[idjeff]

He sounds great on paper, but after listening to him a bit more...he's an idiot. He paints the world like black and white...and to him, white is white and black is black. He's a "Constitutionalist"...and to him the Constitution is the Bible. He doesn't understand the concept of politics--see white is white and black is black. Errrrggghhh! I don't like politicians, but at least they know how to play the game and can be flexible on issues!

He talks about the Constitution and doesn't give it any leeway. My goodness! This is all based on listening to him talk about the current issue in Pakistan which I listened to on Fox

This is a rant more than anything, but I urge you to research this guy

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by idjeff 

He sounds great on paper, but after listening to him a bit more...he's an idiot. He paints the world like black and white...and to him, white is white and black is black. He's a "Constitutionalist"...and to him the Constitution is the Bible. He doesn't understand the concept of politics--see white is white and black is black. Errrrggghhh! I don't like politicians, but at least they know how to play the game and can be flexible on issues!

He talks about the Constitution and doesn't give it any leeway. My goodness! This is all based on listening to him talk about the current issue in Pakistan which I listened to on Fox

This is a rant more than anything, but I urge you to research this guy

I've been kind of saying this same thing for some time. I watch him in debates and he's like a sniveling little angry kid. He's mustered quite a degree of support from the internet, but he's only going to draw a few votes from those that have a real shot at the Presidency. He may be a stickler for Scripture, but even evangelicals shy away from this guy. He's just not electable.

[subego]

He's a protest candidate.

What did he say about Pakistan? I would imagine it involves not giving them money, and butting out of their sitch.

Not my plan, but a thought provoking attitude nonetheless.

I'd be lying if I said the general thrust of his position (let people live the way they want) didn't appeal.

[goMac]

The biggest dislike of him is that he insist on the constitution being the way the founders originally intended it to be. Well gee Mr. Paul, didn't the founders purposely write the constitution in a way so that we can make it relevant to our current needs as a country? Wouldn't rolling this country back to what it was in 1790 be against the spirit of the constitution?

And for the record, I'm a Bush hating anti war person.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well gee Mr. Paul, didn't the founders purposely write the constitution in a way so that we can make it relevant to our current needs as a country?

You say it like it's patently obvious that this is what the founders did. It's not. This is pretty much the question when it comes to Constitutional law...

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well gee Mr. Paul, didn't the founders purposely write the constitution in a way so that we can make it relevant to our current needs as a country?

You mean, like an amendment?

[Shaddim]

People seem to forget that we really can alter the Constitution. It's probably the same people who don't understand Ron Paul.

He fancies that we stick closely to the Framers' intentions, but he never said we shouldn't legally change the document when need be.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

He's a protest candidate.

What did he say about Pakistan? I would imagine it involves not giving them money, and butting out of their sitch.

Not my plan, but a thought provoking attitude nonetheless.

I'd be lying if I said the general thrust of his position (let people live the way they want) didn't appeal.

I agree and appreciate his good arguments too, I just don't like them delivered in an argumentative way. People shut down. He seems so absorbed with his view that he's not concerned in the least about how people receive it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

People seem to forget that we really can alter the Constitution. It's probably the same people who don't understand Ron Paul.

He fancies that we stick closely to the Framers' intentions, but he never said we shouldn't legally change the document when need be.

Ron Paul seems far more interested with the intentions of the writers of the Articles of Confederation than the writers of the Constitution.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He seems so absorbed with his view that he's not concerned in the least about how people receive it.

He's certainly trying to carve the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" demographic for himself.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ron Paul seems far more interested with the intentions of the writers of the Articles of Confederation than the writers of the Constitution.

Expand, please.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

Expand, please.

Ron Paul claims that he wants to get rid of taxes, that he wants to downsize the federal government, and that he wants to give power to the states. And he's right, these things were outlined under the original constitution of the United States.

