<p>W I D E O P E N ???</p>
<p>McCain looks great to me except for his pro-life (anti-choice) and overly militaristic stance.</p>
<p>Giuliani looks OK except for his militaristic stance.</p>
<p>Romney? Maybe.</p>
<p>Huckabee? Sorry too socially conservative for me.</p>
<p>Ron Paul? Too radical.</p>
<p>Big question- will it even matter? Is a Dem Prez a virtual certainty?</p>
<p>I don’t think that the democrats can win, not because the republicans are any better, but because there is too many different interest groups in the Democratic party, and they all can’t be appeased by one Democratic candidate or another. As for Republicans, I’m pulling for McCain. I agree with the pro-life statement, but we need a person that has some military experience, considering our current situation in the Middle East.</p>
<p>I have a huge problem with McCain on immigration, but I’m leaning toward him.</p>
<p>I am vehemently pro-life, have a problem with McCain on immigration, MCC-Feingold AND his age… I am actually leaning toward Duncan Hunter, but several members of my family are Thompson supporters.</p>
<p>Even if I agreed with his policies, I say McCain is way too old.</p>
<p>“Even if I agreed with his policies, I say McCain is way too old”</p>
<p>People have brought that issue up several times but look at Reagan. He was 70 when first elected and still managed to run this country better than almost anyone.</p>
<p>I like his immigration stance and his anti-pork and anti-deficit stance. I love that he was against the Bush tax cuts. I like how he skewered Bush and Rumsfeld for their poor execution of the war. I respect his support of the surge strategy even when it was politically unpopular. </p>
<p>I hope he would keep religious extremists at bay. BIG issue for me vs the GOP.</p>
<p>But I visited his website. There’s no getting around his anti-abortion and anti-gay rights stance.</p>
<p>I am totally for pro-choice. Legalized abortion has made our crime rates drop significantly and it would be completely obscure to make it illegal. I think Guiliani still has a pretty good chance, and he will more than likely do significantly well in the Northern States. Although looks like the next primary may go to an ultra conservative like Huckabee.</p>
<p>All the democrats I know will be happy to vote for whoever ends up as the nominee. The real question is which way the Independents swing. They are going to decide this election. I think McCain is the best bet that way for the Republicans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Following this theory to its logical conclusion, we could slash crime rates even farther if we just killed all the poor people in the country. Do you really mean this as a serious argument?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So why don’t we just give the death penalty to first time felons (they’re why more likely to repeat than someone with no record is to commit their first felony), and execute everyone in the lower socioeconomic rungs (which commit crimes in disproportionate numbers. While we’re at it, why don’t we heil Hitler and decide that maybe eugenics was an awesome idea after all?</p>
<p>Perhaps Uri, you’d be so kind as to expound on that statement. How does legalized abortion lower U.S. crime statistics?</p>
<p>Oooh, breaking into the parents forum. Hope you’ll forgive a high school girl sharing her opinion. I agree that Obama and Clinton have widened the gap between them so far that, when the elections come around, the ardent supporters of one or the other will refuse to lend their vote. </p>
<p>“The real question is which way the Independents swing. They are going to decide this election. I think McCain is the best bet that way for the Republicans.”</p>
<p>I agree with you, mathmom, that the election will fall to the Independants. I really think that Giuliani has a chance there, though. Fiscally conservative with moderate or even liberal social views? Sign me up. I can see where “The Nation’s Mayor” would appeal to the undecided. In my view, he’s the most centered and well-rounded candidate. </p>
<p>Then again, what do I know? I don’t even get to vote in the '08 election :D</p>
<p>Uri posted something that has been written in a famous economics book. </p>
<p>There is another factoid that may not be to the liking to those of us who do not like crime nor do condon abortions: The rate of mental retardation due to birth defects.</p>
<p>But the title of this thread is about Republicans, of which RP is the only one that really is in the traditional style of Republican - Federalists.</p>
<p>
Whoever says this doesn’t have any experience with post-primary reconciliations. The general mantra among Democratic activists is: “If my guy/gal doesn’t win, I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee over any Republican.” The Republicans are making this awfully easy, fwiw. </p>
<p>The table is going to start clearing in the next couple of weeks. Thompson is going nowhere and will probably drop out after South Carolina. Giuliani has put all his chips on Florida, which Romney isn’t contesting, and I bet Huckabee beats him…if so, it’s all over for Giuliani. I think Huckabee beats McCain in South Carolina. Michigan is the most interesting contest: Romney, McCain, and Huckabee each have a shot, imho, each representing one of the three pillars of today’s Republican party: the Wall Street crowd that wants to make America safe for multimillionaires goes for Romney, the would-be ayahtollahs go for Hucakbee, and the jingoistic neocon thugs, disappointed in Giuliani’s collapse, go for McCain. If Romney can’t manage to win even Michigan, he’s toast and it becomes a Huckabee vs. McCain contest. Whoever wins the GOP nomination, at least one pillar is going to be disaffected, e.g., the would-be ayahtollahs aren’t going to to along en masse if Huckabee doesn’t get it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Reagan was great his first term, but ran out of gas (or was beginning to feel effects of Alzheimers, perhaps?) by mid second term. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t vote for an old candidate. The job is too tough!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because in those situations the government is forcibly removing liberty from its citizens, whereas in abortion that is not the case. Shame on you, Vyse, as a good RP supporter I’d expect a better understanding of issues of liberty from you. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and WashDad trots out the straw man. Obviously killing all the poor people wouldn’t be good. But that would be involuntarily depriving them of their lives.</p>
<p>A similar issue is cigarettes: we discourage people from consumption via taxation, warnings etc., but if they decide to buy it we let them. All the discouragement results in lower amounts of smoking. Would banning them result in even lower smoking? Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean we do it.</p>
<p>Abortion and executing poor people are radically different. Abortion allows people to make a personal health decision that ultimately positively impacts human development. Executing poor people allows the government to totally disrespect its citizens’ right to life, for potentially not even positive results.</p>
<p>Uri’s information was from Freakonomics, in which economist Steven Levitt finds there is a measurable linkage between the abortion rate and the rate of violent crime. Unlike Uri, he stops short of recommending genocide to control crime.</p>
<p>Can we talk about the actual politics here and not whether abortion = genocide?</p>
<p>“job is too tough” </p>
<p>Mentally or physically or both? I’d go with the mentally weak as a reason for disqualification. We have had Presidents who were strong in muscles that should be used in private but were morally weak. We have had a President who is physically strong but mentally and ethically weak and which we reelected knowing of these conditions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I swear, the world is irony straight to the core. If I didn’t know better, I would say that you were doing some double-dip-with-extra-sprinkles, ultra-sophisticated satire here.</p>