Which presidential candidate would you vote for, long shot division

I think we can all agree that the field of contenders isn’t real exciting at the top of either party. Hillary, Rudy, John, Barack, John or Mit…none of them leap right off the campaign posters and into your heart. So I thought I’d ask, who would you vote for given the choice of any of the declared or likely candidates? Does Feingold float your boat? Is Fred Thompson the savior of the GOP? This is thread thread to extol their virtues. (BTW, if one of the frontrunners DOES leap off the campaign poster and into your heart, please feel free to tell us why) Is there a Green Party candidate, or a Socialist or anyone else that resonates with you? I would only ask that you refrain from posts of the “Well, it doesn’t matter who the Dems/Repubs nominate, that’s who I’ll vote for” (an opinion that I personally view as short sighted at best and downright idiotic when you stop to think about it. Which is exactly what people who make that statement aren’t doing) This thread is about actual candidates, not parties.

For me, I’ll throw out the name of Congressman Ron Paul. He’s declared as a candidate, but he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything, which is a shame, really. He’s honest, hard working, principled and has an actual career other than being a professional pol (He’s an Ob/Gyn). The principles he stands for warm this small government moderate’s heart:

His comment on the war appropriations bill should resonate with the anti-war crowd:

Still, like I said, he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance, although actually having a government run along the principles espouced by the founding fathers is a fantasy that makes my heart beat a little faster. sigh

In any event, who would you chose, and why? A genie has popped out of a bottle and granted you the one wish that you get to pick the next president and it will be so. Whose it gonna be?

Well, I googled to see if he was still alive, sadly he is not.

Well…modesty forbids.

Cthulhu . Why vote for a lesser evil?
Couldn’t be much worse than the other choices, and we might not be an international laughingstock.

I can’t say anything beyond that I’ve yet to see any candidate who really floats my boat, and I’m not knowledgeable enough of congresscritters, governors, and such to offer any of them as possibilities. Ahnold may be the closest match, in truth. Seems like he’s still cutting his teeth though, and we’ll have to see if he stays in the middle or gets drawn out along the spectrum to one side.

But meh, I’d rather someone who was a brainiac.

Dennis Kucinich. As in 2004, I will campaign for him until the Dem Convention. And then campaign for the Dem nominee, who will not be him.

At least I’ll get to hang out, for a few months, with a better class of people.

Well, he’s not eligible to run for president, but I agree he’s still cutting his teeth on being a governator.

My roommate. By January 09 when he would be sworn in we could afford to pay the rent or mortgage (if we get the place) by ourselves and my SO and I could have the place to ourselves for a change. I figure that gives him a place to live and the salary would be enough he could get his own place when his term ended.

Are you sure he’s a small-government moderate? He has run on the Libertarian ticket before.

Russ Feingold

Brain, I’m a small government moderate. And I don’t agree with all of Paul’s positions. But most people who are in the middle of the political spectrum are a whole lot closer to being libertarians than they are comfortable admitting, mainly because the Libertarian party has a long history of nominating whackos. In any event, cutting taxes, cutting government in general is something that I can get behind in a big way.


We can pretend W’s administration never happened. Roll back all the damage done diplomatically, all the civil rights removed, the dismantling of FEMA prior to hurricane Katrina… do Like Ronald Reagan said, and go back to the way things were in the good ol’ days.

Follow up thought - he could have Bill Clinton as his Vice President. Six years into the Gore administration, he can resign and let Bill fill in the remaining two years, then Gore can come back and win a third term. Twelve more years of Gore/Clinton might just be enough to put the country back on track and keep it there permanently.

Clever, but unconstitutional.

Gore would be my second choice after DK.

As for Nader, though I have great admiration for him . . .

I don’t want him for POTUS.

I don’t want him for Secretary of the Interior.

I don’t want him for Administrator of the EPA.

I’d far, far rather have him as U.S. Attorney General.

That would drop some shitstains on the boardroom carpets! :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

I don’t think he has a chance, but from watching him close up I’d favor Bill Richardson.

Sorry, but you’re wrong about that. The 22nd amendment only says that no one can be elected to the office of President twice. Cite. So there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Clinton getting elected as Vice President.

The conventional wisdom is that the presidential term limit is ten years, but even in that scenario it works. Clinton has only served eight years. In the event Gore left office during the first two years of either term, Clinton would have to leave office two years later.

There is no restriction in the constitution preventing a former president from serving as Vice President, even if he couldn’t fulfill the entire term. So yes, it’s constitutional.

I’m also a big fan of Richardson. I’m still not sure why he doesn’t have the popularity that he deserves. He’s not a particularly odd ball candidate either. It just seems the media seems to focus on Clinton/Obama.

Nope, 12th Amendment

Yes, Al Gore. But somebody will have to muzzle Nader this time around, eh?