However, this is where Ron Paul conveniently leaves out some history. The U.S. soon afterwards started to fall apart. Without taxes, a strong federal government, and states that had too much power, the country simply couldn't get anything done and was near collapse. New York entered into talks with Britain to actually leave the Union and rejoin Britain.

In 1788 the original United States constitution was scrapped, and a new constitution was written from the ground up, and is still the constitution we use today. It's the same constitution we all learn in school. It added a stronger federal government and cut back on states rights, and it gave the federal government the ability to tax. The original US Constitution is referred to as the Articles of Confederation, while the current Constitution is just referred to as the U.S. Constitution.

I apologize if you already knew about all this, but it clarifies my point and will help when someone comes in the thread thinking I'm talking about the Confederate Constitution or something.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ron Paul claims that he wants to get rid of taxes, that he wants to downsize the federal government, and that he wants to give power to the states. And he's right, these things were outlined under the original constitution of the United States.

However, this is where Ron Paul conveniently leaves out some history. The U.S. soon afterwards started to fall apart. Without taxes, a strong federal government, and states that had too much power, the country simply couldn't get anything done and was near collapse. New York entered into talks with Britain to actually leave the Union and rejoin Britain.

In 1788 the original United States constitution was scrapped, and a new constitution was written from the ground up, and is still the constitution we use today. It's the same constitution we all learn in school. It added a stronger federal government and cut back on states rights, and it gave the federal government the ability to tax. The original US Constitution is referred to as the Articles of Confederation, while the current Constitution is just referred to as the U.S. Constitution.

I apologize if you already knew about all this, but it clarifies my point and will help when someone comes in the thread thinking I'm talking about the Confederate Constitution or something.

You'll never find me objecting to a refresher.

I think you are mistaken on Paul's positions however, at least in terms of what he's stated publicly.

He wants to get rid of the income tax, but AFAICT has never called for the total elimination of taxes.

So he does have a problem with the Constitution in that sense. He is on the record as wanting the 16th Amendment repealed. However your assertion that he wants to bust the Federal government down to pre-Constitution levels, just seems... off.

I've always gotten the sense that it's the 20th century expansions to the Federal government that are the bees in his bonnet, not the 18th century ones.

[OreoCookie]

I like Ron Paul for he is a fellow idealist and he sticks to his beliefs.
I don't share many of them, but I still admire him for his courage to stick up for them.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by subego 

You'll never find me objecting to a refresher.

I think you are mistaken on Paul's positions however, at least in terms of what he's stated publicly.

He wants to get rid of the income tax, but AFAICT has never called for the total elimination of taxes.

So he does have a problem with the Constitution in that sense. He is on the record as wanting the 16th Amendment repealed. However your assertion that he wants to bust the Federal government down to pre-Constitution levels, just seems... off.

I've always gotten the sense that it's the 20th century expansions to the Federal government that are the bees in his bonnet, not the 18th century ones.

That may be, but he's an isolationist as well...and well, In my opinion--seeing how the world has such a peaceful history--is a dumbass idea. This is the real reason i posted this thread. I understand the taxation of a nation, but i can't understand a nation not "interacting" with the rest of the world to make sure that that nation is secure. I wish it weren't this way, but the reality is that it is.

[subego]

Originally Posted by idjeff 

That may be, but he's an isolationist as well...and well, In my opinion--seeing how the world has such a peaceful history--is a dumbass idea.

I prefer the technical term 'wackydoodle'.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I like Ron Paul for he is a fellow idealist and he sticks to his beliefs.
I don't share many of them, but I still admire him for his courage to stick up for them.

I like him too! But the sad fact is that he lives in a fantasy world with great ideas that can't really be manifested unless you live in a more perfect world than what we live in...

[OreoCookie]

Matter of fact is, he is dead on with many subjects (e. g. I agree the CIA creates long-term problems by meddling with foreign governments, etc.), but I find him quite naïve when it comes to other subjects. Abolishing the federal income tax comes to mind: as far as I understand him, he doesn't mind if the states levy an income tax or limit other freedoms. I also think the belief that the American Constitution as it was originally written is untouchable and perfect to be misguided.

