The Best Republican Candidate?

[FluffyNinja]

After viewing a previous thread, my curiosity was aroused. Many Conservatives are obviously disappointed in the Republican nominee for the Presidential Race. Since so many feel that McCain was not the best choice as a viable GOP candidate, I was wondering, in YOUR opinions, who would have proven a more substantial candidate and WHY?

My choice would have been:

I feel that her dedication to conservative principles coupled with her unquestioned experience in foreign relations would have made Condoleeza more than a match for HRC or Obama.

 

[DarkWizard12]

wow thats a...badass picture.

 

[the makeout hobo]

After viewing a previous thread, my curiosity was aroused. Many Conservatives are obviously disappointed in the Republican nominee for the Presidential Race. Since so many feel that McCain was not the best choice as a viable GOP candidate, I was wondering, in YOUR opinions, who would have proven a more substantial candidate and WHY?

My choice would have been:

I feel that her dedication to conservative principles coupled with her unquestioned experience in foreign relations would have made Condoleeza more than a match for HRC or Obama.

Nothing to do with the fact that she's black and female, of course, right fluffy?:roll:

I'm sorry, I don't think she'd do so well. First of all, she's never served in elective office, I doubt she knows the ins and outs of running a campaign. Second, she'd be too closely linked to the Bush Administration, an albatross around her neck in this election.

 

[Ikari]

IMO, it's Ron Paul. The only one committed to actual small government policy. A proven track record of supporting the Constitution and limiting the government, I felt he was the best candidate and the only one being 100% honest with the people about his platform.

 

[FluffyNinja]

IMO, it's Ron Paul. The only one committed to actual small government policy. A proven track record of supporting the Constitution and limiting the government, I felt he was the best candidate and the only one being 100% honest with the people about his platform.

I agree with you, to a certain extent. I actually like Ron Paul and I believe he is, for the most part, sincere; however, would he be a VIABLE candidate? In other words, would he have been the most "marketable" candidate to represent the GOP. Would he stand a chance in the media vs. Obama or HRC. After all, that's what its really all about. Since the first Nixon - Kennedy debate, the impression the media portrays concerning a candidate, usually becomes the impression that most Americans adopt. Sadly, most Americans never seek for "Truth in Advertising," - even those WITH internet access.

I really, honestly do believe Ron Paul's a good, honest person, I just don't think he has what it takes to win the "media battle." It's a shame really, that we must search for a candidate based on his/her "marketability" and not on personal merit any more.

 

[Gipper]

I'd like to rebuild a Franken-Reagan with bits and pieces of Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul.

However, if I had to pick one 100% out of the chute, it'd be Tancredo.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Nothing to do with the fact that she's black and female, of course, right fluffy?:roll:

Well, those two facts would make for some interesting media! It would definitely put a different "angle" on the race. I mean a Black, female, conservative with a Ph.D. and global experience....................... hmmmmmmm?

 

[Zyphlin]

Sadly, I haven't seen my "perfect" candidate yet.

Someone with Ron Pual's ideals, slightly tempered with a bit of pragmatism, and put into a charismatic and articulate package.

 

[FluffyNinja]

I'd like to rebuild a Franken-Reagan with bits and pieces of Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul.

However, if I had to pick one 100% out of the chute, it'd be Tancredo.

Good mixture, but I'd also throw in a little Rick Santorum (for attitude) and a little Colin Powell (for cultural diversity).:mrgreen:

 

[Ikari]

I agree with you, to a certain extent. I actually like Ron Paul and I believe he is, for the most part, sincere; however, would he be a VIABLE candidate? In other words, would he have been the most "marketable" candidate to represent the GOP. Would he stand a chance in the media vs. Obama or HRC. After all, that's what its really all about. Since the first Nixon - Kennedy debate, the impression the media portrays concerning a candidate, usually becomes the impression that most Americans adopt. Sadly, most Americans never seek for "Truth in Advertising," - even those WITH internet access.

I really, honestly do believe Ron Paul's a good, honest person, I just don't think he has what it takes to win the "media battle." It's a shame really, that we must search for a candidate based on his/her "marketability" and not on personal merit any more.

Ok...but would Rice? I mean, what are even her qualifications? The biggest hurdle Ron Paul always faces is that he is not the candidate of the establishment, in fact because of his platform he is at odds with the establishment. Because of this, he's never represented well in the press or given a fair shake. Every non-establishment candidate has to deal with that (it's sad, you'd figure the press is for reporting and should report the whole story so that we can make up our minds better...especially where the government is concerned, but mostly all these entities are owned by the same group of people and thus biased and censored). Will Rice support the establishment? What would her platform even be?

