Patterico's Pontifications

1/3/2008

Who’s Your Candidate?

Filed under: 2008 Election — Patterico @ 5:25 pm



If you were voting for President today, for whom would you vote?

Feel free (but not obligated) to explain why.

63 Responses to “Who’s Your Candidate?”

  1. Fred Thompson, his political positions are closer to mine than is Romney or Huckabee. I appreciate his temperament better than McCain’s. I don’t trust Romney or Giuliani on second amendment issues and I think that Thompson is closer to my position on that. Huckabee reminds me of a GOP version of Jimmy Carter in terms of rootless self-righteousness – and that is dangerous.

    SPQR (26be8b) — 1/3/2008 @ 5:32 pm

  2. Dodd. Right on Iraq; right on telecom immunity.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (ba0bdd) — 1/3/2008 @ 5:34 pm

  3. I’m with Fred.

    DRJ (29b04b) — 1/3/2008 @ 5:35 pm

  4. Fred.

    no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/3/2008 @ 5:41 pm

  5. Fred.

    No one else with a ghost of chance is even remotely close on the single issue I care about: Defense, both personal and national.

    He’s also got it right on limiting the reach of the government.

    A vote for anyone else is a vote for letting someone who’s power-crazy enough to be a professional politician tell you how to run your life.

    djmoore (226886) — 1/3/2008 @ 5:41 pm

  6. Fred. No one else even close.

    Old Coot (2f9910) — 1/3/2008 @ 5:52 pm

  7. Fred

    Pragmatic. Conservative enough to carry the base and moderate enough to draw in the general. Has a habit of being underestimated.

    TKelso (406b16) — 1/3/2008 @ 5:55 pm

  8. Fred.

    JRM (355c21) — 1/3/2008 @ 5:57 pm

  9. Fred!

    But he is too sane to be President.

    Brian Day (28429e) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:01 pm

  10. Obama. I’m voting in the Democratic primary, and I think that (a) Hillary is only a candidate because she is the wife of a former president, a kind of dynastic politics which troubles me; (b) she is likely to continue the concentration of executive power, which I want reversed; (c) she is trying to have it both ways on Iraq, both saying we should leave now (when leaving would probably make things worse) and that it was right to go in. I *really* don’t want her to be president, and so I want to vote for whichever Democrat is tthe most likely to defeat her.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:13 pm

  11. Rudy. More personal force and intellectual firepower than anyone else on either side by far. Solid on security, taxes and judges. A cultural conservative if not a “movement” conservative. A history of real accomplishment.

    Mahon (3f988f) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:16 pm

  12. Fred?

    Xrlq (b65a72) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:19 pm

  13. Fred!

    In California, I just realized that the Republican Party did not submit the papers to allow the “deny-to-state” voters to vote in the Republican primary. I had to go to the county election registrar’s office to change my party affiliation from “deny to state” to Republican, just so I can vote for Fred in February. I convinced the wife to do the same thing. I really hope he’ll still be in the running by then.

    CJ (3b353a) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:19 pm

  14. Fred.
    If not Fred, Mitt.
    If not Mitt, Rudy.
    If not Rudy, Huck.
    If not Huck, Paul.
    If not Paul, Obama.
    If not Obama, Clinton.
    If not Clinton, Edwards.
    If not Edwards, shoot me.
    If suicide is not available, McCain.

    Josh (a6acf8) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:23 pm

  15. CJ: that seems to be a deliberate decision by the California Republican Party. In my view, it’s one of the reasons the Republicans are having trouble putting together a majority coalition in California … but the party leadership thinks i’m wrong on that score, and that not letting DTS voters participate in their primary will strengthen the Republican party’s message, thereby convincing more people to vote for them.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:24 pm

  16. Duncan Hunter would be my ideal candidate, now that Tom Tancredo is out of the race. Of the electable candidates, my choice is Fred Thompson.

    If the election were held today and McCain, Giuliani, or Huckabee got the nomination, I’d stay home. I wouldn’t vote for any of them, even at gunpoint.