I don't think he lives in a fantasy world, though, he just stands for the wrong ideals at times.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

as far as I understand him, he doesn't mind if the states levy an income tax or limit other freedoms.

Well, there's mind, and there's following the rules (as one interprets them) properly.

I'm sure there are freedoms that certain states would limit which would bother him, but them's the rules, you suck it up. Likewise, there are freedoms he wishes every state would choose to limit, even though they wouldn't were it up to them.

[OreoCookie]

Exactly. He's that kind of guy. He fully accepts the Constitution as is and accepts possible drawbacks. In my book, it doesn't really matter if the income tax is federal or state or whether it's a federal or state law infringing upon my liberties. But honestly, I wouldn't mind him as a US President: he'd be a corrective for so many things that went wrong in recent years (Department of Homeland Security, etc.).

[besson3c]

An area in which I disagree with him on is the idea that capitalism would solve absolutely everything, and it is the solution to all that ails us.

However, after listening to him speak at Google (his YouTube video on the Google campus), I think he is more about trying to move us in the general direction of reducing the government, and that many of his ideas are more long term ideals than actionable "here is what I would do tomorrow if I were president" sorts of things. Because this government is slowly bankrupting us, because a Ron Paul presidency would be a good thing?

[Shaddim]

Well, I'm still voting for him in the primary, and for no other reason than the fact that all the others are buttplugs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, I'm still voting for him in the primary, and for no other reason than the fact that all the others are buttplugs.

Obama's a buttplug?

[nonhuman]

The thing I like about Ron Paul is that even if I don't agree with him on all the issues, I feel I can trust him to not overstep the Constitutional bounds placed on the executive branch. Sure he may believe one thing, or not like one other thing, but if the Constitution doesn't grant him, as president, the power to affect those things, I feel confident that he won't.

A president who minds the Constitutional restrictions placed on him is fairly harmless, and at this point I would vote for anyone who I thought would do so (even Hillary, Romney, or Nader [edit: not that I actually think any of those candidates would, but if I did I would vote for them despite serious ideological differences over someone I agreed with more but who I felt would take an expansionist view of the powers of the office of the president]).

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Obama's a buttplug?

Obama's not a candidate in the Republican primaries...

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Obama's not a candidate in the Republican primaries...

Who says you have to vote in the Republican primary.





Edit: to clarify, assuming one's primary metric is a candidate's buttplugnitude.

[art_director]

i wouldn't call him an idiot. in fact, i agree with him on several point regarding the federal government, spending, etc. that said, i couldn't vote for him for i disagree with more of his views than the other way around.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who says you have to vote in the Republican primary.





Edit: to clarify, assuming one's primary metric is a candidate's buttplugnitude.

Well, since Shaddim was talking about voting for Ron Paul in the primary, it's probably a pretty safe assumption that he was only talking about the Republican primary. It's possible he wasn't, but I don't imagine there's a whole lot of people who would characterize Obama as a 'buttplug'. Even if you don't agree with his politics (which I don't), it's hard to deny that he at least gives the appearance of integrity. Given the fact that the Democratic nomination is probably going to to go either Obama or Hillary, I would count myself among the Obama supporters even though I don't actually agree with him politically. Of course I'd still prefer Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich over him, but I seriously doubt that either of them is going to stand much of a chance.

I haven't yet decided which primary I'm going to vote in, but the only Republican candidate that I would consider voting for is Ron Paul. Maybe Tancredo, but probably not. On the Democrat side, I would vote for Gravel, Kucinich, or Obama (in that order) over any Republican candidate besides Ron Paul. Fortunately I've got some time to make that decision as there are a number of primaries before ours (Massachusetts'). I'm very eager to see how things turn out in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Jawbone54]

It's nice to see people rallying behind an underdog, but I get the sneaky suspicion that a very small percentage of Americans would actually feel comfortable electing Ron Paul as president if they were aware of all of his views.

