<p>With no one in the Republican field getting firm support and Clinton’s walk-off nomination from a few months ago seeming to be vaporizing in the cold Iowa/New Hampshire air, it seems no one is really happy with any candidates. Even Markos Moulitsas of the Kos Kids is disenchanted with his top choice:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Talk about a rousing endorsement!</p>
<p>How about the CC community? Do you feel more firm about the candidate that you supported or leaned toward a month or two ago or less?</p>
<p>Three registered voters in our house. (…in NH no less, where you couldn’t get more exposure to all the candidates!)</p>
<p>1 Independent (me), 1 Republican (absentee voting son), 1 Democrat (H)</p>
<p>None of us knew who we really supported two months ago. We still don’t. We all know of at least one candidate who we would not support.</p>
<p>We get more campaign junk mail now than when S was applying to college! As far as we can see, none of the candidates are anxious to save paper.</p>
<p>I wish we could bring back Louis:</p>
<p>[Louis</a> Abolafia: Most Unusual, Non-Viable Presidential Alternative in 1968 - Associated Content](<a href=“http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/422176/louis_abolafia_most_unusual_nonviable.html]Louis”>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/422176/louis_abolafia_most_unusual_nonviable.html)</p>
<p>I originally supported Edwards because I thought he was the most electable Democrat in the field, and as far as I’m concerned, the worst Dem is far better than any of the Goppers I see out there. The more I learn about Edwards’ positions on issues that are important to me the better I like him. My only concern is that the Dems will become like the GOP - the most electable candidate for the general election can’t get through the primary process dominated by the true believers in the party.</p>
<p>If the protection of Democracy is be safeguarded, W should declare himself President -for-Life, under the unified president theory and protection of the Constitution. Whether a Repub or Demo is elected, the policies of this Admin will be radically different, so different that those men and women have sacrificed and died for will seem to have been wasted.</p>
<p>haha, thisoldman, here here!</p>
<p>thisoldman: I’m not even sure how to respond to that, assuming it was a serious post.</p>
<p>The only thing I’ll say is this: Are you asserting that the lives lost so far (I’m talking about in Iraq, here) haven’t been wasted? Because all I’ve seen of this war so far are bright men and women dying, losing their potential futures, as cannon fodder in a 'war" that’s not being won, trying to shape a nation that doesn’t want to be shaped, on the orders of an administration that doesn’t seem to care.</p>
<p>The argument that withdrawing would make their sacrifices a waste is a useless one; if their sacrifices have been wasted so far, does sacrificing more after them somehow make those sacrifices of more worth?</p>
<p>I think that those soldiers who have died so far have died in a very tragic way, proving a very tragic point: the best laid plans will sometimes go wrong, and the worst laid plans - especially those informed by entirely ignorant judgment - always do.</p>
<p>Is there a difference?</p>
<p>Ron Paul is very popular among my peers and we’re working very diligently to get people to look into the true nature of government. The biggest issue I know of is the federal budget deficit. This is tied directly to the war. While the Democrats favor ending the war, they also favor many programs that would result in a very large expansion of federal spending and federal responsibility (John Edwards - primary education for 100m kids in Africa (Candidates @ Google talk), Barack Obama - broadband internet for all people, all over the US and in Africa (Candidates @ Google talk), universal health insurance). The nature of government is something that is not talked about enough, in favor of attack politics and fear-mongering.</p>
<p>As the Internets change the way politics happen and allow much greater exchange of information, people are starting to see the repercussions of proposed policy before the proverbial you know what hits the fan. In doing my research, I’ve tried to keep an open mind and I’ve settled on an odd tandem. I’d like to see Dennis Kucinich make the ticket for the Democrats but my real weight, and where my political energies are devoted, is behind Ron Paul. He is the one candidate where I watch a new YouTube video or read another speech from the campaign trail and gain more respect for his decision making and character than before. He seems to be the only candidate who speaks to the true nature of government.</p>
