Huckabee 1 2.38%

Clinton 2 4.76%

Romney 3 7.14%

Obama 10 23.81%

Thompson (Fred) 3 7.14%

Edwards 1 2.38%

Giuliani 4 9.52%

Richardson 0 0%

Mcain 3 7.14%

Biden 0 0%

Paul 11 26.19%

Dodd 0 0%

Tancredo 1 2.38%

Kucinich 3 7.14%

Hunter 0 0%

Page 1 of 10 1 2345 ... Last

Who do you like personally so far. It doesn't matter where you are from, just vote. No Gah.

I love Paul too, tough choice. I went with a candidate who doesn't sound like an old prospector, lost in a gold mine for weeks.

That's a great and accurate picture.

Woohoo! First non-American to vote! Everyone's going to eye Edwards with suspicion now. Its a conspiracy!
Seriously, I think he could really improve the living quality of American citizens. At that point, you guys can focus on everyone else--but this time 'good intentions' won't save your president.
Doesn't Paul want to abolish the tax-collecting agency (name eludes me). How does the government get taxes, then?

It's the IRS.

He can't do that as President. He doesn't have the legislative power.

What he can do, is bring balance to the government.

Oh, okay. That's good. Still if I hadn't voted for Edwards, I would've voted for Kucinich. *Dodges heads of lettuce and tomatoes* *Dodges watermelons* *Dodges a cell phone* *Gets hit in the head with a shoe* *Dodges a PC*

I voted Kucinich

Watch out for flying objects, Ichigo. *Dives away from fast moving, incoming car*

No idea what his policies are, but I remember something about him having a hot wife.

:pulling hair out smilie: @ Ichigo

I support Fred's ideas, but his campaign lacks drive. Paul is off on foreign policy and some economic policies. Romney is experienced, but seems like the say-anything guy. Guliani I don't trust with that power.

CR

No reason not to support him, I say. He hasn't exactly been inspirational, but I agree with more of his positions that any other candidate- so he's still my guy.

Now I agree.

The only thing I like about Paul is that he's a non-establishment candidate. We need more like that in politics. That aside, I have no doubt that he'd be a complete disaster as president.

No lefties on the list, so I couldn't care less about what happens in your backwards little capitalist reich...

I see no need to choose the lesser of two evils, and as I'm thankfully not an american, I won't have to!

Clinton (D) or Giuliani (R).

Obama, and McCain is my second choice. Edwards, Paul, and Giuliani I could live with.

I love Romney. Every time I listen to his speeches in Iowa, I feel like he is just an older version of me (with less of an intemperate or reactionary side...)

Politics is for politicians. I like that he knows how to speak to his constituents. PLUS, any Republican who can win the gubernatorial race in Massachusetts is a bridge building juggernaut.

I have been in his corner since the begging of his campaign.

I would've said Clinton but she has the european "video games are to blame for all evil" - syndrome which I do not want to support, it's enough that german games are often censored.
Since I don't know a lot about the policies of the others except that Ron Paul wants the Gold Standard back, I'd have to say Mike Huckabee since he's Chuck Norris approved.

Maybe I should do some research.

http://www.c-span.org/rss/video.asp?MediaID=33618

here you go, I watched this last night with my girlfriend who at first hated him. Now she wants to vote for him. I think he is a great "off the top of his head" candidate.

I am now in favor of Gay marriage. There is no other way for me to marry Mitt.

I voted Ron Paul, because he always wins internet polls anyway.

That's true. People love the dude. Too bad he doesn't look like Bush. He would have a pretty successful campaign as a cuddly stuffed animal.

Giuliani, followed by McCain. At face value Clinton I guess I could live with most of Clinton's policies, but I'm deeply suspicious of her. The rest of the Democrats, with the possible exception of Richardson, are just to leftist for my taste. The rest of the Republicans all seem to conservative for me (with the exception of Ron Paul, who's a looney)

You would condemn us to an executive run by a New Yorker Louis?

Mon couer est creve.

Paul has one ringing strength -- his desire to return to a federal government that is more strictly Constitutional.

This is NOT to assert that our present government is not, only that it now functions along the following lines: If it isn't prohibited by the Constitution then it must be okay for the Federal Government to do.

