Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Alan T

This is probably a smart decision. As an independant voter, McCain is perhaps the only Republican I would vote for right now. If it ends up being HIllary vs Mccain, I would be voting Mccain. I don't think I would say the same about the other Republican choices.

Nothing personal, since many probably think your way. But please do not ever call yourself someone looking for 'change' in Washington. Hillary vs. McCain is just about as status-quo as it could get, so place your bets on it!

Lou Dobbs book Independents Day correctly labels McCain as one of the "Keating 5' who then became 'Mr Reformer' being the only one to survive that S&L scandal (Chairman of Senate Banking Committee Don Reigle from Michigan lost all hope of re-election when it broke). This is the same scandal that Bush's oldest brother Neil got caught up in...

Dobbs further describes how under Reagan the Mike Millikens, etc, started to game the system for personal profits instead of adding real value to the economy and then (God Bless Lou Dobbs!.. no fan of GOP or Dems) talks about how Clinton (co-Presidents, remember? "With one you get both!" Hillary in on camera interview) took that scenario and ramped it up to out-of-control! (Enron!, Global Crossing!) (Hillary makes $100,000 on a $100 investment in commodities).

Vote for either of these two and your as much of the problem as any politician is. IMHO.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Nothing personal, since many probably think your way. But please do not ever call yourself someone looking for 'change' in Washington. Hillary vs. McCain is just about as status-quo as it could get, so place your bets on it!

Lou Dobbs book Independents Day correctly labels McCain as one of the "Keating 5' who then became 'Mr Reformer' being the only one to survive that S&L scandal (Chairman of Senate Banking Committee Don Reigle from Michigan lost all hope of re-election when it broke). This is the same scandal that Bush's oldest brother Neil got caught up in...

Dobbs further describes how under Reagan the Mike Millikens, etc, started to game the system for personal profits instead of adding real value to the economy and then (God Bless Lou Dobbs!.. no fan of GOP or Dems) talks about how Clinton (co-Presidents, remember? "With one you get both!" Hillary in on camera interview) took that scenario and ramped it up to out-of-control! (Enron!, Global Crossing!) (Hillary makes $100,000 on a $100 investment in commodities).

Vote for either of these two and your as much of the problem as any politician is. IMHO.

If the Republican party puts forward a candidate I will agree with more so then I will vote for them, simple as that. I have never said I was for change, even though some things I do feel should be changed. Change for the sake of change however can be bad. So if all of the things that I like are changed and the things that I don't like aren't changed, why is that better?

Face it, the country is pretty evenly split for the most part with conservatives and liberals so each election is about winning the people who vote like me and who honestly try to find the candidate that best meets their own interests.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Alan T

If the Republican party puts forward a candidate I will agree with more so then I will vote for them, simple as that. I have never said I was for change, even though some things I do feel should be changed. Change for the sake of change however can be bad. So if all of the things that I like are changed and the things that I don't like aren't changed, why is that better?

Face it, the country is pretty evenly split for the most part with conservatives and liberals so each election is about winning the people who vote like me and who honestly try to find the candidate that best meets their own interests.

Well, at least your honest. You like the system as is and don't feel a need for it to change. Any honest opinion has to be respected.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Alan T

If the Republican party puts forward a candidate I will agree with more so then I will vote for them, simple as that. I have never said I was for change, even though some things I do feel should be changed. Change for the sake of change however can be bad. So if all of the things that I like are changed and the things that I don't like aren't changed, why is that better?

Face it, the country is pretty evenly split for the most part with conservatives and liberals so each election is about winning the people who vote like me and who honestly try to find the candidate that best meets their own interests.

But have you seen what McCain actually stands for? This whole idea that he's some liberal is a fairy tale. Sure, he's willing to speak his mind hwen he departs froma party line position, but he's still far to the right of guys like Giuliani and probably Romney (depending on whether or not you believe his "conversion".) Will you be happy when he appoints more Scalia's to the Supreme Court, effectively spelling doom for civil rights for a long, long time?

