hippiechick wrote: 

 hippiechick wrote: 
You said nothing about Republicans candidates you said "No Republican".

Again your broad brush generalizations get you.

 kurtster wrote: 
I like how politicians are all "States' Rights" until the states don't do what the Feds want and then it's blackmail. And aren't most of the GOP wanting to cut off all Federal money anyway?

 mzpro5 wrote: 
And which of these candidates are running for president?

 hippiechick wrote: 

Republicans for Choice

Republicans for Environmental Protection

 rosedraws wrote: 
I've been thinking a lot about how to answer this.

I guess mostly it will depend who is left when one's turn to vote comes around. 

If I was in NH, where you go first, I would vote for RP or Newt.  They are the ones whose support would force the most change in the debate to the real problems.  A good showing for RP would force the MSM to give RP more time in the debates.  They are purposely killing this guy by denying him questions and face time.  The last debate on CNN only got him 80 seconds total.  Bull puckey.

And on Newt, he said in an interview a couple of days ago that he would finish the fence from Brownsville to San Diego and cut off all federal money going to Sanctuary Cities such as San Francisco until they comply with federal laws.  I years ago stated that my first concern is dealing with our national sovereignty and illegal immigration.  If we do not enforce our border and immigration laws, then nothing else matters.  What good do our laws and rules mean if we don't protect our border ?  That is where it begins and ends for me.

My answer will prolly change by the time it gets around to Ohio and we see who is still standing.

A bad Dem is better than a good Republican any day, for these reasons:

• Believe in a women's right to make health decisions between her and her dr.
• Support social support programs
• Protection of the environment

No Republican offers support for the ideas that are part of my core beliefs

You can take this poll to decide which candidate you most closely agree with.

 rosedraws wrote: 



Leaving aside my usual arguments about "primaries shmimaries", I'd suggest that any candidate sufficiently progressive to meet your standards has as much shot at the nomination as a dead goat in a top hat. The Republicans seem to have pretty much hounded anyone too moderate (let alone liberal) into silence or irrelevance.

By the end of the last debate, I think Paul was the only one who didn't have us into world war III. 

Between the rest of the lot, they had us staying in Iraq and Afghanastan, while invading Libya, Iran, and Pakistan.  At the same time getting pissy with China.  China, another country that can send millions to die just for hurt feelings.  None of them mentioned that we will almost certainly need to resume warfighting the bloodiest war in American history - the Korean war - sooner, rather than later.  They also didn't mention that Bush parked ballistic missiles in Russia's doorstep; the Russians are going bonkers, and itching to kick our ass. 

For these would-be leaders to get on stage and poke sticks in the eyes of these countries, and not be shuffled off like imbeciles escaped from one of our mental institutions, is amazing to me.  Afterall, it would take about 24 hours to pour through our 3,500 mile borders between each Mexico and Canada.  I think there are far too many people in the world who'd like to march their soldiers down the middle of our streets right now.  We really need to knock it off.

 

Huntsman's my dog yo! I also like Johnson and some things about Paul. I could vote for any of these 3 guys over everyone else including Obama. To me, these guys are the only ones that represent true change. Obama to me is part of the traditional old guard no matter what he tells you. 

 maryte wrote: 
Huntsman is trying to make a good showing in NH.  He's my favorite, just based on news clips.  He needs more money to make a showing though.

I've somehow gotten on Ron Paul's call list... we get regular calls and poll calls and emails and mailings.  It's so interesting being in NH. 

BUDDY ROEHMER FOR PRESIDENT!

Ron Paul may be the "peace" candidate, but he stands for the disenfranchisement of over half of U.S. citizens. He can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned (Libertarian?  Yeah, right).  From my very progressive perspective, the only reasonable Republican candidate is Jon Huntsman, but he's far too moderate and seems disinclined to kowtow to extremists, so he'd never be nominated. Mind you, in the general election, I still wouldn't vote for him, but at least he's a thoughtful person who is far less likely to be an embarrassment to our citizenry.

 rosedraws wrote: 
He's out of the running but Gary Johnson. See also the social positions.

For us Dems in open states, we do have an opportunity to influence which Republican will be opposite Obama in the Presidential election.

There may be a tiny percentage of Dems who would vote for a least-threatening candidate... but I am part of the majority that would vote for the one who I would most want to be my Prez, if Obama loses.

I like what happened in the Ron Paul thread... where someone was explaining that Ron Paul is the only Peace candidate.

I'd love to hear more of other people's thoughts about who they like best... in the context of centrist or left-leaning voters.  I haven't been able to stomach the debates, because the Republican attitude and direction is so far from what I would like.  I mean, the crowd applauded Rick Perry's Death Penalty Record!?!  No F*cking Way can I stand for that.