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

[MOBIUS]

Who cares about the shenanigans of a corrupt banana republic anyway...

[Dauphin]

Mobius, no-one is talking about the UK's next Prime Minister (that 'contest' will be decided within six weeks and with no public consultation, and effectively uncontested), so why bring it up?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


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

I'm interested to know why you think this. Everything I am hearing in Nashville says that the major conservative money will back Fred if he runs. As this is kind of the center of things in the Thompson movement, I am interested to know how other parts of the country feel about his possible Presidential run.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MRT144
why not ron paul imran?

It's a similar problem as I have with the Libertarian Party candidates for President. Just too damned extreme on the issues. I don't want to give basically everything back to the states.

[q=Plato]I'm interested to know why you think this. Everything I am hearing in Nashville says that the major conservative money will back Fred if he runs. As this is kind of the center of things in the Thompson movement, I am interested to know how other parts of the country feel about his possible Presidential run.[/q]

He should have declared by now if he wants to line up the money. The way the primaries are now creeping up (every state it seems wants to be in the first month), it favors someone with lots of cash early. Hard for someone to build up momentum with the sitution now.

Hell, people were critisizing McCain for declaring as late as he did and how that hurt his fund raising potential.

It's hard to make up a lead that will develop shortly by Giuls, who I think is the man to beat on the Repub side.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Mobius, no-one is talking about the UK's next Prime Minister (that 'contest' will be decided within six weeks and with no public consultation, and effectively uncontested), so why bring it up?

Well we don't have a thread about that yet...

[MightyTiny]

Looking from the outside, it seems to me that the Republican party has become, over the years, increasingly a puppet of the religious right.

Maybe that's putting it a little too strongly, but certainly I am very uncomfortable with the sway of the fundamentalists over the party - and I don't quite understand how a non-fundamentalist in the States would not be put off voting republican by this unholy alliance.

Another Bush in office, with a far-right agenda, and I'll be genuinely worried about the future of democracy and religious freedom in the US.

That's why, at this time in history, if I had a vote in the matter, I would not, for an instant, consider voting for a Republican, unless that candidate publically made a clear break with the religious right, and voiced opposition of the changes undermining the checks and balances of democracy that have taken place under the Bush administration. But then again, such a candidate wouldn't be Republican for long, now would he/she? Nor, sadly, would public opposition to the religious right be a good idea for a candidate - as fundamentalism has a strong grip on a large portion of the population.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's why, at this time in history, if I had a vote in the matter, I would not, for an instant, consider voting for a Republican, unless that candidate publically made a clear break with the religious right, and voiced opposition of the changes undermining the checks and balances of democracy that have taken place under the Bush administration. But then again, such a candidate wouldn't be Republican for long, now would he/she?

Back in 2000, McCain tried it and Republicans are STILL pissed off at him for it.

[OzzyKP]

Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich get my vote

[Pekka]

Republican Ron Paul is the man!

He is the lonely big #1. Usually people have to pick the least horrible candidate, but Ron Paul is a good candidate

[General Ludd]

Obama should win for being one letter away from Osama.

[lord of the mark]

1. Hillary
2. McCain

after that Im not keen on the top 6. After Hillary I prefer Joe Biden among the Dems, then Richardson, I suppose. Im not keen on either Edwards or Obama - While Edwards is not terribly more experienced than Obama, I think at least he stands for something (even if he decided by calculation what to stand for) and he wants the Dems to have an identification with tangible pocketbook issues, and not just be the party of upper middle class process concerns (Harold Myerson recently did a good piece on this) OTOH Im a free trader.

Among the GOP, I guess Giuliani.

[MightyTiny]

Here's Red State Update's analysis of the candidates:

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by MightyTiny
Looking from the outside, it seems to me that the Republican party has become, over the years, increasingly a puppet of the religious right.

Maybe that's putting it a little too strongly, but certainly I am very uncomfortable with the sway of the fundamentalists over the party - and I don't quite understand how a non-fundamentalist in the States would not be put off voting republican by this unholy alliance.

Another Bush in office, with a far-right agenda, and I'll be genuinely worried about the future of democracy and religious freedom in the US.

That's why, at this time in history, if I had a vote in the matter, I would not, for an instant, consider voting for a Republican, unless that candidate publically made a clear break with the religious right, and voiced opposition of the changes undermining the checks and balances of democracy that have taken place under the Bush administration. But then again, such a candidate wouldn't be Republican for long, now would he/she? Nor, sadly, would public opposition to the religious right be a good idea for a candidate - as fundamentalism has a strong grip on a large portion of the population.

IMHO, the Republican party consists of two groups: the social/ethical conservatives who only care about their moral agendas (aka Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc.) and the economic/political conservatives who have their own agenda (aka Big Oil, Guns, War, etc.). The unholy alliance cannot last forever.

Personally, I think Bush is the latter. All this God- prayer talk from him is just to win over the religious voters. I knew a couple of old ladies who voted for him just because he said he prayed.

[MightyTiny]

Originally posted by Alexander I


IMHO, the Republican party consists of two groups: the social/ethical conservatives who only care about their moral agendas (aka Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc.) and the economic/political conservatives who have their own agenda (aka Big Oil, Guns, War, etc.). The unholy alliance cannot last forever.

Personally, I think Bush is the latter. All this God- prayer talk from him is just to win over the religious voters. I knew a couple of old ladies who voted for him just because he said he prayed.

Hmm... I think Bush genuinely belongs to both camps.

After all - his "faith based" initiatives, and political appointees interfearing with science that conflicts with a fundamentalist world view.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by MightyTiny

Hmm... I think Bush genuinely belongs to both camps.

After all - his "faith based" initiatives, and political appointees interfearing with science that conflicts with a fundamentalist world view.

Well, regardless I think he's a right-wing nutjob.
The latest buzz I heard is that they're taking Government class out of high school. From now on, average people won't actually know anything about the government unless they teach themselves.

I'm a moderate, and could happily vote for a Republican as long as their option is not some neo-fascist who wants to line me up against the wall and shoot me for being too educated.