Republicans/Democrats: Most acceptable candidate from the other side

After this:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I4r9dMP21hM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I4r9dMP21hM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

The was a NPR radio show at about the same time which I listened to where Mike Huckabee said (the horror) that he has spent time with Bill Clinton and liked him as a person, even if he did disagree pretty much across the board politically.

That contrast could not have been more striking and was enough to make me think Mike Huckabee could be a good president, despite a litany of philosophical differences. He also seems to been a very well regarded as a 'manager' as Governor of Arkansas, which helps convince me about some of the more practical concerns.

 

I was around for a long time before Trader_J came along, noob.

No, you implied it. The name chikenhawk is used to disparage those who don't serve in teh military but support military intervention. I thought you would at least know what words meant before you used them, but maybe I was giving you too much credit. There is no less right to support a war without service, and doing so does not make one a chicken.

Requiring service for citizenship would not increase the government's involvement in people's lives, it would decrease people's involvement in the government. In fact, since the majority of people in the military vote republican, it would probably reduce the government's involvement in people's lives as well.

A politician should never be allowed to decide who gets to be a citizen and who doesn't, but don't tell that to the people in congress that are trying to make illegal aliens into citizens.

There is a reason the Dems tried to block overseas/military votes during the 2000 Florida debacle. Even now, with the unpopular Iraq war, the military gives more money to Republican candidates than to democrats (after a large shift TOWARD the dems. I think this is the first time in a long time that any particular democrat has led in military contributions.

linkage

Conventional wisdom is that enlisted go Republican at a rate of about 3/2 while officers vote Republican at a rate of about 8/1.

You realize that there are several Republican candidates both now and historically that have served in the armed forces, right? Off the top of my head, I know that McCain served in Vietnam and Ron Paul was in the Navy (though I don't think he ever saw combat as a surgeon).

You would have a bit more trouble on the other side of the aisle. None of the top Dem candidates have any military experience to my knowledge. I know Hillary and Obama don't.

Sorry Det, but I am not going to let some cur take shots at me.

 

Really tough call, but I think I'd go with McCain. He's only a little crazy and still retains a glimmer of independence such that you could hope he'd only screw up by following his own crazy mind and not that of others. In fact he might screw up just to spite the people giving him advice, but after this presidency, that would be a step in the not-so-wrong direction.

 

Huckabee is the only GOP candidate running that I would even consider voting for, if a Democrat were nominated that I couldn't support. As you said, I disagree with him on a host of issues, but he seems to be a decent fellow, certainly a decent fellow compared to the rest of the GOP field, who appear to me to be The Usual GOP Crap, Rove/Bush Era.


D&D. Attempt to be Civil!

Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture.

 

Kucinich

 

McCain for his campaign finance reform.

On the Iraq issue, he'd probably be a little worse than Hillary, but I think the budget and overall deficit will blindside my generation in the years to come.

 

I'm voting Ron Paul, but I like Mike Gravel on the Democrat side.

Other favourable characters include Joe Biden for his experience and since he appears to be the most likeable of any of the candidates on either side.

 

I'm not a Hillary man, but I gotta ask, is there any proof that any of this sentence is true?

 

I don't claim either side, but I tend to agree with Republicans occasionally and Democrats almost never.

The most acceptable Democrat was the first one to drop out, Evan Bayh. In fact, he would have been my third choice for President, after Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.

I guess the most acceptable Democrat left is Bill Richardson. He seems to be a real moderate who could reach across the aisle. Of course, that was the story on Bush and all we got was the worst of both sides.

That is not to be confused with most-likable candidate. That is, of course, Barack Obama. I couldn't agree with almost any of Obama's stances, but he is one of the nicest, most intelligent, and genuinely good guys in the race. Every speech he makes really challenges my belief that all socialists are idiots. Some are just a little naive.

 

No, but Whitewater certainly makes you wonder.

 

Just look at Hillary's history from Whitewater to Rosen/Hsu -- she has so many imbroglios a soap opera could run for 20 years without doubling back on the plot.

 

Actually she hasn't, it's just that the fervent conspiracy theorists who ran the arkansas project have obviously made a lot of true believers.

 

So what's the connection between Obama and socialists? How do you change your view on socialists by listening to Obama?

 

Obama's views are pretty socialist (at least for the United States). Obama comes across as very intelligent and defends his stances well.

 

So, we've gone from socialist to pretty socialist (at least for the United States).

Tell me, which of Obama's views are socialist... what makes him pretty socialist (at least for the United States)?

 

Sam, you're sounding like a Republican apologist with a Democrat twist. Face it, the Democrats have the presidency won unless they shoot themselves in the foot by nominating Hillary. Her nomination will absolutely re-energize the Republican Party.

Personally, I will work hellbent to prevent her election -- and I won't be alone. Otherwise, like so many other Republicans who are disgusted with the GOP's false conservatism, I'll probably vote Democratic (unless Huckabee pulls it off) and hope the Democratic Party is as false to its liberal core as the GOP has been to its conservative core.

 

Don't let it get to you SM. Even though I don't agree with you on many issues calling you a "moron" was uncalled for when you are just stating your beliefs.

 

I'm a registered independent but the way things have been going the past few years I'm much more in the Dem camp these days. Anyway I was supporting Richardson but his debate performance has made me very uneasy. As for who I would find the most acceptable on the Repub side that's hard to say. I agree with Paul on several issues but am convinced that a Paul presidency would be disastrous. I like Huckabee's character but am very leery of how strongly social conservative he is. In principal I agree with Giuliani on several issues and am probably closer to him economically than other GOP candidates I've never understood his appeal. He seems to be alternately arrogant, flaky (answering his cell phone during speeches) and prone to vindictiveness. I just don't see how he has the qualities to be a good president. Almost by default I think Romney is the best the GOP has. He delivers a good speech and did a good job as mayor of the Mass. Also while he is trying to portray himself has a conservative his record shows him to be much more moderate and pragmatic. Unfortunately though those are negatives for him to win the Repub nomination.

 

Even with all of your third grade name calling, this has to be the most idiotic piece of logic in a long time. So if the military was made up of mostly Democrats, that would increase the government's involvement in people's lives?

Good for you. Tell me, how long do you have to practice to get you feigned outrage just right? Because you need to keep practicing. Either that or what I implied hit to close to home.