Hypothetical 2008 race ... would you vote for Clinton (D) or Paul (I)?

[KneelBeforeZod]

I was wondering in a hypothetical race with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, any random Republican (probably Fred Thompson), and Ron Paul running as an anti-war Independent (or Libertarian)...

Would any here vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton?

I'm honestly starting to think I might prefer Paul to Clinton. I watched some of the GOP debate a couple of nights ago - and I've been continuously impressed with Ron Paul's anti-war, anti-patriot-act, and anti-war-on-terror stances ... particularly since he's taking those stances in front of a hostile GOP audience.

Paul certainly has his problems ... but he is an absolutely rock-solid anti-war candidate. I've been disappointed with Clinton so far ... she seems to be hedging her anti-war stances, and preparing for a drawn out Iraq conflict even after the 2008 election.

So - the question is, would we prefer a pro-war Democrat in Hillary Clinton, or a purely anti-war Independent in Ron Paul?

Z

[TwilightGardener]

1. Clinton. And I don't much care for her. But she'd be a damn sight less harmful

to our basic government functions than Paul.

[YOY]

2. If anyone here did they wouldn't be a democrat now would they

Those who dislike Hillary intensely might abstain at best, but there would be few or none.

This is not Libertarian Underground.

[Dawgs]

10. Hillary is not the kind of Democrat I want.

Lieberman still calls himself a Democrat. Should I support him?

What about Zell Miller?

[YOY]

15. So abstain. I'm no DLC fan. I can name several others who are cool in my book who will.

I don't/won't/can't hold it against them for that.

Sh*t, I'm sorely tempted myself every time she buddies up to the "moderates".

[slackmaster]

3. Paul's anti-abortion stance is a deal buster for me

It seems out of place, but his politics are not simple.

[redqueen]

7. There's also the fact that he loooooves tax cuts.

That's great and all... but there's this little thing called debt... and... well, fiscally responsible people like paying those things off.

He's got more than a few issues that should scare any even slightly liberal person far, far away.

I don't understand why he's discussed here so much. :wtf:

[slackmaster]

11. I'm not opposed to tax cuts as long as they are balanced by spending cuts

And not cuts to things I happen to think the .gov should be spending money on.

But the abortion thing is one issue I cannot compromise on, like evolution denial.

[Crazy Dave]

13. I'm not that interested in Ron Paul...

...and haven't even looked at his policies but since when does a libertarian oppose abortion? Sounds like a very confused and deceitful person to me. Not to bring libertarian politics into DU but true libertarians support a women's right to choose, a person's right to die with dignity as in doctor assisted suicide, legalizing gay marriage and drugs, anti-war, separation of church and state along with thousands of other policies that republicans despise.

[slackmaster]

20. He's mostly Lib but also a conservative Christian

n/t

[LeftishBrit]

4. I wouldn't be voting...

but I certainly HOPE for the world's sake that you'd vote for Clinton over Paul! He is right about the Iraq war, but insane on everything else.

[musette_sf]

5. i prefer a pro-women's-equality person

in Senator Clinton, though i hope she is NOT the candidate.

i do not prefer an anti-women's-equality person in Dr. Ron "Ah'm Just A Good Ole Country Boy OB-GYN Sharing Mah Luuuuuuv" Paul.

[Richardo]

6. Beware the one-issue scorecard.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

I think you'll find many areas of disagreement here. (Disclaimer: I'm showing only the non-progressive stances here. He does intersect with progressive stances in some areas)


Ron Paul on Abortion
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul on Budget & Economy
Government out of regulating economy & out of our bedrooms. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000)


Ron Paul on Civil Rights
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)


Ron Paul on Corporations
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Crime
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Rated 60% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)


Ron Paul on Education
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)


Ron Paul on Energy & Oil
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Ron Paul on Environment
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Families & Children
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Foreign Policy
Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. (May 2001)


Ron Paul on Free Trade
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)


Ron Paul on Government Reform
Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)


Ron Paul on Gun Control
Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Health Care
Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)
Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Homeland Security
Rated 67% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Immigration
Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Jobs
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
Member of the Congressional Rural Caucus. (Jan 2001)
Rated 47% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a mixed record on union issues. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Principles & Values
Member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. (Dec 2000)


Ron Paul on Social Security
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Tax Reform
Immediately work to phase out the IRS. (May 2007)
Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Technology
Trusts the Internet a lot more than the mainstream media. (May 2007)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004)
Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)


Ron Paul on War & Peace
Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007) :D


Ron Paul on Welfare & Poverty
Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

[KneelBeforeZod]

14. Fair enough ...

I suppose it depends on how important the anti-war issue is in comparison with the others.

