I agree Giuliani has a decidedly more libertarian bent than any other major GOP contender. I disagree entirely that crime or security issues will sway the religious right which makes up the vast bulk of the social conservative wing of the party. A great many of those voters regard abortion to be the number one issue and would never get behind a pro-choice candidate. A smaller but still very significant sample will strongly eschew his position on gay rights. Social conservatives aren't likely to vote Democrat instead but they are likely to stay home or withhold donations. Rudy's tough on crime thing is nothing next to his pro-gay, pro-choice positions, where these people are concerned.
Also, while you're right that Rudy has a bullet proof record as being tough on crime, you can hardly call his national security credentials "excellent." They're not poor by any means but they're hardly exceptional. There's an argument to be made for his homeland security record due to his rapid (and universally lauded) response to 9/11, but his experience in foreign affairs and national security is nil.
I choose moderate Democrat. I used to be both more liberal and more independant. However, I find that even though my life experiences push me more to the middle every day, the Republican leadership continues to disgust me in a way that I cannot vote for a Republican candidate with any confidence. I usually will only vote Republican if the candidate isn't a total tool, is running against a Libertarian, and there is no Democrat. I don't think that the libertarians would be so bad if they actually would represent moderates instead of extreme conservatives. I believe in social liberalism and relatively free markets. But taxes are not evil. And if you believe in social liberalism and live in the South, you know that some federalism and social intervention is required for any sort of justice. So yeah, until the Libertarians stop representing an extremist position and start pushing practical policy, I'll never vote for one.
I am an independent liberal. I am resigned to giving my support to the Democrats but only as a lesser of two evils. The current two party system might be one of the biggest obstacles currently standing in the face of true democracy. I want to be able to vote for someone who stands for the issues I believe in, but I end up voting for someone who has the best chance of defeating someone who stands for everything I detest. I cannot identify myself as a Democrat because they are spineless and grossly incompetent. I am a liberal pretty much straight through across the board from fiscal to social issues.
i chose independent liberal, although i even that doesn't really fit- my views are all over the map, even on social issues, but i think "neo-con" foreign policy objectives are inherently liberal, in the true meaning of the word. most "democratic liberals" i find to actually be surprisingly reactionary. the fact that i'm an ardent bush supporter here is deceptive. i support bush primarily because i think he has a unique appreciation for the most important issue of my lifetime, the battle against islamic fascism, and the stubborness to persevere through unwarranted attacks from left, right, domestic, and foreign opponents. just what you'd want in a war. in other ways, that stubborness is perhaps not such a great trait, but other than rudy g, there's "passing" few politicos that truely understand what we're up against. liebermann seems to, but my overall views, foreign policy, social, economic, law and order, etc, pretty closely track giuliani's.
You may be right, Batman, but I am not completely convinced yet. With John Roberts on the Court that may not be as important an issue anymore. But we will see. If Guiliani is too socially moderate then McCain is certainly the favorite. Another strength of both of these guys is they have supporters from the other side, so they won't need ALL of the religious right after the primaries.
i think this whole 'moderate' and 'independent' thing is a pile of crap. look i disagree with the democrats a lot. but at the end of the day i'll vote for most democrats over most republicans in a heartbeat. and frankly i think most 'independents' are the same way about one party or the other. just because you disagree with the party's stance on certain things doesn't make you an independent. i think democrats for the most part are spineless rats. but i love feingold. at the same time i absolutely admire specter and hegel. but guess what? i still believe im a democrat. similarly i think only those who are incapable of standing up for their views are 'moderate'. sure i'd love to say im 'moderate' because obviously i think im right whereas those who disagree with me are well wrong. so that inherently makes me 'moderate' because i dont want to feel like an extremist. but i realize in the political culture of the united states im 'liberal'. and thats fine.