One of my biggest problems with Ron Paul is that when I watch him, he doesn't come off as presidential, and I don't believe he would represent the United States very well. When I watch the way candidates carry themselves, I only see a few that actually appear adequately confident, intelligent, and stable.

Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Obama are the only ones that have that strong look to them, IMHO (and I have issues with all of them).

Watching Hillary while under pressure, I always get the feeling that she's about 5 seconds from imploding and embarrassing herself and the country. McCain gives me that same feeling; he has a lot of trapped anger that spills out from time to time.

Paul and Kucinich are both diminutive in stature and heavy on the psychosis. Fred Thompson seems incredibly out of place, and John Edwards is a shmoozer. Edwards probably creeps me out the most. I can just see him on of those "Have you been a victim of a car accident? Call me at 1-800-JUSTICE, and I'll make sure that you get what you deserve," commercials.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It's nice to see people rallying behind an underdog, but I get the sneaky suspicion that a very small percentage of Americans would actually feel comfortable electing Ron Paul as president if they were aware of all of his views.

One of my biggest problems with Ron Paul is that when I watch him, he doesn't come off as presidential, and I don't believe he would represent the United States very well. When I watch the way candidates carry themselves, I only see a few that actually appear adequately confident, intelligent, and stable.

Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Obama are the only ones that have that strong look to them, IMHO (and I have issues with all of them).

Watching Hillary while under pressure, I always get the feeling that she's about 5 seconds from imploding and embarrassing herself and the country. McCain gives me that same feeling; he has a lot of trapped anger that spills out from time to time.

Paul and Kucinich are both diminutive in stature and heavy on the psychosis. Fred Thompson seems incredibly out of place, and John Edwards is a shmoozer. Edwards probably creeps me out the most. I can just see him on of those "Have you been a victim of a car accident? Call me at 1-800-JUSTICE, and I'll make sure that you get what you deserve," commercials.

This is basically exactly how I feel. :/

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

... I don't believe he would represent the United States very well ...

with all due respect, after what we've had for the past seven years, a can of spam would do a better job of representing the american people.

mind you, this is not an endorsement of ron paul.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It's nice to see people rallying behind an underdog, but I get the sneaky suspicion that a very small percentage of Americans would actually feel comfortable electing Ron Paul as president if they were aware of all of his views.

One of my biggest problems with Ron Paul is that when I watch him, he doesn't come off as presidential, and I don't believe he would represent the United States very well. When I watch the way candidates carry themselves, I only see a few that actually appear adequately confident, intelligent, and stable.

Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Obama are the only ones that have that strong look to them, IMHO (and I have issues with all of them).

Watching Hillary while under pressure, I always get the feeling that she's about 5 seconds from imploding and embarrassing herself and the country. McCain gives me that same feeling; he has a lot of trapped anger that spills out from time to time.

Paul and Kucinich are both diminutive in stature and heavy on the psychosis. Fred Thompson seems incredibly out of place, and John Edwards is a shmoozer. Edwards probably creeps me out the most. I can just see him on of those "Have you been a victim of a car accident? Call me at 1-800-JUSTICE, and I'll make sure that you get what you deserve," commercials.

With all due respect Jawbone, I think these sort of wishy washy "this candidate makes me feel this way" emotional based arguments are exactly the wrong sorts of rationale we ought to be forming in justifying our decisions. Many people feel that we elected W because he seemed like a good guy to have a beer with. Look at how that turned out... Through acting lessons a politician can learn to convey all sorts of emotions, but this is purely manipulative and does serve our best interests.

[Jawbone54]

I understand where you're going, but it's not all about how they make me feel. I was just pointing out their presentation as a side issue.