<p>I like Mike Huckabee, primarily because of his endorsement of the Fair Tax. </p>
<p>I just hope he can get out from under the “evangelical” label as the primary definer of his candidacy. If people would just listen to what he actually says and not accept a sound-byte or brief quote taken out of context as the sum-total of what he is about. Not that I have made up my mind once and for all, but that is where I stand right now…</p>
<p>I can live with W-for-Life because his advisory team need to see the fruitation of their advice. </p>
<p>Occasionally I wander over to the mouthpiece of the GOP: [GOP.com</a> | Republican National Committee :: Home](<a href=“http://www.GOP.com%5DGOP.com”>http://www.GOP.com) . In the spring they were promoting the Surge and accomplishments of W. In the summer they were hitting HC real hard. Now they are hitting on Congress. I can’t seem to get their message. </p>
<p>I couldn’t sleep lastnight and I turned on the TV. Charlie Rose was on with BC. Wow, BC, is really quick, articulate, focused, and 100% politician. I have seen other candidates on Charlie Rose, and I would immensely recommend this show.</p>
<p>I’d posted this in the wrong thread by mistake. The Republican field is a mystery to me, too, and normally I’m pretty good a scoping these things out well in advance. To a large degree, three of the Republican candidates each represent one of the critical constituencies that Bush & Rove melded together.</p>
<p>Rudy Giuliani is the jingoistic authoritarian thug, which explains why he even answers what flavor of ice cream he wants at 31 Flavors with the words “9/11.” He gets the 9/11 Neocon vote.</p>
<p>Mike Huckabee is the genial ayahtollah: doesn’t believe in abortion under any circumstances, doesn’t believe in evolution (it’d be nice to have someone with scientific literacy in the White House). He crosses the Club for Growth Republicans up because of some apostasies regarding taxes but the Dominionist wing of the party loves him.</p>
<p>Mitt Romney really doesn’t object to a religious test for the Republican nomination, he just wants it broad enough to include Mormons. He’s fervently done his best to appeal to the Dominionists over the past year while in pursuit of his main goal: making America safe for multi-millionaires. As such, he’s the fave of the Wall Street Republicans.</p>
<p>Fred Thomspon escaped from the experimental late night joke center and should be recaptured shortly after the New Hampshire primary. For those Republicans who surveyed the Giuliani/Romney/McCain field and thought that Thompson was the answer, I want to know what the question was.</p>
<p>And then there’s poor John McCain. Gets buggered by Bush & Rove using unconscionable smears (is anything really unconscionable to Bush or Rove?) in the 2000 primary elections then adopts a position with respect to Bush and the Republican establishment highly reminiscent of that taken by Monica Lewinsky with Bill Clinton, prostituting his character for the sake of his ambition. Not really trusted by much of the Republican establishment, due to McCain-Feingold campaign financing and reasonably sane stance on immigration that drives the hysterics all the way up the wall and half-way across the ceiling. Most likely to inherit Thompson’s support after Thompson drops out but only days before he himself is forced to drop out. My guess is that South Carolina is his last stand. Again.</p>
<p>Ron Paul, the guy in motley and bells. Giving one hell of an audition for the spot on the Libertarian ticket, upon which he previously ran for President in 1988. My guess is that he gets the same spot again but with much better funding. Go Ron, go!!! Time for the other side to have a Nader-style problem of its own.</p>
<p>Tom Tancredo is something of mystery to me. Not that he’s a whack job on the issue of immigration and has been for years but that he hasn’t been able to convert issue into a legion or three of fanatical supporters.</p>
<p>Duncan Hunter has little said about him. For good reason.</p>
<p>Alan Keyes…the Republican answer to the WGA strike, providing unscripted comedy “unreality” shows whenever he can squeeze himself into a venue. Even to Republicans, he’s a caricature, though not a terribly embarrassing one as far as they’re concerned.</p>
