Would you vote for a Guiliani/Thompson ticket?

Would you vote for a Guiliani/Thompson ticket?

  • I could be persuaded.....

    Votes: 7 9.2%

  • Half-bad is still bad. No way....

    Votes: 53 69.7%

  • I gotta think about this further....

    Votes: 16 21.1%
  • Total voters
    76
S

seeker_two

New member
With the press given to these two lately--and the widely different political idealology from which each gains support, I would not be suprised if the GOP pulls another Reagan(Goldwater conservative)/Bush (moderate liberal) pairing on the '08 ticket.

If the choice was Rudy/Fred, would you vote Republican?

I'm gonna have to think about this one. As much as I dislike Rudy's politics...having Thompson's influence in the Senate and close to the President's ear (not to mention being one tainted peanut butter sandwich away from the Presidency) is appealing.

What do YOU think?.....
 
You're missing an option....some of us consider this to be more than half bad. Neither of these jokers get my vote. I went with the only "no" available.
 
So far, neither of the 2 main parties has come up with even 1 candidate that I'd feel comfortable about voting for.

Will it come down, as it has so often before, to voting for the least repugnant?

Am I going to be FORCED to vote Libertarian?
 
Am I going to be FORCED to vote Libertarian?
Click to expand...
With the coming elections it seems like a damned if you do damned if you don't on either party

The Republicans have lost touch with their base the Dems have lost touch with reality

Voting Libertarian may give the race to the Dems but it will help to bring about the three party system this country desperately needs.

If they would back off their rigid stance on the drug war they would get a lot more support, but then I guess they would be no better than the other parties when it comes to party ethics
 
No Rudy.

No McCain.

I'm looking for Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul or Fred Thompson to show some further colors before making up my mind.

But Rudy/McCain is too authoritarian for my tastes, and disrespectful to the bill of rights as a whole.
 
If they would back off their rigid stance on the drug war they would get a lot more support, but then I guess they would be no better than the other parties when it comes to party ethics
Click to expand...
Their rigid stance on the drug war is one of the cornerstones of the libertarian philosophy. To support it would be antithetical to everything a libertarian stands for.
 
I won't vote for any ticket that Mr. G is on; the same as I wouldn't vote for any ticket Mrs. C is on.

I will vote my conscience. Regardless of the candidates chance for winning. IMO, to do otherwise ultimately does not serve the best intrests of our country and does not pay hommage to what our founding fathers intended this country to be. I don't play the lesser of two evils game, sorry.
 
"I generally vote for candidates, not parties"

I once called myself an independent...but with age came wisdom....my 11% home loan during the Carter years helped as well:D

We have a local talk show host that makes the point very well that "party trumps person"

In most cases the best of intentions go by the wayside once a politician reaches Washington

No matter how balanced and/or moderate a dem may seem when running for office, the lions share of them will vote the party line once they get into office. In order to be effective they need to go along to get along.

They will come up with some real impressive reasons why they had to cast that vote that seems so unlike them...but they will do it anyway

So despite the fact that I see the Republican party making some of the same mistakes as the Dems

I will still support them over the Dems...all the time
 
No matter how balanced and/or moderate a dem may seem when running for office, the lions share of them will vote the party line once they get into office. In order to be effective they need to go along to get along.

They will come up with some real impressive reasons why they had to cast that vote that seems so unlike them...but they will do it anyway
Click to expand...

May be true...then again, I'm not forced to give them a second term.

And it's not like Presidents are the ones voting on laws. They're often the ones driving (or trying to drive) the direction of the party during their time in office. Plus, in my case who ends up as Commander in Chief can have a much greater and direct impact on my life than for the average citizen.

So despite the fact that I see the Republican party making some of the same mistakes as the Dems

I will still support them over the Dems...all the time
Click to expand...

See, I see eye-to-eye with the Democrats on more issues than I do the Republicans. So all in all I'm probably still better off voting for a pro-gun Democrat, regardless of how he votes on guns when the time comes, than I am just about any Republican.

Though again, if he burns me on that front he's unlikely to get a second vote out of me.
 
joab,

The Republicans have lost touch with their base the Dems have lost touch with reality.
Click to expand...

That is priceless.

Definitely Ron Paul. Maybe Tom Tancredo. Maybe Duncan Hunter. Maybe Thompson. Rudy? No way. The Manchurian Candidate? No way. Cover boy? No way.
 
What about Paul?
Click to expand...
There is 1 thing and 1 thing only that makes me uneasy about Rep. Paul. And that is the same 1 thing that makes me uneasy about the Libertarians (which is what he really is, never mind the party affiliation). And that is that they seem to be fundamentally unserious about the GWOT and the struggle against radical Islamists and other various strains of lunatics that are out there in this world. If this weren't a time of war, I'd have no problem voting for him or them, whatsoever.
 
GB,
Fair enuff, but if I may...
Winning a "war" against anybody (let alone a concept so vague as terror) requires more than just a will to fight; it requires a will to win that supercedes partisan politics. Paul is one of the only two candidates this cycle who has convinced me that he understands that fact.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul262.html
Remember back in the '90s when the liberal "war on drugs" was in full-swing? Swat teams across the country going into the low-income districts to nab the drug dealers? Remember how that all worked out? This is the same exact formula applied to a different problem.
Politicians (in the main) are more interested in being seen very publicly combatting problems than actually dealing with them.
Just some food for thought. If you're seriously considering voting Libertarian and don't approve of any of the other Republican candidates, why not support the only libertarian in the Republican primary instead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top