Who's your pick?

So for those of you claiming that an extremist would be a good choice, how do you feel about Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren becoming president? I've seen them called socialists on conservative blogs - isn't that a little extreme?

You see how much you hate Obama, do you honestly think that any liberal wouldn't feel the same about Cruz or Rand or Walker being voted in? If they became the presidential nominee, can you imagine the political activism that would suddenly happen in this country? Hmm, come to think of it, that would be a good thing - more voter turnout is always welcome.

Wicked wrote: So for those of you claiming that an extremist would be a good choice, how do you feel about Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren becoming president? I've seen them called socialists on conservative blogs - isn't that a little extreme?

Yep, extreme. There are a lot more examples, I just grabbed the top two.

www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21Sanders.t.html

Bernie knows how he feels, having spent eight terms as the lone Socialist in Congress, and the first to serve in the House since the 1920s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist,[1][2] and has praised Scandinavian-style social democracy.[3][4]

Wicked wrote: So for those of you claiming that an extremist would be a good choice, how do you feel about Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren becoming president? I've seen them called socialists on conservative blogs - isn't that a little extreme?

You see how much you hate Obama, do you honestly think that any liberal wouldn't feel the same about Cruz or Rand or Walker being voted in? If they became the presidential nominee, can you imagine the political activism that would suddenly happen in this country? Hmm, come to think of it, that would be a good thing - more voter turnout is always welcome.

Too often we have as our choices moderates who are more about getting power and peddling favors than actually changing things, "W", Clinton, Bush I. Hillary and Jeb would be more of the same. Would be a more interesting campaign if both parties chose radicals, Cruz versus Sanders? Rand v. Warren?

So who is going to drive the GOP clown car? You have the crazies (Bachmann, santorum, huckabee, carson) who are so far to the right that even the conservatives discard them, the establishment (Bush (Romney clone), McCain) the inexperienced (Rubio, Rand, Cruz - it is funny to watch the same posters who claimed that Obama was too inexperienced to be president are now championing these three), the purely incompetent (Perry, Fiorini - named in the top twenty worst ceo in history). Also, the same posters who claimed Obama was ineligible since he was (they claim) born in Kenya to an American mother and Kenyan father are fine with Cruz who was born in Canada to an American mother and a cuban father.

I believe that a Clinton ticket with Julian Castro will clean up on anyone nominated from the clown car. No republican candidate has won a majority of american voters in almost forty years except for dubya's second term running as a "wartime" president and there is no reason to think that will change.

Yep, if you are a GOP voter who wants a candidate that is beholding to Wall Street, loves money, is a hawk on foreign affairs, supported both the Patriot Act and the Iraqi War, and has no real accomplishments, then Hillary Clinton is the perfect choice. Makes Rand Paul look like a lefty.

FredHayek wrote: Yep, if you are a GOP voter who wants a candidate that is beholding to Wall Street, loves money, is a hawk on foreign affairs, supported both the Patriot Act and the Iraqi War, and has no real accomplishments, then Hillary Clinton is the perfect choice. Makes Rand Paul look like a lefty.

How about listing the accomplishments of Rand, or Rafeal or Marco? Of course Jeb can proclaim his support for amnesty to illegal aliens, or his support of Common Core or his use of the same policy advisers as his bro used. And Carly can brag about how she ran HP into the ground until she was fired.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Yep, if you are a GOP voter who wants a candidate that is beholding to Wall Street, loves money, is a hawk on foreign affairs, supported both the Patriot Act and the Iraqi War, and has no real accomplishments, then Hillary Clinton is the perfect choice. Makes Rand Paul look like a lefty.

How about listing the accomplishments of Rand, or Rafeal or Marco? Of course Jeb can proclaim his support for amnesty to illegal aliens, or his support of Common Core or his use of the same policy advisers as his bro used. And Carly can brag about how she ran HP into the ground until she was fired.

Agree. Jeb & Hillary aren't very far apart at all. Moderates tend to win elections. Jeb does have eight years experience as a governor of one of our larger states.
Rand Paul will run like Obama, on promises and platitudes.
Marco Rubio? Will run as a hawk, expect him to highlight Obama's and Hillary's miscues and weak moves in the foreign ring.
Cruz will try to run as Reagan, promises of bringing America back to her glory.


Who is Obama's pick? Will he endorse Hillary soon? Or wait for her to take a misstep so that he can endorse a candidate of his own choosing? Might be what Senator Warren is waiting on? If the President calls you to serve, you can't turn him down right?

ScienceChic wrote: Paul Ryan is a bad choice if you actually want to see him elected - the Independent/Unaffiliated voters are not going to go for any candidates they view as extreme, either left or right. Same goes for Ted Cruz. Jon Huntsman would be a better choice.

As an independent, I have to disagree with you, SC. I'd consider Paul Ryan to be more of a moderate for a Republican, much as I consider Hillary Clinton to be a moderate for a Democrat. I see far more extreme candidates from both sides. For the conservatives, who on the Dems would you find more "reasonable" than her from their political positions?

Ryan at least understands the financial and tax issues, even if you disagree with him.

As an example, I was looking today at Rubio's tax plan and it looks like your typical Republican plan of lowering taxes for the rich, and raising taxes for the low income and upper middle class. As an example, he wants just two tax brackets of 15% and 35%. For the low income they pay 10% now, but I haven't read the complete plan and there may be something to adjust for that 5% increase (well, I do think he wants to increase the child tax credit from $2000 to $4500, but I ask why encourage children?).

For the upper middle class, he wants the 35% bracket to kick in at $75K if single and $150K if married. Now you don't get charged 35% until you make over $412K, though it doesn't matter if single or married (marriage penalty?). That could be a huge tax increase. Imagine if you want to cash in your IRA to get a down payment for a house. Instead of paying 15-28% on it you might have to pay 35%.

And Hillary Clinton? Her husband got away with something that would get you fired from any company I've worked for; having sex with an intern at the office. And she is supposed to get away with having her own email server, hiding it, picking and choosing what she wants to release, and then deleting everything? Either she's hiding something or is incredibly stupid or arrogant. That would get you fired from many companies too.

So who to choose? I'm not impressed with any of those declared so far.

Pat Paulsen.

Nobody that matters wrote: Pat Paulsen.

Wow, that is a blast from the past! Sock it to me!