Slashdot Mirror
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.
No discussion over Ron Paul? What is this Fox News?
Romney: just a gut feeling about him and I can't really place it - he's way too smooth. And to be honest, being a Mormon creeps me out a bit (gold tablets from God?!?) - as much as a devout Christian, or anything else would.
McCain: I don't agree with everything he stands for (he's anti-abortion), but I love his attitude of fiscal conservativeness and straight talking.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Oh my God, freedom of speech definitely applies to a PRIVATE website setting outlines for discussion! Holy crap, your rights are so abridged!
Fucking moron.
ENOUGH with the Ronulans...
Ron Paul has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money. And they are vocal all over the internet. However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.
He has as much chance of getting the nomination as I have. And I'm not running.
I do think he has some good ideas, and some that are crazy. But I am really sick of the Ronulans spamming internet forums and polls. A lot of us are annoyed by you, and this actually harms your candidate.
Corporatism != Free Market
Ron Paul is still in the race, but has very few delegates. Barring unprecedented performance on Super Duper Tuesday he's got less of a shot than Romney, McCain, or Huckabee. That doesn't mean that he doesn't warrant discussion, though.
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
I'm just going to ignore the "No Ron Paul" discussion. He is the best candidate to vote for.
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
Is it "The Best Presidential Candidate" or "The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance"?
The Best Presidential Candidate ~ Ron Paul
The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance ~ John McCain *sigh*
Freedom of speech applies to the government, not Slashdot. You are free to open your own discussion forum with its own rules.
That said, I don't see Slashdot censoring any of the asinine Ron Paul comments, so you are pretty much completely pissing into the wind.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Ron Paul has a fanatical support base
More like, an enthusiastic support base. Of course, compared to those who pick a candidate on a negative basis (EG, "anybody but...") are going to see those who've found a candidate to vote for as wildly optimistic.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Speaking of Ron Paul, etc ...:
Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes. Who's saved?
A. The United States.
(Disclaimer: Honestly, I think with the way things are going, nobody can "fix" this mess)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Switch the the new Opera browser! It's fantastic! It has a new de-Ronulizer feature that removes all those annoying Ron Paul posts! Why haven't you switched to Opera yet? Get it now!!!1!!! It's da best! It's liek the Ron Paul of the browser world!1!!!!1!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Huckabee is a creation of the media. Look at his donation totals plus after IOWA they stopped plastering his face everywhere and the Sheeple stopped voting for him.
Ignoring the missing option like we do in the Slashdot polls all the time..
Ron Paul I think is the best choice because it would be a return to someone who actually thinks that the Constitution is relevant to today as much as it was 200 years ago. He also wants smaller government, less intrusion into our privacy, bring the troops home and stop our "police the world" policies of interventionism. Yes, some of his supporters are a bit odd and can be zealot at times, but there are many others who are normal people who support someone who sticks up for their positions (just look at his voting record over 10-terms - he does not waver from supporting the constitution!).
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
After my post above, I saw all the Ron Paul posts. WTF is my problem! - I'm not being sarcastic either!
That's our media for you - /. included! All I see on Yahoo, Google, and radio, (No TV anymore) are the above candidates for Republican. And when you consider that I pass a huge billboard for Paul all the time, I'm pathetic! I've been brainwashed by the media into thinking there's only 3 (Three) Rep candidates.
We as a country are in sorry shape if I'm the norm!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
I expect that new faith-based engineering techniques are going to be what it will require to do the things Bush has proposed with respect to manned space flight. In the past we used to worry about interplanetary radiation, food supplies for a six year voyage, and reliable rocket engines. But the advances in faith-based engineering (mostly spinoffs of the faith-based Iraq war) have made it possible to seal up a couple of dudes in a steampunk diving bell and fire them at Mars from a cannon, confident of their eventual return.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
He obviously left out Ron Paul to get a rise out of the large libertarian contingent of /.ers. And it worked! IOW, YHBT, HAND.
I am a registered Republican, and I will be most likely be voting for Ron Paul next week, but let's face facts. He's not going to win, and votes for him are valuable only as an indicator of dissent. He has good views on war, small government, and the Constitution, but he's also a creationist wacko, plus either a lying racist or so atrociously lazy and irresponsible about reading papers before signing them that it's hard to trust him.
Unless a vast number of voters in Super Tuesday states have been systematically lying to pollsters, it's going to McCain vs Clinton. So, will Ann Coulter do what she promised, and campaign for Hillary?
See also: Who's Nuttier: Apple Fanatics or Ron Paul Enthusiasts?
Yeah, because "No Child Left Behind" is working _so_ well. Okay, I guess it is working well, in turning children into fact spewing test takers with little to no capacity to manipulate or assimilate information outside the confines of a multiple choice test.
RFC2119
I am not an American (I live north of the border) and I do not know much about the candidates in this race. However, I find it utterly bizarre and disturbing that religion take such a huge place in American politics. I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.
In this light, how is Huckabee received in geek circle ? I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational. Does he received any support from this crowd ?
:wq
Huckabee is a nutjob (amend Constitution to meet "God's standards", wtf?), McCain is a sellout and vies with Romney for title of the Worst Flip Flopper On The Planet, and all three are warmongers when America is pretty damned tired of war.
And seriously, nothing is going to bring out the Ron Paul spambots like saying he's not invited to the discussion. And while Ron Paul is cookoo for coco puffs*, at least he isn't a fundie like Huckabee or a flip flopping asshole like McCain or Romney.
The Republicans only hope this year is that it will be Hillary v McCain. Her whole campaign is based on experience, which McCain blows out of the water. And she can't really attack him for flip flopping, when she's gone back and forth for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and for criticizing the Administration's foreign policy after voting for Kyl-Lieberman.
*Yes, Ron Paul is nuts. For example, how exactly is he going to move a $7 trillion economy back to the gold standard when there's less than $3 trillion in gold on the planet? Or how you'll be able to sue companies for the damage their pollution causes. Said companies will just use the cigarrette defense: how do you know is was my toxic waste dumped into the river that gave your wife cancer, and not the other three companies dumping into the same waterway?
I put a filter on my connection so that any time the words "Ron Paul" comes through, it is changed to "fringe lunatic reactionary". So far, I haven't missed anything.
>However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.
He broke double digits this past weekend in the Maine caucus, getting 19% of the vote. He trounced Huckabee, who only got 6%, yet Paul is supposed to be excluded from this discussion for some bizarre reason.
He's on the ballot here in Ohio, and I'm going to vote for him since I agree with him far more than I agree with any of the other candidates.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I vote for none of the above
It looks highly unlikely that anyone other than McCain or (less likely) Romney can win the nomination. If Huckabee were to withdraw, Romney would have a better chance. But it will probably be McCain.
