to the aforementioned apathy born from a lack of feeling represented. It takes effort to be an informed voter, and people quit exerting effort when they feel that their work didn't really have any effect for them. Definitely not the way it should be, but it seems to be the case.

  • by Plugh ( 27537 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:19PM (#22294420) Homepage

    I'll throw my $0.02 in here: IMO, Ron Paul is probably not going to be the next POTUS, but I have worked damn hard and donated a fair bit of cash to get him there anyway. If he does not win the Republican nomination, I'm writing him in.

    The key point here is that the Paul candidacy has raised the Constitution, and the notion that government should be limited as a serious issue to hundreds of thousands of Americans who otherwise may never have considered these things.

    I hope that, win or lose, these people continue the fight.
    That's what Ron said when my wife spoke to him, anyway... []

  • by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:47PM (#22294902)
    Wish I had mod points, but it's nice to join the discussion, too.

    I was discounting Ron Paul, too. His views seemed too extreme, even though I agree with him on 90% of the issues (his foreign policy is wacked, IMO), but:

    1. Out of what the media are declaring the four main contenders... two each for republican and democrat, they ALL have plans to increase government spending. Of course, the republican candidate's plans are about 1/20th to 1/25th what the democrat ones are, but with yearly deficit after deficit, cutting needs to be cut...

    Then this morning I get up to this screaming headline: Bush hands Congress $3 Trillion Budget. It includes $400 billion in deficit spending. I was undecided until this morning, now Ron Paul has my vote.
  • Re:Seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) <> on Monday February 04, 2008 @03:03PM (#22295196) Homepage Journal
    I'm posting anonymously because I have mod points today

    Appreciate that explanation, because I've stopped replying to AC's.

    I don't see why this is necessarily a good idea. Simply by virtue of having children does not not make one an expert on how to educate children. Why not let the people who know about such matters make the important decisions.

    And you're saying that unionized public school teachers know what is best for the student? I think not. First, standards in markets are set by what the community shows need for based on how they spend their money. In my town, definitely a lower class town, our local stores don't carry a lot of expensive items, because they don't sell. The town south of me is almost entirely hispanic, and their shoe stores tend to carry a lot of shoes in smaller sizes -- because their population tends to have smaller feet. We have a lot of taco restaurants, but no steak houses. The market has answered it's need. When the Federal, or even State government gets involved in trying to fulfill a market need, it does so with a blind eye to what the local population needs. Some people want cheap, small shoes that they can afford, and others want expensive designer shoes in size 14. Forcing the same standard on all localities leaves people with a product they can neither afford, nor need at the level they want. Education to me is not a right, and by making it one we've only made education worse for the average person who wants it for their kids.

    I have read some of his campaign material, and I think the above statement is more than a little dishonest. He is trying to have his cake (he holds strong anti-abortion beliefs) and eat it to (by insisting it is a state rights issue).

    What is wrong with a person saying "I believe in this, but I have to tell you that if I take this position, I really have no legal authority to dictate the issue, so my answer is that it's none of my business." That's Paul's position.

    Unless you (or your spouse) are teachers or administrators with real-world experience in such matters, your comments strike me as needless flamebait.

    I've been going to school board meetings since I was 19 (14 years). I've read almost 16 school year budgets. I've discussed actual needs with teachers AND administrators. The teachers' unions are lying, methodical thieves, who give nothing to the teachers they're supposed to protect. Little surprise, since most national unions act the same way. The administration is meaningless, too. In my state (Illinois), kids are getting dumber, but the administrations are fighting for freaking artificial turf for their sporting fields! The kids are dumb as bricks, but they need better grass for their football games? Right.

    The parents, and only the parents, have the responsibility to lead their children in the proper direction. If the parents can't afford an education, that is what private subsidized education has been about. We've always had private churches and organizations providing for inexpensive education, until we taxpayers were forced to foot the bill on substandard "everyone's equal" education. It sickens me, because I do see the average person getting dumber and dumber. One-size-fits-all doesn't work, not even with gloves or hats.

    Like anything else in the world, you get what you pay for. If you want the lowest costs, you are going to get the lowest quality.

    Wow that is SO untrue. I bought a notebook for $2000 3 years ago that is sub-par to the notebook I bought recently for $600. Recently I found an oil-change service (prepaid annually) that is 1/2 the price of my previous place, but does a MUCH better and faster job. I'm a foodie, and I guarantee you that price does not equal quality of service. One of my businesses is the cheapest in the industry nation-wide, and we consistently get higher ratings than our competition that is 3-4x more expensive than we are.

    Price and quality do not go hand-in-hand. Remember, with p
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @03:04PM (#22295224) Homepage
    Regardless of the party he's running for -- he's not a mainstream candidate, which can easily be seen from his views.

    A libertarian running as a republican is still a libertarian.

    As for media coverage, it's pretty easy to see how one needs to achieve some sort of "celebrity" status before entering the election. There's not much about Ron Paul that makes him stand out from the crowd of other libertarian candidates, apart from the fact that he's a congressman (there have are also been socialist congressmen) and a tad more moderate than most libertarians. The media has very little to report about a person like Ron Paul -- he's boring (although those newsletters were good for a laugh).

    I'm afraid that Ron Paul is little more than an internet phenomenon. There's no conspiracy going on. He's a fringe candidate, and the same cries have been heard from 3rd-party candidates for decades.
  • Re:Ron Paul? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Yunzil ( 181064 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @08:32PM (#22300660) Homepage
    He supports the Constitution.

    I don't think he's ever read the Constitution. For evidence, see his "replete with references to God" quote.

    Plus he wants to amend it to remove birthright citizenship from the 14th Amendment, and he sponsored the "We The People Act", which would gut the First Amendment. So Ron Paul is 100% behind the Constitution, except for the parts he doesn't like.

    Name one candidate who understands the monetary policy behind a fiat currency

    I can't name any, and that includes Ron Paul.

"The eleventh commandment was `Thou Shalt Compute' or `Thou Shalt Not Compute' -- I forget which." -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982