Republicans: Do you have a candidate you're actually enthusiastic about?

[Beef]

Just curious.  If yes, please explain who, and why.

[Beef]

I should have put a proviso on there: Ron Paul doesn't count.  Oh well, too late now :-).

[angus]

I voted before I read the second post.  Well, if Ron Paul doesn't count, then don't count my vote.  But since I voted I'll answer the question.  I talked to Ron at some length Thursday night.  We talked about monetary policy, the federal budget deficit, and how likely any of the mainstream parties were to adopt his positions if he broke the double-digit mark in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I'd gone in to the caucus early.  About 5:30, because I'd never been to one and was very curious.  Turns out that it was good I did, since parking after 6ish became hinterland, and after 6:30 became a string of cars along the street stretching for over a mile.  When I got in they had already put up balloons and the big black elephants everywhere.  My first impression was the loud thump of a high-wattage sound system playing "Back in Black" by AC/DC.  Actually, I got there just seconds before it came on, so my steps into the hall were to the cadence of the first flams and syncopated guitar riff. 

Bam.  ch.  Ba-na-naumph.  ch.  Ban-na-naumph.  ch.  chh.  Drdiidldiidl. 
Bam.  ch.  Ba-na-naumph.  ch.  Ban-na-naumph.  Nannuh Nannuh Nannuh Nannuh.

They played that through and I was grooving.  Taking pics as the Romney table was being set up, FRED08 was being set, etc.

Here are some set up photos.

Paul's table, of course, was already set up and quite a few Ron People were excitedly making mobile phone calls and predictions.

By the time it was really crowded, like this, I'd been there an hour and was getting bored, had read all the literature.  Talked to Dr. Cort, talked to a US senate candidate (Fatje?) who plans to unseat Harkin.  (yeah, right.)  Then I started hearing a chant.   To quote from Dr. Seuss, "It started out low, then it started to grow."  Except it wasn't the Whos down in Whoville singing of Christmas even without boxes and bows, it was the rabid cult followers of Ron.  "Ron Paul.  Ron Paul.  Ron Paul.  Ron Paul."  By then they'd turned off the music.  I guess they were only testing the speaker sound initially.  But it didn't matter, since the place was loud enough anyway. 

I met a woman who was probably 65ish, said she'd been registered to vote all her life and lived in Iowa all her life, but had never attended a caucus of either party before.  Why now?  Ron Paul.  That's why.  I met an older, skinny man supporting Ron Paul who said he lost all his teeth from smoking meth, but now had found God, and was happy to know that when he "closed his eyes" he'd go to heaven.  He was supporting the only candidate who wasn't making the cure-all promises of a false prophet, he said.  I met many young people supporting Ron Paul.  One guy had lots of facial jewelery and 60s-era birth control glases, and another had very long hair, lots of tattooes and a black Metallica T-shirt.  Many had shaved heads.  But most were normal-looking college-age people.  One guy was my neighbor, a cowboy new to Iowa from Montana and very happy to be at the First In The Nation Caucus supporting Ron Paul, mostly for Ron's anti-imperialist rants.  Many had yardsigns to be signed.  T-shirts to be signed.  Even photos to be signed.  And Ron did lots of signing.  I'm not much on autographs myself, but I did want to shake his hand and bug him about some things.

I suppose I didn't ask him anything he hadn't heard before.  But when I asked him about monetary policy he went on and on about fiat money and the need to abolish the federal reserve board.  I asked him whether the president had any direct authority here, and he admitted that the president did not, but then He reminded me that he had introduced legislation several times to abolish it.  It was created by the congress, and can be annihilated by the congress.  I said that he had reminded us many times in debates that we'd become spoiled by government and trained to expect much from them, and if so, how realistic is it that any legislative agenda he pursued could realistically pay our 9.1 trillion dollar federal budget deficit.  He admitted that no one could do that in a term or two, but we could start by ending one huge program that lots of folks wanted to end:  US military involvement in Iraq.  Lots of onlookers cheered when he said that.  Almost deafening.  Of course, there were a few blue-haired old ladies who were very disapproving of that statement.  More about that later.

I asked how realistic it all was.  Ron Paul, it's an honor to meet you but honestly most of my neighbors are voting for Mitt Romney, and a bunch of folks are voting for Guvnuh Huckabee.  And Back East they'll be supporting Romney and McCain.  If you can even break ten percent that'd be a coup, wouldn't it?  Well, we're in it to win.  Well, I know you don't like talking about coming in 2nd or 3rd or 4th, but what if you did, would your positions be absorbed by any major candidates?  No.  (Simple.  Honest.  "No.")  No?  No.  No, why not?  Both of these parties are too entrenched.  We need to win.  We need not only to win the presidency, but more importantly we need to win the congress.  The only way we'll fix this mess is when the old-guard, small-government right takes the congress.  Brings us home from all the mess.  Closes bases overseas.  Listens to George Washington's advice.  Weans us from all these federal programs.  Returns the power to the states.  Pays off the national debt.  And abolishes the federal reserve.

