Posted by David S on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 01:30 in
Now that we know which candidates will be running from each party its time to dust off the old presidential election poll again. So who are you planning to vote for?
(I leave off the Ron Paul write-in option because it seems that he is not running a write-in campaign. Your write-in vote will not be counted.)
In alphabetical order.
Chuck Baldwin- Constitution Party
Bob Barr- Libertarian Party
John McCain- Republican
Ralph Nader- Independent?
Barack Obama- Democrat
Other-
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 164 reads
"I also want to note that I would not be at all surprised if the Republicans manage not to nominate McCain."
If they do insist on nominating McCain, they are just plain suicidal. The GOP might not recover from the kind of beating they would take or the loss of the party base. Given that the every so short-sighted public is very likely to blame whoever is in office when things go from bad to worse, you would think they would want to drop this whole mess on Ron Paul's head. Of course, Ron Paul's extraordinary tactic of telling the truth from the beginning might well mitigate any damage and that thought probably scares them.
Pat
Is that he already doesn't have the support of the Republican base. They just can't get fired up over him. And that should be not surprise. He did very poorly in the early primaries, even losing to Ron Paul once, though he wasn't embarrassed as badly as Giuliani. And I think that Ron Paul should be the obvious choice for them even at this point, given his proven ongoing support, but there are two other Republicans who have done well but also suspended their campaigns. One is Huckabee, who probably ran out of cash, and has little hope of appealing to the center, the other is Romney, who dropped out rather mysteriously when he was doing very well.
Republicans just don't recognize McCain as a conservative, and unless Obama continues to commit suicide by loudly embracing Bush policies, McCain doesn't have a ghost of a chance. He's so far behind Obama's Magic its not funny. But those loony democrats seem poised to hold their nose and vote for him in numbers, even though he supports the telecom immunity which has brought him down so low. It would have been different if Hillary had won.
Of course balance those opinions against the fact that I've never accurately predicted the outcome of a presidential race in my life.
It did seem funny for Romney to drop out when he was winning many races. I was watching the candidates' speeches that day, waiting for Ron Paul to speak. When Romney dropped out, the first thought I had was that he'd made a deal with McCain to be his VP. Romney has been making a lot of rounds on McCain's behalf lately. The GOP probably think he's a great running mate for McCain because he could win over social and fiscal conservatives. They probably think he will balance the ticket -- McCain roping in some Democrats and Independents while Romney appeases the Republican base.
As a life-long Republican, I could never vote for either of these guys now that my eyes have been opened to Ron Paul. Ron Paul represents the true Republican values -- small Constitutional government, fiscal conservatism, and a strong national defense (not policing the world). The other guys talk a good game, but never deliver on their promises. Ron Paul is the real deal.
Ron Paul would probably be the best deal on a write-in in decades. But failing that I might have to go with Chuck Baldwin. I have to admit that I'm not at all comfortable with him as a replacement for Ron Paul, because I'm not at all religious. Ron Paul at least understated it, and said several times that our religion wasn't relevant. He also got a qualified endorsement from George H. Smith, a prominent libertarian thinker and atheist who wrote both "Atheism, the case against God" and edited "The Lysander Spooner Reader."
Before I could go with Chuck Baldwin I think I would have to have some statement from him to the effect that he interprets freedom of religion to include freedom from religion, supports a rigid separation of church and state, and admits that atheists can be patriotic Americans and good honest people. Otherwise I think I'm stuck between writing in Ron Paul or else having no one left to vote for.
I do consider myself a libertarian, and have some affection for the party. I voted for Harry Browne in 2000, and don't regret it. I even got myself quoted in a newspaper at the Texas state Republican convention saying that if Ron Paul couldn't get the nomination I planned to vote for Bob Barr, but the more I learn about the man, beyond that he's running as a Libertarian, the less I like him.
Its a sad commentary on what the LP national thinks they need to do to weasel into the current duopoly that Barr is the best they can manage to pick. I was hoping for Mary Ruart. She could have stole Hillary's thunder, and it isn't often you have a chance to elect a medical research scientist to high office.
I also want to note that I would not be at all surprised if the Republicans manage not to nominate McCain. And while Mitt Romney did well in the early primaries I think that if they have any intelligence and hope for their brand to win, Ron Paul is a natural choice. But I find it hard to believe we would get that lucky at this point.
We can vote for write-ins and remain undecided about whether to write in Ron Paul or vote for Chuck Baldwin who would carry forth Ron Paul's policies.
Pat
I swore off voting after falling for "W"s "humble foreign policy lie in 2000 and being horrified by his actions once in office. Actually, once I thought about it I realized that everyone I ever voted for ended up doing things I was totally against. I was planning on voting for RP because he has the track record that I knew I could trust. Barr is already chumming up to the global warming crowd. I have no plan to assist in choosing my overseer. Why should half the country be ruled by someone they don't want? Why should even one person? I have lost that religion.