Conservative Republicans have a dilemma. The candidates most aligned with the conservative base are unlikely to win a national election against either of the Democratic contenders. Would they prefer McCain to beat Clinton/Obama in a national election, or Romney to lose to the Democrats? So do conservatives want to make a point on principle and vote for someone who has no shot at winning? Or do they want to choose what would be the lesser of two evils in the long run? Despite McCain's highly questionable conservative credentials, he is a far better option for conservatives than either of the Democrats.
Despite his obvious popularity among heavy users of the internet, Ron Paul has no shot at the White House. National polls have his support in the low single digits. It's not going to happen.
About 100 posts in, and only opinions and "go this-or-that-guy!".
As a european I don't have a vote in this, but us europeans will have to deal with whomever you USians vote into office. That didn't turn out particularly well the last few times, so it'd be nice to know what we can expect this time.
Give some arguments please!
What policies does X support and why does Y think that's the wrong way to go?
It doesn't matter whether you like somebody's smile, what their F-ing religion is or how rich they are. What matters is what they plan on doing if they become president.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I can't help but feel he has some motive that he is hiding, something he is waiting to spring up on us.
The man has a very long track record, and I checked out his voting record. If he has some hidden agenda, could it be worse than undeclared wars, debasement of the currency, violating the rights of habeas corpus and the right to keep and bear arms, imprisoning thousands of POWs of the War on (some) Drugs, or arresting cancer patients?
Things are so bad that even when a politician says what I want to hear (and in a sincere way), I still can't trust him.
I know how you feel. Reagan let me down on draft registration, and several other very important issues. Nevertheless, RP's record is exemplary.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Best description of Ron Paul I've heard: Some things he says make a lot of sense, some things he says scare the hell out of me. He is way too radical to become president. He is also very weak on Iraq and national defense, which is scary because national defense is about the only thing our Government should do. Everything else should be private sector.
Fred Thompson was by far the best candidate in terms of his views on the issues. He still is the only candidate to share his opinions on everything, and he was the only candidate on either side that didn't switch his views just to win votes. He has believed the same things for years.
Huckabee raises taxes too much. Being a conservative means that you believe you spend money better than the government, and he doesn't believe this. No thanks.
Romney I like, but would never win a national election due to his faith. I'm an atheist, but I know a Mormon isn't going to win a national election any time soon. This is unfortunate because after Thompson I think he is the best candidate.
McCain is a senator, and I hate voting for legislators in a presidential election. This role does not allow you to demonstrate your leadership powers. Also legislators must become more moderate to appease the other side... I want a president who is going to have a clear stance on every issue.
Bottom line: I would rather have a president I disagree with on some issues but I know in my heart is strong and stubborn than someone who will change their views based on popular opinion. What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right.
Honestly as long as anyone but Hillary wins I can still live on.
Yeah, sad to say Ron Paul is 2008's closest Howard Dean equivalent. Mad internet buzz and fundraising, seen as a nut by the mainstream, and little to no actual voting traction.
The man's got some interesting ideas, and he's not afraid to take unpopular positions. You could have fairly said the same thing about Dean in '04. Just as Dean was out of the realistic running a long time before the primaries were over, so Paul is now. Maybe we're all poorer for that, but, that's the reality of it.
To deny that there IS a very obvious media bias against Ron Paul would be ridiculous. Two quick examples: during both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, CNN had up a pie chart for both the Democrats and the Republicans showing each candidate's percentage of the vote. Ron Paul had around 10% both times, yet his "slice" of the pie was solid black with no name attached to it, while Democrats like Biden who had single digit percentages had their names shown. Second example is Ron Paul's second place finishes in Nevada and Louisiana and the complete non-reporting of it. The articles I saw were along the lines of "Mitt finishes first, McCain third." with never a mention of second. And on the subject if it being crazy not to allow Ron Paul discussion in this, "me too!". He has just as much chance of winning the nomination as Huckabee (next to none, and yes I'm a RP supporter). I don't think Huckabee should be excluded either, they should both be allowed, if for no other reason that mathematically they all have a chance still, at least until after Super Tuesday. But also leaving him out will probably generate more discussion of him than including him. You know how we 'Paulbots' are,
I'm pretty sure McCain would dominate the zombie vote.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
As a resident of Arkansas, I can tell you the following.
1. Huckabee does not hold prayer meetings on the lawn. He administers. He is perfectly able to distinguish between his beliefs and the need for
administration. The schools are in much better shape now than they have been in the history of Arkansas. The roads are in better shape than ever.
2. When he came to office, there was a 200 million deficit. When he left office, in spite of doing all the above, there was an 800 million surplus.
This was true even though he cut taxes every single year he was in office. He balanced the budget every single year, as a good administrator should.
This has nothing to do with being a preacher. it is simply the mark of a good administrator.
3. His proposals for the rebuilding of American infrastructure, taxation, immigration, health care, etc, on the national level simply make sense.
Using nothing but his history as a benchmark, I can tell you that unlike 99% of other politicians, he does not talk out of both sides of his mouth.
He says what he believes and then stands behind it. It is my belief (obviously) that he is the best choice for American President.
Huckabee vs. Obama would be a fight worth watching.
I feel about this subject and Ron Paul the same way I feel about my room mate. He was adopted as a kid because his parents couldn't afford to raise him, so instead of an abortion they put him up. As a result, he is vehemently against abortion. However, he still thinks that it should be up to an individual state whether they want to honor Roe v. Wade...just like Ron Paul. He thinks it's an abomination that should be stopped, but thinking about what would be "best" for the country as opposed to what they personally would prefer to see happen. This is one of the things about Ron Paul that I really like.acknowledges that it should be the states decision, not the federal governments. Regardless, he still thinks it isn't the morally correct thing to do, but doesn't think it should be made outright illegal.
I like that. They both have a very strong opinion about a touchy subject, but are
For what it's worth, I am pro-choice but against late-term abortions (unless the mother's life is threatened)...by that time, you should have been able to figure out if you wanted the kid or not.
Living With a Nerd
Let us not forget that McCain isnt exactly scandal-free.
He was one of the infamous Keating Five who played no small part in bring about the savings & loan crisis.
That small debacle has ended up costing this nation $30 BILLION. It was very similar in nature to the current mortgage crisis.
Here this nation sits on the verge of yet another financial crisis of larger proportions and people are supporting putting one of the biggest screw-ups from the last time in the Oval Office
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
The limiting of the consideration of candidates to those who are likely to win is wrong, and does not produce the government of desired characteristics. We are asked to vote for the one who best represents our position. That idea - that we put forward the candidates that represents us the best is the fundamental construct of the representative democracy.