Not many candidates are that candid.  Why do we call them candidates anyway?

I'm still cheering for Ron Paul.  But Don put up a why can't we just love one another thread.  And I thought more about that.  It's the Bush Doctrine.  (aka "pre-emption")  Why go on defense when you can go on offense?  Why spend a few million to strike anyone who strikes you, when you can spend a few hundreds of billion dollars to pre-emptively strike, ensuring radical hatred and lack of worldwide sympathy?  The problem is that there are many who really buy into the pre-emption doctrine.  Or, more broadly, the American Empire.  Although they are loathe to call it by the true name.  And it comes from both major parties.  Madelaine Albright sounded suspiciously like Woodrow Wilson did a hundred years earlier when she said, "We are America.  We are the indispensable nation."  Obama uttered words about "remaking the world as it should be" in what was otherwise a flawless and moving thank-you speech to Iowa Democrats.  Neo-conservative (or call it something else if you're referring to Clintonian world interference), is rampant.  I call it imperialism.  And it not only divides our party, it divides our nation.  In Rome circa 30 BC, there were two factions:  the Republicans and the Imperialists.  Here, all we have are imperialists.  The imperialists are imperialists and so are the republicans.  Ron wants a return to Republic.  A return to federalism.  Many of us would like to put Republic back into Republican, but we have to start by putting the candid back in candidate. 

[Platypus]

That is the first intelligent reasoning I have ever,ever heard from a Paulite on the internet.

My dislike for Paul centers on three things:

1. His supporters. Shut up already, if you don't have anything to say.

2. His world-phobia. America shouldn't be the world's policeman or ruler, but it must be an active part of global politics, the international economy, and tghe progress of our planet.

3. He opposed Lawrence vs. Texas.

[Daniel Adams]

Yes, actually. I enthusiastically support John McCain, even more than I did in 2000. Quite simply, he is the only candidate in the GOP field that actually had the foreign policy experience needed in our time. For me at least, the War on Terrorism is the most important issue in this race and the candidate I support must have the foreign policy knowledge to bring America to victory both in Iraq and in every other front in this conflict. Giuliani touts foreign policy a lot, but really he has none. I fail to see how being New York's mayor in 9/11, as good as his performace that day was, translates to foreign policy experience. We've all seen the complete ignorance of Huckabee in everything relates to foreign policy and his Democrat-like Bush-bashing. Romney is a flip-flopping former governor, so again he has no true experience. Thompson was a lazy one-term senator; again, he does not have what it takes to lead the USA in this war. Duncan Hunter is the only candidate that comes close to McCain's experience, but he is a long-shot with the wrong position on free trade.

McCain is also at the forefront of the fight against pork-barrel spending and corruption, which is what made the GOP loose in 2006. He has been speaking and acting against useless spending since before the electoral campaign. He is frequently criticized by conservatives for voting against the Bush tax cuts, but McCain's plan to cut taxes and spending was much more reasonable. Again, no other candidate cares as deeply about this issue as McCain does.

McCain is honest, consistent, and the best qualified to lead America. He can keep the Reagan coalition of social, economic, and defense conservatives together and lead the GOP to victory in 2008.

[WalterMitty]

yes.  hillary.

[Sibboleth]

yes.  hillary.

I don't that that's quite what he was looking for

[Prez Duke]

I could get enthusiastic about Rudy and McCain. Anyone else, and I hope Bloomberg runs.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Yes, Mitt Romney.

He stands head and shoulders above anyone else seeking the Presidency in terms of his abilities to do the job.

The people of this nation should be thankful that Romney is offering himself as a candidate, and the only candidate, who can truly lead this nation out of the abyss and into a bright, new tomorrow, a tomorrow full of hope, a tomorrow full of optimism, a tomorrow free from fear, and a tomorrow where all, regardless of their societal situatioin, can look forward to a future with unbounded opportunities and a future where peace, prosperity, and opportunities beckon.

Romney's time is now, America's time is now, the future awaits.

[Reluctant Republican]

Yes, in fact I have two. The first is of course Ron Paul, He’s a man after my own heart when he talks about drastically reducing government. But as of right now, I am supporting John McCain. Let me make it clear that him and I have had our differences, especially on the war and campaign finance reform. But I really do respect the man more then anyone else in the race. I believe he’s one of the few Republicans who could responsibly handle this war, and I do feel that he “deserves” the nomination, as even if he loses he would move the political atmosphere of this country away from the toxic environment it has recently cultivated. I imagine a race between McCain and Obama would be very civil, and we’d have a debate on the issues rather then the candidates personal lives, and that is really what we should be striving for.

