Questions for Debate: Which Republican candidate are you voting for in the primary? Why? Who would you definitely not vote for?

I'm going to start at the back. Who would you definitely not vote for? I don't like Mitt Romney because the man is a liar. Being the son of a politician, I admit that I questioned his honesty from the start. But that wasn't enough to make me not consider voting for him. Then we had the flip-flops on social issues like abortion. A warning sign for sure when you pull a 180 on an issue, but you can say the same thing about a lot of candidates. Then the Nov 28 debate came. and my suspicions were confirmed. No one called him on it (amazingly), but this is an outright lie. The 2006 Massachusetts Health Care Law that Romney signed cost $1.3 billion over 3 years and employers who don't provide insurance have to pay an annual fee of $295 per employee. Furthermore, if you choose not to get health care insurance, you have to pay $219. How is this not an expansion of government or increase in taxes? Nevermind that the law is just the type of bureaucratic nonsense that I despise. I can't vote for Romney, or Clinton for that matter, because I'd really have no idea what I'm voting for. Who knows what either of them is actually going to do once in office? What message would voting for them send to the establishment - 'Political double-speak works. Please continue to pee down my back and then tell me it's raining.'? No thank you.

Who would you definitely not vote for? I can't vote for Rudy Giuliani because he is a big spender and he doles out taxpayer money to his friends, . First let me say that I actually like the guy. On crime he is probably the best candidate out there. Crime isn't a major concern to me these days as it is at 25 year lows. Spending is a concern as it is at historic highs and Giuliani's record doesn't cut it. He increased New York's debt by 50% and left his successor with a $4.5 billion deficit. And Giuliani's poor record on spending might not be that bad if it weren't for the fact that he wastes tax dollars on his friends. This could be because Giuliani also likely is taking dirty money. Payments in interest on the National Debt increase 13%+ last year and were greater than federal spending on Education, Transportation, and Veteran's benefits combined. This is a major reason for the decline in the dollar versus other currencies. Can we really afford to have another big spender in the White House? Especially one so prone to handing out favors? I just can't vote for that.

Which Republican candidate are you voting for? I'd consider voting for Thompson, Paul, and even tax hike Mike. But as of right now, I'm voting for John McCain. Why? Spending. John McCain is a proven budget hawk for one. He voted yes to the balanced budget amendment numerous times, voted yes to cut the budget $40 billion in 2005, and he wanted to move the current Social Security surplus off budget. People have heard of the $26 billion that he saved with the Boeing tankers contract, but I don't think people realize that it took him 3 years of hard work to do it. That is service to the US taxpayer and shows character. Character still counts for something to me. If you haven't heard of his five and half years as POW in Vietnam and his refusal to be released until those who had been there longer were released first you can read it here. That isn't a reason alone but it points to the man's integrity and honesty. Plus, the man polls better than any other candidate in a head to head vs HRC. I know all of the knocks on McCain; path to citizenship for illegals, campaign finance, gang of 12. He's committed to securing the boarder first now, not because he doesn't believe that we should do something with the 12 million people here, but because he knows that it is what the American people want. On campaign finance reform I agree with him. I think there is too much money in politics. If you don't agree, I ask you to let it go. The law has no teeth and if McCain is President, he can't write a new one. As for the gang of 12, look at the result. All of Bush's judges were confirmed. What did he give up? A questionable way to ending a filibuster and new precedent set that would squash the minority (which the Republicans are now, so good move John). It seems to me that his 'problem' is that he compromises with the other side too much. You have to realize that he does this to get things done. John McCain is a problem solver. And we have a lot of problems that need to be solved, from $100/barrell oil to the falling US dollar to the pending collapse of Social Security.

If you listen to John McCain, you hear a candid individual who just calls them like he sees them and does what he thinks is best. We had a few other Presidents with those qualities. Harry Truman and Teddy Roosevelt. Oddly enough, neither one of those Presidents was elected by the people when they first took office as President. Maybe we just aren't a country that will elect those types of people.

QUOTE

Questions for Debate: Which Republican candidate are you voting for in the primary? Why?

