August Straw Poll: Your choice today (1 of 6)

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by TCSQ

So do I but WHO?????? Pat Buchanan? Newt Gingrich??? Who is there?
...
But that again leaves us with a big question, Who does the Republican Party have that could assume the mantel of leadership.

George Allen.

I think that's his name, I'm not sure. The guy who was caught in that ever-so-dreadfully-serious "Macaca scandal." Many had him pegged as serious conservative presidential material.

Fred Thompson was my heartthrob - and then he broke my heart!

I might have voted for Romney, certainly, no let me rephrase that < CERTAINLY> would have prefferred him over McCain, could not abide the Baptist smarmy guy, (Is that terrible, I can't even remember his name right now! THAT'S BAD!)

Huckabee? Yeah, me too. Once I got beyond the "Baptist Preacher Credentials," I found him to be seriously wanting.

The only reason I would NOT have voted Romney would be if I gave in to the Conspiracy theory part of my nature that I try to keep locked up in the dungeon!

I think Romney would make a far better pres than JMcC, HRC, or BHO. But I must confess to retaining some trust issues with him.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Send me your vote changes and I can manually make the change for you.

I tweaked the question a bit.

Thanks.

You're awesome!

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Sam

I can see why you are saying that.
I've said that our ballots should have a choice that says, "None of the above."
Because none of the candidates listed on the ballot is acceptable to them, many will not vote at all.

Some of us are considering writing in Ron Paul's name, so we won't have to bear the responsiblity of voting for a racist communist OR a warmongering napoleanic self-serving maverick.

We will be choosing a person to be our President for the next 4 years. The President by himself/herself is not very powerful as far as enacting new laws. He/she can only approve or reject what is presented by Congress. The President does set national and international policy and can request Congress to pass laws and appropriate funds in accordance with those policies, but cannot force anything.

One thing the President can do is appoint judges to federal courts and to the Supreme Court. These judges by their decisions have quite an effect on us. In my opinion, that is one of the most important considerations in voting for a person as President. How will he/she affect us by the judges that he/she appoints? For that reason I think it is important that we all vote to affect the outcome of the election. To vote for someone who has no possible chance of winning is, in my opinion, a wasted vote. Whether we like it or not we are locked into a two-party system.

These are good points.

John McCain may not be everything I want in a President but he is, in my opinion, superior to whomever the Democratic Party may offer. John McCain may be a little more liberal than what I want but he is far more conservative than the Democrat alternative.

The trouble is that it is not only too late for more-of-the-same "lesser of two evils" electioneering, but it is also too late to hang the leaders of all three branches for horse-thieving. We're already right now a socialist country, all that remains is shopping for the right dictator.

My Dad was a Democrat. My father-in-law was a Democrat. I was always told that the Democrats were for the working people or the common people. In my opinion, the Democratic party has lost touch with reality and is controlled by Socialists, Unions, Greenies, Hollywood, Gays, Abortionists, Feminists, etc. and does not reflect the values of decent God-fearing Americans.

You, sir, are correct.

I even saw a poll somewhere that asked if a Christian could support the Democratic party. I don't know, but I have to wonder how a Christian could, in good conscience, support the Democratic agenda and platform.

Democrats go to a great deal of effort to hide their true intentions and beliefs. They use sophistry to gain the support of people who would not support them if they only knew the true end goals. They always have some alternate method or explanation that can serve to sooth the conscience of the simple-minded. And there are some that support Democrats that are single-issue voters. A great deal of hard-to-refute hyperbole can be laid down to build the case to stop the war. Even if you are swayed by an airtight theological case, you still end up supporting leadership that's pushing for the breakdown of the family, carbon taxes and other economically devastating environmental policy, and an ever-increasing governmental role in everyday living.

I'd vote for Mike Gravel in this poll, but he seems to be hiding. Come out, come out, wherever you are.

Democrats go to a great deal of effort to hide their true intentions and beliefs. They use sophistry to gain the support of people who would not support them if they only knew the true end goals. They always have some alternate method or explanation that can serve to sooth the conscience of the simple-minded. And there are some that support Democrats that are single-issue voters. A great deal of hard-to-refute hyperbole can be laid down to build the case to stop the war. Even if you are swayed by an airtight theological case, you still end up supporting leadership that's pushing for the breakdown of the family, carbon taxes and other economically devastating environmental policy, and an ever-increasing governmental role in everyday living.

I disagree. You cannot characterize a nation-wide party consisting of millions of people in one fell swoop -- and I'll go so far as to say that people who are politically active don't possess a range of political opinions that can be summed up in a single statement.

(There are those, of course, who vote unthinkingly along strict party lines because they like a given party's rhetoric, but they are present in all major political parties, and all major candidates can count those people as supporters.)

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by ibb

I'd vote for Mike Gravel in this poll, but he seems to be hiding. Come out, come out, wherever you are.



I disagree. You cannot characterize a nation-wide party consisting of millions of people in one fell swoop -- and I'll go so far as to say that people who are politically active don't possess a range of political opinions that can be summed up in a single statement.

(There are those, of course, who vote unthinkingly along strict party lines because they like a given party's rhetoric, but they are present in all major political parties, and all major candidates can count those people as supporters.)

Re-read that paragraph, replacing the term 'Democrats' with 'the Democrat Party Leadership,' to more fully attain my intended meaning.

If you still disagree, you may find yourself in the unenviable position of being one of the millions of deluded Democrats who believe that their party is still the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy. The truth is, Karl Marx couldn't be more proud of the progress that the hard left element within the party is making at altering American society by assaulting traditional norms and and families. Even JFK knew enough to resist Marxism. Too bad LBJ was a sucker.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

If the election were today, who would you select for pres?

John McCain, but I don't like him very much though. He is the best candidate.