Well folks, the Primary season is almost upon us-considering we may feel that the season has already been going for the past year now.  ::)  After listening to all the debates, clashes, similarities, etc. I think I FINALLY decided who I am going to vote for:

Bill Richardson.

I have come to the conclusion that the top three Dems will basically be more of the same. (Clinton, Obama, & Edwards). And it bothers me that they (whoever hosts these many, many debates) seem to think that it is only these 3 who are in the race. I really hope that the 3 of them cancel each other out and one of the other 4 will get in there. I wouldn't mind any of the other 4 but I really like Richardson. I like his answers to the questions and I really think he is qualified to do the job. He has experience as a diplomat and as a governor.

Of course most of the Repubs really scare me. Ron Paul is ok but like the candidates that aren't on top, they rarely give him time to talk.


Who are your favorite(s) and why?


Cat

After seeing how both the DNC and RNC have dealt with things like Florida's decision to hold its primaries early, I'm convinced that neither party really cares about what the people want.

We have an outdated and corrupt primary system (and general presidential election) that overvalues the votes of small states and undervalues the votes of large states.

That being said, I may vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, since it's pretty obvious that NC will go Republican regardless of who's running.

Being a semi-Libertarian, I like Ron Paul for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, if you're going to do big government right, it has to focus primarily on the interests of the common man.  Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich fit the bill on that one, but I like Nader more than Kucinich.

I will be voting for Ron Paul. He seems to know what he is talking about.

  Ron Paul.  Not because he has any chance of winning but because strong showings by third party candidates scare the Republocrats into getting more in touch with their constituents... 

  He was the libertarian candidate for president once upon a time.  He had to redefine himself as a Republican to keep winning his seat in his district in Texas, but he's still a small-l libertarian.  If he were elected and had a chance to appoint some Supreme Court justices, a lot of the unconstitutional crap we have to put up with, like the War on Drugs, would be thrown out.  He would veto pork-barrel spending and try to put a lid on taxes, since as a libertarian he is convinced that the income tax is unconstitutional in peacetime.  He would stop nationalizing entire economic sectors like charity, education, energy, transportation and communication.  I'm not sure what he would do about the war in Iraq but I know he thinks it was a criminal act to start it...

  On the other hand he would get tough with Musharraf for harboring anti-American terrorists, and he would read the riot act to the House of Saud for their country having provided the finance, manpower and planning for 9/11.  He would probably give those a**holes 24 hours to deliver the head of their brother-in-law Osama or see U.S. troops in Riaydh instead of Kabul and Baghdad, and you know they would deliver it in 18 because they know damn well where he is groove ;) on...

   Ron Paul.  Not because he has any chance of winning but because strong showings by third party candidates scare the Republocrats into getting more in touch with their constituents... 

   He was the libertarian candidate for president once upon a time.  He had to redefine himself as a Republican to keep winning his seat in his district in Texas, but he's still a small-l libertarian.  If he were elected and had a chance to appoint some Supreme Court justices, a lot of the unconstitutional crap we have to put up with, like the War on Drugs, would be thrown out.  He would veto pork-barrel spending and try to put a lid on taxes, since as a libertarian he is convinced that the income tax is unconstitutional in peacetime.  He would stop nationalizing entire economic sectors like charity, education, energy, transportation and communication.  I'm not sure what he would do about the war in Iraq but I know he thinks it was a criminal act to start it...

   On the other hand he would get tough with Musharraf for harboring anti-American terrorists, and he would read the riot act to the House of Saud for their country having provided the finance, manpower and planning for 9/11.  He would probably give those a**holes 24 hours to deliver the head of their brother-in-law Osama or see U.S. troops in Riaydh instead of Kabul and Baghdad, and you know they would deliver it in 18 because they know damn well where he is groove ;) on...

They'd shoot Ron Paul before he even got inaugurated, I'm afraid.  His platform is an even bigger threat to corporatism than John Edwards' or Dennis Kucinich's.  I don't mean "entrepeneurship" or "free enterprise," both of which Paul would support.  Heck, I'm not even talking about "capitalism."  I mean "corporatism," which is what the Bush Administration and their big business cronies practice. Mussolini himself said fascism should more appropriately be called "corporatism." 