If we vote for who we think will win, then it is nothing more than a popularity contest, with the media controlling who is popular. If effect you become a proxy of the media. In order to keep the idea of a representative democracy working, we need to vote for who best represents our interests.
I remember a time when the internet was claimed to be a democratizing power. It was supposed to restore the power to the people. Now we are complaining that Ron Paul supporters are too vocal. I find it ironic that the tech savvy of us are now rejecting this democratizing power.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I realize his ideas might seem crazy, but they are based on sound numbers. All of the money collected in the personal income tax goes to pay for interest on the national debt. There is no reason why with a reduced federal government and responsible spending that we can't eliminate the personal income tax.
When Ron Paul talks about canceling or reducing these federal entities, it is important to note that these are longer term goals, and won't be accomplished in a day. When these federal entities go away, this leaves more money to you and your local jurisdiction (states) where your money can be put to better use rather than being spent on a federal bureaucracy with minimal effectiveness. Here's an example. My sister is a public school teacher. She gets to deal with "No Child Left Behind". She hates it because it amounts to no child is failed. The act does not provide for any better education, but it forces teachers to doctor the numbers to look like success is happening. This clearly is not right. But what do you expect from a government that aims to educate ONLY 10% of the kids in D.C.? (10% is the number they calculated to have an operational city (D.C.) in 20 years.) Any local jurisdiction would find that figure appalling.
The biggest problem with Ron Paul isn't his ideas. He doesn't go into enough detail for the masses to understand them.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Which candidate will never, ever be elected? Ron Paul. Discussion of this lost candidate is pointless.
Hey, while you're at it, can I get the winning lotto numbers for tomorrow, and maybe some good picks for the horse races?
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
I would be greatly in support of John McCain over any of the other Republican candidates, except for one thing. He's 71 years old. After two terms he'd be 79. It gives me pause. Even then, he's the Republican that has me excited.
I was recently discussing this at a political roundtable, and a WW-II vet rather pointedly told me that McCain was "too old," and I think this perception is common among moderates, and affects his viability. It certainly hurt Bob Dole in 1996. We're in for another round of "Depends" jokes if he is the nominee.
Despite that, against Hillary Clinton, McCain has my vote for President. Against Barack Obama, I'd have to seriously listen to the debates, but I still favor McCain at this point.
I think the best way to solve the mess in Iraq, and our country in general, is to elect a moderate Republican to repair the damage that radical, neo-conservative demagogues have done to both the office of the Presidency and the party in general. We need a President who will take the occupation/state building mission seriously, and not base his or her policy on impatience with the war effort in the general populace.
I think we were utterly mistaken in going into Iraq in the first place, but I ascribe to the "you break it, you own it" philosophy. I don't think any sort of withdrawal is possible, certainly not without passing the buck to the U.N. and Arab states to maintain regional stability.
On a final note, Ron Paul.
I'm glad his supporters think a President can save the country, and I'll admit that he is the only man up there who truly supports small government and true U.S. Constitutional values, but though zeal is commendable, it is naive to believe he can do anything to fix the problems in Washington. The President is quite hamstrung in most matters without Congressional support, and if Ron Paul were elected President, he would be persona non grata on the Hill, and therefore could get nothing done.
He has a compelling message, but no ability to affect many of the changes he discusses, much as the Democratic candidates cannot make good on their promises of universal health care without 60 votes in the Senate. It's all a bit daft for Presidential candidates to talk about anything other than executive policy and statesmanship. A Cult of Personality, without full political backing, cannot get things done in Washington.
He has a great message, but no sense of how those values apply practically to the Presidency. Indeed, sometimes it seems he has no common sense at all.
--
Toro
This candidate looks presidential - somewhat like John Adams.
This candidate has Senate experience.
This candidate hews to many of the accepted neoconservative principles.
This candidate early on supported the Iraq war.
This candidate's nomination would galvanize the conservative voters.
Republicans, I present to you:
Hillary Clinton (R)
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Everyone says Washington is broken. He is the only one that seems to get upset about it.
When someone spends billions on pork projects, tortures prisoners, or mishandles a war there deserves to be some screaming.
I have a problem with a candidate that doesn't get emotional and has gotten used to "that just being the way things are".
With everyone else, I don't know if they are saying things are bad just because the polling numbers told them to say it.
Oooh, I wanna play!
Big Boss: Your performance is shitty - what gives?
Mid manager: Waah! My car is broken and I don't have the money to fix it so I can't get to work on time!
Big Boss: OK, I'll make you a deal - I'll start paying you more now, but in 3 months your car had better be fixed. I'll take proof in the form of a passed DMV inspection.
Mid manager: AWESOME [takes money and runs off]
3 months pass
Big Boss: You're late - what's up.
Mid manager: My car's still broke! I spent all that money but it still doesn't work right!
Big Boss: Well, you passed the inspection...
Mid manager: Well, yeah, but I only did what I needed to do to pass the letter of the inspection - patched the holes, covered over the busted window, that kinda thing. I had to take the engine out, though. Oh, and I paid the tech's extra, but they did exactly what I told them to do, so I think it's their fault.
Big Boss: Sooo...what do we do now?
Mid manager: Give me more money, and make it so I don't need to pass any inspections. Without the pressure of inspections, I GUARANTEE we'll get this running right.
Big Boss: Ummm...I don't think so.
Mid manager: Waaah! Unfair! [scampers off to complain to the union]
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Watching the Republican primary play out, I am thoroughly amazed the Republican party can remain intact. Since McCain has emerged as the front-runner, it seems like half the party is threatening to stay home. It was even worse when Huckabee won Iowa and was picking up steam. I don't understand how the party can survive with so many factions that hate each other.
The fiscal conservatives despise Huckabee, the social conservatives despise McCain, the previously unheard of libertarian wing has found Ron Paul, and is despised by everyone, and likewise hates everyone else, for the most part. Romney gets dinged by everyone for blowing in the wind like John Kerry 2004.
Each group in the GOP feels slighted by the other. Fiscal Conservatives have had to watch government and spending grow out of control the last 8 years. Pro-lifers only have one candidate left in the primaries and he is fading fast. While McCain has always been pro-life, he has not been pro-life enough for them. His willingness to compromise on judges is heresy to them. Romeny has only been pro-life as long as he has been running for president. The 'minutemen' wing of the party has gotten no real action on their pet issue over the last 8 years, and have no one to look forward to in 08.
Regardless of who the nominee is, they will not come out the primaries clean, and will not have a good chance come November. The GOP is due for a cleansing and rebirth to become a more coherent party.
Well, religion is important in American politics because bullshit is one of the main things people are looking at. We can't be distracted with the real issues when there's petty bullshit to focus on.