My deepest problems are with all of the candidates' voting histories. Even Paul, who preaches small government until he's blue in the face, accepted absurd amounts of money being voted to his home district. Huckabee, as an apparent true conservative, would theoretically be a good candidate for someone like me to get behind, but I've been studying his views on immigration, and they're quite suspect (to say the least).

Romney is just as bad of a flip-flopper as John Kerry has been, and I don't trust him as far as I could throw him. He does and says what is politically expedient at the moment an issue is presented or a question is asked.

I don't believe Hillary or Obama have the experience necessary to be President. Hillary was elected senator in New York for what reason? Because she was Bill Clinton's wife. Had she ever held office until that point (I don't feel like looking it up)? Would someone elect Laura Bush to the Senate after W's term is up?

The point is not just that I don't like the aura that each of the candidates present. It's not even that all of the candidates have issues that I'm finding it difficult to get past.

The point is simply this: for many, many reasons, I don't trust any of them.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by art_director 

with all due respect, after what we've had for the past seven years, a can of spam would do a better job of representing the american people.

mind you, this is not an endorsement of ron paul.

And yet would we have, without a doubt, been better off with Gore or Kerry in office?

I've become incredibly cynical of anyone who wishes to hold a prominent public office. I think politics draws all of the wrong kinds of people: those who seek power and influence more than they seek civil service. I suppose that's where I'm going with all of this.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I understand where you're going, but it's not all about how they make me feel. I was just pointing out their presentation as a side issue.

My deepest problems are with all of the candidates' voting histories. Even Paul, who preaches small government until he's blue in the face, accepted absurd amounts of money being voted to his home district. Huckabee, as an apparent true conservative, would theoretically be a good candidate for someone like me to get behind, but I've been studying his views on immigration, and they're quite suspect (to say the least).

Romney is just as bad of a flip-flopper as John Kerry has been, and I don't trust him as far as I could throw him. He does and says what is politically expedient at the moment an issue is presented or a question is asked.

I don't believe Hillary or Obama have the experience necessary to be President. Hillary was elected senator in New York for what reason? Because she was Bill Clinton's wife. Had she ever held office until that point (I don't feel like looking it up)? Would someone elect Laura Bush to the Senate after W's term is up?

The point is not just that I don't like the aura that each of the candidates present. It's not even that all of the candidates have issues that I'm finding it difficult to get past.

The point is simply this: for many, many reasons, I don't trust any of them.

i think many americans feel the same way. we've been neglected and lied to for too long to believe any of the b.s.

as for obama, on the matter of experience, i consider that to be an asset. the rule and crap in d.c. haven't, i would think, taken over his judgement and decision making. not saying i'm going to vote for him but i don't consider staying out of the federal government fray as being a negative, really quite the opposite, in my view.

[art_director]

our federal government is run like crap. politicians do and say whatever will keep them in office. that goes for both sides of the aisle.

the bureaucrats, on the other hand, are paper-pushing monkeys incapable of creative problem solving. after all, when your job is protected by law what incentive do you have to excel / improve?

i'll give you a real example of government b.s. on the county level. i know someone who got an internship with a regulatory office. she is gung-ho to excel and get hired. so she goes out and does, what she considers to be, a great job. she fills her days doing inspections -- as many as she can complete while keeping the quality of her work to a high standard. a few months pass and people above her start complaining that she's doing too good a job. that's right, she's overachieving and they're pissed about it. they even went so far as to tell her she's making them all look bad by comparison. so she gets reprimanded, ridiculed and others, who didn't perform at such a high level, are promoted before her. repeatedly.

that, my fellow americans, is what you get for your tax dollars.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Romney is just as bad of a flip-flopper as John Kerry has been, and I don't trust him as far as I could throw him. He does and says what is politically expedient at the moment an issue is presented or a question is asked.

Could you substantiate this if I pressed you on this?

