mentholated

Even though Ron Paul has said publicly that he wouldn't go independent, theres a lot of talk of it happening in the near term. There may be hope yet, (actually, I'm more enthused now because of where the democrats are.. completely divided). Poor sheep. The republicans aren't fooling anyone and out of all of the candidates still running, paul has the most consistently positive trending (as in growth) support base, in terms of money and delegates.

JMJ

No, "me and my kind" are not losing. Our kind is losing. I'm not drawing a line between communists and bible thumpers here. Our choices are not good. All you are getting is Washington politicians, the same-old same-old. The only winners are illegal aliens and those who are too damn lazy to get a job and pay taxes like you and I. Sad to say, but Hillary is probably more to the middle than McCain. Obama's voting record has become the most liberal in the senate. I'd like a middle of the road candidate, one that would not promote the lie that "healthcare is a right" and one who would not crap on the constitution. No such candidate exists. You see, we all lose.

I am still waiting for Hillary and Obama to tell me what "change" they will bring.

mentholated

So far I haven't heard one democrat talk at all about restoring constitutional law in its entirety.

All of them, except Ron Paul, come from the same pool of Darkness.

Gambit7

I dont mind candidates crapping on the Constitution, because like I've said in other threads... the Constitution is an artifact, nothing more. Anyone who owes their continuing existence to a largely unchanging 300 yr. old document based on 2000 yr. old dogma (altered for puritanical beliefs) needs to have their head examined IMO.


El_Gringo, as for the Clinton political machine. The Clintons are NOT popular amongst Latinos as a whole in general elections. Go ask Bush, because Latinos are a large reason he's in office right now. (the old adage that Latinos vote their wallets is still true also) As a "group," most Latinos these days vote Republican... that's why we've been stuck with Reps. in office in FL for many many years. Now, if you were to just pluck out the Latino Democrats then that's another issue. You could be right that they characteristically vote Clinton, but I challenge you to find numbers where they're that skewed when the candidates are all Caucasian. We have similar numbers based on race for Obama in S. Carolina, etc. And gender in Massachusetts. None of that has to do with any kind of "machine."

As for McCain, people sometimes forget that he very nearly left the Rep. party twice... and very nearly strangled Bush in the 2000 primaries out of frustration. This is another reason why Huck is doing well. I'd be very interested to see what would happen if Romney dropped out, because McCain is seriously bleeding core Republican support. Either Huck would have a good chance, or it'd leave the window open for a Indy candidate for Reps. to vote for.


p.s.
There's nothing in the "rulebook" that says Republicans have to be conservative. The party doesnt begin and end with Reagan.

__________________

Kerostasis

If someone can explain a piece of the constitution they want changed, and why, and get behind an Amendment to update the constitution to their "improved" version, more power to them. Go right ahead!

On the other hand, when someone (like McCain) decides to just pick and choose pieces of the constitution to ignore when it suits their fancy, I've got a problem with that. Sure, you may agree with him the first time he ignores a constitutional limit on government to pass a law you happen to like, but whats to stop him from doing it again later with a law you don't like? The Constitution is supposed to put limits on what politicians can do, but once you give them carte blanche to bypass what you consider just an "artifact", they can do whatever they like to you.

Sure, there's plenty of Republicans who aren't terribly conservative. That said, if you're talking to a voter who happens to be conservative (like me for example), he's going to be interested in finding candidates who are also conservative. With any luck, finding a "conservative" candidate will be a higher priority than simply finding "a guy with an R next to his name".

__________________

Gambit7

My version of the Constitution does away with politicians altogether, hence no need to have the current one. It also is a completely malleable document, not something set in stone... so even the term "Constitution" doesnt really apply.

As for Republicans, they've historically been moderate... not conservative. Today's conservatism isnt even really conservatism so to speak, it's "Reaganomics."

If real Conservatives want a TRUE conservative candidate, then they should find a Libertarian to back... not the current crop of Republicans.

__________________