Who do you want as president and why?

[peaceloveunderstanding]

If this crap reporting is what we have to look forward to throughout much of next year, can we just skip the election cycle and just install a new president? For a person who spends probably every day in front of a television camera, giving speeches to multiple groups, meeting with dignitaries, and thousands of other public appearances throughout his/her term, why would a $400 haircut be such a stretch? And it sounds like he paid for it himself, so what's the beef? Since when did the Republicans start marketing themselves as being the "unkempt and unattractive" alternative? Real men don't comb their hair, dammit!

Anyone have a run-down of where Edwards stands on the major issues? What would he do with Iraq?

[erdogs]

I know a lot of people on here like Obama, but what are the reasons other than the superficial ones? Can you cite legislation he has voted for that you consider telling about his views?

At this point I don't know who I'm voting for, but I do know who I'm not voting for. That list includes Hillary, Romney, Edwards and, if he ran again, Buchanan. I like Obama personally, but I doubt his views and mine mesh too well. Giuliani did a great job running NYC, however a presidential race with him in it could get real ugly on both sides. Too many people blame him for the racist incidents that happened with the police. Maybe Fred Thompson, but I know very little about him.

[lammius]

No way I'd vote for Guiliani. Right now the only Republican I'd even consider is Mike Bloomberg.

On the Dems side, I'm seriously just not sure yet.

[atlrvr]

I took these graphs from the www.ontheissues.org website to show each candidates relative views. Of course some candidates are probably a little inaccurate based on their current pandering agenda, but I think its a good barometer overall. After viewing these, I'm more certain than ever I would vote for Rudy.

Obama

Giuliani

Clinton

Romney

Richardson

McCain

Edwards

Thompson

[cinco]

richardson, edwards or obama are my leanings in order. that said, i wouldn't breathe fire if guliani won in the end... but, i don't think he will get the nomination. there is an under current of the republican party made up of neo-con moralists which i believe is far bigger than some aknowledge, and i have a hard time believing that guliani can convince them to win the primary. well see.

perhaps thompson can get the gears moving now that he's announced... it's funny b/c conservatives usually love to spin the whole celebrity/democrat topic as a bad thing... but, when they find one that is in their party - they go koo-koo over them.

other republicans, if they ran and won, i wouldn't be upset with would include: chuck hagel (though i'm a little wary of his prior job as AIS voting machine and software CEO) and arlen spector (hey, the guy was once a democrat).

[atlrvr]

Arlen Spector (his name) sounds like an evil genius bent on world domination.

I've been researching Richardson quire a bit, and I am somewhat ripped. I agree with him whole-heartedly on some issues, and others I am the polar opposite. I think for now, he would be my favorite Democrat and would vote for him if he was running against Romney or McCain.

I need to find out more about Thompson. I typically agreed with him in Law & Order, but I suppose that's not a good barometer.

Does anyone know Giuliani or Thompson's stand on Mass Transit and inter-city rail? Of all the issues in our country, those are where I seek our country weakest....I guess I'm pretty much an optimist though.

[JDC]

Does anyone know Giuliani or Thompson's stand on Mass Transit and inter-city rail? Of all the issues in our country, those are where I seek our country weakest....I guess I'm pretty much an optimist though.

[intcvlcphlga]

Michael Bloomberg. He's the one who needs to get into the race as a self-financed independent. Given the polarization between the Republicans and Democrats and the poisonous atmosphere that has become pervasive in Washington over the last several years, the US is ready for a viable third party and he is the man to lead it.

[Panamaniac]

Hillary! Despite the Lewinsky scandal, the country enjoyed 8 years of economic prosperity and relative peace during her husband's stewardship. I have no reason to believe that "The First Gentleman" won't be a positive influence on the 2nd. Clinton Presidency. Electing HRC would be the next best thing to re-electing Bill Clinton to a 3rd. term...

[Charlotteman]

Did ya'll catch any of the Rep debate last night? sad...sad....sad....

What a dejected looking group they were, with the exception of Ron Paul. (Paul ran for president as a Libertarian in the 1980s, and got my vote twice!) I think Paul won the debate.