[Buccaneer]

I remember in 2000, many independents (including most in my family/in-laws) would have voted for McCain. We got W Bush instead.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But have you seen what McCain actually stands for? This whole idea that he's some liberal is a fairy tale. Sure, he's willing to speak his mind hwen he departs froma party line position, but he's still far to the right of guys like Giuliani and probably Romney (depending on whether or not you believe his "conversion".) Will you be happy when he appoints more Scalia's to the Supreme Court, effectively spelling doom for civil rights for a long, long time?

From what I have seen and read (which may or may not be the entire story), I've seen enough of Romney, that I have no plans whatsoever to vote for him. If it came down to Romney vs Hillary, I probably wouldn't even want to vote. Giuliani is still a wildcard with me, and I guess I should have included him in earlier in my list of possible Republicans whom I would possibly vote for, but he seems to need to get his act in gear or it doesn't really matter.

I don't think that McCain is liberal, I don't really want liberal... I just want someone who is not hardset conservative or liberal, and is fairly moderate at least in regards to the issues that I care the most about. If Obama wins the Democrat nomination, it might all be moot in my mind as I might just vote for him either way, but if HIllary wins the nomination, I will be looking for an alternative.

So I guess my possibly voting for a Republican is less support for Mccain and more a statement that I won't be voting for Romney or Huckabee.

[st.cronin]

I registered as a Republican this year for the first time in order to vote for McCain in the primary.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I missed this gem while Huckabee was here in Michigan last week:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Oh dear...

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I missed this gem while Huckabee was here in Michigan last week:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Oh dear...

Oh dear +1

[Jas_lov]

And that's why Huckabee scares people. He's dropped about 6-7 points in Florida and I think he's Iowa and done, unless he stays through until Super Tuesday and picks up his home state and a few other south eastern states. Mitt Romney was actually leading the latest rassmussen's post S.C./Nevada poll in Florida by 5 points. Giuliani and McCain aren't too far behind though and it'll be pretty close between them.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I missed this gem while Huckabee was here in Michigan last week:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Oh dear...

Oh dear +2.

Now if Huckabee somehow ends up the nominee, I'll be forced to vote democrat....even if it's Hilary....and that makes me feel dirty and depressed.

[Buccaneer]

Which is why I have been saying all along that there is no way Huckabee would get the nomination.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Oh dear +2.

Now if Huckabee somehow ends up the nominee, I'll be forced to vote democrat....even if it's Hilary....and that makes me feel dirty and depressed.

Remember my thread about not voting?

Yeah, that matchup would force the issue with me.

[QuikSand]

Well, what invariably happens between primary time and general time is that the parties go out of their way to remind their usually-loyal base that there are things that matter in a Presidential election on beyond the personality or the policies of the actual person in charge. Democrats and Republicans who today bemoan the potential candidate of their party will find themselves reminded of all the things that they dislike about the court appointees and cabinet officials put into office by the other party, as a reminded of why it's important to stick with their party, and most of them ultimately will.

Plenty of Democrats say right now they would rather for McCain than Clinton, and plenty of Republicans say they would rather vote for Obama than Huckabee or Romney. But core issues (most notably abortion) tend to bring a lot of those voters around, and they end up just holding their nose and voting party after all.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Plenty of Democrats say right now they would rather for McCain than Clinton, and plenty of Republicans say they would rather vote for Obama than Huckabee or Romney. But core issues (most notably abortion) tend to bring a lot of those voters around, and they end up just holding their nose and voting party after all.

And then you have the part of the party (more notably on the republican side this time around) who cannot stomach the theocratic nonsense being spouted, and are absolutely terrified of what these crazy religious lunatics could do if they were put in power. Add to that the general disagreement and in some cases sheer hatred of many of the core left ideals, and, well...CW for Emperor?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

And then you have the part of the party (more notably on the republican side this time around) who cannot stomach the theocratic nonsense being spouted, and are absolutely terrified of what these crazy religious lunatics could do if they were put in power. Add to that the general disagreement and in some cases sheer hatred of many of the core left ideals, and, well...CW for Emperor?

Ironically, you'd f-ck it up worse than any candidate out there.

[Dutch]

Plenty of Democrats say right now they would rather for McCain than Clinton, and plenty of Republicans say they would rather vote for Obama than Huckabee or Romney. But core issues (most notably abortion) tend to bring a lot of those voters around, and they end up just holding their nose and voting party after all.

