Who would you most NOT want to see...

[RJ]

...square off in the next presidential race? In other words, what choice would you most not want to make? What two candidates would make the next election simply a dearth of a choice on who to vote for???

For me, it would be Bush(Jeb) vs. Clinton(her ladyship). Among other things, I would hate to be guaranteed that one of just two families would rule American politics for 24 straight years(1988-2012). Record amounts are being spent on campaign financing and this would be the best we can do.

Unfortunately, these two are(in my opinion) the favorites to get their respective parties nominations.

[Gabu]

Santorum vs. Clinton.

[MaC]

have to agree with RJ.  Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush I would hate to see, for the same reasons, the ruling families with new faces in power.  Jeb stated once he has no desire to run and Hillary has no real following outside of New England.  God I hope this is the case.  Other people I would hate to see win nomination include Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, Debbie Stabenow, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and Pat Buchanan. 

[TheWildCard]

Hagel/Gingrich vs. Durbin/Kucinich or Clark/Kucinich

[Josh]

Santorum vs. anyone.

[ian]

Gore vs......... Gingrich--but most any Republican.

[Keystone Phil]

Hagel vs. Clinton or Hagel vs. Gore.

[Alcon]

I agree with Gabu. Santorum vs. Clinton would make me sad.

[PADem]

Democrats

Gore
Kerry
Clinton
Hagel
Kucinich


Republicans

Santorum (obviously)
Coburn
Allen
Jeb

[Moooooo]

Democrats

Gore
Kerry
Clinton
Hagel

Ugh, ::whispers:: Hagel is a Republican.

[A18]

Democrats

Gore
Kerry
Clinton
Hagel

Ugh, ::whispers:: Hagel is a Republican.

Not even Hagel knows he's a Republican. Why should anyone else?

[Notre Dame rules!]

I saw Santorum speaking to some conservative organization on C-span tonight.  I think you guys are a little too hard on him.   He seems intelligent enough.

[Rob]

Hillary against Jeb. A nightmare race.

[Keystone Phil]

I saw Santorum speaking to some conservative organization on C-span tonight.  I think you guys are a little too hard on him.   He seems intelligent enough.

Yeah. Thank you.

[Smash255]

I saw Santorum speaking to some conservative organization on C-span tonight.  I think you guys are a little too hard on him.   He seems intelligent enough.

No one said he speaks like Bush, one problem with him is his absurd views on individual rights

[Notre Dame rules!]

His oppsition to gay marriage isn't exaclty "absurd."  At least in that instance, his postion mirrors that of 75-80% of the country.

Aside from gay marriage, what individual rights is he trodding on?

[Moooooo]

Well, he has refered to homosexuality as "man on dog sex" and he supports Texas anti-sodomy laws. 

[Erc]

I'm no Santorum fan, but let me explain Santorum's position in re the Texas anti-sodomy laws, etc.


As far as I know, Santorum doesn't support Texas anti-sodomy laws (ie he doesn't generally want to ban sodomy, as far as I know, and if he does...well I've never seen him state it outright).

Santorum is not arguing for the moral validity of the sodomy laws (which I think he knows are pretty absurd and unenforceable)...he is arguing that they are constitutional (ie that Lawrence v. Texas is a bad ruling).  People so often confuse constitutional matters and matters of politics, ideology, etc.  Yes, the line is a bit thin in places, but there is a distinction between pure legal matters and politics.

Santorum takes the position that the court's ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut is a bad ruling.  For those of you not familiar with Griswold (which, in my view, is a much, much more significant case in American judicial precedent than Roe, which is simply a logical extension of Griswold), the case dealt with an equally absurd statute--a law against any group promoting or facilitating contraceptive services in the state of Connecticut. 

The Supreme Court opined in Griswold that there is an implicit right to privacy contained within the Bill of Rights, which the Connecticut statute (by way of the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment) violated.  Santorum believes that this conclusion of the Supreme Court is totally unfounded in reality.  Now, I don't think Santorum wants to ban contraceptives anytime soon (although his gaggle of kids suggests that his household has not seen widespread use of them)--he does not believe that Connecticut should have had the ban, but believes that Connecticut had the right to do so.  In this, he agrees with Justice Stewart, dissenting:

"But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do."

Just because a law is Constitutional does not mean it is wise.  Just because a law is unwise does not mean it is Constitutional.

[Keystone Phil]

That was good that you posted that Erc but you have to understand something: Those that dislike Santorum really dislike him. They think he hates gays, doesn't believe in individual rights...some even say he is really disliked by most of PA (Of course he's disliked by PA! I mean come on. The lowest disapproval ratings, 60% say Santorum's GOP leadership role is good for PA, the fact that he has a comfortable lead over most of the possible Dem field in 2006. Those are obvious signs he's disliked here.)

Santorum could base his whole campaign explaining that he doesn't hate gays and those that hate him will insist that he does and that's that. My point: Your post was useless and will be ignored by Santorum haters but thanks for posting it.

[Moooooo]

I dont hate Rick Santorum.  Ive stated on TeamSpeak many times that I respect him because unlike many other politicians he doesnt sugar coat his comments.  He says what he believes and thats that.  I do however disagree that he does not dislike homsexuals.  Anyone who refers to homosexuality as "man on dog sex" obviously has a serious hatred towards homsexuals and their lifestyle.

[they don't love you like i love you]

His oppsition to gay marriage isn't exaclty "absurd."  At least in that instance, his postion mirrors that of 75-80% of the country.

no, around 1/3 of the population support gay marriage. And he supports the FMA, supported by less than half of the population. And of course that other loony stuff he said.

[PADem]

Democrats

Gore
Kerry
Clinton
Hagel

Ugh, ::whispers:: Hagel is a Republican.

Oops, I knew that.....He wasn't even who I meant to write. That was meant to be Lieberman, but oh well.

[TeePee4Prez]

I saw Santorum speaking to some conservative organization on C-span tonight.  I think you guys are a little too hard on him.   He seems intelligent enough.

I'll admit Santorum has written some very nice articles in the Inquirer.  Well written and even as a Democrat, you have to sit back and think twice about what he said.  Once you do though, you realize what he's getting at then you don't like it.  His voting record is a whole other story though. 

[Notre Dame rules!]

In polls, nearly 1/3 say that they support gay marriage or civil unions.  However, when those same people get into the polling booth, the issue of banning gay marriage wins by 75-80%.   So, it would seem that people are willing to tell pollsters one thing, but when they really have to decide the issue at the ballot box, support for gay marriage fades dramatically. 

[they don't love you like i love you]

nationwide? no. The following states passed it last election with over 75%:

Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Oklahoma

But those are all pretty damn conservative states, especially socially.

Even in Utah, over 1/3 voted no, and it got below 60% in Michigan and Oregon. So it's safe to say that nationally the number is not 75-80%, unless Georgia and Oklahoma are equal to the rest of the nation socially. This also of course doesn't take into account that those ballot iniatives are really just ways to draw all the fundies out and disproportionately increase their turnout.