I'm shopping, honestly. I don't see a clear winner that I can just up and rally behind.

I was really into Thompson, but then he's such a tortoise when it comes to campaigning. He jumped in late, with much fanfare which quickly diminished after little substance was provided afterwards.

I do like Duncan Hunter. But I'm going to have to brush up on my candidates. I'm just not seeing enough of any of them.

QUOTE

Who would you definitely not vote for?

Rudy Nine Eleven, of course. The guy is a total RINO with the exception of his staunch support of the war. He tries to pull off the New Yawk version of Conservatism. With his ban of guns in NYC, I think he's out of touch with the Conservative base.

Ron Paul is kind of a kook. He has it right with the Constitution, and I agree with him on some points, but the whole "I'd get rid of the drug war" and "I'd support legal prostitution" bit is a little over the top for my taste. It's Libertarian disguised as Conservatism. Conservatives, by nature, don't like a whole lot of change, and I guess I fall under that. I do give his supporters credit for getting his name out there, though. He promised he wouldn't run on a third ticket, so I'm going to see if he's telling the truth, or if he's a real politician.

"Tax Hike Mike" - ha! Good one, Just leave me alone.

And I agree with you 100% on Romney. He IS a liar!! After claiming to be a lifelong NRA member, he admitted to having joined only last summer. The former governor had a similar gaffe recently when he told a voter in New Hampshire he had been hunting his whole life — before campaign aides conceded he had actually only been twice. The campaign did say, however, the governor had been hunting rabbits and squirrels for years. And then he voted for the Brady Bill. I wondered if he voted for the Brady Bill his whole life too, or just after it was written.

Sorry Romney. My 2nd Amendment Rights aren't up for discussion. Thank you, and I bid you, "good day".

I will bite on your epilogue dealing with McCain, however...

Well, if you want to listen to McCain, you better not sit in on the Senate floor. He is the most absent voter when it comes to the Senate.

Unless you count the Democrat who had a brain hemorrhage.

No, the other one.

No, the other other one.

But that's not really my mistrust of the guy. Yeah, he has a lot of good things going for him, like you noted, Just leave me alone. But when you have a guy who is more interested in sticking to HIS guns instead of being a representative of the people who voted for him, you tend to get a yukky throw-up taste in your mouth shortly after the election. Because instead of actually representing YOU, he's out there proving a point to his supporters and critics alike.

I didn't vote for McCain to be a rogue, free thinker. I voted for him to stand for Conservative principles, and the result Arizona faces is a guy who is all over the place on any given issue.

He is, however, the only candidate with an "A" rating with the NRA. I like that. He opposed a lot of stupid laws. If that's his NEW kind of "rogue", I'll take it.

The NYTimes website has video and transcript of all of the debates here. I find it useful. MTV and Myspace interviewed a lot of candidates. Here is McCain's and you should be able to find the others from there.

We seem to see eye to eye on at least 2 of the candidates though. I would actually probably vote for Paul if McCain finishes 3rd in NH just to make it clear to the powers that be there are a lot of people who hate big government.


Fair enough. McCain is running for President though. Tancredo has missed the most votes in the House and Kerry missed the most in the 108th.

You're the one from AZ so you probably know more about it that I do. I can see where he might be a frustrating representative. McCain probably doesn't bring home a lot of pork because it would look pretty hypocritical on his part. I don't know if I'd say that he is looking out for HIS interests over the AZ voters though. Definitely what he thinks that the national interests are over AZ interests.

Lets hope the new 'rogue' sticks around because a lot of the alternatives are not pretty. Especially Hillary. This is pretty important one we have coming up.

You made some good points, Just Leave Me Alone.

I think you're right on that. Which is why I think McCain was wrong. He should have been looking out for Arizona's interests more than the National interests, considering his position. I don't think most of our Congresscritters understand their jobs are about representing their constituents, not becoming the King of the State after the election. But that's a completely other topic, and I don't want to threadjack.

McCain defends his non-voting record by stating that his one vote wouldn't count anyway. That's not the tune I heard when HE was campaigning!