<p>Three months ago, I thought Giuliani had it wrapped up and now I’m pretty sure he doesn’t. As one whose degree is in Political Science, I’d like to see a brokered convention but push come to shove I don’t think it’ll happen, in part due to the GOP’s practice of running its primaries as winner-take-all. My guess is that Romney and Huckabee will duke it out for a couple of months, with Giuliani whining to the media, “But what about me?” (Rudy, you get to sit in the corner booth with John Edwards and talk about the structural pressures of the system that push towards two-candidate races and how awful it is to be the #3, odd man out and asphyxiated as all the media attention (not to mention money) is divvied up the top two. The last is interesting…I think Huckabee is pretty short on money now but I don’t think he will be after New Hampshire. Romney can write himself so that’s not a problem. Giuliani has a ton of cash but this evolving campaign isn’t the one he prepped for; see also, prepared to fight the wrong war.</p>
<p>I’m still a woman with no candidate. There are no circumstances under wich I will vote for Huckabee, but not on religious reasons. Definitely not Ron Paul. Probably not John McCain. That leaves me waffling between Romney and Giuliani but completely unable to seal the deal. Woe. Is. Me.</p>
<p>TheDad. I’m starting to think that Romney will be the nominee. Obviously, I have no data and can post no links. Just a gut feeling.</p>
<p>Ron Paul was the feature on 20/20 ABC, Friday, 12/15/07. Pretty good speaker. He knows what he wants. $4 MIILION raised online, outside of his election apparatus and I guess outside of governmental and private pervue. He is going to raise some issues in the GOP leadership. He appears to be the closest thing to the Republican agenda than any other of the candidates-which could be scary to the Party.</p>
<p>ZM, my gut feeling about GOP prospects change every couple of days. Right now I’m oscillating between Romney and Huckabee…the latter might just have committed the Charge of the Light Brigade with his attack on Bush’s foreign policy in Foreign Affairs magazine. [Foreign</a> Affairs - America’s Priorities in the War on Terror - Michael D. Huckabee](<a href=“http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87112/michael-d-huckabee/america-s-priorities-in-the-war-on-terror.html]Foreign”>America's Priorities in the War on Terror)</p>
<p>A Huckabee-Romney-Giuliani duel in South Carolina might be interesting after a Huckabee win in Iowa and a Romney win in New Hampshire…still my “most probable” scenario.</p>
<p>I still think Hills gets the Democratic nomination but it’s not as certain as it was a month or two ago. Personally, as much as it drives me nuts, I think this extended campaign season is a good thing…Kerry was coronated with very little exposure and without enduring too many attacks after his Iowa win. Right now, the three-cornered horsengoggle between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards is testing their mettles very well…if Obama thinks Hillary is unfair, just wait until the Republicans hit him. Besides, lack of experience, my problem with Obama, who is my #2 choice, is that he hasn’t shown that he can either take a punch or throw one. I think he’s more than a little naive.</p>
<p>So how is Huck (my favorite son) different from Demo platform? His position is so far apart from W’s that he could be alienating the core group that supported W. For me, such a radical change in the GOP is hard to fathom, something must break.</p>
<p>“So how is Huck (my favorite son) different from Demo platform?”</p>
<p>This is what I want to know.</p>
<p><em>a</em> core group, not <em>the</em> core group. Bush & Rove corralled the Dominionists, the Wall Street crowd, and War Hawks together into a coalition that is far from stable, like maybe one of those compounds built around a noble gas. The current GOP contenders reflect that split. I think the winner has got to get support from two of three…and the Dominionists have effective veto power because I think many will be happy to sit out the election of they’re not accepting of the choice. Okay, things in reality are a little more blurry as many voters are some sort of amalgam but those three groups do isolate the poles within the GOP party. Well…add the Nativists and I think you’ve got the full deck.</p>
<p>It’s entirely possible that the tensions and overheated conflict could blow the Republican Party to smithereens from within, though that is probably too much to wish for. “Captain, I tried jamming a wiener in the warp drive but it dinnah do no good. By the way, Captain, would you have a spot of mustard?”</p>
<p>
Everything a Dominionist could want on the social issues. Hence his support in Iowa, where that faction is pretty strong.</p>