GOP Candidate of Choice?

[gprime]

I know not everybody here is a Republican. I'm certainly not (though I do find them more tolerable than the Democrats). But at this stage, there are still 11 known candidates, and a handful of other legally registered ones of less familiarity. So it seems worthwhile discussing them, and seeing which we like best.

[licata]

I would not vote for Guilliani, I know that, or McCain over my dead body. And I am stunned that the DA from Law & Order is Running. I know he was a congressman, but it's still odd.


That's what I know so far, but looking up some of the canidates I'm a little disturbed.


edited for de-fooling of a foolish post.

[swivel]

I almost want Huckabee to get the nomination just so we can see the "I *heart* Huckabee" stickers on all the cars.

Seriously, though, my vote in the primary will be for Ron Paul. And so should everyone else's. We need to play around with this democracy of ours and QUIT PUTTING THE SAME FUCK-HEADS IN OFFICE EVERY YEAR.

Stop worrying about "throwing your vote away", because that is what you do when you vote for a Republican or a Democrat that serves their own interest. Let's try electing a politician who wants to get rid of some bad laws, rather than trying to write new ones.

[Athena]

Ron Paul is a long shot, but he's the best man for the job, given the current state of things.

[licata]

Ron Paul is a long shot, but he's the best man for the job, given the current state of things.


He does have some interesting view points, but I see he is pro life and that is a big issue for me. Are there any GOP canidates that don't incorporate religion into every issue right now?

[Athena]

He does have some interesting view points, but I see he is pro life and that is a big issue for me. Are there any GOP canidates that don't incorporate religion into every issue right now?

No.

Unfortunately, we will almost always be choosing between the lesser of two evils. The odds that a candidate with identical values will present themselves are astronomical. I simply have faith that the constitutionality of the issue will keep options open for women.

[swivel]

He does have some interesting view points, but I see he is pro life and that is a big issue for me. Are there any GOP canidates that don't incorporate religion into every issue right now?

Ah, who gives a shit? The president will never make abortion illegal. Every congressman would lose their jobs and the next bunch would set things right again.

Besides, even if you overturned Roe v. Wade, all it would do is leave the legality of abortion up the the individual states. It would NOT make abortion illegal, and in most states it would remain legal.

I'm pro-choice and I dream about the day they overturn Roe v. Wade. If you are pro-choice, you should hope for that day as well. Right now, the lawmakers get to hide behind the skirts of the Supreme Court, so they can dodge the question all day long. If we overturned Roe v. Wade, the state legislatures would have to rule on the legality of abortion, and we would have to have an honest discourse on a very touchy subject. Most states would legalize it (many would actually REVERT back to previously legalized abortion, since it was legal in those states before Roe v. Wade), and the rest of the country would eventually follow suit as old people die and more tolerant people grow up in a new world.

[Athena]

Ah, who gives a shit? The president will never make abortion illegal. Every congressman would lose their jobs and the next bunch would set things right again.

Besides, even if you overturned Roe v. Wade, all it would do is leave the legality of abortion up the the individual states. It would NOT make abortion illegal, and in most states it would remain legal.

I'm pro-choice and I dream about the day they overturn Roe v. Wade. If you are pro-choice, you should hope for that day as well. Right now, the lawmakers get to hide behind the skirts of the Supreme Court, so they can dodge the question all day long. If we overturned Roe v. Wade, the state legislatures would have to rule on the legality of abortion, and we would have to have an honest discourse on a very touchy subject. Most states would legalize it (many would actually REVERT back to previously legalized abortion, since it was legal in those states before Roe v. Wade), and the rest of the country would eventually follow suit as old people die and more tolerant people grow up in a new world.

My, aren't you an idealist. ;)

First of all, the country is pretty evenly split in terms of pro-choice vs. pro-life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life#The_debate). Congressmen wouldn't lose their seats too quickly.

More states are considered likely to ban abortion if R vs. W is overturned than you may realise (21, in fact) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6184949/).

If abortion became illegal in all the states that are poised to criminalise it, do you really believe that people will grow more tolerant to the issue under those circumstances?