    Alan (ff9ab2) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:29 pm

  17. Yabba-dabba-doo.

    Er, I mean, Fred.

    McGehee (25adee) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:35 pm

  18. Now that Hunter appears to be out, Fred is the last conservative we have left. If he doesn’t make it through the primaries, it really doesn’t matter who wins. The rest are pretty much all the same on both sides, though they talk differently.

    Kevin (4890ef) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:45 pm

  19. I was backing Fred long before he decided to run…..

    gahrie (5ae14f) — 1/3/2008 @ 6:47 pm

  20. There is only one candidate besides Ron Paul who doesn’t bullshit. And since Ron Paul is insane…

    Fred of course. Romney, Huckabee, Obama, it doesn’t matter – none of the candidates except Paul and Fred treat the American people like adults. And Paul is insane.

    chaos (9c54c6) — 1/3/2008 @ 7:06 pm

  21. I’m with Fred.

    In four years, Hunter…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/3/2008 @ 7:10 pm

  22. Fred! See Beldar’s blog for great rationale. Thompson is a straight shooter. Bet he does better than the pundits think; tonight was encouraging! BTW, Pat, this is a KICK ASS blog!

    chuck ellington

    chuck (0671c4) — 1/3/2008 @ 7:22 pm

  23. WOW.

    Obama, then Richardson.

    Leviticus (e1e9bb) — 1/3/2008 @ 7:32 pm

  24. ron paul. the way we’re doing it now isn’t working. ron paul is the only candidate who gives straight answers (except maybe dennis kucinich among the demos, and he’s nuts). i don’t agree with everything he says, but i agree with a lot of it.

    assistant devil's advocate (317b32) — 1/3/2008 @ 7:40 pm

  25. Fred.

    PeterW (d63e2b) — 1/3/2008 @ 8:43 pm

  26. Rudy/Fred. Mitt in a pinch. McCain only if it’s him or Hillary. Huckabee only if I can to move to France. (Mmmmm….Sarko!)

    Dodd. Right on Iraq; right on telecom immunity.

    Oh, .02% has to sting a little. Buh bye, Chris.

    Pablo (99243e) — 1/3/2008 @ 8:53 pm

  27. Rudy

    driver (faae10) — 1/3/2008 @ 8:54 pm

  28. Tyra Banks.

    David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/3/2008 @ 8:55 pm

  29. David Ehrenstein.

    chaos (9c54c6) — 1/3/2008 @ 8:56 pm

  30. Tyra Banks.

    At long last, David’s on to something…

    qdpsteve (cd214a) — 1/3/2008 @ 9:19 pm

  31. Huckabee, just because FUCK YOU.

    (actually Fred, but he has no cash and is going to get blown out on Super Tuesday).

    The Angry Clam (08ca95) — 1/3/2008 @ 9:31 pm

  32. Andrew J Lazarus – Too bad your guy got practically no votes, and dropped out of the primaries tonight. Good to know that you support someone that supports the Klan, by the way.

    I think, ideally, I would like to see someone like Mike Pence, or John Kacic running with Fred.

    JD (bad43f) — 1/3/2008 @ 9:34 pm

  33. (actually Fred, but he has no cash and is going to get blown out on Super Tuesday).

    Is this the same way John Kerry had no cash and his campaign was doomed?

    chaos (9c54c6) — 1/3/2008 @ 9:37 pm

  34. Fred. the rest of the GOP are RINO’s, except RP, who needs to be more effectively medicated.

    the Democratic candidates don’t bear consideration, except as bad examples.

    redc1c4 (39c24a) — 1/3/2008 @ 9:43 pm

  35. I’m with gahrie on this.
    Put a “Tommy Gun” pin on my hat 6 months ago.

    Josh, that’s a great descent into Hell!

    Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/3/2008 @ 9:57 pm

  36. Good to know that you support someone that supports the Klan, by the way.

    How is it that Dodd gets away with that, but Lott gets slammed over Strom Thurmond? Other than Lott’s leadership position, I don’t see the difference.