Boy, that'd scare the pants off the regular GOP folks, wouldn't it?

I personally like the shakeup. I was a big fan of Alan Keyes in 2000 - and this is where we may lose similar opinions, but I thought he was articulate, intelligent and an incredible public speaker. Unfortunately, he was black and he was a man of principle. I hate to admit it, but that scares a lot of people in our party, and the guy had leader written all over him. I see Ron Paul as the same kind of shaker-upper, but while he has the shock value and adoring attention of thousands, he misses out on some of the conservative issues that differentiate Republicans from Democrats. I don't think we were Constitutionally guaranteed the ability to smoke pot or have legalized prostitution, for starters. And I have a hard time swallowing the "We Deserved 9-11" or "We had it coming..." attitude. Gah, that just chaps me. It's like a bad chapter out of a Michael Moore "Stupid White Men"-esque epilogue.

Outside of the strategic viewpoint, his strict Constitutional and Libertarian ideas could bring two parties together. But does that water down Conservative Principles? That remains to be seen, and the question remains: What is in it for us?

But I too would love to flex the muscle and show that smaller government is really better, because even the conservatives are forgetting that. My hesitation would be, "Okay, we showed them. Now what?".

Paul has a unique opportunity to completely tear this party apart. Which lately, I might consider not the worst of things either. If Hillary wasn't running, it'd be a completely different ballgame.

I do (very much, in fact) like Ron Paul's "B" rating from the NRA, and "A+" rating from Gun Owners of America. So would he be the worst guy to make the grade? Heck no! We need someone like him, and I don't see a whole lot of gun enthusiasts on the panel, the worst being Rudy "Round em up" Giuliani with his disarmament of an entire city.

I'll check out the links and throw down some more comments. Awesome topic.

I'm posting here because I will vote in the Republican presidential primary in Illinois, despite being an independent...

I have been thinking about this, and I'm not super-excited about any of the candidates. I could live with several of them, vs. the Democrat alternative. Giuliani strikes me as a smart leader, Romney is definitely the most qualified leader / manager of the field, given his corporate experience. McCain is honest and tough and fiscally conservative.

I don't love the rest of the field, so I guess any of those three.

Questions for Debate: Which Republican candidate are you voting for in the primary? Why? Who would you definitely not vote for?

The "religion vs. politics" thing really bothers me! I'm not comfortable with the question of a candidate's religion even being questioned. Mike Huckabee appears to ONLY have a religious platform and nothing else, so definitely not him. I'm uncomfortable with McCain's opinion regarding what should be done with the border. I was hoping Fred Thompson would be a stronger candidate, but alas it's not to be. I'm for gun control even though on this particular day I am a Republican. Rudy looked better to me many months ago than he does now. I may be forced to vote for Romney if the Republicans nominate him, because neither Hillary nor Obama do it for me. Now it appears that Mitt Romney was serving a church mission when he says he saw his father, George Romney, march with Martin Luther King! Yuk, what next! I like Duncan Hunter a lot so I guess I'll vote my heart in the Primary and figure something else out by the National Election.

Carlito, I'm not sure exactly what your main issues of importance are from the three candidates that you mentioned. They are all so different to me. I'm guessing that winning is must be up there for you. Fox News poll today puts McCain ahead of Hillary by 5. The only Republican that I've seen beat her in a head to head by that large of margin. Not that it means a whole lot, but it's better than the alternative.


With Tancredo out that should help Hunter stay around a little longer, but I'm not positive that D. Hunter will be around for Feb 5. This election is so crazy. Tsunami Tuesday was supposed to put this thing to bed, but I'm thinking that chaos is likely to reign on the Republican side. At best, you get a two person race afterwards it seems.

I'm sticking with Hunter. He is THE consumate, all around, consistent conservative. I've been with him since the beginning, and I see no reason to compromise now. For me, all the rest are equal in plusses/minuses... flip a coin. If I had a preference, I might be inclined to shun my 'first love'... but no.

I really was hoping that Tancredo would endorse him, but, alas, he did not. <boo hoo> (Weren't he and Paul the ONLY ones who said they couldn't vote for any of the other candidates in the first debate?)