Or at least abstaining or looking elsewhere...If it's Huckabee, Romney, Obama, or Clinton as my choices, I'll just vote for Dick Cheney.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Or at least abstaining or looking elsewhere...If it's Huckabee, Romney, Obama, or Clinton as my choices, I'll just vote for Dick Cheney.

[path12]

Hillary and most any Republican might have me looking to see what Bloomberg's got up his sleeve.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Ironically, you'd f-ck it up worse than any candidate out there.

So I should just pencil you down early for the salt mines, yes?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Plenty of Democrats say right now they would rather for McCain than Clinton, and plenty of Republicans say they would rather vote for Obama than Huckabee or Romney. But core issues (most notably abortion) tend to bring a lot of those voters around, and they end up just holding their nose and voting party after all.

Which I think is a shame. I am anti-abortion, but I think voting strictly on one or two issues is part of what has split this country into two ideological camps. While I am against abortion, I think it is important that you do have some laws that protect the rights of people to have one. But, I will spend my energy on a local level to convince minds and hearts to go the other way.

I think that is something that we forget in this country. What makes this country great is our ability to do something unless it is expressly prohibited by the law. Somewhere along the way we forgot that.

[ISiddiqui]

And Fred Thompson bites the dust:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/us...ompson.html?hp

Wasn't doing all that well, but a lot of his support probably would have flocked to Huckabee otherwise. This definately helps out Huckabee's campaign, and maybe even Romney's a bit. McCain's campaign is not liking this at all.

[Jas_lov]

I wonder if Huckabee would have won S.C. without Thompson there. My guess is that he endorses his buddy John McCain, but I think you're right about his supporters going to Huckabee and Romney. Thompson had some decent polling numbers in Florida so we'll see how this will impact that very close race.

[albionmoonlight]

I liked Thompson. With all the candidates so nakedly ambitious for the job, it was kind of neat to have a candidate say "I want to be president, and I think that I would be a good one, but I ain't gonna shame myself in no dog and pony show. Vote for me if you like me, and don't if you don't. Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over this."

[ISiddiqui]

I saw that as more like, "I'm running for President, now flock to me like you know you want to". He didn't care to articulate his points to people, he just seemed to think they should vote for him because he resembled Reagan the best.

[Arles]

I haven't been as involved on a day-to-day basis, but I just checked things out today. Here's what I've found:

1. Romney has almost double the delegates (72-38) that McCain does. In fact, Ron Paul (6-38) is closer to McCain than McCain is to Romney.
2. McCain has done very well with independents and Romney has been very strong with "conservative" and registered republicans in states where he has run. In the open primaries, McCain leads Romney 31-28. In this closed or Caucus primaries, Romney leads McCain 44-7.
3. In the next two weeks, 13 of the 20 or so states voting have either a closed or caucus primary.

Yet, after all the above, McCain is the overwhelming favorite on nearly every website. I'm not following. McCain will probably finish 3rd in Florida (closed primary) behind Romney and Giuliani. Plus, with Thompson out, I expect most of his votes will go to Romney (conservative side) or even Huckabee (southern). I'm not a big Romney guy, but I really can't see how McCain ends up beating him when he could be down a huge amount in delegates after super Tuesday.

[JPhillips]

A few points.

Delegate count at this point doesn't mean anything as it will take 1190 to win the nomination. Romney desn't even have ten percent of the delegates needed to win. In terms of delegates, this thing hasn't really started.

Florida is a winner take all primary, so a Romeny win would be a big boost. Likewise, a McCain win would also be big. I don't think Giuliani will beat McCain, but second place really doesn't matter in FL.

Thompson's voters are more likely to go to McCain. I saw some number today that had McCain getting over thirty percent of Thompson supporters based on a second choice question. I believe Huckabee was second on that question with Romney third. It's likely that McCain gains over Romney with Thompson out.

I agree that McCain has a real problem with conservatives. He'll be very strong in the general, but at some point he has to rally the base and I don't know whether he can do that.

[ISiddiqui]

McCain is the overwhelming favorite on nearly every website. I'm not following.