Paul's problem is that the establishment didn't want him out of the gate. So he wasn't allowed to go, instead they give him small time in the debates, you don't hear him talked about as often as the others (even Giuliani who he was out performing before he dropped). But would Ron do well against Obama? That would mean he won the nomination for the GOP, and at that point the establishment actually couldn't keep him out of the media. He probably still wouldn't be treated as fair, but the people would see him and see Obama as the choices and thus would learn about Paul's platform. At that point, where he is considered viable (earning the GOP nomination would definitely do that) and where he is presented in the press so that people can learn more...Obama couldn't beat him. The best Obama has is his stance on the war and Paul beats him there too. Other than that, it's all small government, small taxes, maximized freedom and liberty. And despite the choices the establishment likes to present to us, i think those ideals still ring true with Americans. Paul vs. Obama...Paul all the way.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Ok...but would Rice? I mean, what are even her qualifications? The biggest hurdle Ron Paul always faces is that he is not the candidate of the establishment, in fact because of his platform he is at odds with the establishment. Because of this, he's never represented well in the press or given a fair shake. Every non-establishment candidate has to deal with that (it's sad, you'd figure the press is for reporting and should report the whole story so that we can make up our minds better...especially where the government is concerned, but mostly all these entities are owned by the same group of people and thus biased and censored). Will Rice support the establishment? What would her platform even be?

Paul's problem is that the establishment didn't want him out of the gate. So he wasn't allowed to go, instead they give him small time in the debates, you don't hear him talked about as often as the others (even Giuliani who he was out performing before he dropped). But would Ron do well against Obama? That would mean he won the nomination for the GOP, and at that point the establishment actually couldn't keep him out of the media. He probably still wouldn't be treated as fair, but the people would see him and see Obama as the choices and thus would learn about Paul's platform. At that point, where he is considered viable (earning the GOP nomination would definitely do that) and where he is presented in the press so that people can learn more...Obama couldn't beat him. The best Obama has is his stance on the war and Paul beats him there too. Other than that, it's all small government, small taxes, maximized freedom and liberty. And despite the choices the establishment likes to present to us, i think those ideals still ring true with Americans. Paul vs. Obama...Paul all the way.

You're certainly right about one thing, this entire nomination process is comparable to a professional wrestling match. We usually know, ahead of time whom the "establishment" will "allow" to proceed. I'm honestly suprised that the Dems have come up with two viable/marketable candidates in one race - I really think that Obama's success has been quite a suprise to the DNC as well. For the GOP this time around, it was the usual "Dog and Pony Show," and a shame that other conservative candidates weren't given a chance to shine.

 

[Zyphlin]

Honestly, Paul had four major issues:

1. He was not part of the establishment, which gave him a hard time getting face time and had him as an "enemy" within his party.

2. He's not a great speaker, nor charismatic. I hear a lot of his die hard supporters contradicting this, but never in any way other than "He's very charismatic to me". He can come off as a great speaker perhaps if you've already bought into his ideology through reading it yourself. In our TV oriented, soundbite world, he's horrible. He was attrocious in almost every debate, has a naturally "whiny" sounding voice, is frankly a bit odd looking, and has a tendancy to ramble or talk above the head of his audiances. He's just not a great communicator to the masses, and it hurt him.

3. His views are extreme. Yes yes, there will be the token Paul fan that will come in here with the useless drivel of "Its a sad day when our founders ideals are "extreme". Blah blah, sad yes, whatever, its still the case. His extreme views, and his continued desire to drive them home in the most extreme examples possible, and without adapting which parts of his message to focus upon based on the situation, hurt him.

4. Finally, his biggest asset is also one of his biggest vises...his supporters. Many are incredibly off-putting due to their ego and superiority. His conspiratorial supporters...from "OMG ZIONISTS", to 9/11 truthers, to random world agencies trying to rule us all...shine a bad light on him, like it or not.

I'm a Paul fan, I voted for the man...but when his supporters try to act like the media alone killed him, it just drives me a bit crazy. Paul was not the perfect candidate in a political sense, in any way...and even given media attention I doubt he'd have risen higher than Huckabee got.