No, but you can learn that -137 is a losing number for lotto, and that the donkey hanging out behind the stables eating grass isn't going to win the race.
Son of a famous politician, turned business executive, turned one-term republican governor, turned presidential candidate.
Of course I'm talking about George W. Bush. And Mitt Romney.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
Correction. The estimation of all the gold ever mined in the world would be worth closer to $4 trillion on today's market value. ((2001 estimate of "all the gold ever mined" + modest production for 6 years) x current market value)
ENOUGH with the Ronulans...
Enough with the uniformed people calling Ron Paul's supporters names.
Ron Paul has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money. And they are vocal all over the internet. However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.
Ron Paul has broken double digits in many states, and finished 2nd more than once. You don't know what you're talking about.
He has as much chance of getting the nomination as I have. And I'm not running.
Nonsense, not even 10% of the vote has been counted yet. I bet you thought Rudy had a chance, yet Paul got more votes than him.
I do think he has some good ideas, and some that are crazy. But I am really sick of the Ronulans spamming internet forums and polls. A lot of us are annoyed by you, and this actually harms your candidate.
That is ok, we're annoyed by you too. Maybe you can go read about Ron Paul, or the primary process, and get somewhat informed before you go off whining about people who believe in something.
... has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money
Looks like people contributed a lot of money. The finances are worth mentioning for all the major Republican candidates. One of the things that surprised me as I drilled down into the numbers, is for all of the candidates, most of the funding was done at the individual level rather than PAC money. I was not expecting that.
Romney, Mitt
Q4 raised: $26,928,433
Q4 spent: $33,713,503
Total raised: $88,499,686
Total spent: $86,068,239
Cash: $2,431,447
Debt: $35,350,000
McCain, John
Q4 raised: $9,714,246
Q4 spent: $10,254,446
Total raised: $41,102,178
Total spent: $38,153,750
Cash: $2,948,428
Debt: $4,516,030
Paul, Ron
Q4 raised: $19,873,329
Q4 spent: $17,478,711
Total raised: $28,101,264
Total spent: $20,262,084
Cash: $7,839,421
Debt: $0
Huckabee, Mike
Q4 raised: $6,637,063
Q4 spent: $5,391,918
Total raised: $8,986,532
Total spent: $7,090,087
Cash: $1,896,446
Debt: $97,676
By way of comparison, Giuliani, who recently dropped out of the race...
Total Receipts: $60,929,240
Total Spent: $48,152,428
Cash on Hand: $12,776,812
Debts: $1,166,509
Wow... just wow... That sort of spending puts drunken sailors to shame.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
As a Massachusetts resident who witnessed Romney's term as governor up-close, I'm absolutely certain that he's the best candidate, and it has nothing to do with his just being a "hometown guy." Heres why:
Mitt inherited a multi-billion dollar deficit in his governorship and turned it into a half-billion dollar surplus by the end of his term. In so doing, he routed the deeply-entrenched Matt Amarillo (Big Dig bigwig) and crawled several miles up the asses of everyone with a hand in the project to get it completed in a reasonable amount of time, so the state could stop bleeding money into this massive endeavor. Meanwhile, his administration set up a subsidized health care program so pretty much anyone whose income is below or three times greater than the poverty line gets dirt-cheap health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Because of it's affordability, it is now illegal to not have health insurance in Massachusetts. Let that sink in for a second: Pretty much anyone can get access to health care in this state because of his governorship. Health care crisis in America? Not here!
And on the subject if it being crazy not to allow Ron Paul discussion in this, "me too!". He has just as much chance of winning the nomination as Huckabee (next to none, and yes I'm a RP supporter). I don't think Huckabee should be excluded either, they should both be allowed, if for no other reason that mathematically they all have a chance still, at least until after Super Tuesday. But also leaving him out will probably generate more discussion of him than including him. You know how we 'Paulbots' are,
I don't pay attention to any of the election stuff. Some one mentioned that it was an election year so I had a brief look at who was under each party. I can't tell you how shocked that Huckabee was on the list. I didn't know. I'm from Texarkana and actually went to the Baptist Church that Huckabee preached at for years before running for governor. At times like this, I'd like to say that I was paying attention to give the guy from the state a pat on the back and say vote for him. The only state programs that my family made use of was some state college scholarships, WIC (Women in Childern I think. Basically coupons to get pregnant and new mothers healthy food. Best state program ever.) and ArKids which is a low cost state health insurance.
I can't really tell you that I've noticed anything else that he has done. On a side note, most people around here actually liked Huckabee. I can't tell you a single person around here that thought Clinton would be good for the country or anything. I think that most folks from Arkansas supported Clinton for two reasons: He was from Arkansas, and it got his family out of the state. I thought the whole Huckabee running for president was a joke. After thinking about it though, I think that he actually has a fair shot at it. I think that he would make a better showing if he was some one's VP. Huckabee is moderate middle of the road kinda of preacher. Guys like him would be useful for the moderate Republicans and the middle of the road Christian crowd. His most useful things is that he can bend to get some things done, and that he can play that religion card against folks that are far more religious extremist than him.
O.k. those that hate anything doing with religion and would instantly vote against any church member, much less a preacher, will never like Huckabee. Those that understand how a preacher can bend and get most of his followers to at least give it a try for a while will see that Huckabee could be good for the general Republican party. I think Huckabee and Ron Paul both have that snowball's chance in hell of actually winning, but I thought Clinton had the same chances of winning and that Huckabee had that same chances of winning his bid for governor so what the heck do I know?
The complaint is as much about the concept of exclusion as anything. One of the points of a primary is to build consensus on a platform and debate issues, not just to choose a candidate. His movement has certainly raised issues and brought people to the party which used to be part of the core platform ("Free men, Free soil," anybody?) that haven't been discussed in years.
These issues obviously have active support, he has out lasted three other candidates, including two "first tier," and his block of delegates (completely different from the number of votes and based on separate caucuses where he is actually doing quite well) will affect the national convention which almost certainly will be brokered, and Huckabee has actually changed some of his rhetoric based on Dr. Paul's platform. The idea of excluding anybody in the race from the *debate* is idiotic, win or lose.
Even Giuliani supporters affected the issues and had a voice that needed to be heard. That's how a Republic (you know, "Republican") is meant to work, and that is why I support Dr. Paul's campaign as much as anything else.
First of all, Slashdot should be telling us who we can and can't talk about. Of course, this is one of the fundamental facets of liberalism (to which Slashdot fervently subscribes) - control of speech.
That said:
Romney: Would be a good President, and I hope would run it like a business that is supposed to have clean books and a balanced budget. He has flip-flopped on some issues, but his record of taking Massachusetts from deficit to surplus stands, and that is precisely what we need in the immediate term to combat the free-falling dollar and declining value of US assets across the world.
