Slog - Comments on Your Republican Dream Candidate?

Comment by annie

annie — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:30:18 -0800

If it's HRC, I devoutly hope it's Romney. I relish the comparison between his insipid Mormon baby-popping wife and the former first lady.

Comment by Madge-YoursoakingINIT!

Madge-YoursoakingINIT! — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:31:07 -0800

Ummm... Rudi. Cuz he does drag so bad.

Comment by DOUG.

DOUG. — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:35:09 -0800

NYFD hates Guiliani. I would love to see those ads.

Comment by vooodooo84

vooodooo84 — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:35:22 -0800

Tancredo or Hunter, one issue crazies, Huckabee is pretty close, but Chuck Norris is not to be trifled with in the general election

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:37:04 -0800

I gotta admit, I was won over by the Ron Paul blimp, last seen soaring over the Shire, thus demonstrating his regard for the little people.

Comment by brandon

brandon — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:43:53 -0800

rudy would be an "interesting" nominee, for all the reasons mentioned above, but it would be scary as fuck if he actually won the presidency. i get chills just thinking about it even now. i can't imagine how horrifying it would be if he were that much closer to being our next president.

mccain seems to be the most civilized. paul is by far the most entertaining. i could at least sleep at night if either of them were the republican nominee.

Comment by laterite

laterite — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:44:49 -0800

If I were a Republican, I would vote Democrat given this bunch.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:47:31 -0800

You have no idea how hard it is for me to refrain from fucking this poll up. I'm doing this for you, Eli. Because this poll is scientific!

P.S.
I swear the last poll fuck up with Edwards was not me.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:49:04 -0800

I voted for Ron Paul, since the GOP deserves to have their best chance to win.

Of course, they'll still be crushed by the 6-8 foot tall Blue Wave that will dwarf 2006's 2 foot Blue Weave, but ...

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:58:16 -0800

(sorry, not Weave .. Wave, altho that is funny)

Comment by Giffy

Giffy — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:04:35 -0800

@9, I voted for Ron Paul for the exact opposite reason, to give them their best chance to lose.

Comment by K

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:11:17 -0800

Thompson, because he's pretty much clueless on everything.

I know it worked for Reagan, but it can't work again, can it?

Comment by Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:12:33 -0800

Anybody but Guiliani. I can't stand the way the guy talks about 9/11.

Comment by wbrproductions

wbrproductions — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:25:43 -0800

Huckabee - he's legitimately hilarious, completely nutballs crazy, and unelectable. Hat Trick! Romney got elected in Mass so never say never to that slimeball. Remember: Gold tablets in a cave in Pennsylvania == brothers marrying sisters == Permanent World Insanity.

Comment by Mahtli69

Mahtli69 — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:27:49 -0800

I voted for Giuliani because he is the worst candidate. He's a divisive figure for the Republicans. Expect the Republican equivalent of a Nader to run on the right if Giuliani gets the nomination.

I must admit, he still makes me a little nervous because stupidity and lack of qualifications don't necessarily dissuade American voters from supporting a candidate.

Comment by SDA in SEA

SDA in SEA — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:28:18 -0800

Oh, Ron Paul. Absolutely. I mean, come on, the guy's got a blimp!!! And Guy Fawkes, or whatever. Sure, he's crazy, but obviously the most entertaining of the batch. Who else could unite the KKK and the peacenik libtard hippies?

Comment by and

and — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:29:41 -0800

i can't believe i think that rudy is the most progressive out of all those people. rudy fucking giuliani.

Comment by Mike in MO

Mike in MO — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:47:23 -0800

I want Romney because I can't get enough of Mormonism. It is better than Scientology.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:48:58 -0800

@17 - i know, pretty sad statement when you think about it. no wonder they'll be sent off to the wilderness for 40 years ...

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:58:24 -0800

Forty years is just about enough time to pay off the national debt they accrued (maybe)....

Comment by Nat

Nat — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:59:26 -0800

Where the hell is Alan Keyes?

Comment by Frank

Frank — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:02:19 -0800

Hmm... I gotta go with Fred Thompson. There's a good chance he'd get cast in a Tom Clancy movie and then give up on the whole "running for president" thing mid-way through the campaign.

Comment by kkl327

kkl327 — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:04:10 -0800

Ron Paul is a racist

Comment by Hal

Hal — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:25:12 -0800

Soooooooooo, my wife took that "Select a candidate 2008" quiz off a link from Slog. Her first pick came back as Kucinich, but running a very close second was Gulliani. Their stance on issues is almos' indenticle.

So, either my wife's a closted repub, or Rudy's just a democrat in repub's clothing...

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:28:44 -0800

could you post that obviously biased link?

Comment by butterw

butterw — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:33:52 -0800

As I've said before, anti-war Ron Paul would keep Hillary (still, the most likely
Dem) from drifting rightward on Iraq after the primary. Also, in the unfortunate event a Repug triumphs, he's the least likely to cause World War 3.

Comment by Hal

Hal — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:35:34 -0800

@25:
Sure thing...

www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

It didn't seem "obviously biased" to me. I got Mike Gravel.

Comment by N in Seattle

N in Seattle — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:47:20 -0800

Tancredo. He's even more obscure than Hunter, and much wackier (though not as wacky as the too-well-known Paul).

My criterion was to choose the Republican most likely to garner fewer than 100 electoral votes and to have the most negative coattails.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:52:44 -0800

Hmm, it said Kucinich for me, but it's a bit simplistic in the questions - for example, I favor jailing CEOs and CFOs for hiring illegal workers but having a path to citizenship and think the wall is a waste of tax dollars, and I think Obama articulates my view on the Iraq War - yet it says I disagree with him on that and the Death Penalty.

At least it shows all the rankings so you can then research the "objections" to see if they matter to you.

Comment by Katelyn

Katelyn — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:54:40 -0800

John McCain, because my mom told me once she thought he seemed like a good guy. I mostly just want to see her proved wrong on this point.

Comment by Catman

Catman — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:42:39 -0800

In the year 2000, I had once wished that George W. Bush be the Republican candidate because I thought that no one in this nation would be so stupid as to vote for him, thus ensuring Gore's inevitable landslide win. Well, as you can see, I was wrong.

Comment by violet_dagrinder

violet_dagrinder — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:51:39 -0800

Ron Paul. He has no chance of winning, and I'd love to hear serious public debate about his politics. Perfect.

Comment by Amelia

Amelia — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:14:31 -0800

Yeah I went with Ron Paul too...

Comment by montex

montex — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:13:39 -0800

Why is it that every Stranger poll I click on comes back with the message "(You have already voted in this poll.)"?

Comment by pzjow srdo

pzjow srdo — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:37:21 -0800

ecgnauy pwmubjx jbhpwt smfcoupg iesf odgwq afbhu

Comment by zbopdi uivfc

zbopdi uivfc — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:37:43 -0800

xsulhya hnacwr qmbagp chsbeydwn wujnyor hbwvgydmn klde http://www.zqrnl.qtynxp.com

Comment by pzjow srdo

pzjow srdo — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:39:35 -0800

ecgnauy pwmubjx jbhpwt smfcoupg iesf odgwq afbhu