Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans

A few days ago we posted a story for you to discuss the best presidential candidates for Super Tuesday, but I figured it would be an interesting idea to try that again, but split the discussion into 2 halves. This is the Republican half — please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only.

Comments

Pro and Cons

[Salgak1]

McCain
Pros: experience in Washington
Bush's Donor list
"Maverick" Reputation broadens appeal to moderates, independents

Negatives: Famous temper
Conservative base loathes him
"Washington Insider"
Senators rarely do well as President
Will hit funding bind (accepted Public Funding)

Romney:
Pros: Executive Management experience
Can rely on personal funds
Not a "Washington Insider"
Governors often do well as President

Negatives:
Reputatation for switching positions
Some will take his religion against him
Slick image

Huckabee:
Pros: Willing to look at new solutions (i.e. "The Fair Tax")

Negatives:
The entire "religious right" issue
Lack of broad appeal outside the evangelical right

Re:To all those complaining about Ron Paul

[jcr]

You cannot deny that the guy has a couple of screws loose.

Not for me to deny it, it's your assertion so it's up to you to prove it. Give it your best shot.

what Ron Paul is suggesting is completely restructuring the entire nation, top to bottom.

Resuming the rule of law, and actually following the constitution is "restructuring the entire nation"? I'll admit we've got a lot of things to fix, but I don't see that our situation is quite as hopeless as you seem to.

-jcr

Re:Ron Paul?

[Firehed]

He just took about 20% of the Republican vote in Maine (a very close third), and took second place in NV. I don't think that qualifies as 'not affecting this race'. He outperformed Giuliani nearly everywhere before Mr. 9/11 dropped out, and nobody suggested that he wasn't affecting things.

Media = Effort to exclude Ron Paul since day 1

[kiddailey]

I'm amazed that people still believe get the circular reasoning behind the media's excuse to not cover Ron. As you said, without coverage, he will never climb in the polls and the media has, since very early last year, made AN ACTIVE EFFORT TO KEEP RON PAUL OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.

A growing list of media blackout events has been, and continues to be documented at RonPaulTimeline.com. The greatest grassroots movement for a presidential candidate in history, being ignored by the media, is also being documented there. Some examples:

• Ron's name has almost never been mentioned and his photo almost never shown when listing the candidates since day 1
  
• Newspapers have "accidentally" forgot to run full-page, grassroots ads for Ron
  
• The media consistently has called him "fringe," "dark horse," and "having no chance" since day 1
  
• Repeated attempts to exclude Ron from the debates have happened
  
• A network re-aired a GOP debate with Ron Paul segments removed
  
• A network have run Associated Press articles with Ron Paul references removed

The reason that we get less-than-adequate choices for candidates year after year is because WE LET the media make the choices for us! If you don't believe this or don't understand why, then you're not really paying attention. With this article, Slashdot has proven that it is no better than any of the major news outlets, and the comments prove that Slashdot readers are as much sheeple as the rest of America.