Finally, I support McCain because I think he could win, especially on a campaign focused on the issues. And I believe he could unify the country again and ease this partisan bickering that we have seen on both sides in recent years. I used to believe McCain was the only one who could unify this country in this race. However, after seeing Obama’s speech in Iowa I believe he could as well, though I disagree with him on many things.

Sadly though, these are the only two Republicans I like at all. I WANT to like Romney, I saw him stumping the other day and noticed he’s taken to wearing Mr. Roger’s sweaters. But something about him makes me nervous. I also want to like Huckabee. Every time I hear him speak I like him more and more, and if we are going to lose next year, would it really be that bad to go down with him, I wonder? But putting aside my personal liking of him, I think about him being in office, and I shudder. Adding in a lot of his socially conservative positions, I just don’t see myself supporting him. So I’m thinking I’ll support either McCain or whoever the Libertarians put up. Bloomberg’s a tempting option, but I see him more and more as being the Perot in this race, as since he may very well face an extremely charismatic Democratic opponent, I can’t see him winning. And he’s very controlling. [New York mayors seem to all be like this] So probably Libertarian I shall vote.

[reformer]

Huckabee's passion and character really excites me.

[angus]

1. His supporters. Shut up already, if you don't have anything to say.

you should be so consistent as to say this to all supporters of all candidates, then.  It's not as though the Dennis Kucinich crowd or the Fred Thompson crowd have anything more to say about their candidate than the Ron Paul people say.

2. His world-phobia. America shouldn't be the world's policeman or ruler, but it must be an active part of global politics, the international economy, and tghe progress of our planet.

He doesn't really have a phobia of international politics.  What he doesn't want is to allow the International Criminal Court, for example, to try our soldiers as war criminals.  Frankly I don't either.  Do you want your military to have its hands bound by some foreign powers if it comes to them defending themselves?  As for the WTO and CAFTA, these organizations could make business already more regulated.  Americans would have to have prescriptions to take herbs and vitamins if they had their way.  Already we are overregulated.  The United Nations wants to impose a direct tax on U.S. citizens.  Ron Paul worked very hard against this in congress.  I will admit that I disagree when he says that the "real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept."  I would argue that if the people of the US legitimately give consent to be a member, then the concept is legitimate, and the problem with the UN is that it is corrupt and largely ineffective.  But I do think it can be reformed.  Still, Ron is entitled to his interpretation.  He does support free, unfettered commerce between the peoples of the world.  This isn't phobic.

3. He opposed Lawrence vs. Texas.

This is subtle.  And tricky.  Ron Paul opposes amendments to the US constitution defining marriage.  He also opposes federal judges legislating to states about sodomy laws.  These positions do not come from any predisposition toward traditionalism, but rather from a predisposition toward federalism.  If you still oppose him for that reason, I think that's okay.  Just make sure you understand the logic.  I for example have no problem with two men getting married, and would vote for allowing it if my legislature puts on a binding referendum ballot.  But I would not want the federal government telling my state one way or the other.  I don't think the federal government should be in the business of usurping the rights guaranteed the people via their legislature.  This is not a Democracy.  It is a Republic.

[afleitch]

3. He opposed Lawrence vs. Texas.

This is subtle.  And tricky.  Ron Paul opposes amendments to the US constitution defining marriage.  He also opposes federal judges legislating to states about sodomy laws.  These positions do not come from any predisposition toward traditionalism, but rather from a predisposition toward federalism.  If you still oppose him for that reason, I think that's okay.  Just make sure you understand the logic.  I for example have no problem with two men getting married, and would vote for allowing it if my legislature puts on a binding referendum ballot.  But I would not want the federal government telling my state one way or the other.  I don't think the federal government should be in the business of usurping the rights guaranteed the people via their legislature.  This is not a Democracy.  It is a Republic.
[/quote]

I agree with Hugh here. While I would consider myself a federalist (and at UK level too) it can easily be used as an excuse for inaction. Human rights and ultimately the freedom on the individual are universal rights; they are not sub-ordinate to federal or state constitutional law. If the federal government enacts legislation to promote and extend individual rights then naturally I am supportive. If they fail to do so then unfortunately federal authority should enforce such universal rights even if it subsequently over-rides states rights.

I have concerns that Ron Paul would be a 'do nothing' President and America can not afford a president who stands back when violations of individual rights occur at a state level.

[Jake]

John McCain doesn't excite me, just the chance that Romney then Huckabee lose to him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

yes.  hillary.

So in other words, you're supporting the one Republican who has a chance at winning?

[Big DaddyTX]

I do, both McCain and Guiliani

[GPORTER]

I support Fred Thompson.