Maybe if he wore a dress, or shed a tear, Hunter might get some coverage....

Duncan Hunter is a fine man and an excellent member of Congress and he would make a very good President. But, I don't really think he's gained enough national attention this go around. I would prefer to see him stay in California politics and run for the Senate against Bouncing Barbie Boxer in 2010.

Aquilla

And that's a possibility. (Hunter taking one senate seat, and Arnold the other would be this girl's political fantasy. Well, really McClintock would be the one for the second seat... but THAT'S just to much to ask for.) I agree that he may not have the following needed, however, I have also heard from many Repubs, "I like Hunter the most. he would be the best. But.... "

As I said, if I had a worry about one of the others, or had even a preference, I might vote differently. This might be the second time in my voting life that I've been realy able to vote my conscience. Not voting against someone, but for them.

Now the general, that's a whole different ball game... I'll vote for ANY (-R-) against ANY (-D-). Not just fior party's sake, but philosophical differences.

I have changed my party affiliation to support Ron Paul. The rest of the republican candidates just plain suck wind. But so do the democratic candidates. Ron Paul is the only candidate with the majority of platform ideals that are both conservative and less goverment oriented, the most freedom oriented, and the best candidate today.

I think it is amusing that people claim that Paul does not have any supporters, but when he can raise $6 million in one day, the money had to come from somewhere.

My three deal breaker issues this election cycle are in no particular order, boarder security/immigration, size of government and taxes. Though I have not thrown my weight officially behind anyone specifically due to inner conflicts, but Paul definately is towards the top of my list. There is a lesser known candidate by the name of John Cox. He is a solid conservative and one of the things I like most about him, is that not only is he not a professional politician, he also is a business owner. He seems to be in touch with the lives of those that are really in the working class of America. Romney, Thompson, Rudy, Huckabee don't seem to be in touch with what it means to be in the working class. The down side to Cox is that he isn't a multi-millionare or a professional politician like the rest of the pack, making him less known, not eligible for debates, resulting in less fundraising, and no chance of getting elected.

With that said, I like Paul, but in a close fourth on issues, foriegn policy is something that we don't necessarily disagree on, but I think there is some middle ground to be met at. This is where Paul and Cox differ for the most part in the issues that I feel are important to me. The inner conflict I eluded to earlier is that I want to support Cox, but Paul has a better chance of getting nominated out of the two. It isn't about electability for me, but who currently has more support. Paul would fall into that category. In the 2007 Ames Straw Poll, Paul came in 5th, and Cox last. Paul has been gaining steam over the past few weeks, and I am leaning that way. If Paul does not get the nomination, and does not run on an independent ticket (which I think he should) I will probably vote Libertarian in the general election.

I have a problem with listing as a postive "not a career politician"- because, really, that means they don't know what the hell they are doing, or even know the realities of running goverment. Goverement is not in the business to make a profit, nor should it be. The entire idea of "running goverment like a business" has led to a whole new level of corruption and inefficiency, as privatizing gained steam, and then was actually worse than what it replaced.

To me, the most morally reprehensible of all the groups are those that say you are 'wasting" a vote by voting for someone you are FOR rather than voting for someone based on who you are AGAINST.

With the inefficiencies of our government today, putting a business man with little government experience into the White House makes more sense to me than someone that has been in government for years. Take McCain, as an example of a career politician. When putting someone into an elected position that has been working in an elected position since 1982, what changes does one expect to get from someone that has been doing the same thing for so long? This is why I would like to see someone that has not been a career politician such as John Cox. Of course that brings up conflict with Paul, but with his record, I see that if he continued his principals that he has shown historically, that would be a welcome change for this country. Having a completely non politician as president might be what this country needs, which would push me towards Cox. Both of these candidates could easily get my vote.