I am not talking only for medical patients and not de-criminalization. Full blown buy it in the gas station or at the liquor store or grow it in your backyard legalization of all hemp and smokable cannabis! I believe the libertarian party platform - which Barr would necessarily have to promote and defend - is more in line with what I want a candidate to do and say. So be it, I'm a single issue* voter now.
*Subject to change if some miracle catapults Dr. Paul back into the race. He was always my 1st 2nd and 3rd choice. I stood in freaking cold ass blizzards for the man- almost got arrested once - got cursed at by a million Obama bots... and learned more about the direction our country is heading from the good doc in one debate than I did from all the other candidates' entire campaigns put together. He has earned a write-in from me - but since my State won't allow someone who ran on a major party ticket and lost in the primary to run as a third party or sign up for write-in status, my hands are tied. I never ever thought in the world I would vote for the likes of Bob Barr, but then again, I never thought Bob Barr would ever join the LP and seek to run as that party's candidate. Crazy times we live in.
RP 2012!
In light of the I.O.U.S.A. movie coming out in August, I am hopeful that Ron Paul may still be able to pull an upset at the Republican Convention and get the nomination. It will really depend on whether or not the freedom movement seizes the day and gets the information to the public about who caused our economic problems and that Ron Paul offers the only real solutions.
If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, I'm leaning toward Chuck Baldwin. He seems most in line with Ron Paul's positions to me.
I won't be able to vote for Bob Barr. He supports the "Fair" Tax, which is anything but fair. As I understand it, the "Fair" Tax is a 23% national sales tax. We have already paid income taxes on our savings. Therefore, if the "Fair" Tax is imposed, we will be taxed again at a rate of 23% for the privilege of spending our own money. This tax appears to be nothing more than a continuation of the war on savers. We are already paying the Inflation Tax imposed by the Federal Reserve. No more taxes! Baldwin, on the other hand agrees with Ron Paul -- abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing.
Also, Bob Barr supports the bailout of Freddie and Fannie and more oversight for the Fed. From his press release:
"In the short-term, government has little choice but to provide an explicit but limited loan guarantee, thereby capping the public’s liability, now widely assumed to be without limit. At the same time, Congress must restrict the number and size of loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and set more substantial capital requirements, while authorizing greater Federal Reserve oversight of their operations. The organizations must begin downsizing their portfolios, reducing their risks, and reestablishing their financial credibility."
I am unequivocally opposed to any more bailouts. No bailouts for Fannie and Freddie. I agree with Ron Paul. Let Freddie and Fannie fail. No bailouts for the reckless, greedy mortgage borrowers who overextended themselves to buy beyond their means, the greedy, reckless banks that lent to them, or the institutions that securitized the debt and sold it to investors. I will not support any candidate who thinks that more government is the solution, even if he says it's only for the short-term. One bailout will just lead to another.
Congress and the Fed started down the slippery slope by bailing out Bear Stearns. Obama and the Democrats used that bailout to say that if we can help Wall Street, we can certainly help out the poor people losing their homes. BS -- The fact that you robbed me once doesn't make it any less wrong for you to rob me again. Now they want taxpayers to bailout Fannie and Freddie -- estimates from earlier this year were $1.4 TRILLION dollars in losses from the credit crisis (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080415/BUSINESS/...). That estimate may be low if they are only considering losses from sub-prime mortgages but not potential losses from the alt-A and prime loans that will fail as housing prices continue to correct and inflation takes hold. Jamie Dimon was just talking about how J.P. Morgan Chase is already suffering from greater than expected losses on prime loans. (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/jp-morgan-says-prime-mortgages/story.aspx?guid={16E2AB13-4992-4EB5-86F1-5F95E4789790}&dist=msr_2)
From the MSNBC article "Fannie-Freddie Rescues Could Cost Taxpayers" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25681065/):
"Analysts say the economic risks of doing nothing are just too great.
"If the government hadn't moved and Fannie and Freddie failed, the cost to taxpayers and the overall economy would be enormous," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.
If Fannie and Freddie were unable to play their huge roles in financing new mortgages, the housing market would only suffer more, he said — not to mention the turmoil for the financial institutions around the world that invest in Fannie and Freddie's debt securities."
I don't understand this argument. How is their a greater risk to the taxpayers from letting these socialist institutions fail than from bailing them out? I understand that they want to keep financing available for those who want to buy homes; however, I don't see how having financing available will curb losses or stop home prices from falling to affordable levels. How can you pump up home prices when those prices are falling because people's incomes do not support them. As far as I can see, house prices will continue to fall until they are in a traditional price to income ratio. All that these bailouts will do is throw good money after bad. As far as the financial institutions around the world who invest in Fannie and Freddie's debt securities, who cares? It is my understanding that the U.S. government has no explicit duty to back up these companies' losses. It is just assumed that the government will back them up. Therefore, these financial investors around the world made their investments based on assumptions rather than an explicit guarantee. They took a risk. Why should we bail them out to the detriment of the American taxpayers, most of whom did not cause the problem.