[angus]

I have concerns that Ron Paul would be a 'do nothing' President and America can not afford a president who stands back when violations of individual rights occur at a state level.

wherein lies sovereignty?  More specifically, who defines violations of individual rights?  The US constitution's Bill of Rights does limit democracy, and rightfully so.  It says, "look, we respect your freedoms and your rights, but here are some rights you do not have."  Fine.  Everyone who ratified agreed upon those limitations of sovereignty.  And the subsequent amendments to the constitution have limited democracy in other ways over the years.  In a real sense, the Bill of Rights limits democracy, since there are some rights we, in a super-majoritarian, legally binding way, have decided states and individuals just should not have.  The right to enslave, for example.  And the right to prohibit someone from voting who is over 18.  These are rights taken away from the people (through their legislatures) by the constitution by common agreement.  But the argument is over the interpretation of what rights of people (through their legislatures) have been limited by that document.  Some argue, for example, that the right to free press precludes FCC fines for showing nipples.  Some, among them I, would go so far as to say the FCC should not even exist.  Nor the Federal Reserve Board, for that matter.  Others argue, for example, that two men have a constitutionally-guaranteed to marry.  We should debate that.  I think there's a case to be made, though I am not sold entirely.  I do think it's okay by me if they do, and would support such a state-level allowance.  But it's another issue entirely to suggest that the federal government right exists.  One thing's for sure, if the constitution is amended, then the right will exist by constitutional federal law.  But this should not be confused with rights determined not by the people, but by judges.  That's where the federalists draw the line I think.  Rule by fiat guarantees no rights.  It simply denies them.

Anyway, that's not what Lawrence was about.  Lawrence was about some unenforced laws.  I remember growing up learning that it was technically illegal to get a blow job in most states.  And illegal to do sodomy on your wife or another woman or another man or a dog or anything else.  But we all knew it was a joke.  An unenforcible law.  No one was ever going to get arrested for sodomizing any one else.  Or for blowing anyone else.  Then that weird thing in Houston happened.   Some cops actually enforced an unenforcible law.  Obviously I and everyone else thinks the laws are silly and should be taken off the books.  But just as obviously it should have been the people (through their legislatures) that did that.  Did society really change in any way between the day before which you were not allowed to BF your hetero- or homosexual partner?  Most people would say, not in any real way.  They'd say that once in a blue moon, apparently, such laws are enforced, but the laws were meaningless anyway and almost never enforced, so no it doesn't matter much one way or the other.  But I submit that society did change.  Most people today don't really know how the government works or what the three branches of government are.  This makes it easy for the congress to whip up paranoia in order to restrict liberties, as they're doing now.  People just don't know what the limitations of government are.  And cases like this don't help, because people just assume that judges can rule, legitimately, by fiat.  Oh, as long as they make decisions you like you're okay with it, but if you think you can give fat old men in black robes unchecked power and expect them to continue, generation after generation, making decisions you like, then you're deluded.  Every decision which pleases you displeases someone else.  This is not the way the country is set up.

Let's be clear.  Cops really shouldn't be wasting valuable time and taxpayer money chasing down people who are boning each other in the privacy of their own homes.  But it shouldn't be up to unelected officials to make such decisions.  It should be left up to the good people of the state to fight the good fight to ensure that those cops aren't doing that.  And, history shows that when people are left to decide in their legislatures, the values are internalized.  But if values are imposed, they are weak and change quickly.  Look at capital punishment.  As a strong opponent of capital punishment it bothers me a great deal that the US Supreme Court saw fit to outlaw capital punishment in 1967.  Why?  Because it's more popular than ever.  Support for capital punishment was waning in this country throughout the 60s, but in a predictable backlash, after that decision forced a value system on the people, they revolted, stacked the court with others, and now support for capital punishment is at about 70%.

Ron Paul understands that imposed values are weak, and that rule by judicial fiat weakens individual rights, even at the same time as they make decisions you shallowly think you agree with.  If you want to fight for change, then do it the right way.  To quote George W. Bush, albeit out of context, from the 2000 campaign, "We must change minds and hearts.  That's the real way to change laws.  We must not allow the judiciary to do the legislature's job."

[Platypus]

What if the legislature is genuinely wrong? The state of Arkansas 41 years ago: The legislature and the executive of the state supported the continuation of segregation in education; it took the courts and Presidential intervention for 9 african-american students to attend Little Rock Central. Was this not a better outcome? I'm sure you'd agree it was. How about the process? It would be preferable for the state to have done the right thing, but inm this case the only way to get the appropriate outcome in the appropriate timeframe was through judicial and federal intervention. Now, a large majority of Arkansans would be in favour of racial integration in schools.

The Bush quote at the end of you last post is a good one. The thing is, to change hearts and minds in this situation there had to be black students at the school so that people were able to see that the sky wouldn't fall in. Without the mandated segregation, it would have taken months or decades to happen, harming the futures of african-american Arkansans moreso.