Question for Republicans

[A18]

The problem--for me--is that none of the "big three" have a whole lot of credibility on fiscal issues. And after George W. Bush, I for one feel pretty cynical about any libertarian pledges concerning economics.

I'll take this campaign seriously when some candidate starts talking about inflation targeting, FDA reform, entitlement reform, and/or some serious tax code overhaul, while sounding like he means it. Until then, Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton may as well drop the acrimony and run on the same ticket. For now, the debate is over whether the top income tax rate should be 35 percent or 39 percent, whether unconstitutional "free trade" legislation stacked with thousands of pages of exceptions are better or worse than the status quo, and in what manner the federal government should nationalize education.

The Leviathan state lives, and the only question is the form. I'll likely vote Republican, but there's little for me to cheer for.

[SPC]

I suggest that you support Ron Paul. He's probably the best out of all the candidates.

[MasterJedi]

I'm enthusiastic, we have Tommy Thompson.

[agcatter]

not terribly excited

[Reaganfan]

I don't see why Republicans are so pessimistic. I mean, both Giuliani and McCain have the benefit of being seen as more moderate Republican.

[Kevin]

I don't see why Republicans are so pessimistic. I mean, both Giuliani and McCain have the benefit of being seen as more moderate Republican.

McCain's commiting poltical sucide so I'm beginning to count him out.

[Alcon]

I don't see why Republicans are so pessimistic. I mean, both Giuliani and McCain have the benefit of being seen as more moderate Republican.

They are starting out behind in polls before people realize they aren't particularly moderate on Iraq.

This is bad news for the GOP.

[auburntiger]

not too excited. I will still vote Republican in '08 though, but it will be b/c my conscience will bother me if I don't vote.

[Reaganfan]

I don't see why Republicans are so pessimistic. I mean, both Giuliani and McCain have the benefit of being seen as more moderate Republican.

McCain's commiting poltical sucide so I'm beginning to count him out.

If he runs against Hillary, and neither one runs anti-war campaigns...I think he wins. In fact, I don't think America will elect an anti-war candidate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In fact, I don't think America will elect an anti-war candidate.

Yeah because the war is sooooooooooo popular, right? That's why pro-war candidates did so well in 2006.

[HardRCafé]

They are starting out behind in polls before people realize they aren't particularly moderate on Iraq.

Yeah, uh, there was one poll without Giuliani ahead, and it was Zogby.

[Boris]

I don't think America will elect an anti-war candidate.

I love how you repeat the same things over and over again, only to be refuted in the exact same manner every single time. At least think of some new material.

[Reaganfan]

In fact, I don't think America will elect an anti-war candidate.

Yeah because the war is sooooooooooo popular, right? That's why pro-war candidates did so well in 2006.

Yes. Joe Lieberman was pro-war and re-elected. Areas in Florida and the South didn't trend democrat. Almost all the races were atleast within a few points and most new democrats elected were moderates...not liberals.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In fact, I don't think America will elect an anti-war candidate.

Yeah because the war is sooooooooooo popular, right? That's why pro-war candidates did so well in 2006.

Yes. Joe Lieberman was pro-war and re-elected.

Do you really think he won BECAUSE of his pro-war position rather than in spite of it?

Areas in Florida and the South didn't trend democrat.

The Democrats picked up 3 seats in Florida, one of which was stolen. There wasn't so many gains in the rest of the south, but so what? We're talking about the whole country.

Almost all the races were atleast within a few points

See, this is what happens when incumbents lose. Landslides happen when incumbents face weak opponents. Any competitive race, which of course includes pick-ups, is obviously going to be fairly close. Despite that there was several notable landslides, including where a 20+ year moderate Republican was beaten by a hardcore liberal in a district Kerry only won by half a point. That sort of stuff doesn't happen every election.

and most new democrats elected were moderates...not liberals.

A few notable examples != majority.

Let's look at the new Senators:

Brown = ultra-liberal
Klobuchar = liberal
Tester = liberal
McCaskill = somewhat moderate
Casey = socially moderate, economically ultra-liberal
Cardin = liberal
Webb = a former Republican, but so far he's been nothing but liberal
Whitehouse = liberal

So you have two semi-moderates and the rest liberal. The ratio in the House is quite similar, and even the moderates there are not moderate on the war. So far every one voted against the troop surge and for the troop withdrawl timetable. You don't have an ounce of evidence to back up your claim most newly elected Democrats were pro-war and still no evidence that opposing a very unpopular war makes one unelectable.