Because the current delegates are tiny compared to those in play the next few weeks. It's really about momentum and PR. McCain winning in New Hampshire put him back into the race. His winning in South Carolina defied all projections and moved him back to the front, especially for Florida and then after that (IIRC, he was polling AHEAD of Guiliani in New York!).

Though the Thompson dropping out could really muck it up for him.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because the current delegates are tiny compared to those in play the next few weeks. It's really about momentum and PR. McCain winning in New Hampshire put him back into the race. His winning in South Carolina defied all projections and moved him back to the front, especially for Florida and then after that (IIRC, he was polling AHEAD of Guiliani in New York!).

Though the Thompson dropping out could really muck it up for him.

If McCain wins Florida, I would agree. But McCain losing Michigan is a huge loss, IMO. It was an open primary in a state where democrats were basically told not to vote for a democratic candidate. So, logic would dictate that there were tons of independents/democrats out there for McCain to land. As to South Carolina, it was also an open primary and neither Guiliani nor Romney even campaigned. Who was the favorite in SC if not McCain? Huckabee? Outside of Iowa, he hadn't gotten 17% of the vote in any state.

IMO, for McCain to have a chance he needs to win every open primary, AZ and a couple others. If he goes into an open primary state without Romney even campaigning, it's silly to think he shouldn't be the favorite. Florida is a big state, though. If McCain wins there, he might have enough momentum to pull it out. But, to say he's a clear favorite for the nomination now seems to be more "hopeful" than accurate by the media.

[larrymcg421]

As others have said, the delegates don't really matter at this point. It's all about momentum.

Also, You're acting like McCain has no hope of winning a closed primary. Sure, independents have put him over the top in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but he only lost by 1 pt. among Republicans in both states.

It's highly unlikely for McCain to finish 3rd in Florida. There are lots of military voters, and he's very popular with the Cuban-Americans. Most recent polls show:

ARG: McCain 29, Romney 22, Huckabee 17, Giuliani 16
SurveyUSA: McCain 25, Giuliani 20, Romney 19, Huckabee 14

Sure, he could finish 3rd, but it would be pretty unlikely. He's also considered the frontrunner because he's held the lead in all national polls over the last two weeks. He's doing very well in many other states, including the big ones. He's actually tied with Giuliani in New York, leads him in New Jersey, and leads everyone in California.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think a McCain vs. Clinton general election would give the Republicans the best shot at retaining the White House.

[Arles]

I agree with all said above, but my contention is the reason that he's leading is all the positive PR he's gotten in the past 2 weeks. And, I really don't see anything "shocking" in winning NH (carried easily in 2000 over W) and SC without Romney or Rudy running. Yet, Romney got little to no credit for wins in Michigan (big upset after losing NH), Nevada and Wyoming.

If it ends up being Hillary and McCain, why even vote? Unless you are a big social conservative, there will be little difference in their policies. Hillary is moving more to the right and McCain to the left on economy/immigration. Both will want some kind of tax increase on the rich, some form of amnesty, some national health care system, against domestic oil exploration and for global warming/climate legislation.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

And, I really don't see anything "shocking" in winning NH (carried easily in 2000 over W) and SC without Romney or Rudy running.

You may be the only one who didn't see anything shocking in McCain's win in South Carolina. Everyone thought he'd get trounced in the state that rejected him solidly back in 2000. They thought it was Huckabee's to win. That's also why Romney decided to go for Nevada (though he actually went to South Carolina to campaign the days beforehand).

Unless you are a big social conservative

Or don't like social conservative policies. That encompasses a big part of the electorate.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I think a McCain vs. Clinton general election would give the Republicans the best shot at retaining the White House.

Easily.

[ISiddiqui]

Let's be honest here, though, a McCain vs. anyone would give the Republicans the best shot at retaining the White House.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Let's be honest here, though, a McCain vs. anyone would give the Republicans the best shot at retaining the White House.

I agree. And Clinton v. anyone would give the Republicans the best chance.

Put 'em together, and it's like Chocolate and Peanut Butter for the Republicans.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I agree. And Clinton v. anyone would give the Republicans the best chance.

Put 'em together, and it's like Chocolate and Peanut Butter for the Republicans.

