This idea came from reading the thread for the 2012 Presidential election.

You're never going to have unanimous support within a party for one candidate. Heck, this applies to the 3rd parties, too. You'll never get what you want.

Usually we just settle for the best possible option. So who's your best possible person to be president at this time?

Rules:

1) Must be living
2) Must be involved in public service/politics
3) Must be someone that would garner ANY media attention if they ran (so no "Raleigh City Council person X" or "T. Gregg Doucette" )

I'm still thinking about mine, so....go!

7/21/2009 9:04:15 PM

I'm going to throw out a tentative nomination for (former New Mexico Governor) Gary Johnson. Moderately libertarian without going into crank territory, actually advocated reform of drugs laws while he was still governor. Fiscal conservative and a social moderate. About the closest to a mainstream libertarian anywhere close to having a shot at a national bid.

7/21/2009 9:07:04 PM

I liked Johnson until I read that, apparently, he's a gold bug. Then again, this wasn't a quote from him, but rather a blurb by (I think) the American Conservative calling him an "anti-Fed, Ron Paul libertarian". I don't agree with ditching a central bank (transparency and independence of the bank is another issue). Maybe I'm wrong.

He at least doesn't seem like a crank.

7/21/2009 9:09:15 PM

...john mccain...

7/21/2009 10:08:56 PM

Barack Obama.

Yes, seriously.

7/21/2009 10:10:12 PM

once a idiot, always a idiot

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 10:13 PM. Reason : c'mon]

7/21/2009 10:12:52 PM

ron paul

7/21/2009 10:18:46 PM

idk someone more interested in moving this country forward by educating our populace instead of throwing them worthless handouts. Someone who understands that science and technology are the only way forward.

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 10:20 PM. Reason : e]

7/21/2009 10:20:25 PM

PM Putin

7/21/2009 10:20:29 PM

Putin is an irl bad ass russian spy. Straight out of james bond.

7/21/2009 10:21:45 PM

7/21/2009 10:33:52 PM

dennis kucinich

7/21/2009 10:42:57 PM

yeah either putin or clinton(bill)

7/21/2009 10:54:39 PM

Quote :

"dennis kucinich"

7/21/2009 11:02:43 PM

7/21/2009 11:09:00 PM

7/21/2009 11:17:30 PM

"I'm here to lead, not to read"

7/21/2009 11:26:15 PM

and he's an athiest!

7/21/2009 11:29:24 PM

Me. In eleven years, I am voting for me. I'm running under a passive totalitarian platform.

7/22/2009 3:02:12 PM

^^ wow

7/22/2009 4:20:03 PM

(it's a west wing reference, in reply to the other west wing reference)

7/22/2009 4:24:00 PM

George Washington

#1....someone who actually believes in what this country stands for and is willing to fight for it is key to me. I dont believe Bush or Obama would EVER actually put themselves in danger for the country.

JFK lied to even get into the military to fight for his country is a good example.

#2.....someone who actually grew up in the country! Theres no way you can convince me that Obama has much in common with the average American. He might say he does, but when you're born in Hawaii and live mostly outside the mainland US until you go to college, theres going to be some differences....his whole "child of the world" talk is disturbing to me.

I'd like to have someone who GREW UP IN THE NATION THEY ARE GOING TO LEAD, and is well traveled in later years for experience. Someone who understands what the phrase THE AMERICAN DREAM means.

#3.....someone who wants to reform the tax system.....I like the fairtax.

#4.....I want someone whos tough and dosent tolerate BS.

Who was the president that beat the guy to death with a cane? That guy was baaaad.

7/22/2009 4:59:29 PM

ron paul

7/22/2009 5:03:07 PM

A Reagan clone

7/22/2009 5:04:37 PM

Quote :

"Someone who understands what the phrase THE AMERICAN DREAM means."

Are you saying Obama doesn't symbolize the American dream? There aren't enough rolly eyes in the internet...


And it was Andrew Jackson who beat the would-be assassin with a cane, but not to death.


^ So then why are you always against raising taxes? Reagan was all about raising taxes after his initial cut.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 5:05:22 PM

youre right

7/22/2009 5:06:37 PM

^^^^

Quote :

"1) Must be living"

Maybe a rule stating "must know how to read" before posting.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/22/2009 5:07:28 PM

Reagan cut the income tax and stimulated growth. Seems like that would be the logical thing to do in a recession.

7/22/2009 5:09:29 PM

Reagan also started the downfall of the party by opening it up to the religious right

7/22/2009 5:10:35 PM

doesnt it?

but most stick to their roots

7/22/2009 5:11:32 PM

Quote :

"A Reagan clone"

and he's an atheist, too!

7/22/2009 5:54:29 PM

Richard Dawkins, he's definately atheist.

7/22/2009 6:13:40 PM

Bloomberg.

7/22/2009 6:49:12 PM

billy baldwin

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM. Reason : billy ripken]

7/22/2009 7:00:42 PM

Quote :

"#2.....someone who actually grew up in the country! Theres no way you can convince me that Obama has much in common with the average American. He might say he does, but when you're born in Hawaii and live mostly outside the mainland US until you go to college, theres going to be some differences....his whole "child of the world" talk is disturbing to me. I'd like to have someone who GREW UP IN THE NATION THEY ARE GOING TO LEAD, and is well traveled in later years for experience. Someone who understands what the phrase THE AMERICAN DREAM means."

you are a fucking idiot

7/22/2009 7:08:47 PM

Isn't the immigrant experience integral to American dream?