Huckabee: Just doesn't have it right in my mind. I am not inspired by his brand of religious evangelism, and am quite frankly scared of that kind of religious zeal threatening the separation clause. He also has no plan to improve the state of our economy on a global landscape.
McCain: Is not a republican by any stretch of the imagination
Paul: Is far more concerned with legalizing drugs than he is with coming to the amazing realization that, despite the fantasy land in which he lives where the US can be completely isolationist, the reality of the situation is that there are numerous kids in the sand box and they all have to play nice together.
I'm a Christian, myself, but I'm also a non-voter (actually, an anti-voter).
Nonetheless, what you wrote was pure drivel. Let's look:
Well, as one of those right-wing neo-con theocrats, I would like to thank you for supporting a candidate (RON PAUL!!!1!!1!!one!!!) that believes in creationism, wants a constitutional ban on abortions, believes in prayer in schools, opposes gay marriage (or anything gay, for that matter), and wants to kick all the non-Americans out of the country.
1. Ron's belief in creationism has nothing to do with how Paul would run education in the United States. Education is best left to the towns, and the school boards, not the States and for sure not the Federal government. Paul's idea to abolish the inefficient and pandering Department of Education is the first step to returning the education power, and responsibility, to the parents. Paul's not against "public" education, he's against inefficient Federal regulation of it.
2. Paul hasn't taken a Presidential position on abortion, other than it shouldn't be a Federal issue. I am also against Roe v. Wade, even though I am not anti-abortion (I am not pro-abortion, either). I am against Roe v. Wade because it usurps State powers. In terms of abortion, I have one opinion: if you are against the idea of abortion, the best way to change the tide is to adopt unwanted children, and support the ability to adopt by financially supporting adopting couples. I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need.
3. Prayer in schools has nothing to do with the Federal government. If an individual wishes to pray, the 1st Amendment is clear on their right to. Organized prayer in schools is another issue, but the Federal government is part of the problem: it nearly mandates that public education MUST be available. In Bible Belt districts, private education is a better option, but the Federal and State laws preclude the idea of dissolving forced financial support for local schools.
I pay a LOT in property taxes ($5000+ per annum). I am very vocal at my school board meetings, and I happily call the teachers thieves when they ask for more money, and the administrators fraudsters when they lie about the budget. Over the past 2 years, I've brought around 30% of the parents at the meetings to my side, and I have a good feeling that we will elect a downsizer to the school board. Note, I still don't vote, but I am vocal in my detraction against theft for "education." I have no kids, yet, and when I do, I will have enough saved to make a wise education decision.
4. Paul has no opinion on gay marriage, in fact he has said repeatedly in this campaign that if two people want to unite under contract, it is their right to. He also said it is YOUR right to ignore any contract you are not a part of. If you marry within a faith, most faiths have support structures in place for others in that faith to acknowledge your marriage. Marriage is NOT a government responsibility. If ten people want to intermarry in an orgy of love, so be it. I don't have to acknowledge it, except the law forces me to. Ridiculous. Paul wants to disconnect marriage and government completely. He would support gays marrying, as long as no one had to give them special treatment. He would be against straights marrying, if it forced others to give them special treatment.
5. I disagree completely on Paul's immigration position, but I also hate paying for anyone's education, health care, and lifestyle unless they've personally come to me for help. My wife and I take the Muslim belief to give alms to the poor who ask for help. We give about 3% of our income to the poor who come asking for help. We also buy food, pay utilities in winter, and help poor people get jobs. I helped two neighbors (poor!) get jobs shoveling walkways this winter, and their families are over $1000 richer each. I help the poor with charity, not aggression or entitlements. The (legal or illegal) immigrants who steal from me are just as bad as the citizens who steal from me.
News flash: Most public education is currently handled by the States. If the U.S. Department of Education went away, public education would still be around. Public education in some States would be worse for it, but other States would be greatly relieved that to have Federal interference out of their system.
There is a meme-disease that has infested our society, spread by power-grubbing politicians and money-hungry corporate interests (including the sound-bite-driven media.) It is the idea that if there is a problem, the Federal government should fix it. Any problem, great or small, anywhere in the country, is in need of a Federal "fix." There needs to be a new cabinet-level department, or a Federal bill, or a Constitutional Amendment, or a Supreme Court ruling, or a "War On *" to fix it.
You hear it from Obama. His resounding "Yes We Can" is saying "Yes, we, the Federal Government, can fix everything that's wrong!" You hear it from Hillary, or anyone else promoting Federal government-provided healthcare. You hear it also from McCain, Romney and Huckabee. You hear it, with a slightly different tune, from mainstream evangelical Christians -- the problems are different, but the solution, Federal Government enforcement of morality to "fix" immorality, is the same.
The problem with the idea is that it overlooks all the other options for fixing a problem.
When there is a problem:
- You or I can fix it
- You or I can educate people on its existence and what they can do to fix it
- You or I can start a non-profit organization dedicated to fixing it
- You or I can (potentially) start a business that makes money by fixing it
- Existing local businesses can make money by fixing it
- Local religious groups can (possibly) work to fix it
- Local non-religious non-profit organizations can help to fix it
- Local governments can help to fix it
- Larger / regional businesses can make money by fixing it
- Larger / regional non-profit and/or religious groups can fix it
- State governments can fix it
- National / Global non-profits can fix it
- National / Global corporations can fix it
- The Federal government can fix it
If a flood wiped out your city, who would you be most relieved to see: someone from the Red Cross (National / Global organization) or someone from FEMA?
If you just discovered you had heart disease and needed a triple bypass, who would you rather have handle it: your local top-100 heart hospital (could be for-profit, non-profit or religious), or the National Institute of Health?
If your kid is getting a poor education, who would you trust to fix it: a private school (also could be for-profit, non-profit, or religious, or even yourself if you aren't averse to homeschooling), or the Department of Education?
If there's a problem with people with drug addictions, who often turn to crime, who should fix it, a doctor, or the Federal government?
If there's a problem with internet regulation, who should fix it, ICANN or the U.S. Government? (Even the suckiest-run nonprofits seem less scary than the prospect of the US Government meddling in that.)
If there's a problem with one group of people who don't approve of the morality of another group of people, who should provide the solution? The groups who have the problem working it out with each other, or the Federal Government enforcing the will of the more populous group on the other?