[swivel]

My, aren't you an idealist. ;)

First of all, the country is pretty evenly split in terms of pro-choice vs. pro-life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life#The_debate). Congressmen wouldn't lose their seats too quickly.

More states are considered likely to ban abortion if R vs. W is overturned than you may realise (21, in fact) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6184949/).

If abortion became illegal in all the states that are poised to criminalise it, do you really believe that people will grow more tolerant to the issue under those circumstances?

I think you are looking at public polls. We are not a true Democracy, thank goodness, so our elected representatives will have that decision. And even though the VAST majority of our public doesn't "believe" in evolution, and 95% think that an unknown force created the universe, we still don't teach creationism in the classroom, but we DO teach evolution. Proof that public opinion does not drive policy and that religious fervor doesn't either.

The politicians talk tough about being pro-life because they don't have to make the call. If you get them out from behind the skirts of the judges, their tune would change. I think people are stridently anti-abortion partly because the decision feels FORCED on them by the judicial branch, and they are correct. When major decisions are prematurely forced on the public, it creates resentment, which divides people and fosters fanaticism.

In most cases, change comes easier by letting things run their course, but "progressives" practice their own form of fascism, which creates the precise class warfare that they pretend to loathe. The South would have integrated better over time, with no legislation, than it has with all of the needless laws that have miserably failed. Slavery would have been abolished painlessly in half a generation without tens of millions of lives wasted in an attempt to strengthen the Federal Government. Abortion would have been fully legalized without the farce of Roe v. Wade (Roe was used as a prop and later became a staunch pro-lifer and rued the entire affair).

I'm not an idealist, the idealists are the ones that fuck up our country. They are fascist pigs who can't let people be different, while whining about the lack of "diversity". I'm a realist who understands that all things work out best with the least amount of tinkering.

The societies with the most freedoms do best. That doesn't make any form of government look very good.

[gprime]

As per my own initial question...

My first choice would, as with most people here (or for that matter, people with an IQ above 120), be Ron Paul. I have some issues with him, to be certain. His inability to recognize the threat of Iran, his belief that we were founded as a Christian nation (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), and his support for the current restrictions on homosexual enlistment are all bothersome. But look at the alternatives, and he becomes the clear choice. Of all the candidates, he follows the Constitution most closely, is the most outspoken opponent to taxation, and is the only candidate actually willing to cut government down in size, and reduce its power. What really impresses me about him is that he doesn't support bills that, at first glace, would seem to advance our economic and political interests, but prove themselves not to, as shown by his vote against CAFTA, and his desire to withdraw from the WTO.

My second choice among the real candidates (since Michael Smith has even less of a shot than Ron Paul) is Jim Gilmore. As the governor of Virginia, he phased out the car tax. That is of course good, because it suggests that he'll work to cut taxes on a domestic level too. And I think we all know what Friedman said on taxes. Moreover, his educational reforms yielded impressive results. While I want to see government out of the educational business, if they remain in it, then the results ought to at least be decent. From what I've read, he also seems to support policies consistent with internet growth and development, including opposition to taxation of e-commerce, and creating a Secretary of Technology position. Plus, as a GOP candidate, he'd pose a credible threat to the Democrats in their effort to take the black community. His record is such that he could probably garner a fair bit of support among blacks, especially compared to other members of his party.

Beyond them, there are no other candidates I'm too satisfied with. I think that Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo are far, far better than the remaining seven, but both have serious isssues. Tancredo's policy on immigration is just absurd, and Thompson's stand on health issues could make a person sick. And it is sad to say that as bad as they are, the remaining seven are far worse, and have better chances of taking the nomination. The GOP is screwed, and so too in the country (as usual), since the Democratic candidates are even worse.

[swivel]

As bleak as the candidate pool looks, life will continue to get better for most people no matter who wins. The population of this country is what drives it forward, even with the friction and impedance created by well-meaning but incompetent politicians.

