Haven't decided who to support yet - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Saturday, 29 December 2007


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
2145 - Haven't decided who to support yet

I've been watching the Republican presidential candidate field, and none of them have really won me over:

  • Rudy Giuliani may well be electable, but his repeated claims that gun control is at least partially responsible for reducing crime in New York scare me silly. His later comments have not convinced me he's a friend of the Second Amendment. We'll have at least one major anti-gun candidate in November. We don't need two.

  • John McCain's support of amnesty for illegal aliens flies in the face of basic common sense. Like Giuliani, his later statements backing away from it are unconvincing.

  • Mitt Romney seems reasonable enough as a conservative - this week. I do doubt the sincerity of his embrace of conservative positions, given how recent a lot of it is.

  • Mike Huckabee's recent meteoric rise has come despite his taking considerably less than conservative positions on any of a number of things, from spending to immigration. He's also shown to have foot-in-mouth disease when it comes to foreign policy. I'm also a little uncomfortable with his waving his Southern Baptist religion in everyone's face; he's no Nehemiah Scudder, to be sure, but it's still too much for me.

  • Fred Thompson says all the right things. Why can't he get more support? If he can't draw support now, why should we think he will in November?

  • I agree with much of what Ron Paul says, but he's got too much of a stigma of kookhood about him to win the nomination, much less the election.

  • Nobody else has a significant following.


I don't have to decide yet - and may not get to have a voice anyway, if I'm not home for Minnesota's caucuses on February 5. Still, it bothers me that nobody really stands out yet. It's not like there's anyone on the Democrat side I'd prefer to any of these folks, so my vote in November is assured, but I wish I had more of an opinion...

current mood: [mood icon] uncomfortable

(14 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:sideband
Date: - 0000
(Link)
So you're doing it too, eh? Leaving Ron Paul out of the Republicans...

At this rate, we'll NEVER get a President in office who has actually read the Constitution.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I didn't leave him out...he's the next to last entry on the list.

I wish he wasn't tagged as a kook by so many folks. I don't think he's got the proverbial snowball's chance of being nominated; the best we can hope for (and it's not a forlorn hope at all) is that he pulls the eventual nominee in more of a libertarian direction.
[User Picture]
From:cathyr19355
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I have heard it said that Paul's a creationist, though I have not yet attempted to ascertain whether this is actually true.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
That might be - but Paul is the one candidate I'm certain will not try to impose those views on the country.

Paul claims to be a libertarian...wonder what Eric has to say about that.
[User Picture]
From:cathyr19355
Date: - 0000
(Link)
That might be - but Paul is the one candidate I'm certain will not try to impose those views on the country.


I know next to nothing about him--what convinces you of that?

By the way, I have no idea about what esrblog thinks of Paul or of his claim to be a libertarian. I will say that the word means many different things to many people. Most people who call themselves libertarians have no ties to the Libertarian Party and no interest in creating any. Some people who use the term mean "I believe in minimal interference by government in people's lives," though what "minimal" means also differs from person to person.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I'm convinced of that by his overall stands, which all center on sticking to what the Constitution says should be done.

Paul once ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for President. I would assume that gives him at least some libertarian cred.
[User Picture]
From:kazriko
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Given his 20 year history of voting in congress, I'd say he's likely to not shove it down our throats. Ron Paul may not be the most libertarian libertarian ever, but he's certainly a far sight more libertarian than the entire republican and democrat presidential field.

That said, I'm still not decided between Ron Paul and Fred Thompson. Those are the only two I could vote for with a clear conscious though... I'm worried that Fred Thompson might be a bit shaky on some things, and that he might have some backroom deal going with McCain on who gets the nomination. His record and his rhetoric are very Federalist though, and federalist is much better than what we've been getting the last hundred years or so.

Now McCain, that's one scary guy. He's more of a democrat than Lieberman.
[User Picture]
From:fitzmadrid
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Now you know a litle bit how feels to be a Democrat.

Im not sure whats going with my the party other than its something about a black guy, some white chick, and a lawyer hanging around. Which is typical for us but atypical for the GOP where the nomination is usually fait accompli.

I think it shows how weak they are this year and the difficulties Republicans are going to face for some time after this administrations stewardship. You know its bad when after a two term presidency they arnt even considering running the VP or any major White House figures.

I'm looking forward to it though. The GOP plays a pretty good political game and a win here would be a total masterstroke.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
That Cheney's not running is not due to GOP maneuvering; it's because Cheney himself ruled out runinng several years ago, due largely to his health. I'm not sure any Cabinet members would be strong candidates, but that's historically been the case for all of them.
[User Picture]
From:cathyr19355
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From a personal health point of view, Cheney should probably never have agreed even to be Vice President. Given his general physical condition, the Presidency likely would be a death sentence for him.
[User Picture]
From:kazriko
Date: - 0000
(Link)
With Bush's utter lack of experience, he needed someone to handhold him through the first year or so of his presidency. Cheney just happened to be that someone, having been in administrations, working closely with the president before.

I suspect that if anything would have happened to Bush, that Cheney would have picked a VP and then stepped down in short order.
[User Picture]
From:cathyr19355
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Bush certainly needed handholding, but that doesn't mean that Cheney had to be the guy to supply it. If I had been him, I think I would have spent my time helping 43 find someone else for the job.
[User Picture]
From:kazriko
Date: - 0000
(Link)
No, but it happened to be who they picked and there's no way to go back and change that now, so Cheney just happened to be that someone. ;)
[User Picture]
From:cathyr19355
Date: - 0000
(Link)
By the way, the white chick is also a lawyer--she just hasn't actually practiced law for many years, that's all. :-)

> go to top
LiveJournal.com