    Patterico (2df5f7) — 1/3/2008 @ 10:02 pm

  37. I can’t vote. I’m Canadian so take this as an opinion of no great value. If I had the vote: McCain for the same reasons pretty much everyone else talks about, foreign policy experience and correct understanding of the situation in Iraq, more so than the Bush administration or previous defense secretary did.

    If not him, Thompson for similar reasons (although I’m sure McCain has a much better grasp of the details and military strategy, both get the necessity), plus he’s not a McCain style ninny on “man-made global warming”… when it’s really Sun made and will reverse itself, if it hasn’t already.

    Then Giuliani for the war on terror, military strength, and law and order issues, and not much else.

    Finally, Mitt Romney for overall managerial and executive competence, plus the chops and self-discipline to keep up with and learn about the issues, foreign and domestic, that he’s demonstrated. I’d rate him higher if I considered him particularly honest or genuine, which I don’t.

    Duncan Hunter fifth.

    That’s the last of the Republicans I could support. After that, would have to start looking at the Democrats: Obama, Clinton, Edwards, in that order… but would have rated Dodd ahead of them if he wasn’t woefully unpopular and hadn’t already dropped out.

    Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/3/2008 @ 10:08 pm

  38. Well, Patterico, I think we’ve shown your blog readership trends highly Fred.

    Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/3/2008 @ 10:12 pm

  39. Not surprising. I think most conservative blog readers do.

    Too bad we don’t get to choose.

    Patterico (2df5f7) — 1/3/2008 @ 10:14 pm

  40. How is it that Dodd gets away with that, but Lott gets slammed over Strom Thurmond? Other than Lott’s leadership position, I don’t see the difference.

    Were there ever a greater example of the difference in standards that the media employs when dealing with R’s and D’s, comparing the treatment of Dodd and Lott is a high definition example of their asshatteryishness.

    JD (bad43f) — 1/3/2008 @ 10:16 pm

  41. Fred!

    h2u (57b696) — 1/3/2008 @ 10:16 pm

  42. Rudy, McCain and Obama in that order.

    Any other GOP candidates have no respect for moderate voices only name calling such as CINO or RINO.
    I’ll go for Obama to move the GOP more to the center if that is what it takes.

    voiceofreason (fb914e) — 1/3/2008 @ 10:19 pm

  43. Any other GOP candidates have no respect for moderate voices only name calling

    Please, give examples of Sen. Thompson name calling, or not having respect for others.

    JD (bad43f) — 1/3/2008 @ 10:23 pm

  44. JD,
    I’m referring to the self professed conservatives stuck on singular issues who demand only a conservative is viable. The problem with that view is that there are many “singular” issues. I can’t really point an instance where Thompson called someone a name, but the instances of his supporters doing this are in the thousands. Fred doesn’t discourage this.

    To disagree with the base is to be characterized as a traitor or CINO/RINO. McCain and Guiliani are trashed by many in the “conservative” wing as sell outs.

    It is not a unified party and the conservative candidates are doing little to unify it.

    voiceofreason (fb914e) — 1/3/2008 @ 10:30 pm

  45. I’m not interested in revenge on people who are not for my candidate. I favor Rudy Giuliani because of his many virtues and because of the virulence of his enemies…but I am not going to nyah-nyah and say if X gets it instead I stay home.

    In fact there are GOP candidates that make me gag. There are others I think are simply less good. But it would be the long road that would lead me to vote for a Clinton over even a Huckabee.

    However the Dems, in Iowa at least, want to remove that crawl-over-broken-glass factor. I don’t detest Obama (as maybe I should?) as I despise the Clinton duo. Enough sensible talk from him and who knows? He is a fresh face, a blank slate. And everybody wants to give the brother a chance, of course.

    I will deviate here – Ron Paul is not a Republican so I have no 11th Commandment violation in slagging that Nazi-lover. I would not vote if Paul were the GOP candidate. I could not of course vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Perhaps I would vote for Edwards or Obama in protest. But that is empty talk because Paul will never never get it.