Batman - 2008 is going to be very interesting with some of the early names we've seen (Feingold, Mccain, Giuliani), most specifically the McCain factor. I could see a great deal of Democrats voting Republican if McCain is on the ticket. The only thing that made me vote Democrat in '04 was the "Nader effect." As horrible a candidate as Kerry was, there was simply too much at stake to be throwing away votes in this most crucial of elections. As I said earlier, I and many other independents were resigned to the lesser of two evils. The greatest tragedy of that election was that the anti-war movement was forced to hitch onto the wagon of an obscure, ambiguous douche like Kerry. That really deligitimized the cause early on. Speaking of the "Nader effect", can someone explain to me why Ralph still claims he actually steals away more Republican votes?
I agree it's going to be very interesting. And there are a lot of other early names too. D: Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Bayh, Vilsack, Richardson, Warner, Clark, Feingold and Biden are pretty much all running. And it's still too early to rule out Gore or Obama. R: McCain, Giuliani, Allen, Frist and Romney are all running. You can probably add to that Pataki, Brownback and Gingrich at least. And it's still too early to rule out Hagel, Rice, Jeb Bush or Cheney (I don't care what anyone says.). This race is completely impossible to handicap right now. There are no frontrunners. The polls now are nothing but name ID indicators. If McCain gets the nod (and that's a huge if) he will no doubt have some crossover appeal with Democrats (Rudy too), but I think it's been largely overstated lately. When D's get a close look at McCain they'll realize he's extremely conservative and agrees with them on virtually nothing. The D's that would vote for him would do so on personality and likeability only. There's no policy crossover. And I'd really like to think the Democrats aren't going to nominate someone so unlikeable this next time, which would help to mitigate that. Where McCain would be dangerous, I think, is with Independents. But, again, I really have a hard time seeing GOP primary voters going for a McCain over an Allen or Brownback or even Frist or Gingrich. And I don't think Rudy's got a chance in hell in the primaries. That's just a snapshot of today though. At this point anything could happen. I think a McCain-Feingold race would be super fun.
I was just about to say that. Either way you go, you can be assured you will be restoring some integrity to the White House.
I consider myself an independent even though I've voted mostly straight democrat the last 6 years. I believe is fiscal conservatism and am totally against pork barrel spending. I believe taking care of our citizens especially children. I don't believe in governing morality. I believe in a strong military I strongly believe in educating our people, young and old I believe in individual rights and the burden should be on the government. These view used to span both parties but fiscal conservatism has been thrown out the window by the republican party. They also stopped caring about indivual rights and care more about corporate rights. And last but not least the military has been weakened because it was dragged into a war where there were no consensus or plan.
the whole founding of the conservative movement was to rally the evangelicals and the libertarians. What I can't understand is how libertarians are still on board with this administration? It is the biggest slap in the face to any libertarian. I guess fear will drive people to sacrifice their beliefs if they believe there safety is at stake.
Bush Democrat. In the over-simplified terms we tend to use, basically social conservative, economic liberal. Or, in another word, Catholic. Examples of my type of politician would be Congressmen Bart Stupak of Michigan, Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, Tony Hall of Ohio, Bob Casey, former governor of Pennsylvania, etc. Really, to me, "compassionate conservative" is a pretty good description, however much some people may make fun of it. I'm in a minority in todays "do what you feel, screw everybody else" society.
I've always considered myself an independant until GWB took office. Since he basically drew the battle line, I feel forced to side democrat. A vote as an indepenant is a vote FOR Republican. Democrat and liberal aren't dirty words. I'm proud to be called a "liberal" if doing so means you don't support GWB's policies. After GWB is gone and hopefully none of his henchmen are in office, I can go back to being independant. For the record, I like to think of myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
And this shows how flawed the poll results of something like this can be. You and I selected the same answer and we're pretty much total opposites.
I put myself down as a Liberal Democrat, which I've considered myself for years. I used to think of myself as a liberal independent, but decided a long time ago that I needed to get more involved, and take a stand. Your post pretty well decribes me. I'm not sure this poll is going to work, lol! Keep D&D Civil.