The rest were generally a sorry lot of nobodies and has-beens, and also McCain, a lame Guilliani, and a choir director look alike: Romney.

I had never even heard of half these men. A couple of them were scary looking guys, with some far-right rhetoric. i.e. "Yes I think a business owner should be able to fire someone because they are gay." and there was one with dyed poofy brown hair that looked like a walking corpse. Others appeared dire and serious, even sinister! Not exactly the type of people you'd wanna have dinner with~~~

Guilliani was real real lame in my humble opinion.......seems like it would have been the time to go in and hit a home run in the debate. But he seemed to be treading water to me. Nothing new, same defensiveness about abortion (which is already becoming most tiresome)

McCain was his usual pandering self---calling himself part of the "pro life community". And mentioned praying in another retort. I'm still waiting on him to announce favoring official prayer in schools.

Romney was polished and articulate, bright and attractive. But his mentioning "strengthing the family" as one of the three issues he would approach first as president was a little alarming. Is that a nefarious way of saying being against gays, and diversity? A way of saying Jerry Falwell will be a defacto advisor????

Some lame stuff tonite, and some scary stuff too.

[nowensone]

... that said, i wouldn't breathe fire if guliani won in the end... but, i don't think he will get the nomination. there is an under current of the republican party made up of neo-con moralists which i believe is far bigger than some aknowledge, and i have a hard time believing that guliani can convince them to win the primary. well see.

[Captain Worley]

I don't think the "neo-con moralists" are anywhere near as large a group as everyone thinks. Sure, they're loud, obnoxious and get a lot of press, but they are nowhere near a majority.

Here in SC, most people I know (I'm one of them too) are leaning heavily towards Guiliani, and think McCain is a nut. You'd be surprised how many people that generally vote republican don't care one way or the other about abortion. SC is Guiliani's to lose.

[erdogs]

I kind of liked Brownback and Ron Paul. I really liked what Paul said about how republican foreign policy used to be, staying out of other countries affairs. I liked how Brownback presented himself, but his wife scared me a bit. Right now those are the two who stood out for me. I would like to find out more about Fred Thompson, but I'm wide open right now. On the Democratic side, I like Bill Richardson, however I don't think he stands a chance at getting the nomination. The same goes for Paul.

[monsoon]

The two things that stood out about this bunch. Americans should be as scared as hell and trust them to fix it, and,... Each one is new Ronald Reagan.

In other words, the same old tired message that is close to 30 years old. Oh and BTW, Ronald Reagan was a mediocre president at best. A few of them are downright scary like Brownback who essentially want to throw out the Constitution and put Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in charge of moral behavior.

I hope the majority finally sees through this nonsense and votes out this entire bunch of idiots.

[cinco]

i was not impressed by any of the republican candidates. of course, it's just the beginning of the debates and they will polish their presentations - with time.

i, for one am so weary of republican rule - and the fact that they all seem to echo their base - was not encouraging.

the most agreeable to my beliefs would be guliani and ron paul (rupaul). however, guliani didn't present himself as good as i thought he might have... ron paul laid out his ideas more convincingly.

romney looked and acted like a politician - better than the rest... which, unfortunately, might serve his career well.

mccain has become the epitime of the word "tool"... and thats too bad. if you could take the mccain of 2000 and put him in this race... he'd been a shoe in for the nomination.

and lastly... has anybody ever heard jim gilmore begin a sentence with something other than, "well, when i was governor of virginia...."

dude, we get it.

the rest of this lot weren't even worth a mention, imo.

[Charlotteman]

I think Captain Worley's last post is worth a re read, or even a thrice read.

He lives in S.C. and sees and hears what the rest of us in other states don't hear about the Palmetto State. Would we all agree that whomever wins the S.C. Rep primary will most likely go on to win the national Rep nomination?

Captain Worley laid it out quite clearly. Gulianni is ahead in the state. And like the rest of us, South Carolinians are seeing just how big a nut McCain is. He thinks S.C. is Gulianni's to lose.

I think Captain's post is definitive. WHO ELSE do the Reps have?????