I reached this conclusion, like, six posts ago.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I agree. And Clinton v. anyone would give the Republicans the best chance.

Put 'em together, and it's like Chocolate and Peanut Butter for the Republicans.

I know the Republicans like to think so . She's got a good bit of Comeback Kid in her as well, though.

I actually think that McCain vs. Obama would be MORE advantageous for the Republicans as McCain can hammer Obama on lack of experience, while being able to deflect attacks against the administration.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I think a McCain vs. Clinton general election would give the Republicans the best shot at retaining the White House.

Then better is Hillary wins. Being so devisive, both houses would go GOP during her term and would dictate policy to her like they did to her husband Clyde...er, Bill.

The other big upside for the GOP, McCain does not become President, and Obama is prevented from becoming the 'transjectory figure' for the Democrats that Reagan was for the GOP and thereby altering elections in the Dems favor for years to come. Actually some good upsides for Hillary prez.

[ISiddiqui]

Um... because Reagan won in his first attempt at running for President? Even if Obama loses, you'll see him again. Especially since he's so young (relatively).

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... because Reagan won in his first attempt at running for President? Even if Obama loses, you'll see him again. Especially since he's so young (relatively).

Um...(picks nose)...Reagan actually lost his first attempt, vs. Gerry Ford in Primaries 1976. And, not winning now means Obama loses the moment. Not everyone can recover from that (Kerry, Edwards, Gore.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Um...(picks nose)...Reagan actually lost his first attempt, vs. Gerry Ford in Primaries 1976. And, not winning now means Obama loses the moment. Not everyone can recover from that (Kerry, Edwards, Gore.)

Yes... Reagan lost. He did not "lose the moment", whatever that entails. I'm not sure Kerry, Edwards, or Gore had a "moment". And Obama is charismatic and likable enough that he can make his own moments... ie, like Reagan his appeal is not merely subject to events.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes... Reagan lost. He did not "lose the moment", whatever that entails. I'm not sure Kerry, Edwards, or Gore had a "moment". And Obama is charismatic and likable enough that he can make his own moments... ie, like Reagan his appeal is not merely subject to events.

Yes, But Reagan's strength was his being the ideological heir to Barry Goldwater. Obama's ideology is not his strength, that would be his personality and lack of a polarizing past. His 'ideology' is not what makes him stand out like Reagan's did.

As Obama waits for his 'next chance' his record will accumulate and his 'freshness' date will be long gone.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, But Reagan's strength was his being the ideological heir to Barry Goldwater. Obama's ideology is not his strength, that would be his personality and lack of a polarizing past. His 'ideology' is not what makes him stand out like Reagan's did.

As Obama waits for his 'next chance' his record will accumulate and his 'freshness' date will be long gone.

I'm realizing you have no clue why Obama is thought of so highly. It isn't merely his personality and "lack of polarizing past" (if he hasn't had one in this many years of public service, why would he in the next 4-8 years?). It's his unifying message. Obama, more than anyone, sounds like a unifier. Someone who actually may stop partisan politics. And, of course, he taps into the same vein of optimism and hope that Reagan did.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm realizing you have no clue why Obama is thought of so highly. It isn't merely his personality and "lack of polarizing past" (if he hasn't had one in this many years of public service, why would he in the next 4-8 years?). It's his unifying message. Obama, more than anyone, sounds like a unifier. Someone who actually may stop partisan politics. And, of course, he taps into the same vein of optimism and hope that Reagan did.

Well then, your right, I don't get it. Cause Hillary herself, McCain and just about everybody else is pushing the 'unity' thing and not getting anywhere with it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You may be the only one who didn't see anything shocking in McCain's win in South Carolina. Everyone thought he'd get trounced in the state that rejected him solidly back in 2000. They thought it was Huckabee's to win. That's also why Romney decided to go for Nevada (though he actually went to South Carolina to campaign the days beforehand).

I haven't really seen the appeal of Huckabee. He's not as strong as Romney on the fiscal conservative side, and he's not as strong as McCain on the social conservative side. He doesn't come off well in most interviews and I doubt he gets 20% in any primary from here on in (save maybe Arkansas). But, Huckabee was tabbed as the projected guy in SC for some reason.

