Whom do you support for president in 2008?
January 25th, 2007Among the field of those who have declared themselves as presidential candidates in 2008, whom do you support?
Right now, I’m torn between Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback. Brownback probably would get my vote.
Dave Kovic. DAVE for president!
“I once caught a fish THIS BIG!”
John H. Cox
http://www.cox2008.com/cox/issues/
I find it difficult to support any of the candidates currently in the running. I don’t know enough about Brownback to really make a determination. But here’s a short list of who I’d really like to see:
R. Albert Mohler
Mark Dever
John Piper
And for a real bulldog in the White House:
Russell Moore
If we wanted the most entertaining presidency ever:
Mr. Frank Turk
If the caucus was today, I’d go for Brownback - he’s closest to me on the issues. After that it drops off pretty quickly. Romney might be ok, though his ideas about healthcare are a disaster in the making. McCain seems to unstable to trust with his finger on the button. Giuliani is great on terrorism, awful on social issues.
I’m mostly holding out hope that Tim Pawlenty will give it a shot.
GO BROWNBACK!!
I’m very impressed with Brownback. Of course, every candidate sounds good 20+ months before an election. I can remember a time when candidate George W was unapologetically pro-life. Remember that?
I am thinking either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.
You HAVE to be kidding!
Not kidding, although I have just been reading about Ron Paul and find him very interesting.
Ron Paul would be excellent. He hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell in being nominated by the Republicrats, however. Beyond him, I’ll have to check ‘none of the above’ based on the current field of candidates.
Overall I like Brownback. He’ll probably end up being my compromise vote, especially if the democratic party trots out their show dogs of Hillary and Barama. I’m still holding out for a James Gilchrist and Ed Thompson ticket.
I love Ron Paul, I just don’t understand why he associates with the republican party. After abortion my 2nd issue vote is the second amendment. If you vote life first then liberty happiness can only follow!
http://volokh.com/posts/1169537461.shtml
I think Paul has been “shoe-horned” in to the Republican party only b/c of his stances on gay marriage and abortion. That said, I don’t mind it for two reasons: 1) he has continued to vote his conscious on bills rather than toe the party line; and 2) a little libertarian philosophy in the current republican party could help greatly.
Christopher Walken! http://www.walken2008.com/
Tim Ellsworth in ‘08. Has a nice ring to it doesn’t it?
Of what we have so far, Brownback is basically the lone social conservative, and he probably stands little to no chance of winning. Of course I do recall a little-known governor from Georgia…
Thanks, Cameron. But alas, Tim Ellsworth will be one year too young to be eligible for the presidency in 2008.
I’m reminded of the Israelites telling Solomon they wanted a King because everyone else had one. With this in mind, and not seeing a worthy prospect on the near horizon, I’m casting my vote for GOD himself at this juncture.
What do I mean? I mean that I’m falling on my face seeking GOD to bring forth a Godly candidate, or instruct me in making the right choice towards a current candidate that will be of his choosing.
That’s ok Tim. I’ll just revise my hand-printed bumper sticker to say “Ellsworth - ‘12′.”
BTW…referring to yourself by name is a great indication you’re either a politician or crazy. (or both!) Cameron Cloud would never refer to himself in the third person, because he’s no politician.
What does anyone know or think about Duncan Hunter?
Chilibean, I think Pat Roberts is claiming that God told him to tell you to vote for him!
Wasn’t the hunter killed by a stingray?
Sam Brownback
Tony,
Of course I remember when W was unapologetically pro-life. It was just this week!
Tim,
I propose a constitutional amendment to lower the age requirement to 34!
Marilyn,
I’m intrigued by Hunter as well. Here’s a story from the NY Times today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/us/politics/26hunter.html
Marilyn, Hunter’s a little bit too much of a big-government Republican for my taste. I assume he stands fairly shoulder-to-shoulder with other Reps on conservative issues, so he can’t be all that bad - but he’s pretty far down my list of who I’d like to see run.
