The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Aw, this bums me out: Richardson drops out of race

I hope whoever does secure the nomination is smart enough to make him their VP candidate...

I'm bummed too - Kerry just endorsed Obama - I heard a rumor he was waiting to see how Richardson did before endorsing anyone. I'm tempted to be an ass and caucus for Kucinich now but I'll probably end up going Edwards.

Also, the more Earp types, the more okay I am with Ron Paul wanting to abolish the federal Department of Education. It obviously has been failing for a long time.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Also, the more Earp types, the more okay I am with Ron Paul wanting to abolish the federal Department of Education. It obviously has been failing for a long time.

While this is pretty funny on its own, it's actually pretty true.

Ron Paul has said a lot of stuff that seems way off the reservation, but eliminating the Dept of Ed probably isn't one of them.

[KyleMcGuire1983]

Are all GC posters Democrats now or what?

2006-2008 really is a depressing time for Republicans!

I liked Mitt Romney but his constant attacks on McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee are wearing thin (as much as I don't trust Huckabee). I guess I'll become a McCainiac and hope he can stop Senator Barack Rodham Obama-Clinton.

"Mac is Back!" lol

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KyleMcGuire1983

Are all GC posters Democrats now or what?

2006-2008 really is a depressing time for Republicans!

I liked Mitt Romney but his constant attacks on McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee are wearing thin (as much as I don't trust Huckabee). I guess I'll become a McCainiac and hope he can stop Senator Barack Rodham Obama-Clinton.

"Mac is Back!" lol

I don't consider myself Democrat or Republican, however no one in the GOP field is impressing me.

McCain used to be the guy you knew would stick to his guns but in the past year or so he went from being the "maverick" to being Bush's buddy. From criticizing the religious right, to essentially begging for their support. I can't back that.

Romney, eh. I don't like the negative campaign either, and I feel like I really don't know what he believes/stands for/ etc. He gets criticized for "flip-flopping" a term I despise, but I think that his message has been so focused on tearing others down that little of the "here's why you should vote for me" comes through. (Also that you can't have freedom w/o religion thing is off-putting)

Huckabee should NOT be president. This is not a man who will keep church and state separate. Evolution is science, creationism is religion. This is a man who doesn't know the difference between the two. Also, I'm not sure a "fair tax" is ever going to be possible, but if it is it doesn't need to be this guy who brings it about.

And Giuliani's a long shot. He's "waiting" til Florida and then hoping that everyone else votes for him on Super Tuesday. Good luck with that. In some ways he would be the most tolerable GOP, in others he'd be the least.

I don't know who I'll vote for on election day itself though, depends on my options.

[UGAalum94]

Have you looked at Fred?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Have you looked at Fred?

I've heard very little about Fred Thompson. I would love to hear why you like him so much!

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I've heard very little about Fred Thompson. I would love to hear why you like him so much!

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/Pri...iew=Principles

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

I think he recognizes that he has a much better chance of picking up Republican delegates in South Carolina than in Michigan (which I think is sort of seen as a McCain vs. Romney state as far as Rs are concerned), so I don't think he's been campaigning up there at all.

The links above will take you to the issues section of his website if you REALLY want to know what he thinks. They're pretty thorough.

I like him because he seems to recognize that everything we'd like in life is not the responsibility of the Federal government but that there are key issues like immigration* and national defense where we really need to be paying attention.

I don't think that Fred thinks these are the only issues important in our lives, but that reducing the scale and cost of the Federal gov't in other areas will allow state and local governments (and individuals) to retain more power and resources to take care of other needs more effectively. Basically and constitutionally, a lot of other things that might be swell aren't the job of the Federal government.

(I'm not anti-immigrant but concerned about uncontrolled illegal immigration.)

Honestly, AGDee, I think you and I are pretty far apart politically just based on discussions on GC, and I'm not sure much of what Fred is about will appeal to you.

I think you are optimistic about the government being able provide additional services to people who need them, but I'm more cynical about what it can actually accomplish and more concerned about keeping most things as local as we can, so that the Federal government is there to protect our constitutionally granted Civil Rights and provide for a common defense but not much else.

ETA: There are, of course, other areas where I think that we need the federal gov't, but they are far fewer than most Presidential candidates are indicating they are interested in.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Have you looked at Fred?

Fred hasn't convinced me he's actually running, much like Giuliani he's been kind of coasting along on name recognition.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Fred hasn't convinced me he's actually running, much like Giuliani he's been kind of coasting along on name recognition.