Government caused this mess. More government is not the solution. They will only make things worse. I will not support any candidate who thinks he has the right to steal my money to pay off the losses of these institutions while letting them keep their profits. No more privatizing the profits and socializing the losses!
BTW, have you seen how much the people who run these institutions made for running our economy into the ground:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25740405/
Laura B.,
I am sorry but you are wrong on Bob Barr's stance on the Fair Tax and Freddie/Fannie:
There are several alternative tax reform strategies. One would be to create a flat income tax, while cutting or eliminating many other levies, such as the estate tax (or “death tax”) and capital gains tax. Another option would be to replace the income tax and payroll taxes with a consumption tax, such as the Fair Tax; but prior to which it would be essential to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows government to tax the earnings of all hard-working Americans. Initiating a consumption tax while leaving the power to tax income in place inevitably would result in having an income tax on top of a consumption tax. There may even be good alternatives for tax reform that have not yet been proposed. All of these ideas are better than the present system, and must be debated to determine which would best protect liberty and promote prosperity. However, tax reform should not end at just reforming the tax code. America’s corporate income tax is among the highest in the world, putting the U.S. at an international disadvantage. The estate tax takes advantage of a person’s death. The capital gains tax discourages investment and capital formation. All of these must be reduced and eventually eliminated.
"Such bipartisan fiscal irresponsibility threatens to bankrupt our nation," Barr notes, adding, "this housing bail-out, which provides massive new support to federally-sponsored mortgage underwriters Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which already hold some $1.0 trillion in bad loans –will expand further the federal government's total unfunded liabilities. These new obligations come on top of some $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for the Medicare and Social Security systems. When will the spending stop?" Barr asks.
I also agree with Chuck Baldwin but it seems like he will not come close to getting on the ballot in all 50 States. The Barr/Root team is on the verge but needs money.
We must remember that the "Revolution" is not about any one person. Ron Paul was our ideal candidate but he will not be running and can't win by a write in vote. While Chuck Baldwin is an excellent candidate, it will be nearly impossible for him to win not being on the ballot in all 50 States. That leaves our only viable option, vote Libertarian. I don't know any Libertarians that will agree on everything. Only that we can agree on individual freedom and sovereignty.
Lets all get behind the team that has the best chance of winning and comes pretty darn close to the ideals of Ron Paul, Barr/Root.
www.BobBarr2008.com
It does not take a majority to prevail,
but rather an irate, tireless minority keen
to set brush fires in the peoples minds.
Samuel Adams
http://WhigPartyNY.com
I checked out Barr after Ron Paul dropped out. I recall him stating in his issue statement at that time that he supported the fair tax. That is when I decided I couldn't support him. The language you cite does not show that Barr opposes a fair tax. In fact, Barr gives it as an option and merely says that, if a fair tax is imposed, he'd want to get rid of the income tax first so that we would not be taxed both on income and consumption. I see nothing in what you've quoted to show that Barr would not implement a fair tax.
Also, I quoted from Bob Barr's press release about Freddie and Fannie before the bailout bill was passed. Here's a link: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press-releases/56/bob-barr-says-privatize-fan... Barr clearly said that the government had little choice but to give Fannie and Freddie at least a limited backstop to prevent further public liability, widely seen to be without limit. This is the view that Freddie and Fannie had an"implicit" government guarantee, even though they were required to clearly tell anyone who bought their securities that there was no guarantee. Because there was no explicit guarantee, I disagree that the public had ANY liability, let alone potentially unlimited liability. There was and is no reason for us to try and prop up Fannie and Freddie. They should be allowed to fail. We did not have unlimited liability until Congress gave Paulson his blank check this week. Unfortunately, thanks to our "representatives", now we probably do have liability for losses that I've seen estimated between $1.4 Trillion and $2.5-$3 Trillion. Barr also clearly stated that he believed Congress needed to authorize "greater Federal Reserve oversight" of Fannie and Freddie.
If Barr has changed his positions on these issues, then that just makes me trust him even less. After all, he already flip-flopped on the Patriot Act and other issues. I don't trust him at all. He comes off as a typical politician -- an opportunist who will say anything to get votes. I also don't like the way he has acted as though he is entitled to Ron Paul supporters' votes (and money) since he entered the race. Ron Paul earned our votes because he stands by his principles, our principles -- the Constitution -- and has the record to prove it. Bob Barr has not earned my vote or my donations.
Fairtax is not my cup of tea either. We are in a difficult situation with regard to Ron Paul and the election for Executive branch. However, I am focusing on congress as the building blocks for the freedom message to get a stronghold on Federal representation.
I am encouraged by the mass amount of Candidates running for office with the RP message.
I agree that we have to take back the Congress. I hope our Freedom Slate candidates all win here in MD, but it will be a daunting task in this socialist stronghold. Nonetheless, we will fight on.
that Diebold willl figure it out.
________________
Freedom is an inside job