I’m not trying to be difficult, but do any of the Republican candidates who have declared have a chance of winning? To use a sports analogy, it’s like the NFC getting a shot at the title game when there are 3 or 4 AFC teams more qualified. In this case by qualified I mean name recognition/profile, not necessarily qualified to be POTUS…..
So, is there a chance of an upset?
In all honesty, is there a social conservative with the name-recognition, money, and campaign-savvy to actually get the Republican nomination? It seems many in the party are moving to a more moderate stance in order to appeal to the alleged “main-stream.” Who do we have that really stands much of a chance against the media darlings? (Obama & Hillary.)
What if Obama and Hillary had a child? Would there be enough kool aid?
I mean the Democrats are looking at Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Dodd. The Republicans? McCain, possibly Guiliani; both of whom are crossover candidates at best, but provide the most name recognition of any Republican hopefuls. The others would be third-stringers any other election cycle, and make me long for the days of Jack Kemp, Dick Lugar and Steve Forbes. At least I knew their names…
Newman,
With the press’ propensity for merging celeb couple’s names (Bennefer, Tomkat, etc), I’d hate to think what they’d do if those two got together.
Oballary? Hillaraka?
I posted my favorite hopeful candidate on my blog a few weeks ago…:
http://www.bdenker.blogspot.com/2007/01/presidential-election-2008.html
See if you agree!
Apparently I am the last person in the known world to find out that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. That’s right. Our next president could be Barack Hussein Obama. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
Much has been made of his attempts to distance himself from his father’s islamic heritage. He has denied reports that he attended an Islamic school as a child, and claims to be a Christian. I read a news story today that when he enrolled in a Catholic school as an adolescent, he listed himself (or his parents listed him) as a Muslim when asked on the form what was his religious preference.
Recent polls have suggested that Americans would be more likely to NOT vote for a Muslim than nearly any religion, including Jewish, Christian, Catholic, etc. Atheists were the only ones less likely to be voted into the White House. Whether or not he is or ever was a Muslim, it is no wonder he is trying to distance himself from it.
Seriously, can anyone imagine the USA voting into the White House a man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama? Does his name matter?
He also smokes cigarettes!
I like to smoke backwood cigars myself!
And a new candidate has emerged, as I thought he might: Mike Huckabee.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,247324,00.html
He’s someone else I’ll be considering strongly.
Here’s an interesting straw poll I found on GOPBloggers.org.
http://gopbloggers.org/janpollresults.php
It’s interesting to see so few of you guys supporting Romney. Are you scared of a Mormon taking the White House?
Brownback’s going South on the War so I’m quickly becoming less of a fan. I’m with Romney or Gingrich, but it would be nice to see Huckabee. Which way would Arkansas swing then, it was Hillary v. Huckabee?
Just because I am a troublemaker, I thought I would mix things up a bit:
Let me begin by saying I have no clue who I would vote for. It seems like there are a lot of pretenders, as well as some blokes (and at least one sheila) who I just don’t trust.
I think that this next election cycle will mark a major paradigm shift in the Religious Right, and possibly the demise of the movement as a formal voting block. Brownback is unelectable because everyone who is not a conservative evangelical consider him to be a wack-job. The fundamentalist faction in the Religious Right will not be able to get past Romney’s church membership, so he’s a goner too. Huckabee mixes things up a bit, but he will have to really distinguish himself in a crowded field. So there are the Religious Right guys.
Then there are the moderate republicals–McCain and Guiliani being the most prominent–who are too far to the left on moral issues to garner widespread support from the Relgious Right. Yet their crossover appeal makes them much more electable than their more conservative compatriots. So does the Religious Right faction of the Republican Party vote for someone who does not share their values just so they can get a GOP guy in office, or do they manage to get a conservative nominated who will be trounced by Barack Obama or John Edwards? Or worse, do they break with the GOP (which Dobson et al has threatened before) and start doing the third party thing, which will definitely be the death knell for the Religious Right?
You can also throw into the mix the reality that a large number of younger religious conservatives, especially outside the south, are shifting their allegiance to the Democratic Party because of the so-called “justice” issues. If enough of these progressive evangelicals are willing to either make abortion a secondary issue or try to create a stronger pro-life base in the Democratic Party, then the Religious Right (and the Republicans) will really start to lose some momentum.