Or don't like social conservative policies. That encompasses a big part of the electorate.

That's true. I tend to look at political candidate from a fiscal policy standpoint - not as much on the social end. So, from that standpoint, I am certainly in the minority. Still, I don't see much of a difference in presidential legislation after 4 years of Hillary compared to 4 years of McCain. Where it gets interesting is Obama v Romney as there you have differing strategies on most issues (taxes, immigration, health care, climate, energy, ...).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well then, your right, I don't get it. Cause Hillary herself, McCain and just about everybody else is pushing the 'unity' thing and not getting anywhere with it.

As you've pointed out, Clinton and McCain are getting no where with unity, because they aren't really that credible on it (well, McCain somewhat is, but he's got problems unifying his own party!).

Obama seems far more genuine on it and has spoken on it for as long as anyone can remember. His 2004 DNC speech was about one America (contrast that to Edwards two Americas).

Originally Posted by Arles

That's true. I tend to look at political candidate from a fiscal policy standpoint - not as much on the social end. So, from that standpoint, I am certainly in the minority. Still, I don't see much of a difference in presidential legislation after 4 years of Hillary compared to 4 years of McCain. Where it gets interesting is Obama v Romney as there you have differing strategies on most issues (taxes, immigration, health care, climate, energy, ...).

I think this also answers your first response in your post about not getting the appeal of Huckabee. He's the evangelical right's social conservative. McCain holds social conservative positions, but he's also worked across the aisle for "amnesty" and campaign finance reform, which social conservatives just don't like. And he seems somewhat genuine.

In 4 years, I think a Clinton administration would be fairly different than a McCain one on fiscal issues as well. McCain is trying to get cuts in spending as well as taking away the Bush tax cut (balancing the budget first and then do whatever else). I think Clinton will focus more on health care and eliminating the Bush tax cuts. Regardless, I think that absent some incredibly strange Republican landslide into Congress, the Bush tax cuts are dead, but what happens afterwards may be a bit different.

And of course, there may be a slight difference to the Iraq War. I think we'll still be there, but under Clinton, it'll be a far less of a presense than it would under McCain.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think this also answers your first response in your post about not getting the appeal of Huckabee. He's the evangelical right's social conservative. McCain holds social conservative positions, but he's also worked across the aisle for "amnesty" and campaign finance reform, which social conservatives just don't like. And he seems somewhat genuine.

That makes sense. Huckabee would be a very worrisome candidate for me. I think he'd end up being the opposite of Rudy (who is more of a match for me). I honestly don't know what he'd do from a fiscal policy stance and his immigration policies are all across the board.

In 4 years, I think a Clinton administration would be fairly different than a McCain one on fiscal issues as well. McCain is trying to get cuts in spending as well as taking away the Bush tax cut (balancing the budget first and then do whatever else). I think Clinton will focus more on health care and eliminating the Bush tax cuts.

Here's how I see it:

Both are against the Bush tax cut. Both will raise taxes on "the rich". Neither will touch social security. Both will introduce climate-control standards. Both will oppose domestic drilling. McCain will spend a ton on immigration-related issues (directly or indirectly). McCain will spend a little on health care. Hillary will spend a ton on health care and spend a little on immigration-type things.

In the end, neither will balance the budget and both will increase taxes. With McCain, we may have a larger emphasis on immigration (even an "amnesty-lite") and with Hillary we will have a shot at changing health care.

But, IMO, both will do almost the exact same thing in Iraq. Despite all the rhetoric, no president wants to be known as the one who lost the Iraq war. So, while Hillary won't appear as supportive, she'll stay just as long as McCain and spend just as much money.

[ISiddiqui]

Huckabee in the fiscal policy area is no friend of the Club for Growth (who has campaigned against him already). He'll likely BE the compassionate conservative that Dubya said he was (but actually wasn't).

In the end, neither will balance the budget and both will increase taxes.

Well, if those are your criteria, then yes, Clinton and McCain will be similar .

[Buccaneer]

Did I read correctly that all of the Dem candidates conceded that McCain is the the best foreign policy candidate of anyone running?