I don't believe Hillary or Obama have the experience necessary to be President. Hillary was elected senator in New York for what reason? Because she was Bill Clinton's wife. Had she ever held office until that point (I don't feel like looking it up)? Would someone elect Laura Bush to the Senate after W's term is up?

How about this?

The point is simply this: for many, many reasons, I don't trust any of them.

I understand what you are saying here, but I honestly think that it might be revealing to you to analyze these feelings enough to articulate them so that you can be confident in your own choice (or lack thereof). We all have these sorts of "x variable" feelings, but I don't think that it is generally not a good idea to vote based on our random emotional instincts.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Could you substantiate this if I pressed you on this?

While running for governor of the liberal state of Massachusetts Romney was pro-abortion. Now that he needs the vote of conservative Republicans to get the nomination he's anti-abortion.

I really, really don't understand why people like Romney so much. Sure he's a smooth talker, he looks good on camera, and he has charisma. But his voting history and his record as governor show his true colors. His positions are governed by political expediency, not principles.

Just look at record on health care! In one of the Republican debates he bragged about how he 'solved' the health care crisis in Massachusetts by getting everyone covered without having to raise taxes! What a joke! His 'solution' was to make it illegal not to have health care! Now, starting in January, I'll be subject to fines just because I don't have health insurance. He's trying to have the best of both worlds, and he has the audacity to brag about this?

[Shaddim]

I have to agree there, I'd vote for Obama before Romney. Personally, I view him as the least trustworthy of the major candidates, right behind Hillary.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I understand what you are saying here, but I honestly think that it might be revealing to you to analyze these feelings enough to articulate them so that you can be confident in your own choice (or lack thereof). We all have these sorts of "x variable" feelings, but I don't think that it is generally not a good idea to vote based on our random emotional instincts.

But these random emotional instincts happen to be the perception of many. If the perception of Ron Paul is that he is a groveling little angy kid who's more absorbed with his message than in delivering it, and Romney's a flip-flopper, and Hillary and McCain are about to blow their top; this means this is the reality of the given candidates. This is how they'll be perceived by the majority of the nation and the world.

Not unlike being an employer and looking at potential candidates. It's not enough that the person was an MIT graduate with gold-key honors, if they're impossible to work with and you can't trust them to represent well in meetings, etc... than they'll likely not get the job. They are not a good fit.

I would always advise that one be educated on the background of all the candidates, but at the end of the day they do need to seem "presidential" and a good fit. They have to embody the "nuance" and gravitase of the position as well as the credentials. I'd say most if not all the candidates are qualified to be President, it's just that too many of them are not a good fit. The random emotional instincts play at the polls.

[RAILhead]

If Huckabee would adopt Duncan Hunter's (he's my man man, but he's not electable) immigration stance, I'd be behind him 99% rather than 95%. All the Dems are just too socialist and Big Govt for me to want to have anything to do with them. Big B dips in my pocket enough -- I don't want him back there taking money and dispersing it on things I can contribute to on my own free will.

[RAILhead]

And FYI, Tancredo's not in the race any longer.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But these random emotional instincts happen to be the perception of many. If the perception of Ron Paul is that he is a groveling little angy kid who's more absorbed with his message than in delivering it, and Romney's a flip-flopper, and Hillary and McCain are about to blow their top; this means this is the reality of the given candidates. This is how they'll be perceived by the majority of the nation and the world.

Not unlike being an employer and looking at potential candidates. It's not enough that the person was an MIT graduate with gold-key honors, if they're impossible to work with and you can't trust them to represent well in meetings, etc... than they'll likely not get the job. They are not a good fit.