The Federal Government was created to make peace between the States, to defend the States from outsiders, and to guarantee "Liberty and Justice for all." As long as it sticks to that basic plan it can do a lot of good, but when we look at the Federal government as "Mr. Fix Everything" we are setting ourselves up for trouble not just in things getting "Fixed" up in the FUBAR sense, but also in conflicts of interest, some subtle and some not-so-subtle, between fixing-problems and "Liberty and Justice for All"
I'm reluctant to water down the message by adding a cliche, but if eve
The requested URL
Romney
I like the executive experience. I believe government should be run more like a business because businesses by and large have less waste. Their success actually depends on it, whereas government's does not. I like that he's a former governor, but the Mormon thing bugs me. I'm worried about voting for someone that believes God was once a man like us and that we will one day be Gods like Him. Also I dislike that he is in favor of gun control legislation, when the 2nd amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law." Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Romney though is his flip flop on abortion. I'm pro-life, but he ran on pro-choice and then did not stick to it once he was elected. I understand he had a crisis of conscience once in office with legislation in front of him, but now I see him as the type of individual that could change a stance on virtually anything if the argument was persuasive enough.
McCain
The guy would make a good enough general, but a horrible republican nominee. He could not beat either Clinton or Obama. The country is sick of the war, and he wants to continue it and start new ones too. He's been accused of being less conservative than Clinton. He is one of the Democrats go to guys when they need a few more votes to push legislation through. Even on his understanding of the Iraq war he has flip flopped. http://www.gadberry.com/aaron/2008/01/08/mccain-vs-mccain/ Romney is much more electable, even with the Mormon thing.
Huckabee
He wants to take back the nation for Christ. I'm not sure that it ever belonged to Christ, unless he's talking about the Monarchy we lived under before the Revolution. He supports a 23% flat (fair) tax. While I understand a consumption tax, I disagree with a 23% federal tax while in my area we already have a 7.75% sales tax. That brings my sales tax up to 30.25%. Huckabee is even less conservative than McCain. Granted, he has no flip flopping on abortion, gay rights, etc, because those are religious viewpoints, he literally wants a theocracy. He wants to legislate morality. That just doesn't work.
Paul
He's the kind of man that founded our country. He wants to get rid of the massive amounts of government that slipped in during the last ~250 years. He wants to take us back to the time when elected officials were "serving". Unlike the other's running he actually is a conservative and doesn't change his positions. I honestly believe if there was no media bias that he would get more attention. I'm not sure if it's cause the FED gives money to media, or if the media enjoys their ability to lobby, or if it's something else If you look at his record on voting the major issues he has been consistent and right 100% of the time. It may not come out until later that he was right, for example on the Iraq war, but he has always made the right decisions.
I guess it's obvious I support Paul, but the facts are the facts, and I think it's about time we had a man like our founding fathers in charge.
Since I'm not a US citizen I feel amazed that even I am more aware of Dr. Paul's politics than you even if you aren't a US citizen.
;)) His positions from the beginning have been that of a fatherly figure stating that he does not want to interfere with your life as much as possible but is willing to offer advice if you ask.
Dr. Paul is actually stating that he himself is not gay and he does not act in the lifestyle but if you wish to all the best. He would like to see prayer in schools but he does not want to enforce it. He does not want to enforce any of the subjects you state (ie abortion) he feels it is ultimately you and your states decision on how you carry out your life but if you ask him he would rather you keep your baby.
So really you are the "circular progressive" in this case (the one with his head up his ass
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I don't think anyone should ever be excluded from debate, polls, etc., until after Super Tuesday. After Super Tuesday, start trimming down to those that have a snowball's chance or better. Until then, the media is deciding the primaries for you.
...write-in candidate Ronald Reagan (deceased and thus truly unelectable)...
...great distance...
...great distance...
I also wish for polling blackouts, until the last polls close in the "last state's latest polling location", whenever that is. As soon as all polls are closed, let us drink from the firehose of polling data. I wouldn't call this censorship. In fact, covering every sneeze with a "3% margin of error" affects the outcome (kinda sounds like Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, a bit, but I digress). Let's go back to the spirit of the Secret Ballot, not just the letter...
Otherwise, the race is being shaped by CNN, Fox, Slashdot, whatever. Want an example of that? Why did Giuliani get to debate, when Ron Paul didn't? Giuliani got 0 delegates (until just before he dropped out) and often got very poor polling data. (Tom Tancredo didn't get invited, either, after awhile, but that's another story, and he dropped out early).
If the media has already told us who the winners and losers are -- starting with Iowa and New Hampshire (but to predict anything that early is utterly insane) -- then people start tending to vote for those that are "electable". Actually, until February 5 (this year's Super Tuesday), anybody's "electable".
You know, Super Tuesday has so many delegates, that mathematically anyone left in the race could win, however likely or unlikely. It's extremely unlikely, yet mathematically very possible, that Ron Paul could be facing Mike Gravel in November (now there's a long shot).
Am I glad that Giuliani's out? You bet! (If it were Giuliani vs. Democrat in November, I would have considered voting third-party for President).
Yet this isn't the prerogative of the mainstream press. This is the prerogative of the voter, or *should* be. Do I wish that Ron Paul was winning and that he had a fair shake, from the beginning? Absolutely. (It's too late, now. And, I know it's entirely probable that if he had a fair shake, that he'd still not be in first place, but that's another matter).
So, the media goes from reporting the news in an unbiased way (journalism), to making the news (editorial).
Unfortunately, since the media once again decided for us already (instead of just reporting the facts), and since we are faced with lousy "electable" Republicans, I'd vote in this order, based on who's left:
Ron Paul (but now cast as a loser in the media)
Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee (probably in that order)
John McCain
No, I'm not a "Ronulan" (except maybe in the Ronald Reagan sense) although I don't consider that an insult. He's just the best candidate this term, Republican or Democrat.
You really should vote. If everyone who doesn't vote now, would start voting for "The guy that can't win", whether that is a presidential, state, or local campaign, it would do wonders for scaring the other candidates into behaving better. When you say you are an anti-voter because you don't vote out of protest, you are playing right into the lead candidates hands. The true 'anti-vote' is to vote for someone that you don't believe can win. This both the effect of not supporting the current system which is mostly a 'vote for who you think can win so you can feel like a winner yourself' system, as well as throwing a little scare into those who will win.
The true anti-voter votes for the loser.
What's the purpose of being an anti-voter? I mean, why would you take such a position and think that it is useful?
I vote in every election, but I only write myself in. The only candidate who cares about me is me. We have quite a movement in my community on anti-voting. By 2012, I hope that "Other" ends up with 20% of the vote because people are sick of voting for force, so this gives them the chance to get other people questioning the act of voting for evil. All politicians are evil, because government is the use of force, plain and simple.
You've GOT to be kidding. You're basically saying that if a Christian doesn't offer an alternative to sin, they are responsible for the sin of another person. Unbelievable. I think you've got a bit of the crazy in you.