[nowensone]

^That's pretty much my thinking, unless they have someone that they are saving until the last minute so the public does not have a year and more to pick that candidate apart. If not, then Guliani is their man, and I'll be smiling, because in a way he will have hijacked their party (no pun intended) - we know there are many for whom he is not their kind of Republican. But they really have no other way of winning the presidency without him.

And furthermore, it may be great way to force the extreme right to form there own parties and get the hell out of mainstream politics. The more I think about it the more I think positive change will come from a Guliani nomination. Not necessarily saying he'd get my vote, but I'd consider it.

[Snowguy716]

If this country elects a pro-choice Republican president, I would not only probably piss my pants, but I'd be pleasantly surprised.

I didn't catch the debate, but I think the media is going to start tearing down Giuliani in full order. Hillary and Rudy are screwed. The Media wouldn't stand for a pro-choice Republican securing the nomination, nor would they support a pro-war Democrat. They just love the competition that comes from having polar-opposite candidates. It means higher ratings for them.

In a Giuliani-Obama/Edwards/Clinton race, I'd still vote for the Democrat, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if Giuliani were to win. He'd certainly be better than "compassionate conservative" Brownback/Huckabee or icky neo-Libertarian Ron Paul.

Don't let Ron Paul fool you. He has some liberal social leanings and isolationist foreign policy stances, but he is referred to as "Dr. No". He would push for drastic reductions in the federal government, which may sound nice, until you figure out that a lot of states cannot afford the services that the federal government provides to them on their own (like federal highways, subsidized health insurance, welfare, school funding), ESPECIALLY in poor states like Mississippi and Louisiana.

[Charlotteman]

Guilliani as a pro-choice Rep presidential nominee closely follows the story line of West Wing's last season.

For all you politicos that love the show, you'll already know this:) In the last season of the series, a pro choice Rep Californian (Alan Alda) ran for president against a moderate Dem (Jimmy Smits) The Dem won the election, and even carried South Carolina!

The Reps do find themselves in an unusual situation, without a far-right religious fanatic candidate for pres. In West Wing the Rep lost. Let's hope that happens in real life this time.

[michaelskis]

Thank you for posting the poll!

For the most part, I am still up in the air as to whom I would like to see get elected. I know I don

[Snowguy716]

They may not unite the country in their message/values, but I think just the fact that Bush will be gone will have most Americans collectively sighing in relief. A new president, outside of Hillary Clinton, will allow Americans to start over fresh on politics.

[monsoon]

^Indeed. He will no doubt go down as the worst president in American history.

[jack]

Not sure yet. I watched the GOP debate and I recognize that who I want, probably will not win. I like Ron Paul because I think he adheres to more traditional Republican values. But I am a realist. I just wish we could take social issues out from the Feds and stick to more fiscal and national security isses.

Also, a lot of peolpe were displeased with Guiliani's comment on weather he would be happy if Roe was overturned. I actually liked his answer. So say he was trying to toe the line. I do not think so.

Quick hits

The ultra right moralist are loud but few in numbers

Ron Paul is darn cool because he is the only one who gets it.

Reduction in the federal government would impact states, but they can raise taxes to off set reductions

Romney did look presidential but that should not be enough.

It might be time to elect a Libertarian leaning GOP candidate. Victory is ours!

[Charlotteman]

Just to remind everyone, Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee for president twice in the 1980s. In one of the elections he pulled a million votes (nationally). I was a proud voter for Ron Paul both times he ran.

But as a Libertarian, he not only believes in fiscal responsibility, he also believes in legalizing drugs and gay marriage!! When this comes to light, what will the religious-fanatic Republican base think of that????

Ron Paul is quite a dynamic speaker, when you're into the CONTENT. He's no Reagan or Clinton in front of the camera. But lots of his ideas resonate with the American people.

[JDC]

I don't think the "neo-con moralists" are anywhere near as large a group as everyone thinks. Sure, they're loud, obnoxious and get a lot of press, but they are nowhere near a majority.

Here in SC, most people I know (I'm one of them too) are leaning heavily towards Guiliani, and think McCain is a nut. You'd be surprised how many people that generally vote republican don't care one way or the other about abortion. SC is Guiliani's to lose.