    Back to reality – any of the other GOP candidates are probably better than any Dem, except maybe Huckabee. I just don’t think so. I’m afraid that would be very tough. He might or might not be better than Obama. He might or might not be essentially identical to Edwards. But I don’t hate on him.

    I do wish the people who ignore Giuliani, or who seem to despise him, could explain their positions better. I also hope they will not commit themselves as he WILL, in my opinion, be the candidate.

    Granting that all his positions (e.g. 2nd Amendment) are not entirely to my satisfaction, and need to be managed through the usual checks and balances, I think he’s got the best brain in the race, and is also a straight shooter – people calling him a waffler or plastic pol confuse me.

    They must have been out of the room when he told PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to go f&*k themselves. Not to mention the Sharptons, Jacksons and Butts of the racialist underworld. Oh and yeah the Mafia, I forgot them.

    If you want a guy who will fight the congressional Dems tooth and nail, not seek to kiss up to them, Rudy’s your guy. He is a fighter in a way I have seen from none other. Even McCain, who has his record to look back on, loves good press too much. Rudy will kick them in the teeth and like it.

    Personally, if I had to name one regret over Pres. Bush it is that he has tried to hard to conciliate those who will not be conciliated. Rudy will kick all their asses.

    Oh and electability does count. The ‘scandals’ are nothing, and have been aired out. No surprises except for the uniformed.

    Rudy will also help unify as he has been out of the recent hostility. Fewer bridges burnt.

    nichevo (1510ce) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:00 pm

  46. Where did Dodd tell Byrd that “If we just followed the view you held sixty years ago, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today”?

    Lott showed admiration for Thurmond’s (former?) segregationist beliefs. Dodd has done nothing comparable (and you know it, too).

    Andrew J. Lazarus (ba0bdd) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:13 pm

  47. nichevo,

    I liked your comment because it makes me feel less stupid to say what I’m about to say. I’ve always seen Giuliani as the one guy who might have a chance at beating whatever Democrat is thrown at the country. I don’t know why. It’s just a gut thing. I can visualize it.

    The polls sure aren’t bearing me out.

    I just think, anyone else, we definitely lose. But I can see people going for him. Am I crazy?

    And — I think he’d do great on judges. I don’t really much care about his softness on social issues, apart from that.

    Patterico (2df5f7) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:15 pm

  48. Where did Dodd tell Byrd that “If we just followed the view you held sixty years ago, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today”?

    Gee, I dunno, Andy. Where did Lott tell Thurmond that?

    If you’re gonna use quotation marks, pal, then get the quote right.

    Dodd’s comment was very similar — AND YOU KNOW IT!!!1!!

    Patterico (2df5f7) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:17 pm

  49. Patterico #47,

    At this point, it doesn’t hurt either party to have 2-3 viable candidates and legitimate competition in ideas. As long as the issues aren’t overly divisive, such as during the era of Vietnam and civil rights, having several appealing candidates helps get people interested in the process.

    DRJ (29b04b) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:26 pm

  50. “At this point, it doesn’t hurt either party to have 2-3 viable candidates and legitimate competition in ideas. As long as the issues aren’t overly divisive, such as during the era of Vietnam and civil rights, having several appealing candidates helps get people interested in the process.”

    The Democrats will soon have two viable candidates, and my guess will coalesce around a frontrunner (Obama) far sooner than the Republicans do.

    In the meantime, the Reps. have 5-viable candidates, and they’ll be dueling it out, bringing down each other’s negatives, while the “hope” candidate leads a movement. I wouldn’t be so friggin’ honey-coated optimistically sweet about it.

    In your Iowa analysis, you missed the part about the Democrats bringing out 100,000 more caucus-goers than the Republicans did in a 50/50 state. This groundswell of energy is very troubling news for the G.O.P.

    Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:37 pm

  51. “I wouldn’t be so friggin’ honey-coated optimistically sweet about it.”

    No, you wouldn’t. You would be a dick.

    Patterico (2df5f7) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:39 pm

  52. Fred Dalton Thompson (kinda sounds like an old west sheriff and by golly we need a new one to fix the immigration border problem…the only one out of either party I trust!)

