Which candidate should be the Republican nominee?

[DubaiSis]

That's a fabulous story! And AGDee, that's 8 VOTES, not 8 points. But the important thing for people to remember is the candidates all take their delegates with them, so top 3 (or 4 if it's close which in this case it wasn't) can hold their heads high moving forward.

As a person with no horse in this race, I was reasonably happy with the outcome. I don't like Santorum AT ALL, but knowing caucus goers are generally blue-hairs, it's not a surprise he did well. Paul was the big surprise to me, and the scariest for the Democrats in my opinion because he provides the clearest counterpoint to the president. Romney may be the most sane of the bunch, but like Kerry, (is everyone from MA boring?) it's hard to get very excited about someone who's such a yawnfest. And you need exciting to get out the vote. "I think he'll do an ok job and not run the country into the crapper" is no way to get frenzied voters beating down the doors on November 6th.

[AlphaFrog]

With all of the disenchanted former Obama lovers, six months ago I would have though that this is the GOP's race to lose...I see they're doing a pretty good job of it.

[steveg]

Sad to say, the GOP has no real winner running.

Mitt, is a hot air balloon. No substance.
Newt, to much bagage.
Ron Paul, to old and to far out.
Perry, should hang it up.
Bachman, well, she is gone.
Santorum, to smiley and meely mouth. Talks a lot and says nothing.
Huntsman, gone.

Possibles?

Christie, size will kill him.
Jeb Busch, a Busch, country not ready for another one. He could be a good one. Hope he is sane enough to stay retired and live like a human being.
Trump, well he is The Donald.

GOP is in trouble, no new Ronald Reagan to come forward on his white horse. Heck, the whole country is in trouble!

[MysticCat]

Hi Tom.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Hi Tom.

He did manage to hold off on using emoticons. I know it had to have been hard for him!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

He did manage to hold off on using emoticons. I know it had to have been hard for him!

I know. Ironic, given this:

Originally Posted by steveg

Santorum, to smiley . . . .

I liked the part about another Busch in the White House, though.

[AnchorAlum]

Originally Posted by steveg

Sad to say, the GOP has no real winner running.

Mitt, is a hot air balloon. No substance.
Newt, to much bagage.
Ron Paul, to old and to far out.
Perry, should hang it up.
Bachman, well, she is gone.
Santorum, to smiley and meely mouth. Talks a lot and says nothing.
Huntsman, gone.

Possibles?

Christie, size will kill him.
Jeb Busch, a Busch, country not ready for another one. He could be a good one. Hope he is sane enough to stay retired and live like a human being.
Trump, well he is The Donald.

GOP is in trouble, no new Ronald Reagan to come forward on his white horse. Heck, the whole country is in trouble!

I had no idea that size was a requirement for winning or losing elected office. Summoning ghost of William Howard Taft....

Are you intentionally spelling 41 and 43's name wrong?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlum

Are you intentionally spelling 41 and 43's name wrong?

It's Tom.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

That's a fabulous story! And AGDee, that's 8 VOTES, not 8 points. But the important thing for people to remember is the candidates all take their delegates with them, so top 3 (or 4 if it's close which in this case it wasn't) can hold their heads high moving forward.

As a person with no horse in this race, I was reasonably happy with the outcome. I don't like Santorum AT ALL, but knowing caucus goers are generally blue-hairs, it's not a surprise he did well. Paul was the big surprise to me, and the scariest for the Democrats in my opinion because he provides the clearest counterpoint to the president. Romney may be the most sane of the bunch, but like Kerry, (is everyone from MA boring?) it's hard to get very excited about someone who's such a yawnfest. And you need exciting to get out the vote. "I think he'll do an ok job and not run the country into the crapper" is no way to get frenzied voters beating down the doors on November 6th.

Not true. Iowa has a very complicated system to award delegates. They won't be awarded until June 16 when they have their Iowa State Republican Convention. If by then a front runner breaks away, he may actually get all the

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...l?ref=politics

If you go to the link, ignore the very partisan first part and skip to the last part about apportioning delegates.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

He believes that marriage should have nothing to do with the government, only churches . . . .

That would be a fairly standard libertarian view -- that marriage is a contract between two people and that the government has no business being involved in it. From the party's platform: "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships." Saying churches should be involved is, I think, another way of saying that it is a person's personal values (and religious beliefs, if any), not the law, that should govern what that person does marriage-wise, and people should be free to marry in accordance with their values.

Now, calling for government restrictions on abortion, on the other hand, is very un-Libertarian.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Not true. Iowa has a very complicated system to award delegates. They won't be awarded until June 16 when they have their Iowa State Republican Convention.

Right. I heard this explained on NPR Tuesday -- the caucus votes are not binding on convention delegates.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Now, calling for government restrictions on abortion, on the other hand, is very un-Libertarian.

I know you and I have had this discussion before, but there are a minority of Libertarians that believe that an unborn baby has rights (I would personally argue from conception, but others obviously set the milestone at viability), and denying its right to live is the ultimate Libertarian violation. I'm happily camped in this minority.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I know you and I have had this discussion before, but there are a minority of Libertarians that believe that an unborn baby has rights (I would personally argue from conception, but others obviously set the milestone at viability), and denying its right to live is the ultimate Libertarian violation. I'm happily camped in this minority.

Good point. Thanks for reminding me.

FWIW, I was going by the Libertarian Party's platform, which says: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.'

But you are quite right.

[AlphaFrog]

Either way, point out to me a candidate that openly personally agrees with every point of their party's platform, and I'll point out a liar. Of course, I'd have probably just as good odds picking out a liar by closing my eyes and spinning in a circle around any DC government building.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That would be a fairly standard libertarian view -- that marriage is a contract between two people and that the government has no business being involved in it. From the party's platform: "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships." Saying churches should be involved is, I think, another way of saying that it is a person's personal values (and religious beliefs, if any), not the law, that should govern what that person does marriage-wise, and people should be free to marry in accordance with their values.

I used to be a Libertarian, but a lot of the Libertarian positions just don't make sense. What happens if the government gets out of marriage? Spouses are denied the ~1500 rights that are currently granted to them? Some number of these can be arranged individually by legal contract, but the others just disappear? For example, I can make Mr. DBB my beneficiary without the government's help, but I can't give him the right to visit me in the hospital. I guess Ron Paul would say I should choose a different hospital?