If I was voting just so I wouldn't "waste" my vote and to help ensure that "they" didn't get the White House, I would be looking closer at Huckabee or Romney. It is my opinion that if I caucused for either of those two in a little more than two weeks (I can't friggen wait to get this over!!!), I would be wasting my vote. I think Paul will surprise some people on January 3rd, and even more so by Super Tuesday(?), so by not voting for him based on polls and who is most likely to beat those "other" candidates next year, getting the best person for the job will never happen. Like I said, of the nationally known candidates, Paul is my horse, but Cox still is one of my favorites.

I hear you, and fair enough

I have just had enough with politician office holder wanna bees in my own state that ran as an "outsider" and then screwed up royally. Governers Hickle and Murkowski ran on ths platform- which I thought odd, since Hickle was under nixon and Murkowski was a career politican - Alaska's senator, for like 100 years

Right now, I am so pleased with Governer Palin I could just split my face in a smile. She is a breath of fresh air, and I would love to see her as president. Common sense and conservative values seems to have never been in the same place at the same time, at least not during my lifetime.

She has a 90% aproval rate at this time, and deserves it- I wish she got even more national recognition, as she would make a fine first female president.

I mean, she basically got elected for telling on the RNC boss for unethical behavior- and then following through with her anti-corruption platform!

If she were in the race, I would vote for her first, even over Ron Paul.

Not only has she been voted "the hottest governer in America"- her husband- we call him "the first dude"- won the Iron dog- a 1400mile snowmachine race from Anchroage to Nome- not exactly a wallflower of wimpy husbandness- the "first dude" is held in quite high regard here- and here is the nicest part- as far as ethics go- he worked for an oil company, and because his wife was working on oil company legislation, he quit BEFORE there was a conflict of interest- whoda thunk it?

Which is kinda sad in a way- he earned more money as an engineer for an oil company than she earns in the governers mansion- so they had to take a pretty big paycut for her job- actual sacrifice for public service? Will wonders ever cease?

You can see her here:

http://state.ak.us/

As what a REAL republican is supposed to be- the only better governer in our states history has possibly been Hammond RIP- though, we have been blessed with elder statesmen of great stature and character from frontier days until Governer Hammond. It was downhill for sometime after that, with only Tony Knowles (a democrat) being halfway decent in the last 30 odd years.

Questions for Debate: Which Republican candidate are you voting for in the primary? Why?

Since Ohio is among the last states to vote in the primaries in '08, it doesn't matter much.

I'm not fired up about any of these candidates. Of the bunch, I'd probably go with McCain over the rest. He is a fairly solid conservative despite his maverick reputation. My second pick would be Guiliani. Despite his anti-life position, he is the national security candidate. The President doesn't have much influence on Roe v. Wade matters anyhow (although his judicial appointments might... ).

I've never liked Huckabee. Every time I've seen him (prior to these primaries) he always struck me as an idiot. His positions on many issues, especially taxes, are simply unforgivable.

Ron Paul, while the best fiscal candidate, is simply too dovish to either win or garner my support, not to mention that the guy has the charisma of a wet cardboard box. Plus, if CR likes him, there must be a great deal wrong there...

Mitt Romney is the prototypical politician. Good looking, says what he thinks needs to be said, well spoken... I have no idea what he really believes.

The others are all also-rans.

I would agree that an outsider is needed in today's climate. We need a fresh face, a fresh way of doing things.

In light of the events happening today in Pakistan I am hoping that voters who were thinking of voting for Huckabee, may rethink their vote! This event reminds us once again that leadership is needed more than ever. For the first time in my voting history there is nobody running who really stands out. I wish that Duncan Hunter was not a second tier candidate, but other than he, I'm really in a quandary. I would vote for a Democrat if they had somebody I liked!
I agree with the above comments regarding Mitt Romney. I have no idea what he really believes on any issue and his "Sears Catalog" good looks don't contribute really one way or the other. McCain and Giuliani have health issues, and McCain's age is a little worry as well. I agree that WE DO NEED A FRESH FACE etc., but who?