    Prchrmn2 (0ac8b5) — 1/3/2008 @ 11:58 pm

  53. nichevo (#45), i take pleasure in reminding you that the candidate you just defamed as a “nazi lover” just outpolled your guy 3-1.

    assistant devil's advocate (317b32) — 1/4/2008 @ 1:00 am

  54. Bloomberg as a screw you to both parties. I’d take Tyra as VP

    Dr T (69c4b2) — 1/4/2008 @ 5:37 am

  55. Rudy, Fred, Mitt, in that order.

    Attila (Pillage Idiot) (96a8a6) — 1/4/2008 @ 6:55 am

  56. At this point, Fred Thompson, but narrowly over Romney.

    James Kidder (55cb81) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:23 am

  57. I prefer to think of the Republican party not as dis-unified, but as more inclusive.

    You can take all of the Democrats and stir them in a vat and pull one out and they’d all be the same: nanny-staters, tax-and-spend, restrict our freedoms, cede the free world to extremists, enlarge the governmnent, and restrict educational choices.

    While on the R side, you’ve got all kinds of different visions, from the loony, almost anarchic views of Ron Paul, to the near-liberalism of Huckabee. Put simply, Republicans aren’t dis-unified, they are all-inclusive, and it just remains to be seen which of them can pull together the best coalition.

    I prefer the choices I have as a Republican (a nice mix) to the choices I’d have as a Democrat (they all pretty much believe the same thing).

    Oh, and by the way…

    FRED.

    otcconan (13ad0e) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:42 am

  58. Hunter

    He has been a long term national security advocate. He has supported the Border Patrol and was Chairman of the Armed Services comity for years. Strong Second Amendment advocate and conservative but not rabidly so.

    His biggest negatives are that he doesn’t have much money to spend and the MSM won’t even interview him. Also, the “debates” are nothing but MSM sponsored endorsements of their favorite candidates.

    Fred would be my second choice for reasons others have already stated above. The rest of the candidates are none starters from my perspective.

    I would like to see a strict constitutionalist who was not crazy. Someone with tendency towards taking national security seriously, and having at least a nodding acquaintance with the idea of “say what you mean and mean what you say”. I would even vote for a liberal Democrat if he would actually state his position and stick to it. As it is, the Democrats change positions within the same paragraph. The Republicans are either RINO’s or just plain unelectable. And only Hunter and Thompson have any concept of plain spoken, straight to the point positions that don’t change with the wind.

    Darn shame, that.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:55 am

  59. After Thurmond spoke [in 1980], Lott told the group: “You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago [1948], we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.“

    More recently (same link)

    “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.”

    And Dodd said what comparable, exactly, wishing that the country had adopted Byrd’s policies of his youthful Klan years?

    Andrew J. Lazarus (ba0bdd) — 1/4/2008 @ 11:06 am

  60. Here’s Sen. Chris Dodd fawning over Kleagle Robert Byrd:

    SEN. CHRIS DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: Robert C. Byrd in my view, Mr. President, would have been right at anytime. You would have been right at the founding of this country. You would have been in the leadership of crafting this Constitution. You would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.

    Dodd’s comment that KKK member Byrd “would have been right” during the Civil War was a particularly nice touch, I think.

    Shad (4e11e3) — 1/4/2008 @ 5:39 pm

  61. Fred – Who else shows the real true conservative values this country needs to return too. We seem to be falling over ourselves to be over inclusive and seem to be including our enemies in trying to make a perfect so called world in which all agree and all is peaceful. Well Fred has the message that I like. He says wake up before it’s to late. Yes!! Fred is our man.

    Bill Duffy (1a3011) — 1/5/2008 @ 1:06 pm

  62. Chris Dodd: Senator from Managua!

    Never saw a Latin Leftist he didn’t want to crawl into bed with.

    Another Drew (a28ef4) — 1/5/2008 @ 1:44 pm

  63. Maybe that’s why he speaks Spanish so well.

    Leviticus (99ebe9) — 1/5/2008 @ 3:36 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1283 secs.