What bigun20 meant to say was "I'm a xenophobe hick, and need my ideal candidate to reflect that."

7/22/2009 10:42:26 PM

Quote :

"Reagan also started the downfall of the party by opening it up to the religious right"

7/22/2009 10:46:20 PM

Quote :

"Reagan cut the income tax and stimulated growth. Seems like that would be the logical thing to do in a recession."

so is this why most economists dismiss the laffer curve?

fun fact: average productivity growth grew faster under the previous 3 presidents than under Reagan. Good thing Reagan had the benefit of having a Fed Chair that got rid of the inflation that was hurting previously.

and if you like reagan, seems like you'd be pleased with more deficit spending. deficit spending on military, deficit spending on health care, it's still deficit spending. military's a public works project too, you know.

why didn't you see this deification of Reagan before he died? wasn't his own party mad at him for years over arms limitation and reconciliation w/ the USSR towards the end of his career? i know i saw a video of Rush Limbaugh complaining about him trusting that rat Gorby, and he couldn't have been saying that earlier than like 1988 or so.

Quote :

"Who was the president that beat the guy to death with a cane? That guy was baaaad."

you nincompoop, that man was a senator named preston brooks, and he beat charles sumner w/ a cane b/c he was mad at sumner for insulting those who were supporting pro-slavery violence in kansas ("bleeding kansas"). in other words, congrats, your hero is a guy who beat the shit out of someone to defend the honor of slavery.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 1:44:39 PM

Jackson caned someone, too:



A guy tried to assassinate him, but both his pistols misfired. Jackson (apparently on his way to rough up his hos) beat him with a cane.

7/23/2009 2:08:45 PM

huh. no shit? never knew 'ol hickory did that.

ok, gary johnson gives me caution simply because he's getting so much attention from the same old ron paul crowd as last time, which would be fine if they weren't wrong on immigration, net neutrality, perspective on climate change, monetary policy, and possess this weird paranoid view of international affairs. really, the proper term for paul is paleoconservative.

i refuse to believe johnson is that disconnected from reality to have the bizzare faith in rational markets (the market will solve climate change b/c it is the market). i mean, he actually has active, informed stances on issues like drugs and education instead of the ron paul "the solution is abstract nouns" stance.

7/24/2009 6:26:27 PM

Since nobody has the balls in the GOP to truly fight obamunism, I'd happily vote for this guy, who happens to the a libertarian, Wayne Allyn Root.


http://www.rootforamerica.com

7/31/2009 9:38:26 AM

Quote :

"deficit spending on military, deficit spending on health care, it's still deficit spending"

Sort of. I mean, yes, and I don't think we should deficit-spend on the military, at least not as a standard policy. However, at least military spending is a legitimate function of the federal gov't.

[Edited on July 31, 2009 at 9:43 AM. Reason : ^^ and yeah, jackson was 100% serious bad motherfucker.]

7/31/2009 9:42:49 AM

National security is a different beast entirely. That's one of the essential functions of government as outlined by the Constitution so even a little bit of deficit spending on keeping us safe isn't necessarily a bad thing.

7/31/2009 9:57:49 AM

We could spend a 1/4 of what we do now and still be safe.

Increasing funds to healthcare would actually yield added value.

7/31/2009 10:16:06 AM

then change the motherfucking Constitution. There are provisions to do so. It's by design that they are a cumbersome pain in the ass.



Now, I think that government healthcare being added value is debatable at best. As far as spending 1/4 of what we do now, we could probably do that as things stand now. There are 2 problems, though: We would lose our power projection capability and therefore a significant amount of our international leverage. Additionally, with all of our wealth and resources (both technology and commodities), there would be a lot of countries gunning for us, and it would be a lot tougher and riskier to play catch-up than to maintain the top spot.

7/31/2009 11:00:32 AM

Quote :

"then change the motherfucking Constitution."

Holy crap. Every time you bring this up DrSteve and I have a two page argument over this.

suffice it to say, most people don't think the Constitution needs changing in order to get involved in healthcare.

Quote :

"We would lose our power projection capability and therefore a significant amount of our international leverage."

I'll be that liberal and point out that this might not be a terrible thing. Since the Cold War our bilateral force projection has gotten us into more trouble than it's worth.

[Edited on July 31, 2009 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ]

7/31/2009 11:40:48 AM

Quote :

"Since nobody has the balls in the GOP to truly fight obamunism, I'd happily vote for this guy, who happens to the a libertarian, Wayne Allyn Root."

7/31/2009 11:57:09 AM

7/31/2009 12:45:55 PM

Quote :

"suffice it to say, most people don't think the Constitution needs changing in order to get involved in healthcare."

Well no shit. Hardly anyone even knows what the Constitutions even SAYS, and even then, not many give a shit. They're of the mindset of doing what they want to do, and then either use tortured logic to justify it, or just flat-out say the Constitution is outdated and doesn't matter.

Quote :

"I'll be that liberal and point out that this might not be a terrible thing. Since the Cold War our bilateral force projection has gotten us into more trouble than it's worth."

Maybe. Just understand that at the very least, going that route doesn't come without some enormous drawbacks, too.

7/31/2009 1:22:03 PM

We've been debating what the Constitution says or should say since Philadelphia, the debate won't be settled anytime soon, so get used to being upset about strict construction not being "common sense".

7/31/2009 1:44:52 PM