I would always advise that one be educated on the background of all the candidates, but at the end of the day they do need to seem "presidential" and a good fit. They have to embody the "nuance" and gravitase of the position as well as the credentials. I'd say most if not all the candidates are qualified to be President, it's just that too many of them are not a good fit. The random emotional instincts play at the polls.

an interesting take.

your ron paul theory is not one i've heard before.

with mccain you nailed it, he is a hot head. clinton, by comparison, is not nor is she perceive to be by most. where i live people simply think she a self serving power monger riding on bill's coat tails.

i think the flip-flop characterizations will fall to the wayside. fact is every candidate -- regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on, have "flip-flopped."

while the suggestions about what makes for a good fit is interesting, and largely true, it does not seem to have held true when americans went to the polls in 2000 or in 2004. for if we had, the village idiot would never have set foot in the white house. fortunately, i believe, many americans will take greater pains to research their vote in 2008.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by art_director 

i think the flip-flop characterizations will fall to the wayside. fact is every candidate -- regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on, have "flip-flopped."

Sad, but true.

I don't foresee a future in which a solid, uncompromising person will sit in the White House. For a person to rise through the ranks unblemished seems absolutely impossible due to the fact that people in power will only help elect those who help them, often under the table. "Adjusting" an opinion depending on which direction the political winds are blowing is something that every candidate felt they had to do at one point or another.

The question is why they're doing it. Are they switching positions because it is the only way to make sure they're able to push for the values and goals they believe in, or are they switching positions in order to selfishly maintain their power, putting on a mask out of blind ambition?

while the suggestions about what makes for a good fit is interesting, and largely true, it does not seem to have held true when americans went to the polls in 2000 or in 2004. for if we had, the village idiot would never have set foot in the white house. fortunately, i believe, many americans will take greater pains to research their vote in 2008.

Remember: Gore was viewed as emotionless and mundane. Kerry was awkward and gangly. Bush at least seemed solid and confident.

I don't think that was the deciding factor in any sensible voter's choice, but you have to wonder how much of that plays into someone's subconscious while examining candidates.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I don't foresee a future in which a solid, uncompromising person will sit in the White House. For a person to rise through the ranks unblemished seems absolutely impossible due to the fact that people in power will only help elect those who help them, often under the table. "Adjusting" an opinion depending on which direction the political winds are blowing is something that every candidate felt they had to do at one point or another.

i think it's also fair to say that, as we age, our positions and experiences shape and change our views on certain subjects. it's entirely reasonable for some change. but, to your point, power corrupts.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Why is it bad for your position to be flexible to changes in the will of the people? Isn't the whole point of democracy to give the people what they want out of government? If what they want today is different from what they wanted 4 years ago, why shouldn't they get it? What's so much better about "stay the course no matter what happens?"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But these random emotional instincts happen to be the perception of many. If the perception of Ron Paul is that he is a groveling little angy kid who's more absorbed with his message than in delivering it, and Romney's a flip-flopper, and Hillary and McCain are about to blow their top; this means this is the reality of the given candidates. This is how they'll be perceived by the majority of the nation and the world.

Not unlike being an employer and looking at potential candidates. It's not enough that the person was an MIT graduate with gold-key honors, if they're impossible to work with and you can't trust them to represent well in meetings, etc... than they'll likely not get the job. They are not a good fit.

I would always advise that one be educated on the background of all the candidates, but at the end of the day they do need to seem "presidential" and a good fit. They have to embody the "nuance" and gravitase of the position as well as the credentials. I'd say most if not all the candidates are qualified to be President, it's just that too many of them are not a good fit. The random emotional instincts play at the polls.

So if it feels like a candidate is a certain way and other people feel the same way, the candidate must be this way? How Stephen Colberish...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I can't read about Mike Huckabee without replaying his congratulations to Canada. Ahhh Rick Mercer, you so funny.

greg

[art_director]

again, ron paul is not an idiot. crazy, perhaps. idiot, no.

[OreoCookie]

@Jawbone
You already have an uncompromising, non-flip-flopping president: he'll be among the worst in US history because of that. On the other hand, GWB was re-elected on a stay-on-course ticket.

Ron Paul is not so different in that respect. However, his ideals are less dangerous and (literally) more in line with what the US Constitution allows.