LL 2008 Presidential Election Straw Poll v2

[Dumpy Dooby]

I'm sure many people here have changed their minds since the original straw poll. A lot of these candidates have shown their true colors, and many others have become more well known. I know I've certainly changed my opinion on a lot of them.


I was limited to only 15 candidates, so I weeded some out based on how serious they are about running and how popular they are around here. Wesley Clark and Al Gore both seem like they would do a decent job if they ran, but neither have displayed enough interest in running.

Here are some of the "Others" that I would like to have had in there.

• Sam Brownback (R)
• Wesley Clark (D)
• Jim Gilmore (R)
• Newt Gingrich (R)
• Al Gore (D)
• Dennis Kucinich (D)
• Bill Richardson (D)
• Fred Thompson (R)

[Scrum]

I voted Ron Paul, but If Gore or Clark ran I may have to reconsider my vote.

[trevxenemy]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I voted Ron Paul, but If Gore or Clark ran I may have to reconsider my vote.

Glad you support Ron Paul, even in the slightest.

But why would you vote for the most liberal of liberals? (Al Gore)

[motivez]

I think Ron Paul's appeal to most progressives is that he's consistent in his views over the long haul regardless of what is popular, and unlike Bush (who's 'consistent' nature has been revealed as bullheaded stubbornness) has the intellectual curiosity to make sure he knows what he needs to know about making decisions.

Foreign policy is THE issue, not the economy, not the size of the government, not taxes, not anything else. Paul is on the money about our foreign policy and has the testicular fortitude to go further than most Democrats in saying what a large swath of America is feeling, so while they might disagree with him on other issues, they see foreign policy as so important they're willing to overlook differences in other areas.

[JaJae]

One of my favorite things about Paul is that I know exactly how he is going to vote on issues. I trust that he can't be bought. And I don't mind his stances. He's the safest vote in my opinion.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by trevxenemy

Glad you support Ron Paul, even in the slightest.

But why would you vote for the most liberal of liberals? (Al Gore)

Not necessarily saying I would vote for Gore if he ran, just that I may have to reevaluate my vote.

Gore has been totally right about the situations we have gotten into over the past 6 years and voting for him would, to me, like righting a wrong from the past.


But just as RP being elected wouldn't drastically change things over night (slashing of the government size and scope), neither would Gores more left leaning policies take over.

Hell, I would almost vote for Gore just to see all the "conservatives" cry about him.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

One of my favorite things about Paul is that I know exactly how he is going to vote on issues. I trust that he can't be bought. And I don't mind his stances. He's the safest vote in my opinion.

[nbiggershaft]

My one big question on RP is where is we will stand on abortion and gay rights. His supporters says he doesn't support federal restrictions on any liberties, but thats not the impression I get from what I hear from him. I'd have a hard time supporting someone who doesn't support cross state recognition of gay marraige for example, as defined by the constitution actually, so hopefully he would.

[DosEquis]

Joe Biden and Ron Paul suck the least.

I don't think either of them will get the nomination.

Ron Paul is the only hope for me voting for a republican. If he were nominated I would seriously have to consider my vote. Otherwise I would do democrat or third party.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

My one big question on RP is where is we will stand on abortion and gay rights. His supporters says he doesn't support federal restrictions on any liberties, but thats not the impression I get from what I hear from him. I'd have a hard time supporting someone who doesn't support cross state recognition of gay marraige for example, as defined by the constitution actually, so hopefully he would.

The Constitution doesn't mention state-recognition of marriage at all. I don't know Paul's actual position on the issue, but I'd imagine he's against state-recognition of marriage, period. It's unfair to polygamists as well as homosexuals. Even if the latter was righted, it would still be unfair to the former. I'm sure he is against DoMA, if that's what concerns you.

As for abortion, RP is pro-life. Judging from his voting record, though, it doesn't seem as though he is interested in legislating that position, and I know he is against legislating it at a federal level.

Ron Paul on Civil Rights
Ron Paul on Abortion

(note: "Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC" is wrong. That bill had nothing to do with criminalizing homosexual couples that are interested in adopting. The webmaster is working a deal with some RP supporters to have that removed. He's agreed to reword that to be more accurate, but only if some RP supporters volunteer to help with some research for ontheissues.org.)