I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in sin as defined in the Bible. Even if you believe in sin, it is not your place to judge anyone else. Ever. We're not Pharisees, we're not Saducees, and we're surely not God, so it isn't our place to call out another person's actions. It is especially not our place to steal from people to try to make the world sin free.
Biblically, the first place of judgment comes from you to yourself. If a Christian harms you, you are called to talk with them. If they ignore you, you are to speak with a few brethren within the Body to talk to the Christian. If they still ignore you, you call them out to the congregation. Expulsion is the last step.
If a non-Christian harms you, you are to accept the abuse. Love your enemy. Christ brought forth two Commandments that stick for Christians: Love God, love others. Hoping for government to help a few means hoping for government to hurt the many. YOU should help those you know are in trouble, but don't force non-Christians to.
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:
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.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Then (I assume) you haven't seen charter schools, private schools under a decent voucher system, Montessori schools, or active homeschool groups (with shared activities and teacher/specialist swapping, shared seminars) in operation. I have, and the quality of education I have seen far outstrips what comes out of (most) public schools. The small underfunded private school I went to growing up ranked 3rd overall in the state. We regularly beat public schools in scholastic competitions and the high school had no idea what to do with us because we already had HS/Regents credit in a number of courses when we got there, freeing us up for APs in High School, even though I left two years early. When I got to college, a friend of mine was younger than I was, was homeschooled, and already had his AA. The charter elementary school my company was helping wire a few years back had phenomenal tech education and computer labs (they taught UNIX/Linux, basic programming). A small homeschool group I tutored medieval history for had eight-year-olds reading Virgil in the original. I am working on possible weed walks and field biology outings for a group here. There are more and I have yet to see one bad example, though I know there must be. A local public high school regularly graduates people who can't read more than road signs, and they get decent grades. That has been true before the current administration and I don't see it changing any time soon.
Are all private schools good? No, but they do have to compete and that puts them under a good deal of pressure, to rank well, educate well (get kids into good colleges), and keep costs down. For the most part, that process works. Public schools can dip into your wallet whenever they want. You have a chance of influencing that locally-- you directly elect your school board-- but your effect over the Department of Education is negligible.
McCain was one of the Keating 5 which, unless Clinton is the democratic nominee, is sufficient reason for me to vote against him.
Charles Keating bribed 5 Senators (aka The Keating 5) to carry legislation for him that relaxed rules on the Savings and Loan industry. The ensuing S&L meltdown in 91 was partially due to that legislation. The Senators kept their jobs while Keating went to jail. In my book, all of them should have gone to jail.
To make amends, McCain teamed up with Feingold to "keep money out of politics." Together, they crafted the McCain-Feingold act which didn't do a thing to keep folks like Norman Hsu and Tony Rezko from bundling huge amounts of money for favored politicians. What McCain-Feingold did do was muzzle advertising critical of incumbents which comes as little surprise as it was written by two long-time incumbents.
McCain might be able to beat Clinton but Obama would thrash him.
I'll throw my $0.02 in here: IMO, Ron Paul is probably not going to be the next POTUS, but I have worked damn hard and donated a fair bit of cash to get him there anyway. If he does not win the Republican nomination, I'm writing him in.
The key point here is that the Paul candidacy has raised the Constitution, and the notion that government should be limited as a serious issue to hundreds of thousands of Americans who otherwise may never have considered these things.
I hope that, win or lose, these people continue the fight.
That's what Ron said when my wife spoke to him, anyway...
Part of the Second American Revolution!
I want a pro constitution pro honest money pro limited government candidate. One who will end the war on drugs, One who will cut back the constant unrestrained growth of government that has happened over the last 60 years. Never once has the size of the federal government ever shrank. Never once has the amount of spending gone down. One who will get the Iraq war off our back, reign in the USA empire and bases all over the planet, one who will drastically reduce taxes AND spending, but not screw us over regarding the value of our money, and not load the future generation with 10 generations worth of debt.
Dammit. WTF is wrong with people? The fact that I don't even need to mention this candidates name should tell everybody everything that they need to know.
No candidate of these three has done all of these:
- Is a constitutionalist.
- Has never voted to raise taxes.
- Has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
- Has never voted for the Iraq War.
- Has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
- Has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
- Has never voted to raise congressional pay.
- Has never taken a government-paid junket.
- Voted against the Patriot Act.
- Votes against regulating the Internet.
- Voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
- Votes against the United Nations.
- Votes against the welfare state.
- Votes against reinstating a military draft.
- Votes to preserve the constitution.
- Votes to cut government spending.
- Votes to lower healthcare costs.
- Votes to end the war on drugs.
- Votes to protect civil liberties.
- Votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
- Votes to eliminate tax-funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade.
- Votes to protect religious freedom.
If one of these three candidates has all of these qualities and has had these qualities throughout the entirety of their political career, please call me out on this and cite your sources so that I may read them and learn from my mistake myself.Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
SHIT! I just put my whole damned paycheck on the donkey. SHIT SHIT SHIT!
I'm posting anonymously because I have mod points today
Appreciate that explanation, because I've stopped replying to AC's.
I don't see why this is necessarily a good idea. Simply by virtue of having children does not not make one an expert on how to educate children. Why not let the people who know about such matters make the important decisions.
And you're saying that unionized public school teachers know what is best for the student? I think not. First, standards in markets are set by what the community shows need for based on how they spend their money. In my town, definitely a lower class town, our local stores don't carry a lot of expensive items, because they don't sell. The town south of me is almost entirely hispanic, and their shoe stores tend to carry a lot of shoes in smaller sizes -- because their population tends to have smaller feet. We have a lot of taco restaurants, but no steak houses. The market has answered it's need. When the Federal, or even State government gets involved in trying to fulfill a market need, it does so with a blind eye to what the local population needs. Some people want cheap, small shoes that they can afford, and others want expensive designer shoes in size 14. Forcing the same standard on all localities leaves people with a product they can neither afford, nor need at the level they want. Education to me is not a right, and by making it one we've only made education worse for the average person who wants it for their kids.
I have read some of his campaign material, and I think the above statement is more than a little dishonest. He is trying to have his cake (he holds strong anti-abortion beliefs) and eat it to (by insisting it is a state rights issue).
What is wrong with a person saying "I believe in this, but I have to tell you that if I take this position, I really have no legal authority to dictate the issue, so my answer is that it's none of my business." That's Paul's position.
Unless you (or your spouse) are teachers or administrators with real-world experience in such matters, your comments strike me as needless flamebait.
I've been going to school board meetings since I was 19 (14 years). I've read almost 16 school year budgets. I've discussed actual needs with teachers AND administrators. The teachers' unions are lying, methodical thieves, who give nothing to the teachers they're supposed to protect. Little surprise, since most national unions act the same way. The administration is meaningless, too. In my state (Illinois), kids are getting dumber, but the administrations are fighting for freaking artificial turf for their sporting fields! The kids are dumb as bricks, but they need better grass for their football games? Right.