 

[Ikari]

I'm a Paul fan, I voted for the man...but when his supporters try to act like the media alone killed him, it just drives me a bit crazy. Paul was not the perfect candidate in a political sense, in any way...and even given media attention I doubt he'd have risen higher than Huckabee got.

That is for sure a possibility, but on the other hand it could very well be that the purposeful non-information about him, the non-reporting in the press really hurt his chances. The sad thing is, we won't know. Well it did definitely hurt his chances, but it's hard to say exactly how far he would have gotten if given the fair shake. And I think that's why many will complain about the media and its irresponsible behavior in reporting government concerns to the People. The system works when the information is there and people are voting for who they believe is best (not the lesser of two evils) and so by acting in this way, the press did effect the process. Maybe Paul would still have lost, maybe he wouldn't have; we don't really know. If given a fair shake, there would be less ambiguity about that, and at least one less thing to complain about. If given a fair shake and still loosing, that's that. I would still find it sad because personally I think Paul was the best candidate; but it would be more legitimate. Maybe he still would have lost, but that doesn't excuse poor performance out of the media. That's supposed to be our tool to keep up to date with what the government is doing and help us in controlling our govenrment.

 

[Zyphlin]

Agree completely that what he did was important, and will likely start a wave in the republican party to slowly begin going back to core ideals and towards his manner of conservatism. He did a great job at starting a movement...he did a horrible job of actively trying to become president. Two seperate issues. I won't argue with you in regards to his starting of a movement.

In regards to his whiny ::shrugs:: Agree to disagree I guess. Even when I've watched videos of him talking to groups positive to him in speeches, he comes off as nasaly and whiny, always lamenting how bad everyone else is, etc etc. His tone of voice and simply the way he talks just comes off very "oh woe is me, waa" to me. I've heard others say the same. It may not be that way for everyone though.

Complete removal of the IRS IS an extreme view in modern america. Complete removal of the Dept. of Education, or any department, is a rather extreme view in modern america. Pull out of the vast majority of international groups we're in would likely be viewed as extreme by a great many people. Ditto in pulling out our bases all over the world. Ditto for possibly moving to a gold standard. He had very "extreme" ideas in regards to the way the average american in mainstream america views things. And he was horrible at articulating, if it was his stance, that these things wouldn't just "BOOM" happen in one giant blast but would incrementally work towards it.


"He's one of those candidates who alienates the **** out of people at first, but after learning more about and considering his positions he gets a lot more attractive to almost everybody. "

This is actually what happened with me, and is actually what I've been arguing about Ron Paul ever since I became a support of him.

I disagree strongly on his views on the patriot act, network neutrality (without getting rid of monopolies at the same time), his views on israel, and the war in iraq. I hate the vast majority of the conspiracy theory BS put out by some of his supporters, as well as the superiority complex many I had talked to exhibited. However, I'm politically inclined enough to actually begin to look at more of his things, and they won me over despite it all.

Average American likely won't do that...

If he would've changed the focal point of his message part way through the campaign...start focusing more on immigration, on taxes, on spending, etc...and less on the War in Iraq and some of his more extreme points (removal of the Dept of Education) I think he would've won more people over.

By the first few months into the campaign, people knew Ron Pauls war stance. This wasn't something most didn't know. Him drowning on about it in debate, after debate, after debate didn't give anything new for all those people on the bubble to really go off of. However, if he'd had instead let that go to the back burner, and focused on other things, he likely would've garnered some more support.

And once you get that support, you then can start speaking to them again on the War. I was MUCh more open to hearing his stances on the War, and really learning about them, once I became sold on the rest of his stances then I was prior to that point. I think that'd be the case with many people, but for whatever reason he led with, filled with, and ended with the War and many average voters just never really got a good grasp on him beyond that.


Maybe good for a movement. Horrible for a Presidential run

 

[DeeJayH]

all i know is I would love to mount those double PhDs with P.O.P ticket :mrgreen::3oops:

 

[the makeout hobo]

That is for sure a possibility, but on the other hand it could very well be that the purposeful non-information about him, the non-reporting in the press really hurt his chances. The sad thing is, we won't know. Well it did definitely hurt his chances, but it's hard to say exactly how far he would have gotten if given the fair shake. And I think that's why many will complain about the media and its irresponsible behavior in reporting government concerns to the People. The system works when the information is there and people are voting for who they believe is best (not the lesser of two evils) and so by acting in this way, the press did effect the process. Maybe Paul would still have lost, maybe he wouldn't have; we don't really know. If given a fair shake, there would be less ambiguity about that, and at least one less thing to complain about. If given a fair shake and still loosing, that's that. I would still find it sad because personally I think Paul was the best candidate; but it would be more legitimate. Maybe he still would have lost, but that doesn't excuse poor performance out of the media. That's supposed to be our tool to keep up to date with what the government is doing and help us in controlling our govenrment.

