Do You Favor Any of the '08 "Big Six?"

[Alexander I]

As we near the US Presidential Election in 2008, the two major parties appear to be polarizing into 3 major contenders each.

This thread is for discussing whether you would vote for any of these people (who and why), the reasons that these six appear to be the forerunners, and also if there's any candidate that you think has a very good chance of beating out all of these six in the presidential race.

[SlowwHand]

Rudy Giuliani (R) 1 50.00%
John McCain (R) 1 50.00%

[Ben Kenobi]

Abstain.

I'm all for Frank Thompson, Sam Brownback, Tommy Tancredo, or Ron Paul.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How are you for Ron Paul? Have you no idea his views on social issues?

[Ben Kenobi]

We were both opposed to the war on Iraq, 'foreign entanglements.'

I'm not sure what you mean by social positions. From what I know all the folks up there are solid. Ron Paul favours putting the issue to individual states and letting them decide, which is something that I disagree with, given the historical precedent with the Dred Scott decision.

[Imran Siddiqui]

On the poll, I NEVER thought I'd say this a year ago, but Hillary Clinton is my favored candidate of the favorites so far (BLEAGH!!).

It's a shame, but McCain has shown off that he can flip-flop better than anyone in his quest to gain the religious right, Giuliani is an authoritarian nut, Edwards is an idiot (lightweight, stuffed shirt, whatever), Obama has no platform and is running solely on charisma (like Edwards basically did 4 years ago), and Romney is busy flip-flopping as well - from a moderate New England Republican governor to far right Republican candidate.

Really, if McCain and Romney decided not to flip-flop to cater to the religious base, they'd be far ahead of things IMO.

I guess there are always third parties, or hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

[Jon Miller]

Giuliani the least, any of the democrats the most (although I still have a slight adversion to Hillary Clinton).

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

There's always Fred Thompson, Imran.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
On the poll, I NEVER thought I'd say this a year ago, but Hillary Clinton is my favored candidate of the favorites so far (BLEAGH!!).

...and vote for Hillary.

You have finally lost any remaining mind you had left.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We were both opposed to the war on Iraq, 'foreign entanglements.'

I'm not sure what you mean by social positions. From what I know all the folks up there are solid. Ron Paul favours putting the issue to individual states and letting them decide, which is something that I disagree with, given the historical precedent with the Dred Scott decision.

As you said, Paul is for letting the states decide. Not just on abortion, but also gay marriage. He is against the Amendment to limit marriage to heterosexual couples as well.

I'm not sure on your views on the drug war, but Paul is definitely against. He is against the federal government making any drug illegal and sponsored a medical marijuana bill allowing states to decide whether to allow it.

He's also voted against laws to help catch online predators, saying that the government shouldn't be involved.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There's always Fred Thompson, Imran.

Unfortunately I doubt he'll raise anywhere near the money necessary to be a front runner.

My favorite person running is Bill Richardson, but he's in the same boat.

[snoopy369]

Bill Richardson is interesting, but he's basically just keeping his name in the mix in case he eventually succeeds somewhere down the line. The problem with being a governor of a state most people don't actually identify as a state

[Ben Kenobi]

As you said, Paul is for letting the states decide. Not just on abortion, but also gay marriage. He is against the Amendment to limit marriage to heterosexual couples as well.

Yeah but it's not because he's in support of either, he just wants to be consistant. I respect that position about letting it go down to the states, even if I disagree.

I'm not sure on your views on the drug war, but Paul is definitely against. He is against the federal government making any drug illegal and sponsored a medical marijuana bill allowing states to decide whether to allow it.

I'd be for restrictions. I believe tariffs and importations are something within the realm of the state, and that the state has a legitimate interest in securing their borders, and restricting the transport and trafficking of drugs.

He's also voted against laws to help catch online predators, saying that the government shouldn't be involved.

From what I understand his defense is in the 10th amendment, which states that powers not enumerated belong to the states, and not the feds. It's a good argument, but I don't think it washes in the case of marriage. That particular issue came up with utah, and the necessity of a federal standard has been shown.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'd be for restrictions. I believe tariffs and importations are something within the realm of the state, and that the state has a legitimate interest in securing their borders, and restricting the transport and trafficking of drugs.

You realize he's a free trader, right?

He isn't for any restrictions by the federal government. States want to ban them, they can, but if a state wants them, then they should be allowed to.

From what I understand his defense is in the 10th amendment, which states that powers not enumerated belong to the states, and not the feds. It's a good argument, but I don't think it washes in the case of marriage. That particular issue came up with utah, and the necessity of a federal standard has been shown.

Yes, but you failed to note that he DISAGREES with that 'necessity of a federal standard'. Which is part of the reason why it is surprising you'd back him. He'd veto any attempt at a federal definition of marriage.

[Jon Miller]

Imran, are you unfamiliar with backing a candidate in comparison to the field, and in a certain situation? None (or almost none) of the politicians share my views, I try to vote for ones that
1. won't screw things up too badly
2. will influence the nation towards the things I am pro
3. will have their influence ballanced out by others for the things I am anti

JM