I'd likely still vote for Clinton ... but I'd have to grit my teeth to do so.

Paul is right on the most important issues we face - the Iraq War, civil liberties, and the war on terrorism - and wrong on so many less important issues. Clinton is right about many or all of the lesser issues ... and wrong about the issue that will continue to destroy our image throughout the world, get American solider killed overseas, erode basic civil rights at home, and provoke terrorist attacks against Americans.

Its a tough vote either way ...

H

[hedgehog]

37. The real question is what will people who don't pay attention

until election day would do. I could see Ron Paul giving Hilary real competition. Does that mean I'd vote for Paul? I wouldn't , but how many other people would?

[KneelBeforeZod]

44. I don't think he'd give Hillary much "competition" ...

But I do think he could siphon off enough anti-war voters to reduce her chances of winning this thing.

I think he'd likely do more harm to the Democratic candidate than the GOP.

Z

[hedgehog]

45. That's exactly what I'm afraid of.

[rinsd]

8. One issue voters are morons and this proves it.

[redqueen]

9. There's no way on God's green earth I'd ever vote for Ron Paul. n/t

[Mass]

12. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-union, ... Pick your choice! A lot of good reasons to say NO to Paul,

If you are a progressive, that is...

Add to that a number of racist comments in the past.

[Crazy Dave]

17. Libertarians are anti-union

But they are not anti-gay nor do they oppose abortion. This guy is playing tricks like the people who came up with "compassionate conservatism".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. This Ron Paul- No Thank You

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."


-Ron Paul

DSB

[KneelBeforeZod]

18. I hadn't heard that ...

Most of my knowledge of Paul has been via the GOP debates ... and I've been somewhat impressed with his performance there.

I hadn't read that particular quote, however. Disturbing.

H

[redqueen]

19. Do some looking around... the debates are PR.

They aren't going to show their less-appealing side in a debate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. He Reminds Me Of Another Texan

Ross Perot...

[redqueen]

25. I wish he'd run as an independent, too.

:bounce: :party:

[KneelBeforeZod]

28. I'm not sure Paul running as an Independant would be good for us Democrats ...

There are a few possibilities where this wouldn't be the case. I think he's unlikely to draw much of the conservative vote from the Republican nominee. Any Republican nominee will be (at least rhetorically) pro-tax cuts, low spending, etc. Any Republican other than Giuliani will also be (rhetorically) Christian and anti-choice. So there are these options ...

(1) If Giuliani is the nominee ... Paul could draw the Christian, anti-choice vote. This is the best case scenario for Democrats.
(2) Paul could draw the single-issue anti-war voters from both the Republican and Democrat parties ... which would hurt Democrats FAR more than Republicans.
and/or,
(3) Paul could draw fringe voters that wouldn't have voted R or D ... and not hurt either.

I think we'd be likely to get a mixture of the three. If Giuliani is not the nominee, I think Paul is more likely to hurt Democrats more than Republicans ... because he'll be the only anti-war candidate. He'd draw the few anti-war Repubs, the single-issue anti-war Dems, and the fringe non-voters. If Giuliani IS the GOP nominee ... he'd likely draw all of the above, plus the Christian Right, and kill the GOP.

I don't think Giuliani will be the nominee though ... and in a Clinton/ Thompson/ Paul race, I think Paul hurts Clinton more than Thompson.

Z

[redqueen]

30. Disagree completely. You seem to think choice isn't a deal breaker.

The vast majority of Democratic and independent women like having their say about their own bodies.