I was reading about the far-right John Birch Society, which is best known for its anti-communist/anti-collectivist platform.  Less mentioned, but right there on Page 1 is anti-fascism.  Fascism too is a form of collectivism.  It's a cabal of big government bureaucrats, international banking, and dominant corporations.  Well, that's what we've got in America today.  How often do you hear Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or those other clowns promote individual liberty over so-called "national security"?  No.  These pigs want a police state, and so does frikkin' Hillary. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the f*cking John Birch Society, but if I had to choose between them and the GOP, it would be the Birchers hands down!  A person of my political persuasions would not have chosen the Birchers over the Republicans even when Reagan or Nixon was in the White House.  I even say so knowing the Birchers took money from corporate fascists like Nelson Bunker Hunt.  Pretty scary when you think about it. 

(Paul isn't a Bircher either).

We don't live in a free country anymore when innocent citizens nervous at our own airports and afraid to say anti-government statements over the telephone. 

Sure, the GOP would  cheer Paul's platform of dismantling social security and the remaining welfare state, but he'd say if we want to fight terrorism coming to our own soil, perhaps we should stop meddling in the affairs of other nations, and subsidizing Saudi Arabia and Israel.  That's what would get him killed!
::)

I'm afraid Maxwell is correct.  People like Ron Paul are the kind that eventually get killed if they reach a high enough position of power.

Voting is a rather futile act when you consider what we're up against as individuals.  If any real change is to be made, it will require a militia.

"Bullets change governments far surer than votes." -- Simeon Weisz, Lord of War

Waves of despair... update the passport and stay close to the border

I'm working for Bill Richardson's campaign.  He's got more political experience than any of the other candidates.  He's also a realist.

As for Ron Paul, Max is right.  Ron Paul cannot be bought and he is a hardcore Populist.  He's a natural target because of that.

   You guys are right.  I don't want him to get hurt and furthermore, have it on my conscience.  I'm taking Danoota's advice and voting with my feet..!  :D

   If Ron Paul isn't the next President, I predict we'll begin seeing mini-skirmishes between the citizenry and "their" government in the near future, sort of Ruby Ridge-like stuff.  Those will escalate to Waco-sized events, and eventually 1775 retro!  One gets the sense that people are seriously fed up with government, in a way they haven't been in a long, long time...

   
I'm working for Bill Richardson's campaign.  He's got more political experience than any of the other candidates.  He's also a realist.

As for Ron Paul, Max is right.  Ron Paul cannot be bought and he is a hardcore Populist.  He's a natural target because of that.


   Look at Ron Paul's voting record in congress - I'm convinced that he's the most qualified to lead this country through the looming economic and foreign policy crisis facing us...

   Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

   Has never voted to raise taxes
   Has never voted for an unbalanced budget
   Has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership
   Has never voted to raise congressional pay
   Has never taken a government-paid junket
   Has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch

   Has voted against the Patriot Act
   Has voted against regulating the Internet
   Has voted against the Iraq war

   He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program
   He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year

   Consistency.  Unlike Clinton, an invertebrate triangulator whose only consistency is in following every political puff of wind she encounters...

   I would point out that Eisenhower was never a politician before he was elected president and I think he did a pretty good job.  IMO leadership, which Ike obviously had, is more important than political experience.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a dearth of leadership in this year's field, precisely because most of them are insiders, and as such, have had to play it safe in order to survive political life, advance in their party and attract donors groove  ;) on...

   

   Edited: Revise and expand my remarks...
   
   

   

   

Ron Paul.

I used to be leaning between Tom Tancredo and Paul, but now I've decided I'm voting for Paul.  I still like Tancredo a lot, but Paul has the money, the polling data and the momentum.

Paul is now at 5% or better in three difference national polls.  Gallup has him at 5%, CNN has Paul at 5% and Rasmussen Reports has Paul at 6% nationally.  Also Paul has 7% or 8%, ahead of Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, in the early primary state of New Hampshire according to three different polls.