I have lived in Iowa the majority of my life with the exception of three years in the military, so my next question came up out of pure ignorance. For those living in states that either are going to have their primaries on super Tuesday or before, how much do the preceeding primaries/caucuses influence your vote? Do people really change their minds after seeing the results of other state's races, or do people still vote for who they think is the best candidate? Of course I understand that if your horse falls out of the race, one might vote for the second seat fiddle. I have to admit that here in Iowa, I believe some people go out and vote for who is leading in the polls, some vote for who they think has the best campaign ads on TV, or base their vote on the mud slinging ads from other candidates, but I assume that is true accross the country and hope that most people make informed decisions and not based on the smear campaigns.

Previous primaries and caucuses do have an effect. Nobody (ok, very few) wants to vote for someone they perceive as a loser. Bombing in early primaries creates this loser image, which is why candidates drop out when they do poorly early.

There is also the money game. I haven't seen any ads in Ohio. The money is being spent in NH, Iowa, and South Carolina right now. Soon there will be a blitz of other states. But money is a limiting factor and doing poorly in the early elections doesn't bode well for raising that much needed money to keep the machine greased.

I do think the Bhutto killing will shift things slightly in favor of security. It should be a boost for Rudy and possibly McCain.

Normally your comments concerning the importance of the early primaries are true. But, the dynamics have changed considerably this go around. The number of states that have moved up their primary dates, effectively compressing the primary schedule into a matter of weeks instead of months changes conventional wisdom. A win or loss in Iowa or New Hampshire isn't as important this year because there won't be enough time for it to make an effect on other primaries. That's why Rudy is concentrating on a few big states - New York, Florida and California. It's much more like a national general election this year. I think that benefits the people with a lot of money and experienced organizations.

California has also added an extra complexity to the mix by changing the way delegates are selected by the vote. Not only have we moved our primary from June to Feb, but California now selects delegates to the national convention based on vote totals in Congressional districts - 3 per district regardless of how many Republicans are in that district. It used to be state winner takes all - and all is a HUGE number. No more. Right now, Ron Paul is using the change to his advantage by campaigning in historically liberal Democrat districts like the Bay area. Hell, in some of those districts all he has to do is find the one Republican living there and convince that person to vote for him and he picks up 3 delegates.


Aquilla

We would all like a candidate that is actually conservative down the line, but that doesn't appear to be the way things are shaping up. We need to come together behind someone who can win this thing because the Democrats have the momentum here. Nationally, McCain has been beating Clinton buy an average of 5 points and is the only Republican to beat Obama in a poll. When you look at it from an electoral college standpoint, the choice becomes even more clear. Survey USA did some head to head state polls in 10 battleground states 12/18-12/20: Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Oregon, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Washington, Minnesota, and Iowa. Romney wins none of the 10 to Clinton, averages 10 points behind, and loses 8 of these by greater than the 4.3% margin of error. Giuliani loses all 10 to Clinton as well. McCain wins 4 them, KY and WI handily, and is within the margin of error on all of the others except Minnesota where he is down 8. McCain passes the abortion test, the 2nd amendment test, the spending test, is the most experienced on foreign policy, and has repented on immigration. It is time we get together, back McCain, and stop Hillary now.

McCain, in theory, would be my choice. Despite his maverick reputation, he is probably the most conservative candidate among the top tier.

The reality is that he has snubbed people in the Republican Party so he isn't the most popular candidate among the party infrastructure. His age and health are also major concerns for me.

Glad to hear it Amlord.

As for his age, come on man. Agism is just as ignorant as racism or sexism. That is like saying that Hillary is too much of a girl for me. Wouldn't fly there. Shouldn't fly here.

I too have some concerns about McCain's age, as well as his political positions on some things. It's not his age so much as possible health issues he may have. I don't know if he's released his medical records, but there are times when I've seen him on television where he just doesn't look real healthy. I'm not sure how well he'd stand up to the rigors of the office.

Aquilla

McCain released his records in 1999 before his 2000 run. Full disclosure - 1500 pages worth. He has defeated the skin cancer that he was diagnosed with 7 years ago. Not sure what other concerns you have. He looks fine to me here. Lets get behind him and win this thing.

