It's late January and... (REPUBLICAN FOCUS)
So we let the last question percolate for awhile, a few played, and most said "no, thank you" to the discussion. But let's be honest. If you look back on a number of comments so far, many opinions have probably changed or become more meaningful.
Given that you, as 17 and 18 year olds SHOULD be voting this year (yes, I know some aren't old enough, but that doesn't mean I don't think you should be allowed to do so!), let's see where you stand as we near the Colorado caucus.
As with the primary/caucus system that will decide separately the two major candidates, we will offer on question on the Republicans and one on the Democrats. As with the system in some states, we will allow independents to play on either question. And as can happen, we'll allow R's to play on the D question and D's to play on the R.
So ... who should be the Republican candidate for President? Why?
posted by Meyer @ 8:58 AM
13 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ever since New Hampshire I have liked McCain and Romney as my top two. The only problem I have with McCain is his social stances. However, I am not a single issue voter, and besides that he has cast votes in congress which are mostly socially conservative. Why do I want a socially conservative president? There is only one reason. We need Supreme Court Justices to overturn Roe v Wade and put the decision of abortion back into the hands of the voters, where it belongs. I see validity in the pro-choice stance, but I see none in that bogus decision. If the ninth amendment is interpreted the way it was than the Supreme Court could pass any law it wanted without checks. Not only does the Constitution say nothing about abortions, but it doesn’t even contain the word “privacy”. On top of that, the abortion issue has little to do with privacy. It’s a chain of three beautifully bogus claims. You may criticize me for wanting a politicized court, but whenever I ask what checks there are on the Supreme Court the only real answer I get is that the president chooses who gets nominated. Being that I want nothing about abortions in our constitution, “stacking the bench” is the only option voters have. However, McCain is probably my favorite candidate because I think that the war in Iraq and deficit spending are equally important and he is best qualified in both of these areas.
Romney is smart and I agree with most of what he says, but he seems to be a suck up who will tell the voters whatever they want hear. He is a little greasy, and reminds me of Bill Clinton and his little assistant. Still, I think he is also a solid option. Maybe an outsider can balance our budget, and he is dead on when it comes to the immigration issue.
I dislike Huckabee because like Bush, I think he is trying to exploit religion (politics should be secular) for personal profit. (no, pro-life is not a religious stance no matter how the left tries to paint it). He also seems incompetent on many key issues. In particular foreign policy, immigration, and let’s not forget that his tax plan seems a little delusional.
(I separate my comments into smaller chunks in hopes that they will be read)
Just a quick question/food for thought: Is it acceptable to base
(See next comment)
a vote upon one's like or dislike for a candidate regardless of policy? After all, whoever ends up in the White House still has the task of running the country ahead of them and if we don't actually like the person, how can we stand behind them as a nation?
P.S. nathan, just thought I'd follow suit with the theme of seperating comments
Very funny. (see domocrat blog for response)
I like Dr. Ron Paul and Romney, McCain is the most liberal democrat out of all republicans running. He is very liberal when it comes to taxes and big government which bothers me. I like Romney because of his great business expertise as well as brilliant economic genius. Change the Debate in 08. Ron won't be in the running to much longer, I still will like him though. I don't like how the press does not give Paul nearly the amount of press coverage that the rest of the candidates recieve.
Ron Paul is awesome. I think he’s right, but right now I think he is a little too far from where America is right now. In terms of his foreign policy he sees that we driving too quickly on the international highway, but I’m afraid he wants to slam on the brakes. (not a good idea) I would support anyone who votes for him though because we need to send Washington a message. He is carrying a message I believe in. I like McCain because I respect a good moderate. I respect the fact that he cares so much about a balanced budget that he was willing to oppose the Bush tax cuts. He had to know that was a poor political move. I truly believe he is not bound by party lines or the game of politics.
It is interesting how many young people I talk to,(when I am calling at the Obama office). who really like Ron Paul. He is truly leading a revolution that took on a lot more support than I think anyone expected. He obviously has very little vote support in comparison to the other candidates running, but he does have a very vocal and active group of volunteers in the Denver area who are supporting him.
So, given yesterday's new developments (Romeny bowing out of the race), I am a bit concerned. Now, I consider myself an independent, and my favorite on the Republican side is Romney. But after reading his comments as to why he was leaving, I was surpirsed. He said:
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23050678/)
Now, seriously, do the Republicans truly think that by electing Clinton or Obama we are "surrender[ing] to terror"? Has our political party system truly made poeple that closed-minded? I thought that was a huge overstatement. I'm interested to see how this Republican nomination turns out. They are saying McCain is it already, and that strikes me as odd. I feel that this race just got a whole lot more interesting.
Of course, with a democrat in office we are "surrendering to terror" because all democrats want to do is make every happy and be passive push overs when it comes to terrorists. Yes they will say that they will fight terror etc but in all reality that is not the case. If they really want to protect our country they would do something about our borders (illegal immigration) because last time I checked that is pretty high on the national security checklist, or at least it should be. So yes, a democrat president would surrender to terror and we would probably get attacked again.
Post a Comment
<< Home