Mitt: I find it curious that so few people are interested in his performance as the governor of MA. Fact is, the one-term governor would have endured a landslide defeat had he seeked a second term. Left office to a dismal 36% approval ratings due to poor performance on promoting economic growth (MA was one of the slowest in the country) after running as the "smart business guy." Also haven't met a government fee that he didn't increase, although to be fair, he was trying to pay down the deficit, which he did. But nevertheless, by the end of his term even the MA GOP were glad to see the back of him. If he was ineffective as a gonvernor, what makes me think he can be an effective president? Nothing.

Rudy: He cut spending, lowered taxes, and cleaned up the street. Very good. But still, he did all that as a mayor. Who is the last person to go from being a mayor to being a president? I'd like to see how well Rudy perform as a governor or senator before I'd vote for him. His stumbles with foreign policy, including misinterpretation on key US foreign policy has me very worried. Furthermore, he could afford to cut spending and lowered taxes because he had a gignormous budget that was bigger than most states to work with. What'd he do with a deficit and limited resource? It's a question that I want to do. Overall, Rudy needs more experience to be ready for the presidency, imo.

McCain: He is hands down the most qualified GOP candidate to be president. But John McCain's biggest enemy is John McCain. I'm scratching my head at some of the strange things that he said and did. I hope McCain rebound nicely, but at this point, it doesn't look like he can beat either Hillary or Obama.

Mike: He's a big-spending and big-government conservative. Er, no thanks.

Brownback: He may poke fun at John Edwards, but Brownback is another typical big-spending, big government, but tax-cutting conservative.

Fred Thompson: I wish Fred had done more as a Senator to give some indication of his ability. Has a reputation as somewhat lazy with short attention span. Even his GOP colleague expounded that Thompson always leaves the office on time in a professional known for its all-nighters. I see him as a typical government worker who work just hard enough to get by. Not a trait I want in a presient, regardless of how charismatic he is. And the fact that he struggled to name his greatest accomplishment as a senator is not a good sign.

The rest of the pack are House members; like being a mayor, being a Rep is not exactly a stepping stone to the presidency, I'll ignore them.

In essense, McCain is the only one here who is ready and has a demonstrated history of completency to be president. But I think the eventually winner is Fred Thompson (should he chose to run). notbecause of his ability, but because of his southern roots, charisma, and moral values. It's a sad repeat of 2000 and 2004. Let's hope the GOP learned their lesson.

Most of them are out throwing peanuts. Ron Paul gives direct answers to questions. He's the only GOP cantidate (actually, the only cantidate PERIOD) that doesn't stink of an unconstitutional agenda.

Well, Ron Paul did what most underdogs had to do - be honest and hope somebody notice.

But I'm less concern with what they say in debates than with their track records. And judging by their past, guys like Romney, Rudy, and Fred Thompson should not be the top candidates, period. Each is either too green or has not shown the competency that makes you think he can be a good potus.

Outside of John McCain and to some degree, Gilmore, there is no competent GOP candidate. They are all a bunch of George W Bushs.

presidential debate ramblings - the democrats


A lot of these guys are clueless and are playing the political game. Honest? Yeah, you got 1 person from the dems side- John Edwards. Hilary Clinton is over dosing in the political game category, picking her spots and jumping around questions. Obama wasn't bad either, he was staright forward the MAJORITY of the time as well. That's respectable. But saying once you're president you will bring back our troops from Iraq not only is stupidity but it's far from realism. It's one of those "easier said then done" scenarios where Clinton is just beggin for more troops to be murdered as we retreat. That's when the worst of the ambushes and gorilla warfare will take it's toll on us. The enemy will pick their spots. The way to do this is to set a timetable, not even anounce it publicly really and gradually and I mean GARDUALLY/SLOWLY retreat. Not what Hilary thinks would work- a quick withdrawal? No I'm sorry.

Winners of the democratic debate: Obama, Edwards a close secod.

Tonight is the republican deabtes, and I'll see if I can catch it. Oh yeah, Fred Thompson for pesident!

Who cares what they say in the debate? I certainly don't.

The true indicator of a good president is his/her past performance. I'm writing this thread based strictly on past job performance/experience. Nothing else. What they say in debates matter little to me, since it's just BS anyway. And religion and moral values are secondary to competency and experience - the way a job, any job, ought to be.

It's discouraging that many people pick their president based mostly on looks and charisma while ignoring the important factors.

You make good points. The thing that seems to be securing most of Romney's press is his religion. Thus far he has been successful in muting the role that religion might have played in Brownback's campiagn, and has been successful in securing most of the support of the conservative side, even if his religion is different.

I disagree. Being Mayor of a city the size of New York is more of a qualification for President that senator. He had to deal with budgets, unions, HR issues, transport problems, et al. A senator often-times has little-to-know actual large-scale management experience (eg McCain, Clinton, etc), and instead their position has come about as a result of their name, and they spend their days indoors arguing over legislation.

The fact is that based on history, the GOP nominee is going to be either Romney, McCain or Rudy. The GOP tends to always nominate the candidate who leads in the polls early. So I think it would be going against history to look beyond one of these three - unless some unknown superstar at this stage jumps into the race, and I can't think of one who might. Powell perhaps might be able to upset the train.

The Republicans will be making a huge mistake if they nominate Romney. He's pretended to change his views on everything (even apparently on hunting ) to win the Republican nomination. I don't want someone who isn't secure in their own beliefs to be president. Giuliani looks... almost decent, can't say his personal life projects a good image of him, but that has little to do with politics. I'd hate to see Thompson in office the most out of the lot. I'm sick of extreme conservatism and conservative attempts to push Christian morals into the politics of a non-religious nation. McCain is too Dubya-ish, or at least comes off that way in his standpoints, and I don't think he'll win the presidency even if he does win the nomination.

The Republicans' best bet seems to clearly be Ron Paul. Although I don't support a free market or most libertarian ideology, I think he actually knows what he's talking about, and most politicians seem not to. I think he is direct in his opinions and firm in his stances, which is definitely something few politicians, and even fewer republican politicians (*ahem*! Romney.) can say. He definitely seems to be the right candidate for the Republicans if they want to win, but I don't know if they're smart enough to pick him over all of the sad sacks of crap competing with him for the nomination.

As for the democrats... forget Hilary, Obama's decent, and Richardson is their best pick.

__________________

Wouldn't mind a Richardson/Paul ticket - that might unite america.

I'm still undecuided - I do like Paul more each time I see him - but I am really pissed at repubs. If congress goes way more dem, then Paul might well be the man I'd want in the white house.

He won't grow the govt or the debt, and he doesn't run on stone the fags and the liberals. He seems to have a moral compass that includes respect for law and the constitution. He'll have to compromise sometimes - but there's a lot of good he and the dems agree on.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

On a Richardson/Paul ticket, I'd probably end up going for Richardson but I can't be sure... I wouldn't mind either as president I don't think.

__________________

Bebop, howd you get that impression of huckabee?

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Also where did you figure that we'd end up nominating someone like say rudy had he have served in the Senate?

The one thing we as Republicans hate is senators! We have nominated just one senator to top our ticket in over 30 years!

Romney was a disaster on the "Flip Flop" question

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Huckabee increased state spending by 65.3% during his two terms as governor.

The Club For Growth - http://www.clubforgrowth.org

I didn't.

Im not sure that alone would lead me to think that, nor that it is the kinda of President he would be. He is for the Fair Tax after all, which would be a big dent in the size of govt.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.