I don't have any definitive concerns about anything specific, but I have seen him at times on some of these interview shows where he just doesn't look that healthy. I've noticed a swelling or bloating of his face, particularly in his left-side cheeks. Now maybe that's a perfectly natural thing for him, but there are medications that can have that effect on people as well. I don't know and I'm not looking to start some sort of Internet rumor about it. It's just a concern I have.

Like I said before, I do have some concerns over some of his political positions, but were he to gain the Republican nomination, I'd most certainly support him over anyone the Democrats would run. I'm still holding out hope that Thompson will light a fire in his campaign - Hoisting one for Fred! (Mainly cause I can do that), but my hope for him is fading fast. Otherwise, chalk me up as undecided at this point and I'll keep looking at all the other candidates.

Aquilla

Hoisting one for Fred! He's a good guy, with a solid platform. Just didn't seem to have the penchant for pressing the flesh. Politically, I like him across the board. Tactically, I'm rooting against him tomorrow for two reasons. One, if he does poorly he might drop out after NH. And two, if he drops out I'll give you one guess who I think he'll endorse.

I'm just wondering if Rush Limbaugh and Hannity are going to let McCain have a shot at it. Huckabee's Iowa finish will be an indicator of just how much sway those guys have.

I don't see a single person on either party other than Ron Paul that is anything but more of the same. Which candidate is actually going to behave as a conseravtive once he gets in power? The track record of the Republican party actually sticking to thier ideals is 0 at this point. All of them- including Ronnie Raygun, increased the size and scope of goverment, and did nothing to stop the growth and the massive spending.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that might start to reverse that trend.

McCain's record on pork-barrell spending surpasses Paul's in terms of dollars that he has actually gotten removed.

First off, McCain was part of the "keating 5" -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_5

"As a result, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the federal agency that regulates the industry, tried to clamp down on the trend. In so doing, however, the FHLBB clashed with the Reagan administration, whose policy was deregulation of many industries, including the thrift industry. The administration declined to submit budgets to Congress that would request more funding for the FHLBB's regulatory efforts.

In 1989, the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, Calif., collapsed. Lincoln's chairman, Charles H. Keating Jr., was faulted for the thrift's failure. Keating, however, told the House Banking Committee that the FHLBB and its former chief Edwin J. Gray were pursuing a vendetta against him. Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $1.3 million (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating.

This allegation set off a series of investigations by the California government, the United States Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. The ethics committee's investigation focused on five senators: Alan Cranston (D-CA); Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ); John Glenn (D-OH); John McCain (R-AZ); and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D-MI), who became known as the Keating Five."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis

"The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government [2], which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. The resulting taxpayer bailout ended up being even larger than it would have been because moral hazard and adverse-selection incentives compounded the system’s losses. [3]"

It was rank overzealous idealism vs reality of bad guys gaming the system that led to that- and Senator McCain was part and parcel to the whole mess.

That IS NOT fiscal conservatism, at all.

Though McCain has aquitted himself well in attempting to have some campaign finance reform- this is one of the most expensive bailouts in US history.



McCain, with his role in that alone, cost more to American taxpayers than just about every senator after him- and, really, NO ONE compares to "Dr NO" - in fact, that is his nickname.

McCain, I will admit, comes closer to actually being conservative than anyone in the rogues gallery of candidates today.

I would call on him as a "close second".

Hey, I'll take it. All I can hope for is for people to take another look at him and hopefully back him if he makes it to the general. McCain needs the young fiscal conservative to get there though.

I'm going to address the Keating 5 thing anyway because it is one of the few pieces of dirt that his enemies have to throw.
First let me say that this happened 20 years ago. Second let me say that McCain was exonerated of all charges. Third let me say that he did it. He went to two meetings with the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to discuss the possible seizure of Keating's insolvent loan company. And in McCain fashion, he owns it. Thing is, that event 20 years ago is what has turned McCain into the crusader that he is today against dirty money.

Tying McCain to the entire savings and loan scandals is completely unfair. Keating's company became insolvent on it's own. Even if McCain is somehow to blame for the later bailout, Keatings portion of the scandal was about $3 billion - much less than the $26 billion in pork that McCain saved us on the Boeing deal. So I still contend that McCain's record on pork-barrell spending surpasses Paul's in terms of dollars that he has actually gotten removed.

