Property Rights. RKBA. Free speech. National sovereignty. No foreign entanglements. Real "free trade" instead of the CAFTA/NAFTA BS. Smaller government.
Tom Tancredo really stands out IMO. According to Wikipedia he has a higher conservative rating than Newt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tancredo
I like most of what Ron Paul says but I disagree on abortion and unfortunately he really self destructed at the debate the other night.
None of the above. The system is broken so only the rich and powerful get to play. People who will make a real difference never make it to the general election. No way I am endorsing the lesser of two evils, or writing in the name of someone who does not matter.
PS: It also looks like a few candidates where intentionally left off the list. May I ask why?
I guess when your name is in italics, people will vote for you
Im surprised that you left out Bloomberg, Mr Scrooge is supposedly looking to buy a 3rd party candidacy.
With him we'll get a pro-gun, anti-illegal immigration, pro-1st Amendment, low-tax, proactive foreign/defense policy (i.e. aggressive on the terrorists and their nation-state supporters) President. None of the others have that combination of attributes.
Oh, and Fred isn't bashful about fisking idjits like Michael Moore.
Because It only allowed 16 options, Fred, Al Gore, Kerry are not running for president right now and the poll is only good for 30 days any how so after 30 we can reevaluate and start a new one. Doesnt seem to matter much any how Ron Paul is Killing it.
Guts and a winning attitude do count for something in a President. Fred even has humor; Hillary and Obama sure don't.
Ron Paul might come out ahead in a debate if you read Reason Magazine. But if you read Sports Illustrated, forget it. That's reality, folks. That doesn't mean I won't support Paul, if only to make sure his platform gets recognition in the campaigns.
So far...
And the elections are a LONG WAY OFF.
Would I support someone with the right persona, but wrong policies? No way, no how. But would I support someone with whom I agree most of the time and who has the qualities needed by a winning candidate and an effective President, over someone whose views are abhorrent to me? Yes!
Humor? I've met Hill-dog.
She has the sense of humor of a rabid skunk.
She swept through the airport grabbing hands as if she owned them. I swear, I had to check the end of my arm when she was through with it.
She did the stare-down thing, as if she had this indescribable need to subdue everyone she met.
It was actually kind of funny. She's a sawed-off little runt of a woman, and it seemed pathetic to me.
Ron Paul, assuming that Fred Thompson isn't going to run. If he does, well, electability is going to trump Ron Paul. If no one acceptable is on the ticket in '08, Ron Paul as a write in.
I'm surprised I'm the only one who liked what Senator Brownback had to say. Of those listed, if I had to choose right now, I'd go with him.
However, if Fred Thompson enters the race, I'll go with him. Not because I think he's a superior politician to Brownback, but because I think he has a better chance of winning.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.