No matter who the nominee is, Paul hurts Republicans more.

[KneelBeforeZod]

34. I don't think choice is necessarily a dealbreaker for everyone ...

It certainly is for some - and I'm fully aware of, and perfectly fine with, that fact. I have no qualms with those for which choice is a dealbreaker.

I am pro-choice ... but it isn't a dealbreaker for me. If choice is the only area of disagreement I have with a candidate (this is not the case with Paul), it wouldn't necessarily stop me for voting for them.

I think there are some anti-war progressives that would vote for Paul (as a protest vote) if he were the only anti-war candidate available. I think this number is probably higher than the number of Republicans that would abandon Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney for Paul.

Giuliani is another story entirely. The Christian-right doesn't like Giuliani, and might flock to Paul.

If Thompson (my bet) or Romney is the nominee, I think the Christian right will rally around the GOP, and Paul would splinter the anti-war vote. I think this would hurt Clinton - not Romney or Thompson. If Giuliani were the nominee, the anti-war vote would still be splintered ... but the droves of religious right voters leaving Giuliani would make Paul a bigger drag on the GOP than us.

Z

[redqueen]

35. Yeah. But I didn't say everyone, though.

I think choice is a dealbreaker for LOTS more people than the Iraq war is. I'd bet money on it, and I'm poor!

[KneelBeforeZod]

38. But, you only need to splinter off 1-2% to make a HUGE difference ...

To many, maybe even most, Democrats (particularly women), choice is a dealbreaker more than the war. But, even if the vast majority people use choice as a dealbreaker - if Paul only splintered off 1-2% of the anti-war vote ... he could hugely affect the race (and not necessarily in the Democrats favor).

I think many people would agree with you that choice is a dealbreaker ... but I think a large enough percentage would disagree, and that such disagreement could have an effect on the overall race.

Paul becoming an Independant candidate for President would not be a good thing for the Democrat nominee.

Z

[redqueen]

39. Don't you mean the "DemocratIC" nominee? Bit of RW lingo there...

not a good thing to slip up on, around here.

You have your opinion, I have mine. I would LOVE for paul to run as an independent. Can't wait till the primaries are over... I *SO* hope he goes for it! With the repuke party in shambles, there's never been a better time.

:woohoo:

[KneelBeforeZod]

47. Democrat nominee, Democratic nominee ... same thing.

>> Don't you mean the "DemocratIC" nominee? Bit of RW lingo there ... not a good thing to slip up on, around here.

I didn't realize that was "RW lingo" ... I'm sure I've said that before, and I've never heard any objections. What's RW about it?

I'm certainly open to being more careful, and will certainly alter my language if its really RW lingo. But, if the party can be referred to as the "Democrats" ... why wouldn't "Democrat nominee" be just as appropriate as "Democratic nominee"? I've always used the two interchangably.

Z

[Rhythm and Blue]

51. Ah, you must be new to The Intertubes.

;)
Here ya go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)

[redqueen]

53. Thank you!

:hi:

Dang... didn't even think to check Wikipedia. :P

[KneelBeforeZod]

56. I stand corrected ...

I shall try to change my language on that ...

Z

[redqueen]

52. Oh no... it's FAR from the same thing.

It is definitely right-wing lingo... it was invented by a repuke stragetist as a way to discredit the party.

I don't have the link, but this is a well-known switcheroo. It's disgusting to hear it's not pointed out each and every time that spew is posted here of all places, at least!

If I find a link for you on how it came about, that bastardization of our party's name, I'll either post it here or PM ya. The pukes use word games and it's important to not play along with & help them do their dirty work.

[Rhythm and Blue]

40. Ron Paul will certainly splinter off more Republicans than Democrats.

Paul's primary appeal is to small-government paleoconservatives upset with Bush over spending and the war.

Choice might be a dealbreaker for some Democrats. Abolishing the Dept. of Education might be for others. Abolishing FEMA might be for others. Abolishing the Dept. of Energy might be for others. Abolishing federal welfare might be for others. Abolishing Medicare might be for others.