It is a scary time for politico-theological conservatives …
Well said, Nathan.
I think it’s going to be extremely difficult for a social consevative to get the Republican nomination, because social conservatives will be splintered in whom they support. Some will vote for Brownback. Some Huckabee. Some Romney. This splintering will allow a more moderate candidate, like Guiliani or McCain, to get the nomination.
I wish somehow social conservatives could rally around one candidate, no matter who it is. But I don’t see how that’s going to happen.
And this might be the year that social conservatives try to make a statement by supporting a third party candidate. I know if Guiliani is the nominee, and maybe McCain, that I’ll not be voting Republican in the 2008 general election.
I’m afraid it has to be third party and it has to be far away from the dems and repubs. There are a lot of greedy evil men running the country right now and none of them align with any of the morals represented by visitors of this blog.
Sounds very similar to the birth of the Republican party in the 1850s. Interestingly enough, that too was essentially over a “moral” issue. Will the Republican Party go the way of the Whigs?
No offense intended to anyone, but I would never vote for a Mormon. . . or a Jew . . . or a Catholic . . . or a Muslim . . . or a woman as President of the United States. How’s that for complete, transparent honesty?
I think this is actually a great time for religious conservatives. I would most assuredly vote for a blue-dog Democrat who shares my views of the biblical ethic than some cheesy middle-of-the-road Republican like McCain or Guiliani. And this coming from the once Membership Secretary of the Young Republicans (Carson-Newman, before my transfer to UU)
Klay,
What about a Methodist, Episcopalian or (gasp!) a member of the Church of Christ?
Joel, I know my post may have sounded a bit harsh (though it was not formed in a harsh frame of mind), but throwing caution to the wind, I thought a note of transparency would add to the discussion.
I guess your real question is where I would draw the line. Would I only vote for baptists of the reformed persuasion, for example? No, of course not. To answer your specific question - yes to all three. I feel comfortable voting only for professed Christians who would recognize the authority of scripture in the life of a believer.
I would not feel at ease voting for persons of other faiths (including pseudo-Christian cults). My concern about voting for a Catholic is that a true RC would yet bring a commitment to the authority of the Pope in his personal life. How could a genuine RC (as opposed to a nominal) choose a course of action contrary to the counsel of the Roman See?
Hope this clarifies.
Brownback has gone on the record as being opposed to Bush’s most recent plan in Iraq.
Does this change anyone’s opinion of Brownback (pro or con)?
Criticizing Obama over his name? You bible belt right-wingers are racist, backwards thinking cavemen/women.
I’m a moderate, if you care to know. I like Giuliani, and Obama is also pretty impressive, pending he can prove he’s ready for the white house. Not a fan of Hilary, or McCain. Also, I can’t stand the one-sided view of both CNN and FoxNews.
But seriously, comments like some of these are the reason why the “mainstream” tends to drift away from the Republicans. Let’s all go fly our confederate flags and hang people who aren’t white, fake-christian-value conservatives from a tree and beat them with a stick. Now, that’s progression in your minds..isn’t it?
John, I’m not sure which comment you’re referencing. It’s possible I missed it, but I glanced back over the comments and didn’t see anyone criticizing Obama over his name.
JasonK’s comment about Obama’s name wasn’t a criticism — just an observation. He wasn’t saying he has a problem with the man’s name and was simply pointing out the irony of it.
So let’s cool it with the racism charges.
John, sorry to see that something struck you wrong - though I’m not sure what your basis was in making some of the charges you mentioned.
Anyhow, I had a great time celebrating MLK day in our city-wide rally, and was honored to offer the invocation & benedictions. And John, please pray for us as the Haitian pastor of our mission church (started 4 years ago) and I travel to the poverty-stricken country of Haiti to make preparations for a church-wide mission trip to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, provide medical supplies to the ill, and minister the soul-saving gospel of Jesus Christ.
I think you misread . . .
I misread — my apologies to all! Thanks for the clarification as well.