[Athena]

I think you are looking at public polls. We are not a true Democracy, thank goodness, so our elected representatives will have that decision. And even though the VAST majority of our public doesn't "believe" in evolution, and 95% think that an unknown force created the universe, we still don't teach creationism in the classroom, but we DO teach evolution. Proof that public opinion does not drive policy and that religious fervor doesn't either.

I'm not talking about the decision-making being in the hands of the public, and neither were you. Do you really think you need to clarify the type of government we've got for me? Here's what you said - perhaps I misunderstood what you were implying:

Ah, who gives a shit? The president will never make abortion illegal. Every congressman would lose their jobs and the next bunch would set things right again.

I assumed you meant that the congressmen would lose their jobs as the result of public opinion (a disapproval of the President's action criminalising abortion). That's what I was addressing.

The politicians talk tough about being pro-life because they don't have to make the call. If you get them out from behind the skirts of the judges, their tune would change. I think people are stridently anti-abortion partly because the decision feels FORCED on them by the judicial branch, and they are correct. When major decisions are prematurely forced on the public, it creates resentment, which divides people and fosters fanaticism.

I would agree. However, I can think of something that divides people and fosters fanaticism that wouldn't be marginalised by overturning RvsW...Religion would still remain. I think the impact that overturning RvsW would have on personal opinion would be minimal when compared with the influence their religion has on that opinion. But there's no way to tell until it happens, I suppose.

In most cases, change comes easier by letting things run their course, but "progressives" practice their own form of fascism, which creates the precise class warfare that they pretend to loathe. The South would have integrated better over time, with no legislation, than it has with all of the needless laws that have miserably failed. Slavery would have been abolished painlessly in half a generation without tens of millions of lives wasted in an attempt to strengthen the Federal Government. Abortion would have been fully legalized without the farce of Roe v. Wade (Roe was used as a prop and later became a staunch pro-lifer and rued the entire affair).

I agree to an extent, but when it comes to Constitutional rights and large populations of people who are being denied said rights, the easier way is not necessarily better. It's easy to suggest that things should be allowed to simply work their way out when you are not subject to any of the restrictions of liberty.

I'm not an idealist, the idealists are the ones that fuck up our country. They are fascist pigs who can't let people be different, while whining about the lack of "diversity". I'm a realist who understands that all things work out best with the least amount of tinkering.

My bad, homie....my bad. ;)

The societies with the most freedoms do best. That doesn't make any form of government look very good.

Hear, hear!

[swivel]

Great post. Thanks.

I hope you get that I capitalize for EFFECT, since I'm too lazy to bold-face shit. I don't ever get upset with anything other than Morbid, (he is generally wrong about everything, and since he is pretty smart, that annoys me greatly).

I think RvsW is a hollow victory for those of us that cherish personal freedom. It feels like an un-won triumph. Exactly like what happens when a country is in the middle of a civil war, and an outside force intervenes and decides the outcome for both parties. That is what the Judicial branch did by creating legislation, rather than asking Congress to draft legislation that they could then interpret as constitutional or unconstitutional.

Our constitution is brilliantly constructed. Most people don't realize this because we have always had it, but it really is something mind-staggeringly brilliant in its simplicity, foresight, and power. Too bad our country doesn't pay it much attention anymore. Congress does daily shit that it has no constitutional right to do. And when the Supreme Court creates legislation, they rob the constitution of one of its most brilliant features: separation of powers.

When this outside force settled the civil war prematurely, they left the battle un-fought, so neither side resolved the issue. One side has forced compulsion, and the other side has an outcome not earned. There will be bad feelings until the ideological struggle is allowed to play out.

Revolutionaries are good at one thing only: They see a change is just around the corner, and instead of patiently waiting for it to come, and be enjoyed by all, they throw chains around everyone around them and DRAG THEM UNWILLING to where they were already heading of their own volition. And they do it so they can feel good about themselves.

They can all burn in hell for their destructive arrogance. They ruin everything with their mixture of hubris and arrogance.

[Athena]

Thanks for illustrating your perspective in such a way that I can feel more comfortable with it. I definitely agree with your logic, there.

BTW - I apologise if I came off a little snippy in my previous post. Text doesn't properly convey the lighthearted nature of my sentiments. :)