The man is not a liberal in any way whatsoever. He only appeals to internet slackers who watch too much South Park, conservatives, and to Democrats who can't think beyond Iraq.

[KneelBeforeZod]

49. That's my worry ...

>> and to Democrats who can't think beyond Iraq.

This is the group that worries me. I think this might be a considerably larger group than anti-war "paleoconservatives", and Republican "internet slackers who watch too much South Park".

Z

[Rhythm and Blue]

50. Then you're simply wrong.

Anti-war Democrats who do not have any other issues they are concerned about whatsoever are pretty much limited to The Internets. Republicans who are upset about the last eight years, on the other hand, represent about a third of their party. "Fuck everyone" South Park Republicans, I would bet, are about equal in number to the Democratic "OMG HILLARY WILL BOMB IRAN" crowd.

The two internet-based groups cancel each other out. That leaves you with an enormous base of Republicans he can draw upon for support.

I don't know if your perspective is a bit skewed because you found him so appealing, but he's far more of a threat to Republicans than to Democrats.

[KneelBeforeZod]

57. Wouldn't be the first time ...

But I'd just rather Paul not enter, and we not risk losing any of the anti-war vote.

Z

[Rhythm and Blue]

60. I would strongly rather Paul enter.

Democrats are giving indications that they'll primarily run on domestic issues anyway.

[Kool Kitty]

41. Exactly. I'm a woman, and it's a deal-breaker

for me. He'd never get my vote.

[redqueen]

54. Yup... and considering how many female independents

there are, well... :7

:hi:

[incapsulated]

27. But... but... he's against the war!!!

Yeah, I want some wingnut in office who would probably put me in an internment camp.

:eyes:

[William769]

21. Hypotheticals and $4.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[KneelBeforeZod]

23. Just a question ... for discussion, on a discussion site.

Hypotheticals and $4 will get you ... a cup of coffee at Starbucks, and a possibly enlightening and entertaining discussion on a web-board.

Z

[redqueen]

24. I will never in my life undestand paying $4 for a cuppa joe...

special occaisions, for the fancy stuff, sure.

But every day? And it tastes like CRAP! :crazy:


Sorry... OT, I know.

[NMDemDist2]

26. Ron Paul is a right wing nutball

even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, but only for a minute

[onenote]

29. You've got to be kidding. You' might support David Duke's candidate over a Democrat

Why are you here?

[KneelBeforeZod]

32. I wouldn't necessarily support Paul ...

But I am endlessly irritated at the failure of the Democrats to make any progress in ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, correcting the injustices of the Patriot Act, securing our lost civil liberties, stopping the march toward war with Iran, and ending the overall War on Terror.

Hillary Clinton would be a substandard nominee, and I think she is likely to keep us on the same course that Bill Clinton and George B*sh have ... endless war. She's a DLC establishment candidate - a conservative Democrat - and she's going to continue us on the same disastrous road we're currently on.

There isn't likely to be an anti-war candidate as either the Republican or Democratic nominee in 2008 ... instead, we'll have a conservative, DLC, pro-war Democrat (Clinton), and an ultra-conservative, right-wing, hawk Republican (Thompson or Giuliani).

Perhaps Paul isn't the answer ... but, right now, it appears that he may be the only anti-war candidate on the ballot in November 2008. God save us.

Z

[Rhythm and Blue]

42. Paul is far beyond "ultra-conservative."

He is, bar none, the most conservative candidate out there.

[damntexdem]

31. I wouldn't vote for Paul.

These may be his stances, but he still represents his party, and he would be constantly dragged away from his stances, no matter how (or little) sincere they may be.

Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't represent ENOUGH of her party.

[Mass]

33. Ron Paul's agenda, for those who think he is a pure libertarian...

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[Rhythm and Blue]

36. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. David Duke has those same stances you mention too.

And David Duke endorses Ron Paul.

[Bucky]

43. Besides being an anti-choice racist who wants to wipe out goverment regulation....

...what's so bad about Ron Paul? Oh right, he's promised to support the eventual Republican nominee.