I think another thing that really hurt Paul that most people didn't realize is that he's only a congressman. He is, more or less, a lower rank than the senators and governors he shared the field with. If he had been "senator paul" or "governor paul" he probably would have had better luck.

Agree completely that what he did was important, and will likely start a wave in the republican party to slowly begin going back to core ideals and towards his manner of conservatism. He did a great job at starting a movement...he did a horrible job of actively trying to become president. Two seperate issues. I won't argue with you in regards to his starting of a movement.

I disagree. If you look back at Buchanan, the man had many of the same views as Paul, and was definitely in the same spirit. Buchanan did much, much better than Paul ever did. Thanks to the internet, however, Paul's supporters were able to make a lot more noise.

This is a fair point, I think it made voters much less willing to attempt to contextualize Ron Paul's positions. He's one of those candidates who alienates the **** out of people at first, but after learning more about and considering his positions he gets a lot more attractive to almost everybody.

I dunno. I'm very familiar with Paul's stances, and he is one of the last people I'd want to see in the oval office. I'd suspect that everyone on this site is very familiar with Paul's stances after such a long-slog election, and some very... active posters, but many of us still don't support him. I think most Paul voters just overestimate his appeal.

 

[danarhea]

I agree with you, to a certain extent. I actually like Ron Paul and I believe he is, for the most part, sincere; however, would he be a VIABLE candidate? In other words, would he have been the most "marketable" candidate to represent the GOP. Would he stand a chance in the media vs. Obama or HRC. After all, that's what its really all about. Since the first Nixon - Kennedy debate, the impression the media portrays concerning a candidate, usually becomes the impression that most Americans adopt. Sadly, most Americans never seek for "Truth in Advertising," - even those WITH internet access.

I really, honestly do believe Ron Paul's a good, honest person, I just don't think he has what it takes to win the "media battle." It's a shame really, that we must search for a candidate based on his/her "marketability" and not on personal merit any more.

Sure, screw the fact that McCain is a Liberal flip flopper. He is marketable, so let's go with him. Goes to show you how badly the Republican party has whored itself out. So much for Conservative principles.

GOP = America's Party of French Whores

 

[hrdman2luv]

Condi RIce. Exactly what accomplishments has she under her belt. (other than getting the job) Did she get any free trade markets open, reduced tarriffs, bring peace to any countries? I don't think she did anything more than fly around the world, and buy shoes. And Bush was stupid for sending a black woman in the middle east to handle negotiations with a bunch of people who think women, especially black women, are at the bottom of the food chain. That would be like sending a KKK member into a Black Panther meeting to discuss the next lynching? I'm not trying to sound racist. But, those people kill their women for little to no reason in the middle east.

Ron Paul. The Media, right wing establishment, left wing establishment and those that we don't know or see all did their part in destroying Ron Pauls chances. Even little things like "Pay Pal". After the NH primaries, when there were questions about the vote count. A supporter of Ron Paul raised enough money online to pay for the recount, so Ron Paul wouldn't have to worry about it. Well, Seems one of Mitt Romney's close friends owns (or is a top CEO, I forget) froze the supporters account until after the deadline. Which is why, Dennis Kucinich, as broke as he was, paid for it.

McCain....People voted for him because of the same reason they didn't vote for Ron Paul. Because they didn't know he supports gay marraige, campaign finance. That he blocked a bill that would have help find and bring home MIA's. The people just don't know what they were supporting. But everyday, the news is getting out. Heck, alot of people don't even know that he authored the Kennedy/McCain anmesty bill. They think it was the Democrats only.

The biggest reason why Ron Paul had such a huge internet following, was because that was the only place you could learn about him.

99% of what someone could learn just in this forum about Ron Paul, will not be in the news. Like the fact that Ron Paul is not out of the race. He said he will still campaign as along as the campaign can afford it, and there will be support for it. I understand it's a million to 1 that he won't win. And he understands that too. But as many of you have stated, the revolution isn't so much about Ron Paul. It's about changing the course of the GOP and the country.

In 4 years of democrat lies, taxes and wars, we will all be begging for "real" change.