That being said "20 years ago"- well, I was alive then, and followed the story closely- and really have no doubt that he didn't have a active roll in it- however- he made a major judgement error, and one that DOES impact his ability to be president- and one that Republican "leaders" continue to make- and continued to make all the way up to Enron, this idea that business is just being picked on by big bad regulatory agencies. He has never really rectified that part, never really put the heat on corporate wrong doing. Considering what happened with the S&L crisis, he SHOULD have been the first one to call for a special prosecutor just from watching who GW was getting rides from (Ken Lay's personal jet ) and the california energy crisis. That was the first warning that Ken Lay was up to no good.

After being bamboozled once, and not to mention the way he was slimed in South Carolina by GW, he was in a unique position to get some bag guys thrown in jail long before they could do worse damage than they already had.

I don't think he was or is crooked, just that he has a blind spot when it comes to corporate types. Even still, this is a small part of the overall picture, and it is NOT that I dislike him, or think him dishonorable, or crooked, but I think he exhibits poor judgement regarding corporate behaviors. We don't need a blind eye towards this anymore- we need to swing the pendulum the other way, and start treating CEOs like crack dealers- confiscate all thier money and holdings and force them to use public defenders instead of using thier ill gotten gains to hire sixteen lawyers to defend themselves. Why treat Ken Lay and Michael Milken or Charles Keating any different than John Gotti?

I just don't see McCain dealing with this issue- and it is one of the most important issues today. I question his judgement because he has been burned by these poeple before and has not really come at them gun's a blazin' like he should have, as being someone that has been caught up in this.

In fact, I see this as a major weakness with both parties is this ignoring of going after bad behavior and leading the charge with new legislation for major criminal penalties, and at least treating them the same as any other organized criminal figures.

Wow. Sorry that you feel that way about the lead sponcer of campaign finance reform.

Once again- even there, he goes after the wrong targets. His campaign finance reform, I believe, may have good intentions, but once again, did really nothing to really reform- adn though, he did show some backbone here and show himself to be a "maverick"- and went so far as to team up with Fiengold on it- he didn't stop or really even riegn in the Ken Lay's of the world. The very fact that GW was elected at all shows how ineffective he was at campaign finance reform- but once again, he would be my second choice- so don't take it as that I am really down on the guy, but he has never really went to the mat for personal liberties either. ON that, he remains still a bit of a social conservative, though no chickenhawk neo-con coward either

I do respect WHY he wants to remain the worlds policeman- that comes obviuosly from his military blue blood background- very much an old guard officer in this respect- which I have always been against allowing blue blood old guard military types the bully pulpit- they don't always make good politicians or presidents, in fact, Grant, possibly the most corrupt presidency of all time, was one of those- and Eisenhower, though basically a good man with good leadership skills, did some very evil things while in office, and it was due to his blind spot as one of those big time generals. I mean, he will be forever in my mind damned for his behavior in central America and the middle east, specifically, causing the death of hundreds of thousands of poeple with his interventions in Iran and Guatamala, and McCain seems to be unable to think outside the box and keep from making the same stupid mistakes that Eisenhower did.

McCain-Feingold was passed after GW was elected in 2000. The courts and lack of enforcement of the law have made it ineffective.

Who would you definitely not vote for? At this point, I have to add Ron Paul to the list. Why? It has nothing to do with his platform. I agree that we need less government involvement across the board, but I won't vote or support Ron Paul anymore because I think that he is hurting the libertarian cause at this point. He had a really opportunity to teach the public about small government and the Constitution. He doesn't sell it though. Ron Paul is just too angry in the debates and spends too much time whining about how unfairly he's being treated (which he is). This is fine if you are a blogger, but Ron Paul is running for the President of the United States. Yelling at your constituency is not going to win you any votes or backers to your cause. I've been able to overlook it until now because the $$ pouring in was winning some attention and because the underlying message is strong. The thing is that the revolution has peaked because the leader is making the movement look completely unreasonable.