Also take a look at what my newly elected Congressman Tim Walz has said: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1117721.html

[Kevin]

In fact, I don't think America will elect an anti-war candidate.

Yeah because the war is sooooooooooo popular, right? That's why pro-war candidates did so well in 2006.

Yes. Joe Lieberman was pro-war and re-elected. Areas in Florida and the South didn't trend democrat. Almost all the races were atleast within a few points and most new democrats elected were moderates...not liberals.

Lieberman won because Ned Lamont was for all pursposes a one issue canidate. However I'm thrilled that the partisan hack didn't win. 

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

With the exception of Ron Paul, who does not seem to have any chance at the nomination, this is the worst batch of Republicans running for President in decades.

[Lincoln Republican]

The Republicans need a dynamic, straight shooting,  forthright, charismatic, compelling, forceful, high powered, magnetic, aggressive, energetic, enterprising, bold, forward looking individual, ready to lead America into a new era of peace and prosperity, who is capable of negotiating an honorable exit strategy from Iraq, who is prepared to do what has to be done to defeat the war on terror, who is not afraid to stand up to special interests and pressure groups, someone who can set America's fiscal and social house in order, who is willing to do the right thing, even in the face of adversity, someone with the jam to do the job as President of the United States of America.

The only thing I can think of is a combination of Giuliani's courage, McCain's  experience, Romney's brains, Fred Thompson's straight forward gumption, Brownback's decency, Gingrich's toughness.

I'm still looking.

Any suggestions?   

[Aizen]

Fred Thompson resembles a walrus

[Lincoln Republican]

Fred Thompson resembles a walrus

Now that's not nice.  Fred Thompson has a certain forthright charm about him.   

[StateBoiler]

In fact, I don't think America will elect an anti-war candidate.

Yeah because the war is sooooooooooo popular, right? That's why pro-war candidates did so well in 2006.

Legislative races are what they are. Electing a guy that can actually say "the buck stops here" and it's true is entirely different. It's why I think Kerry was not elected. I thought Bush was an awful President the last two years of his term, but deep down I knew that Kerry would not do a better job, so I voted Badnarik as a protest in disgust. If Kerry were elected, we would be in just as big a quagmire in Iraq as we are now with the same troop levels. He wouldn't have pulled out cause it would've cemented the Republicans' charge that the Democrats are "soft on national security" and the Republicans would've made substantial gains in the House and Senate this past election instead of the Democrats.

Despite my Libertarian label on my avatar, I'm not a party member, I'm a small-l libertarian that leans Republican. For those of you that are upset that Republicans have left behind small government, you have a couple choices. First, as someone said, support Paul and Thompson. Paul is a card-carrying Libertarian Party member (in addition to Republican Party of course) and is libertarian even when it is unpopular and to his political detriment, which is why he won't win the nomination unless something crazy occurs. I'll admit I don't know much about Thompson but everything I heard as far as small government has been positive.

Second, if one of the Big Three get the nomination, vote for the Libertarian. I know the whole wasted vote thing argument but listen to me.

If you live in a state, like I do, where you know who the winner will be three months (or...a year) ahead of time, your vote is wasted anyway. That's probably 40 of our country's states. So if you're in a competitive state like Pennsylvania or New Hampshire, vote tactically for the Republican. If you're in Massachusetts or North Carolina, you can vote for the Libertarian cause it won't matter either way.

If there's a larger Libertarian vote than normal, like what Nader did in 2000 minus spoiling the election in some states, then the Republican's hopeful nominees in 2012 will go back to small government to get that vote back. What Nader did in 2000 did far more to kill off the centrist DLC vote than anything the Democrats' hopefuls like Howard Dean did. Nader energized the disgusted left vote and these people four years later were ready and ripe to be picked up by Howard Dean, and Dean forced everyone in the Democratic nomination left after an unknown governor from Vermont became the frontrunner in November 2003.


I think the party that'll have a coming out of sorts in 2008 (other than the Libertarians hopefully) will be the Constitution Party. Why?

Romney - Mormon from Massachusetts
McCain - has had his issues with the Religious Right
Giuliani - uhh...don't think I need to much explain that. If that actually happens, I'll bet money on the CP candidate carrying Utah.

[MaC]

Paul is probably closer to your views than the rest.  Way I see it, you can support him well knowing the .5% chance he has, or become a defeatist compromiser by going with the big three.  At least I'm going to go down knowing I'm fighting on the right side.