 

[Zyphlin]

The Media, right wing establishment, left wing establishment and those that we don't know or see all did their part in destroying Ron Pauls chances.

You forgot to include "Fanatical Paul Fans, conspiracy theorists, and Ron Paul" to that list of things that in part helped to destroy his chances

 

[hrdman2luv]

You forgot to include "Fanatical Paul Fans, conspiracy theorists, and Ron Paul" to that list of things that in part helped to destroy his chances

I had written enough. Your right though. There were some strange charactors supporting him. But, you know, Those same people probably voted for Bush or Kerry. Funny how the media didn't pick up on them in 2000 or 2004. It wasn't until Ron Paul came along, that the media focused on them. Like the white supremeist and the hookers. And even though Ron Paul didn't endorse, support or thank em, he still got labled unfairly by the media and those that believed the media.

 

[Cold Highway]

McCain....People voted for him because of the same reason they didn't vote for Ron Paul. Because they didn't know he supports gay marraige,

Actually if you ever bother to research, McCain opposes Gay marriage, he supported the state ballot in Arizona to ban it. He believes it should be a state issue just like Paul does.

campaign finance.

The bill is called McCain/Fiengold its not that hard to figure out that he supported it.

Heck, alot of people don't even know that he authored the Kennedy/McCain anmesty bill. They think it was the Democrats only.

More lies, do you know why his numbers were so dismal in the summer? It was because he supported McCain/Kennedy. Rush, Savage, Ingram and the rest of the scumbags were on that like a fat guy at a buffet.

In 4 years of democrat lies, taxes and wars, we will all be begging for "real" change.

Yes because we all know that the Republicans have such a excellent reputation for being honest, moral, etc right? Well why dont you follow your own advice you partisans say to people that disagree with Bush. "If you dont like it you can get out"

 

[hrdman2luv]

Actually if you ever bother to research, McCain opposes Gay marriage, he supported the state ballot in Arizona to ban it. He believes it should be a state issue just like Paul does.

When Ron Paul authored a bill that would define "Life" as beginning at conception, where were the others? I know McCain is in the senate, but still, that was a bill that would have ended the federal governments right to make abortion legal. And the sepreme court wouldn't have been allowed to touch it. And don't tell me that Senators and Representitives can support each other.

The bill is called McCain/Fiengold its not that hard to figure out that he supported it.

Yes, McCain supported and co-authored it.

More lies, do you know why his numbers were so dismal in the summer? It was because he supported McCain/Kennedy. Rush, Savage, Ingram and the rest of the scumbags were on that like a fat guy at a buffet.

I'm talking about the people, unlike you and I, who keep up with congress, bills and laws. But there are probably 100 billion people who couldn't care less. And if those 100 billion conservatives knew that McCain supported illegal immigration, they would never have voted for him in the primiaries.



Yes because we all know that the Republicans have such a excellent reputation for being honest, moral, etc right? Well why dont you follow your own advice you partisans say to people that disagree with Bush. "If you dont like it you can get out"

Because "we" love this country. And "we" have kids to raise in this country. We want to make sure this country is better, and is run by better people when they get old enough to see whats really going on.
It's like buying your son a car when he is twelve. And either trashing it out or keeping it preserved for him until he is old enough to drive it.
"We" wish to preserve and restore this country and it's government. So the burden isn't left up to our kids.
And if you don't want to help fix the problems, if you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore it, then you are part of the problem. Not the solutions. This country needs solutions, and McCain, Obama or Hillary has the solutions.

 

[rathi]

I'd put Colin Powel as the guy. He was quite respected from both sides of the aisle. I'm not quite sure where he stood on a lot of issues, but if he spoke out against the bush administration and apologized for Iraq, he'd have a shot.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I'd put Colin Powel as the guy. He was quite respected from both sides of the aisle. I'm not quite sure where he stood on a lot of issues, but if he spoke out against the bush administration and apologized for Iraq, he'd have a shot.

That'd be a tall order, though, considering that he was Bush's main propagandist at the UN.

 

[hrdman2luv]

That'd be a tall order, though, considering that he was Bush's main propagandist at the UN.

Exactly, he was the one that used computer generate drawings as a means of proff that Iraq had WMD's. Surely he was more intelligent than to think that any drawing of any kid would be a good means to proff of any kind.

Though he may now, not be on Bush's side, he was there to help organize what is now know as an illegal invasion of a soverign country that never posed any threat to the USA.