[KneelBeforeZod]

55. Actually - he specifically said he wouldn't support the GOP nominee ...

>> ...what's so bad about Ron Paul? Oh right, he's promised to support the eventual Republican nominee.

In the last debate, he specifically stated that he would NOT support the GOP nominee ...

******* From the October 9, 2007 Debate Transcript ...

MATTHEWS: Congressman Paul, do you promise to support the nominee of the Republican Party next year?

PAUL: Not right now I don't. Not unless they're willing to end the war and bring our troops home. And not unless they are willing to look at...

MCCAIN: You don't want me then, pal.

PAUL: ... the excess in spending. No, I'm not going to support them if they continue down the path that has taken our party down the tubes. I mean, we've lost credibility because of all our spending, because we have violated the civil liberties of all the American people, and we have adopted the Democrats' foreign policy.
************

I disagree with Paul about a great many things ... but you're wrong on this one.

Z

[Bucky]

59. Missed that one. In the previous debate he said that he would support the nominee

So I can now add flipflopper to the list. I've been watching Ron Paul for years--he used to be my Congressman though I live in a different part of Houston now. There are, to put it nicely, character issues that make him such an amusing iconoclast in the Republican field. He's fun to watch. He's not worth throwing away your vote on.

[AX10]

46. Hillary Clinton. She is a much better person than Ron Paul

Sure Paul has his good points, but he is a right wing Libertarian.
Ron Paul = No Abortion Whatsoever
Ron Paul = Draconian cuts in social services/infrastructure
Ron Paul = 9 Alito's on the Supreme Court
Ron Paul = No Enviromental Protection
Ron Paul = Wall Street enslaves us

Understand?!?

[jzodda]

48. This is silly.

Paul is a Conservative. So he would appoint Scalia type judges, try to overturn Roe, try to lower taxes for the rich at the expense of the rest of us, be against universal health coverage, the list goes on and on and on. For the most part ask Tom Delay what he supports and this guy will line up right with him on most issues.

How can anybody here at DU say they would ever support this guy. Hes all wrong on every issue except the war.

[Carrieyazel]

58. Neither. I'd never vote for Paul, but he does have a sincerity and a boldness about him.

which is appealing. He's the closest thing left to a Goldwater Republican. And one of the few currently in his party that I don't call a Repuke.

[jzodda]

61. As much as I think this a silly topic being that this site is called "Democratic Underground"

I agree with you. I may only agree with 10% of this guys politics but his refusal to spin everything and his honesty about his positions and what he feels is right is refreshing. The disturbing thing is that it seems to me that on both sides when a candidate becomes a "top tier" candidate they stop being brutally honest, and they start spinning everything so they can be all things to all people. Its as if Huey Long wrote the book for these people on how to run for office

[ginchinchili]

62. I would certainly consider it

[Rhythm and Blue]

63. Please read the posts in this thread nt

[Honeycombe8]

64. Paul believes we should drill in ANWR, for gosh sakes. Don't forget what he is.

Yes, he's attractive, ideologically speaking....sort of. But when you get right down to it, he is dead set against the government being involved in protecting the environment or working against global warming.

There are just some problems that are so huge and need to be separated from the profit motive, that government must be involved.

That's a big N-O on Paul.

[BootinUp]

65. Anybody who says Paul get the hell out, start your own forum. nt

:)

[saltpoint]

66. Ron Paul is going to make a wave or two but he's not going to be the GOP

nominee.

He could run as an independent, maybe, and win a third of Perot's 92 total, at best.

I would support Senator Clinton against any Republican and would strongly urge others to do the same.

[Odin2005]

67. Clinton, duh.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian wacko. His little fan-club of Dems he has built of solely because of his opposition to the occupation of Iraq is a perfect example of single-issue stupidity.

Oh, and calling Hillary "pro-war" is hyperbole IMO. I don't like her positions, but calling those positions "pro-war" is overdoing it.

[LWolf]

68. None of the three would get my vote.

I'm sure there would be some other candidate on the ballot better, or I could write in a better candidate.