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The Constitution doesn't mention state-recognition of marriage at all. I don't know Paul's actual position on the issue, but I'd imagine he's against state-recognition of marriage, period. It's unfair to polygamists as well as homosexuals. Even if the latter was righted, it would still be unfair to the former. I'm sure he is against DoMA, if that's what concerns you.

As for abortion, RP is pro-life. Judging from his voting record, though, it doesn't seem as though he is interested in legislating that position, and I know he is against legislating it at a federal level.

Ron Paul on Civil Rights
Ron Paul on Abortion

(note: "Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC" is wrong. That bill had nothing to do with criminalizing homosexual couples that are interested in adopting. The webmaster is working a deal with some RP supporters to have that removed. He's agreed to reword that to be more accurate, but only if some RP supporters volunteer to help with some research for ontheissues.org.)

I don't believe it recognizes marraiges specifically, but there is a clause, I think maybe in article 4 if I remember correctly that says all states must recognize licenses and records from other states.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I don't believe it recognizes marraiges specifically, but there is a clause, I think maybe in article 4 if I remember correctly that says all states must recognize licenses and records from other states.

That's the Fourteenth Amendment [wiki] you're thinking of. That's why I mentioned DoMA. [wiki] DoMA (signed by Pres. Clinton, if you cared to know) attempts to supersede the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing the states to not recognize each other's marriage licenses ... but only when the licenses are for same-sex couples. Before DoMA, homosexual couples were able to get married in states that recognized it, and that marriage would be recognized in all of the states. After DoMA, gay marriage was only recognized in the states wherein the license was obtained.

Like I said, though, Paul is more than likely against DoMA because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Publius]

actually it's a violation of the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution, no amending necessary.

Article IV, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

[thomez]

I'll be voting for the only man fit for the office, Ron Paul

[redwards]

The more I consider Ron Paul, the more I'm glad that I won't have to make the decision as to whether to vote for him (because let's face it, he's going to get smoked in the primary).

I love that Paul is logical, truthful, and consistent, and I wish more candidates were, but he is also an absolutist, and I hate that. Politicians get shredded all the time if they're willing to bend or reconsider, and I think that's just asinine. The necessity for compromise aside, willingness to see context and consider both sides of an issue are vital to decision making at this level, and I can't support someone who I know would simply refuse to consider certain solutions.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by redwards

The more I consider Ron Paul, the more I'm glad that I won't have to make the decision as to whether to vote for him (because let's face it, he's going to get smoked in the primary).

I love that Paul is logical, truthful, and consistent, and I wish more candidates were, but he is also an absolutist, and I hate that. Politicians get shredded all the time if they're willing to bend or reconsider, and I think that's just asinine. The necessity for compromise aside, willingness to see context and consider both sides of an issue are vital to decision making at this level, and I can't support someone who I know would simply refuse to consider certain solutions.

He only refuses to consider solutions that go against the Constitution though.

[redwards]

Originally Posted by Publius

He only refuses to consider solutions that go against the Constitution though.

1. That's still failure. Amending the Constitution should be a last resort, but not out of the question.

2. That's not true. Medicare, Medicaid, welfare. Anything that even remotely smacks of socialist policy is anathema to Paul. I don't disagree that these things need some major reform, but I know that Paul would encourage the elimination of these programs at all costs and probably veto any attempt to expand any of them or anything like them.

Again, I'd probably agree with him most of the time, but it's still an absolutist stance, and I can't agree with that.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by redwards

1. That's still failure. Amending the Constitution should be a last resort, but not out of the question.

2. That's not true. Medicare, Medicaid, welfare. Anything that even remotely smacks of socialist policy is anathema to Paul. I don't disagree that these things need some major reform, but I know that Paul would encourage the elimination of these programs at all costs and probably veto any attempt to expand any of them or anything like them.

Again, I'd probably agree with him most of the time, but it's still an absolutist stance, and I can't agree with that.

I don't know a thing about Ron Paul but from what you have written I think I know him. There have been a lot like him down through the years. They get plenty of attention from the fringes but me I am one of those crazy dogs that run down the middle of the road so I would not vote for him, by the way well written.