The parents, and only the parents, have the responsibility to lead their children in the proper direction. If the parents can't afford an education, that is what private subsidized education has been about. We've always had private churches and organizations providing for inexpensive education, until we taxpayers were forced to foot the bill on substandard "everyone's equal" education. It sickens me, because I do see the average person getting dumber and dumber. One-size-fits-all doesn't work, not even with gloves or hats.
Like anything else in the world, you get what you pay for. If you want the lowest costs, you are going to get the lowest quality.
Wow that is SO untrue. I bought a notebook for $2000 3 years ago that is sub-par to the notebook I bought recently for $600. Recently I found an oil-change service (prepaid annually) that is 1/2 the price of my previous place, but does a MUCH better and faster job. I'm a foodie, and I guarantee you that price does not equal quality of service. One of my businesses is the cheapest in the industry nation-wide, and we consistently get higher ratings than our competition that is 3-4x more expensive than we are.
Price and quality do not go hand-in-hand. Remember, with p
George Bush heard it straight from god himself, dontcha know.
You can't take the sky from me...
I think his views vs. actions with regards to abortion on contradictory. He claims that he wants it to be a state issue, but he then tries to get around that by redefining the concept of life at the federal level. So either his stated position on abortion is just pandering , or he somehow doesn't see a contradiction here.
OK, I'll bite.
Ron Paul's most basic views on economics are flatly incorrect in ways that are trivially easy to verify.
Examples:
Ron Paul has claimed that going back to the gold standard will fix a large variety of economic woes. Two things he has said the gold standard will resolve I can think of now are inflation and he's said that it will "smooth" the boom-and-bust cycle of the economy. Yet obviously this country has already spent a lot of time under a gold standard, and it's very easy to verify that during this time inflation was about the same as it is now or slightly worse, and the boom-and-bust cycle was considerably worse. It's really easy to google for graphs of these things, it's not some obscure data.
He also thinks that when the government runs a budget deficit, the federal reserve creates the extra money, creating inflation and thus constituting a silent "tax" on everyone's savings. This idea is simply counterfactual. When the government spends more than it takes in, the treasury department sells bonds. A bond is basically an agreement that says in exchange for X dollars today I'll give you slightly more than X dollars at some set point in the future. If the government literally printed up money every time it ran a deficit, it wouldn't owe anything when it was all said in done. Think about it: under this scenario, there would be no national debt. Isn't there, in fact, like a 9 trillion dollar national debt? The national debt is actually the sum of all of the outstanding treasury bonds. It's really easy to verify this story and it's not some subtle point.
I see a lot of Ron Paul supporters spouting a bunch of hyperbole about Ron Paul. While he's a good speaker, and makes his points fairly intelligently, most of his economic policies are downright stupid, and any real economist will tell you he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Libertarians are not who you should go to for economic advice. They paint the federal reserve as the source of all of our economic problems, and suggest going back to the gold standard. This is ridiculous. We had enormous monetary problems before the federal reserve came into play and we had a way of regulating the economy. However, if you hear Ron Paul tell it, things were all roses before the federal reserve, and the fed has done nothing but cause inflation. Inflation predates the federal reserve.
Ron Paul suggests the Federal Reserve causes inflation, but *his* plan is to have congress print money whenever they feel like it, as if *that* won't case the exact same problem even more so. At least the Fed is run by trained professionals with a long term interest in maintaining the stability of the banking industry and the economy at large. Congress is not qualified to determine how much money to dump into the economy, since they will just spend like crazy if they have the right to print money.
>1. Why is he running as a Republican?
>
>Because he embodies the true ideals of conservativism that the neo-cons have robbed from modern >Republicans.
Yes, the Republican party used to be the conservative party, and before that it used to be the *liberal* party. The name of the party means nothing, his views are not represented or sponsored by its members. The Libertarian party represents is more representative of his views at this point.
Ron Paul calling himself a Republican is like an ante-bellum southern Democrat calling himself a modern Democrat. Before the war Democrats were the social conservative pro slavery party, now they are not.
In any case, the neo conservative and libertarian economic policies are both equally stupid, so it's not like a return to 19th century economic policies would improve our situation.
>2. Why is he STILL running?
>
>Because he still has a good shot, the only thing holding him back is when news outlets don't >mention him at all. News outlets such as Slashdot.
This is a bunch of bullshit. Ron Paul isn't taken seriously because his views *can't* be taken seriously and because he does not appeal the the vast majority of voters.
The vast majority of voters do *not* want to end social security, do *not* want to end the FDA which is responsible for maintaining the safety of the food supply. Many people want a smaller more efficient federal government, including myself, but most people depend on the federal government for various services and do not want to see it dismantled.
Also, his policy that we get rid of the income tax and just have massive tariffs is stupid. I'm not saying that we should never have tariffs. However, the IRS takes in 2.5 trillion annually. This is not possible with tariffs. Even if we raised tariffs to the level where we could take in 2.5 trillion in one year, the next year we would have to raise tariffs again because trade would *decrease*. Small tariffs to spur internal industry makes some sense, but the kind of tariffs Ron Paul is talking about would *end* international trade and destroy this country. No country can survive with an isolationist policy in the modern world.
I liked how he talked when I've heard him, and I appreciated his opposition to the war and his willingness to buck the party line, but this guy is advocating economic policies that just don't make sense.
I strongly disagree with a lot of libertarian economic policies, but I don't think that your post gives their reasoning a fair hearing.
First, libertarians on principle oppose government involvement in monetarist policies, which implies getting rid of the federal reserve and the monetarist policies it administers. This has absolutely nothing to do with government spending, which is fiscal policy handled by Congress. I would imagine Ron Paul's fiscal policy would be some variant of pay as you go, following strong fiscally conservative principles. Getting government out of monetary policy probably isn't a good idea, but having people attempting to muddy the waters by rolling all of the issues together is also a crock of shit.
Second, Ron Paul advocates the repeal of the individual income tax, which accounted for roughly $1.04 billion of the $2.40 billion overall tax collected by the Federal Government in 2006. The balance is composed of corporate income taxes and other taxes, and in a cursory overview, I was able to find no evidence that Ron Paul opposes these forms of taxation. Excise taxes and a reduction of spending to 1995?-levels would account for the deficit. Tariffs are not a significant part of his tax plan, for the simple reason that the volume of international trade is not significant when compared to the size of the American domestic economy.
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, but my reasons don't have a lot to do with the half-assed hyperbole and half-truths you're spouting, and many of the issues he raises do have relevance to policy discussions today.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin