How do you choose your candidate?

[Ivan Seeking]

For me, this year I support no platforms. I will not necessarily vote for the person with the preferred economic proposal, or the best plans to end the wars, or the person with the ideal solution to the healthcare crisis. I don't care who has the most experience [no one of them has ever been President anyway], and I certainly could care less about the nonsense issues like gay marriage and flag burning. In principle I don't care about parties... never really did.

This year my vote will be determined entirely by the person's intellect and dedication to the Constitution. I suspect that this may be the case for some time to come; probably the rest of my life [or as long as I live here]. Also, I will never vote for anyone who has not been outraged by the last eight years of Bush's abuses of power, so by default this includes most sitting Republicans as they have been accomplices to many crimes against the nation. I am proud to say that for the most part this does not include our own Republican Senator Smith - he stood up against Bush and his abuses when it counted. I voted for Smith once [maybe twice] and gladly would again.

In principle, McCain could have won my vote had he denounced Bush for the complete and utter failure that he is, and for his many crimes against this nation.

Call me a liberal and you're lying; perhaps even to yourself. I've been an independent for almost two decades now.

 

[lisab]

How do I chose my candidate...

...well it seems every election cycle I have different criteria. This cycle, I'm looking for a change. No more of Bush and company...jeez I don't have the words to describe how I feel about them. Disappointed, appalled. Embarrassed, even. So no more of them, none, nada.

I want someone who will revere the Constitution (am I asking too much?). Restore my faith in the system. Trash Rovian tactics. Reach out to all Americans...a true Uniter, not a Divider (how cruel those words are now!).

I just want to be proud again.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I wasn't sure myself, so I had to write a C++ program to help me figure out who to vote for. My code is as follows:

string myCandidate()
{
return Obama;
}

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well to be frank that should always be your methodology, you don't chose someone just because you've always voted Republican, you chose someone on the basis that that person represents you.

I don't vote too often, I exercise my right not to sometimes, but when I do it's the person who I support, who speaks to my values and who makes the most sense, regardless of party, obviously though I am a minority. Most people will just knee jerk vote because they have always been x.

And good for you by the way.

 

[russ_watters]

Call me a liberal and you're lying; perhaps even to yourself. I've been an independent for almost two decades now.

You're an independent? Really? Interesting...

[from another thread] I've been telling you from day one that I'm a conservative.

Now I'm confused. Are you an independent or a conservative?

Ivan, seriously - you may want to take one of those online political afiliation tests. It doesn't appear to me that you are clear on where you stand.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Give me an example of why? I'm an independent because the republicans have not been conservatives. You might try listening, really.

Conservatism is a philosophy, not a party. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Cyrus]

Im a spend-o-crat. I want bigger government, higher taxes, increased welfare, and more military spending!

I think it will be interesting to have voted for the first black president of the united states. I honestly don't think any cadidate stands behind what they say.

We need major political reform if you want to see change.

 

[wildman]

You're an independent? Really? Interesting... Now I'm confused. Are you an independent or a conservative?

Ivan, seriously - you may want to take one of those online political afiliation tests. It doesn't appear to me that you are clear on where you stand.

While it is certainly easy to pick a philosophy and then mindlessly follow it... It is not the way many of us want to live our lives.
I can speak for my self. I am all over the map. Let's see:

1) I'm against abortion. That makes me a neoconservative.
2) I'm for banning Assault rifles. That makes me a Liberal
3) I'm for a balanced budget. That makes me a traditional conservative.
4) I'm for raising taxes on gasoline. I'm back to liberal.
5) I'm against Gay Marriage. Opps, back to neocon...
6) I'm for a strong defense. Neocon again
7) I'm against overseas military involvements. Liberal, no, probably trad con

At any rate, you get the point. I can go on and on. I am all over the map because no one political philosophy is always correct (or always incorrect) in my mind. I am not going to believe x just because Dr. Dobson or Mrs Clinton told me I have to think that way.

How do I choose a candidate to vote for? I want someone who is honest, believes in defending our freedom and is interested in the little people in addition to just the big ones (everyone what's to "protect" the big ones). In that way, Bush was a big loser in my eyes even though I certainly agree with him on certain issues.

 

[ShawnD]

I think trust is a really important issue. Politicians make all kinds of promises, so it's important to pick one who will actually do what they say they will do (assuming you agree with those ideas).

If the US is anything like the rest of the world, most voters are somewhere in the middle. Most people can probably agree with half of the policies of both parties, and disagree with the other half. Look at which guy you can trust the most, and vote for him/her/it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I am disappointed with the results of my method of choosing candidates. So this year I will not be voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

[ShawnD]

You'll be voting for the greater of two evils?

 

[Art]

You're an independent? Really? Interesting... Now I'm confused. Are you an independent or a conservative?

Ivan, seriously - you may want to take one of those online political afiliation tests. It doesn't appear to me that you are clear on where you stand.

Personally I'm a social liberal and an economic conservative neither of which is mutually exclusive.

 

[chemisttree]

Give me an example of why? I'm an independent because the republicans have not been conservatives. You might try listening, really.

Conservatism is a philosophy, not a party. Do you understand the difference?

I believe Russ's interpretation arose from reading your own statement. In it you contrast liberalism with a status you identify as 'independent'.

Call me a liberal and you're lying; perhaps even to yourself. I've been an independent for almost two decades now.

Elsewhere you identify yourself as a conservative but not a Republican because they aren't conservative enough for you. You supported Ron Paul as a Republican because he was conservative enough (on defending the Constitution). You will vote for a Republican (Gordon Smith) if he opposes Bush on the Iraq war and your support of Obama is no doubt along those lines but then you say...

I will not necessarily vote for the person with the preferred economic proposal, or the best plans to end the wars, or the person with the ideal solution to the healthcare crisis.

So you are left with your central theme... "This year my vote will be determined entirely by the person's intellect and dedication to the Constitution." This year you think that's Obama and Gordon Smith.

Now that's reeealy independent.

 

[wildman]

You'll be voting for the greater of two evils?

Been there. Done that.

 

[lisab]

I believe Russ's interpretation arose from reading your own statement. In it you contrast liberalism with a status you identify as 'independent'.
Elsewhere you identify yourself as a conservative but not a Republican because they aren't conservative enough for you. You supported Ron Paul as a Republican because he was conservative enough (on defending the Constitution). You will vote for a Republican (Gordon Smith) if he opposes Bush on the Iraq war and your support of Obama is no doubt along those lines but then you say... So you are left with your central theme... "This year my vote will be determined entirely by the person's intellect and dedication to the Constitution." This year you think that's Obama and Gordon Smith.

Now that's reeealy independent.

Wait a minute...you and I had a discussion on another thread where you objected to questioning a voter's motivations for their voting preference...you wrote,

"That aside, are you advocating some form of Thought Police? I can see it now... "No, Mr. Smith, you can't vote in this election because your motivations aren't pure enough.""

Now *you* are questioning a voter's motivations?!?

You seem to have contempt for independent voters. Well, I have voted Republican in my life, more than once. And I don't regret my vote. Have you ever voted Democratic?

 

[chemisttree]

Now *you* are questioning a voter's motivations?!?

You seem to have contempt for independent voters. Well, I have voted Republican in my life, more than once. And I don't regret my vote. Have you ever voted Democratic?

No, no, no. Ivan claims a past vote for his Republican senator Smith because "...he stood up against Bush and his abuses when it counted." (Smith did http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/08/smith-walden-wa.html" ) but his upcoming presidential vote for entirely different reasons. He as even hinted that if things don't go his way he will leave (the country?). I actually agree that it is a very independent position... reeealy independent.

 

[turbo]

Like Ivan, I am an independent who has voted for Republicans and Democrats over the years. It's difficult for me to vote for Republicans, now that the party has been hijacked by neo-cons. Is it conservative to go to war unnecessarily? Is it conservative to continue to squander money and lives with no clear goals in sight? Is it conservative to continue to build up the strategic oil reserve when oil prices are at extreme levels? Is it conservative to give huge tax cuts to the wealthy, with no corresponding roll-backs in spending? Is it conservative to stretch our military forces to their limits, while deploying National Guard units and making them unavailable for disaster response? There is very little about the Republican party that is conservative anymore. The party is dominated by radical ideologues who seem intent on pursuing policies that enrich themselves and their handlers, to the detriment of our national security and economic well-being. I can't say that the timid Democrats are any better than the Republicans because Congress has accomplished very little over Bush's opposition, but it's time to clean house, and the party that has done the bulk of the damage over the past few years needs to go. God! I hate this two-party system! We would be better served my a multi-party parliamentary system in which the parties would have to form coalitions and cooperate in order to govern.

 

[chemisttree]

No kidding, Turbo. I know that you have said you are conservative in recent posts. What conservative ideals do the Democrats offer you?

 

[turbo]

No kidding, Turbo. I know that you have said you are conservative in recent posts. What conservative ideals do the Democrats offer you?

I am fiscally conservative - far more so than the neocons. Few Democrats espouse fiscal responsibility, so that's a problem for me. If a Democratic candidate vows to roll back the Bush tax cuts to try to balance our country's revenue stream with its expenditures, that would be a good start. It would also be a great time to cut back corporate welfare and pork-barrel spending. Given the nature of politicians, I have little hope for any dramatic improvements, but maybe if we start turning out the worst offenders in the upcoming election, they'll hear the message.

Despite their repetition of the "tax-and-spend-Democrats" mantra, the Republicans have shown themselves to be far more irresponsible, as they increased spending while insisting that the Bush tax cuts be expanded and made permanent. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is up for re-election this year, and her fawning toadying-up to Bush on the Iraq war may finally be her undoing. She won't get my vote, no matter what.

 

[lisab]

Yes I agree. After the performance of the Republican congress, the term "tax-and-spend-o-crat" brings on a reflexive eye-roll for me.

The pay-as-you-go policy that was in effect throughout the 90s should be brought back. Earmarks have got to go; how can it be legal to add to a bill after it's been signed (don't get me started on signing statements!)?

Those two steps would be a good, but modest, start.

 

[chemisttree]

(don't get me started on signing statements!)?

I think you should start a thread on presidential signing statements. It would be most informative!

Perhaps one useful way to choose a presidential candidate would be to estimate how he or she would use the signing statement to interpret the laws that Congress passes. The real power of enactment of laws (or inaction) rests with the President after all.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I believe Russ's interpretation arose from reading your own statement. In it you contrast liberalism with a status you identify as 'independent'.

As a conservative with libertarian leanings, their is no party that generally represents my views. In the past, conservatives and libertarians found a home with the Republicans but this is not true any longer.

But we can all play word games and make disingenuous posts all day, can't we. That would be very Republican.

Elsewhere you identify yourself as a conservative but not a Republican because they aren't conservative enough for you.

I didn't say that they aren't conservative enough, I said that they [a large percentage of sitting Republicans] are not conservatives. My party was taken hostage by nuts, crooks, and boobs who feign conservatism and who have used this false claim to further un-American agendas, such as the use of torture.

You supported Ron Paul as a Republican because he was conservative enough (on defending the Constitution). You will vote for a Republican (Gordon Smith) if he opposes Bush on the Iraq war and your support of Obama is no doubt along those lines but then you say... So you are left with your central theme... "This year my vote will be determined entirely by the person's intellect and dedication to the Constitution." This year you think that's Obama and Gordon Smith.

Now that's reeealy independent.

Yes, it is. The preservation of the Constitution is the lower limit of Conservatism. If you don't do that then you are certainly not a conservative. Independent is the only place left to go. Obama offers something new from the Dems. And most important of all, he is a Constitutional scholar.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He as even hinted that if things don't go his way he will leave (the country?).

Actually, we already took a serious stab at leaving and may still leave depending on what happens in the coming years. And it's not a matter of things going my way, it's a matter of whether this is "America" any more or not.

Of late I don't recognize the place.

 

[BobG]

I choose about the same way I did when Ivan asked this question in 2004 and forced me to decide whether Nixon or Carter would be a better candidate (it was such a traumatic experience that I still haven't forgotten that question):

"I use their stand on the issues as the first criteria just to weed out the field, but that's not the final criteria. The details will never turn out exactly like they were promised since time changes things. As long as the candidates are fairly close in position, my impression of their character takes priority."

Or, rephrased:

1) I don't want to vote for a candidate and spend four years hoping he's unsuccessful in attaining his goals. This would pretty much cover Mike Huckabee, who is still the candidate I most wish had the same political views as me.

2) Ought to have the leadership and competency to actually be able to achieve some goals. Bush obviously has some leadership skills or his approval ratings would be in single digits given his competency levels. There's been a few of his policies that I've been so against that 'disgusted by' would be a better adjective than 'oppose', but his greatest sin has been to be very bad at what he does. Everything he touches turns to mud.

3) Ought to have enough personal integrity and honesty you're not embarrassed to have them represent the US for four years. Some of these aren't big things. I wouldn't choose to vote against Obama because he used drugs while young, but a third straight President having substance abuse issues is depressing. Integrity and honesty in their duties is more important than their personal habits, though. In spite of some blemishes under the spot lights, none of the three remaining candidates disqualify themselves, but there are still some significant differences between the three.

In this election, I probably won't pay much attention to the party rhetoric. It will come down to choosing between 3 people. I'm still uncommitted, even if leaning towards McCain. In fact, I could still choose none of the above once you start throwing in the wildcards like Chuck Hagel.