If You Were Participating in the Iowa Caucuses
 

What are your thoughts on your favorite candidate? Why does s/he merit your vote?

Can your candidate win the national election? If not, will you vote your conscience at that time? Or do you think voting your conscience would be "throwing your vote away" and help the other candidate?

I can tell you about the actual Iowans in my husband's family. SIL and nephew like Dodd. MIL and FIL like Hilary.

If I could vote in the Iowa caucuses, I would kill myself because I lived in Iowa. However, that isn't the point of the thread.

I'm enthralled with no one at this point. Of course, I could never be enthralled with a dem, so I won't bother even mentioning any.

McCain? Not a conservative. Huckabee? Not a conservative. I think Thompson is a conservative, but I really haven't heard enough from him. Romney? Perhaps he is a conservative....but there are many things he did in Mass that I don't like. Guiliani? I guess he'd be my choice by default.

Haha! That was exactly what I thought when I read the thread title

I'm interested in why you don't think these people are conservatives.

Huckabee, from what I've read, is a social conservative (obviously), but is a tax and spender. I don't believe he is fiscally responsible and seems to be of the opinion that more money in the hands of the government is the best way to solve a problem.

McCain has two major strikes against him with me - the first being campaign finance reform, and the second being his lack of support for border enforcement. He is a senator of a border state that is literally being invaded but only saw the light when his campaign was virtually dead. I don't trust him on this issue in the least despite what he is saying now.

Being that my two of my biggest issues are fiscal responsibility and border control, those two guys just don't do it for me.

Edited to add: I also think Huckabee has been somewhat classless in his attacks on Romney's Mormon faith.

Ok, I see why you don't like them, but those issues don't disqualify them as conservatives, IMHO.

As for the OP, if I were in Iowa, I'd be grumbling the same as I am now about how the two party system has crippled us. The party I am a member of isn't even worth bothering with due to their limited fanbase. I'd also be sort of rooting for Obama, though I'm undereducated on all the candidates, due to crushing depression regarding politics and the futility of human history/future.

To me, tax and spend big government is not conservatism. This is how I see Huckabee. Failing to put one of the only constitutionally mandated requirements of the federal government, to protect and defend the the borders of the US, also disqualifies one from being a conservative. Limiting free speech (which is how I view campaign finance reform) disqualifies one as a conservative.

I'd vote for Richardson because I've got money on him.

I would like to hear the names of all these conservatives who do not "tax and spend" on programs of their own choosing. Did all the conservatives who were involved in congress over the years but did not build walls on our borders disqualify themselves? As for free speech....man, I don't even know where to start with that one.

Me too.....I've 350 to 1 odds and $20 that could turn into $7,000 if he wins the whole thing:D

Yeah, I know.....I threw $20 away:blush:

In reality I wouldn't participate if I lived in Iowa. First, I'm not a member of any party and therefore don't feel I should take part in selecting a parties nominee (I don't vote in party primaries here in California either). Second, I view the Iowa caucuses as a big old sham that should just crawl into a corner and die.

But at this point in time I would probably go with Barak Obama on the Dem side (I disagree with him on many many issues but I think he'd be a good change of direction if elected) and Ron Paul (I don't actually want him to be president but he injects ideas I like seeing aired and I still don't have a preferred Republican candidate to stand behind so until I do I'll promote the ideas).

Wasn't Guiliani once pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro gay rights? Interesting that he gets a pass on his past but not Romney.

I think it is pretty much assured that a conservative won't win. I like Obama's fresh perspective but I don't think he experienced enough. In regard to experience, I like Biden but he doesn't have a chance. That pretty much leaves Hillary.

I still maintain that Obama's lack of experience is his biggest asset.

Guiliani is still pro-choice. In reality, the only influence a President has on abortion is who he appoints to the SC. He says he will appoint strict constructionists, and that is what I want.

He has said he is no longer pro gun control. I agree this may be the same thing as McCain saying he now supports controlling the border.

Pro gay rights? You are wording this is in such a way as to say I don't support equality for all. I'm not sure why. The only thing I've ever said to make someone think that is that I do not support gay marriage, but I don't think the government should be in marriage at all. I've also expressed that I don'/t support so-called hate crimes initiatives because I think crime is crime regardless of why it was done and all perps should be prosecuted for their actions despite their motivations. Ona side note, I always laughed at the Byrd controversy in Texas being used against Bush because Bush didn't support "hate crimes" legislation. One of the perps was sentenced to death, the other to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Hard to get more restrictive than that, and a hate crimes law isn't going to make the sentence any more harsh.

Romney scares me primarily because of his health care initiatives in Massachusetts - something that to my knowledge he has never renounced. We've discussed this in a different thread.

Guiliani doesn't get a "pass" from me any more than Hillary gets a pass from you.....she's what's left by default for you. At least that's what I've read into what you've said. I believe I said the same thing, but that my candidate of choice would be Thompson.

That wasn't my intention to direct the comment to you specifically. I just meant for conservatives, generally speaking.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. :)

And in some respects, GD, I do see the inexperience as an assett, and might be more prone to do so were it not the current state of affairs in the world. Unfortunately, I think some experience is going to be necessary as we move towards trying to fix some of the problems we face. I'm normally a "think outside the box" guy but there is going to be little room for making mistakes, IMO.

Admit it, Scaeagles- it's just because Thompson has a hot wife.;)

I do not have any faith that Hillary will do anything good for our foreign policy. Honestly, Bill was pretty sh*tty in that regard himself. Of all the candidates, Obama's the only one who seems to have an attitude that will do any good. As long as he surrounds himself with appointees that can help him through his inexperience, it's not an issue.

I think Obama's lack of experience can't put us in a worse position than we are already in. Then again I'm not sure anyone would bring us to a worse position than we are already in. Well, sans the other Bush brother.

I know Thompson has experience, I disagree with him on many issues - but i still see him as DA Arthur Branch.

This is what I'm thinking, too.