Does that mean I think he'll win?  No.  But John Zogby predicted that Paul could get 15-18% in New Hampshire and "embarrass" a lot of front-runners, and that I'd really like to see.  I'd also like the republicans to adopt more of Paul's ideas: bringing back the gold standard, changing peoples' attitudes on what the government "owes" it's citizens, no preemptive wars for global democracy, tax cuts, spending cuts and ending birthright citizenship.

Also ending the three wars:

1. War in Iraq
2. War on drugs
3. War on poverty

Does that mean I think he'll win?  No.  But John Zogby predicted that Paul could get 15-18% in New Hampshire and "embarrass" a lot of front-runners, and that I'd really like to see.  I'd also like the republicans to adopt more of Paul's ideas: bringing back the gold standard, changing peoples' attitudes on what the government "owes" it's citizens, no preemptive wars for global democracy, tax cuts, spending cuts and ending birthright citizenship.



  QFT...

  It is the libertarian party who is responsible for the power shift in the Senate.  The Republican incumbent in Montana lost the 2006 election because the libertarian candidate made a strong showing.  Montana has fewer than a million people so something like this can happen there.  Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, is widely credited for throwing the 2000 presidential election to Bush.  The Green Party tends to attract Democrats who are disgusted with their party's caving in to corporate lobbyists.  The libertarian party, in rural areas like Montana, tends to attract disillusioned Republicans who are disgusted with high taxes and preemptive wars; in urban areas it's a little more likely to attract disillusioned Democrats who are disgusted with the disastrous second-order effects of affirmative discrimination and the war on drugs groove  ;) on...

http://www.ronpaulkc.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/ronme-002cropped.jpg

http://www.ronpaulkc.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/ronme-002cropped.jpg


Realistically speaking what would the effect of obtaining those three objectives be?  No IRS, how would the government be able to collect taxes in order to run?  End the war now.  Does he have a troop exit plan that is feasible?  No illegal immigration, how?

Well, I see that everyone who responded to this thread chose someone other then the front runners which I find very interesting. I have another question to pose to everyone:

Well, it seems like every other day or so, there is another debate on t.v. Do you think the media is trying to give these front runners (Dems: Clinton, Obama, & Edwards/Repubs: Guilani, Romney, & Thompson) an advantage by giving them more air time, talking about their campaigns more, etc.

Personally, I think the media IS trying to influence the election-whether it is conscience or not. It is so obvious with Fox. On Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingram (who was filling in for Bill) said that she didn't know why the other 4 were even on the stage. That is the type of statement that really bothers me. But, I should chalk it up to the source. But, even CNN does a bit of that, too. Giving the 3 front runners, more time.


Any thoughts? Comments?


Cat

I have another question to pose to everyone:

Well, it seems like every other day or so, there is another debate on t.v. Do you think the media is trying to give these front runners (Dems: Clinton, Obama, & Edwards/Repubs: Guilani, Romney, & Thompson) an advantage by giving them more air time, talking about their campaigns more, etc.

Personally, I think the media IS trying to influence the election-whether it is conscience or not. It is so obvious with Fox. On Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingram (who was filling in for Bill) said that she didn't know why the other 4 were even on the stage. That is the type of statement that really bothers me. But, I should chalk it up to the source. But, even CNN does a bit of that, too. Giving the 3 front runners, more time.


Yes, absolutely.  The media is trying to create this aura of inevitability that the next president must come from one of the following seven: Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

Look at any of the debates, be it on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News.  The respective parties' media-annointed front-runners are always in the middle, standing side-by-side and receiving the overwhelming majority of the questions.  In the last Fox News republican debate, the four stooges must have been asked about three-fourths of the questions.  Giuliani talked more in the first ten minutes than Duncan Hunter did throughout the entire ninty minute debate.

Fox News plays these little promos advertising their "best political coverage" for the race for the White House in 2008.  Think you see a Ron Paul or a Bill Richardson in these promos?  Nope.  You see the same seven (listed above) that have supersaturated nearly all the airtime on the national media.

Thankfully Ron Paul has so much money raised, more than some of these republican "front-runners", that he can just buy television commercials like this and this and radio ads like this and go around the shameful media.

Yeah, even Spaff.com reckons there's only two candidates worth considering ;)

But hey, that's democracy, right?