Paul, correctly, is asserting that the metric should be: If it isn't specificially ascribed TO the federal government, then it should be the province of the several states to decide upon OR the Constitution should be properly ammended to allow for federal control of X, Y, or Z.

However, his quasi-isolationist foreign policy schema is impractical for a nation with global business interests and given the last half-century of involvement we have had. Some re-orientation adopting some of his themes may well be profitable as a new course, but the entirety is too limiting.

Economically, he has some good themes (taxation) and some less practical ones (re-adopting a metals standard). I'd even accept that the latter might also have some long-term value, but I do not believe the World-wide depression it would engender for the next 5-15 years would help us with our neighbors -- to say the least.

I am also leery of many of the Paulists out there. They may be internet savvy and interested in real change, but too many of them are whack-job conspiracy monkies and a couple are out-and-out loons. Too much of Paul's support is about "Iraq is wrong" and "I wanna get baked legally" and not enough is about the correct and Constitutional interplay of rights and responsibilities.

Pity, too -- his calling card is a nice theme.


As it is, I'm agreeing with Xiahou. I find Thompson the most congruent, but he's less compelling than I'd like him to be.

Thanks for the link, the guy is great.

I was a bit suspicious at first from the way that other guy introduced him, but his speech and the way he answered the questions were very convincing IMO. There were some key things he said to get my sympathy and I couldn't see much wrong about the policies he advertised. Maybe he's a bit too self-confident about doing all this, but one cannot expect more than that he tries his best(goes for all candidates of course). Between that bunch of politicians and looneys I found his speech really refreshing and he made an honest impression on me. Doesn't mean he couldn't have fooled me but I'd certainly give him my vote and thus a chance.

Nicely put.

I almost want to say that maybe it's a good thing that Thompson isn't out trying to set the world on fire. I think we could use a more understated president with solid conservative credentials- would it be so bad if we had a president who said he was going to do less than the others? Unfortunately, politics is all about what you are going to give to the voters, so that kind of platform wouldn't likely have much success.

edit: You know, this did more to make me think favorably about Romney than most anything else I've heard. The article is, imo, completely insulting to primary voters(we're apparently too stupid to be interested in serious policy discussion), but it does a good job of showing how well-informed and quick-thinking Romney is. However, I still get too much of the "I'm just saying what I need to say." vibe from Romney.

My personal nightmare. Nixon in a pantsuit versus a small man in search of a balcony. Yikes. I'd take almost anyone on the list over those two.

I see the technical side to Romney. He does like the details, but he is by no means bookish. Charisma like crazy.

I think that people, particularly the voting public, are smart enough to try grasping concepts in policy. We don't need allegory all the time like school children - some fairytale example. We want raw data and transparency so that we can become more informed.

Romney seems to know the balance. He doesn't seem robotic to me. As much as I like the personality of GWB, I wish that he was a bit more high brow in his speeches, regardless of whether the playing dumb is an act.

Romney is balanced, bright and charismatic. I believe him to a well intentioned person and a consummate politician, not always mutually exclusive. I've been listening to him directly, rather than only through the media lens to hear what he's saying and how he's saying it. I like what I hear so far.

I hope that I get the chance to vote for him - I'm not a registered Republican, so I can't vote in the primaries.

me too. I stay up at night because of it.

Better get used to it!


A little fairy whispered in my ear that Clinton vs. Giuliani will be your choice indeed. Ah, never a night of restless sleep again 'till 2012.

Republicans will lose this election if they field Giuliani. I fear that they will lose regardless of who they put up there, though.

Huckabee will fall apart against Clinton. He's already getting so much abuse for his policies as governor. I like his personality and social policies, but I have a feeling that the Iowa vote will be a fluke in his campaign, especially when they start getting down to brass tacks. I need to learn more about his record, I considered his candidacy a joke until a month ago.

Edwards is a fake joke. I don't trust Thompson at all. He seems like a southern mafioso type. Plus, he looks like a frog

I would love to see Obama v Romney. I would be pissed to see Obama win, but he is a bright guy too -but one who I disagree almost entirely with.

I could live with that. In fact, that campaign would make me downright mellow.

Page 1 of 10 1 2345 ... Last