That's certainly been the media take, but maybe they don't want to own up to not covering him more. He was all over Iowa and is presently all over South Carolina. He finished third in Iowa and second in Wyoming, which means he actually won some delegates, and at this point only has four fewer than McCain, who seems like he's actually in the race to most people. (Fred has six, Paul two, Rudy and Hunter one).

You can go to the section of Fred's website and see his photos of events of where he has been. He's definitely out there meeting, greeting and selling his ideas.

He participates in the debates as much as the moderators let him.

He is really out there campaigning, but he's had to be more conservative about how he spends his money, I think, because he didn't have as much of it.

Now, I know that he is on record talking about not really liking campaigning, but he made clear in the very same answer that distaste for campaigning is not the same as not really wanting to serve in the job.

The way we expect it on the national level, campaigning is superficial, often insincere, and includes somewhat hypocritical platitudes from most of them. I don't blame someone for not being into that.

But I acknowledge that for a long time, I've been automatically skeptical about anyone willing to run, and so Fred's seeming reluctance to fully engage in BS is actually a bonus for me.

What is driving me crazy is the number of people I know who are approaching primary voting like they are betting on a race horse rather than trying to nominate the candidate who really reflects what they want. I hear a lot of, "Oh yeah, I really like what Fred stands for but I think Huckabee is more likely to win." Uh, maybe not if every conservative who actually preferred Fred voted for him but certainly if they don't.

It's like people learned nothing from the Democrats nominating Kerry. If you kind of abandoned some principles to nominate an insubstantial centrist candidate, don't be surprised when you lose votes in the general election to the more appealing candidate from the other party who is selling himself as a centrist.

[alum]

From CNN:

Electoral Seats

For the Reps:

Magic Number 1,191

Romney 42
Huckabee 21
McCain 19
Thompson 6
Paul 2
Giuliani 1
Hunter 1

For the Dems:

Magic Number 2,025

Clinton 190
Obama 103
Edwards 51
Kucinich 1
Biden 0
Dodd 0
Gravel 0
Richardson 0

[nittanyalum]

^^^LOL. Aw, sorry, SEC. I didn't realize he was your guy, too.

[UGAalum94]

Yep, and I'm sad and angry about it.

I think I'm voting Obama in the primary, and I'm going to wait and see who the Republicans put out there in the general.

I suffer from Bill Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and I wouldn't be able to take the possibility of seeing him in the news as frequently as he would be as the husband of the President. Seriously, I HATE that guy, primarily because he personifies all the baby boomer ethical hypocrisy and self-absorption that my generation will have to put up with until they all kick off.

It's a weird reason to choose a candidate, I know, but since there's no one I particularly want to vote for. . .

[AGDee]

I don't think it's that different than my reasons for not voting for Hilary. Would I love to see the first female president? you bet Do I agree with her on a lot of issues? yes

My problem is this: Bush, Clinton, Bush... do we need a whole generation of people to never know any president other than a Bush or Clinton? It starts to look more like a monarchy or dynasty than a democracy. Also, the people who dislike Clinton really HATE her. I don't think it's useful to have a president who is the center of such polarization. Whether Democrat or Republican, I want to see a President who is respected, whether you agree with them on all issues or not. The people who really hate Hilary will criticize and bicker about everything she does, just because of who she is. I truly hope that the next President will be someone who can make us more purple and less Red vs. Blue.

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I don't think it's that different than my reasons for not voting for Hilary. Would I love to see the first female president? you bet Do I agree with her on a lot of issues? yes

My problem is this: Bush, Clinton, Bush... do we need a whole generation of people to never know any president other than a Bush or Clinton? It starts to look more like a monarchy or dynasty than a democracy. Also, the people who dislike Clinton really HATE her. I don't think it's useful to have a president who is the center of such polarization. Whether Democrat or Republican, I want to see a President who is respected, whether you agree with them on all issues or not. The people who really hate Hilary will criticize and bicker about everything she does, just because of who she is. I truly hope that the next President will be someone who can make us more purple and less Red vs. Blue.

Can I get an AMEN?? I'm one of the ones that HATES her, and I'm a tried and true Democrat (even though I lean toward fiscal conservatism). And if she's the Dem candidate in the general, I will simply vote against her, as long as it's McCain that's the other candidate. If it's anybody else, then I may just not vote in protest.

[LeslieAGD]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Do I agree with her on a lot of issues? yes

My problem is this: Bush, Clinton, Bush... do we need a whole generation of people to never know any president other than a Bush or Clinton? It starts to look more like a monarchy or dynasty than a democracy.

I'm surprised to hear you say you like her and most of her politics but won't vote for her because of her husband, the Bush Family, and polarization. Those are not exactly things she could control.

On a side note, the more I hear from/about Obama, the less I like him.