Are the Republicans going to find a candidate?

I think Fred Thomas shows promise, but he better official declare here pretty soon. I personally really like Guiliani, and not just because of 9/11. I like that he has a more libertarian stance on some social issues and basically tells the party where to go.

Looks like McCain has hosed it again, already. Mitt Romney is just...slimey (IMO). Most of the others are single-issue candidates like Tancredo.

I like Fred Thompson and Rudy also.

McCain has blown it and Romney blew it with me when that deal with his dog came out.

I like Rudy too...

But I also 'know' him. He was mayor of NYC while I was still living there, so I know what it's like with him in charge. Plus, as a Libertarian myself, I like his views on things.

He'd actually be a good Lib candidate if it weren't for that pesky 'no one votes for 3rd parties' thing.

Ahh... to be back in the days before we were a two party system....

I'm a democrat, mostly at least , but IMO if Hilary and Obama are the Dem candidates then it won't matter who runs under the Republican banner, there is no way that this country is ready to elect a minority or a woman to the President's office, so whoever it is will win. Maybe not by a landslide, but they will win. Now, I personally think that is very sad and pathetic, but hey, that's just how I see it

Katie I agree, especially if they go with Hillary. There are enough Democrats who can't stand her, on top of the Republicans who just disagree with her politics, that if she wins I'll become one of those psycho conspirary theorists. And a Hillary/Obama ticket? I don't think so. I think most rational people in the US will make their vote based on their qualifications and politics, but there are enough that are frankly prejudiced that it wouldn't happen.

I just hope the GOP puts up a candidate that I/we can actually stand and rally behind. I hope the GOP is smart enough to see how disenfranchised the majority of Americans are with the wingers of both parties running everything and how divided it's made the government and the country, and put up a centrist who can actually work on true unification.

My idealistic little heart and mind really hope this isn't the case.
*crosses fingers*

I wish both parties could come up with pragmatic candidates. I'm disgusted with all the "idealism" and partisanship. How about some technocrats who have proven they can get things done, and cut across party lines?

Seeing as how we've been basically a two-party system (viable parties, at least) since Pres. John Adams, you'd have to go back a long time. Strictly speaking, there are numerous political parties; many of which do get candidates on the presidential ticket; it's just that they're not viable because they're either too far out or they don't have the money.

Fred Thompson looks like the most attractive candidate for the Republicans at this point, but I can't say whether or not I'd support him because I don't know him or his positions yet.

Ya, I sympathize. Unfortunately, the only method of getting things done in our government is by consensus, and you don't get consensus without having people you can count on for support, and that's the strength of political parties: getting all the legislators of one party to vote the same way. Governments with many political parties usually have an even harder time getting things done because no one party has a majority; they have to rely on coalitions, which split apart on different issues, making it more unstable unless there's a very strong executive branch. (And is that something we really want?)

And that's where I think the problem is. We've turned it into a system where we're limiting ourselves to two options purely because of money, not because we believe those are the only two people that could run our country successfully. It just seems unnecessarily limiting.

That doesn't mean I have any idea on how to fix the problem. Candidates talk about campaign finance reform, but I can't see a way in which they could accomplish it without finding loopholes to get extra money for their campaigns. And it bothers me more that I know people who want to vote for other parties, but don't because they don't believe any other party could win against a democrat or republican purely because of the money issue. So instead, they vote for the "lesser of two evils", which seems more of a wasted vote to me than voting for a third party in the first place.

I just think there should be more options is all.

I have to agree with this. If I had to pick between republican and democrat, I tend to fall more in line with the democrat side (with the exception of Rudy). However, if I were to vote democrat there is nothing in the world that could make me vote for Hillary. I have nothing against a woman president, but I have plenty against her. The woman gets under my skin in a way I can't even begin to explain. I actually remember saying that if she were voted senator in NY I would leave the state - and I did. (Granted she wasn't the *entire* reason, but part of it anyway.)

But I'd vote for a female president... if it were a woman that I believe were right for the job, in the exact same way that I would vote for a male president if I felt he were right for the job.

i have to agree , from the choices being offered on both side, i get the feeling i may not vote this time around.

i disagree with that, I think we would, i would be willing to bet if they could get powell to run he would stand a very good chance of winnign no matter which party he ran for.

when i hear obama talking what i keep hearing is increase in taxes. I already pay way to much income tax. and the same goes for Hilary who already stated she will be taking it away.

Plus once the real running starts , i am sure she will get hit with all the liberal stuff she has done, now she is trying to come accross as being in the middle.
I dont think the Avg guy or gal is not going to go for her super liberal ways.

Maybe going back to John Adams is a way to start. Back then, people didn't campaign for the Presidency. They sat at home and wrote letters. Other people talked them up in their state nominating conventions. You're right, campaign finance reform won't work; there's always loopholes.

How about we do away with campaign finance altogether? Soliticing for funds is banned. Contributions are banned. Advertising is banned. Anybody who wants to run gets a free website to put forth their qualifications and positions. Three months or so before the elections, the five or six with the most hits on their sites get enough money from the govenment, the same amount for each, to travel around the country and appear before the voters. No advertising, no rallies, no conventions, just (free) news coverage and (free) stump speeches. No PACs, no special interest groups, no lobbyists. Just people listening to people.

Reform isn't enough. We've got to think outside the box.

As of the moment, i am favoring Fred Thompson out of all the other canidates. I love Rudy as well but there are some issues i disagree with him on...it should be interesting to see who emergest as the strongest canidate soon before elections. I do not think Mc Cain is doing so hot in my opinion- if he's already squandered a huge sum of his money away in his campaigne...to me, i would not trust him financially to run our country...so my vote would likely be out on him as well. I think Fred Thompson is my favorite guy so far. I wish Alan Keyes would run again though!! That guy was cool.
Romney i could care less for and wouldn't vote for him at all-he seems pretty slimy to me.

As far as i go- i don't vote based on if someones a dem. or republican. I vote for the canidate who holds the majority of the same beliefs/views as me and i research before i cast my ballot. So far, the one who matches my opinions the best right now is Fred Thompson....so i hope he does well and officially puts his hat in.

As far as Hillary goes- she is inasnely too liberal for me to ever consider voting for her- i disagree with just about everything she does/says and would not give her my vote

Obama- he seems like a nice guy....until you research his beliefs and what he's voted for. No way i would EVER cast my vote for someone who believes in partial birth abortion. Never.

you have a lot more confidence in the intelligence of the american public than I do Bruce This country is still waaaaaaaay to sexist and racist IMO. Don't get me wrong, we have come a long long way, but you look at the rest of the world, i mean crikey INDIA just elected the first female (prime minister?) the UK had a female leader in Margaret Thatcher YEARS ago, but look at the US, nothing! so so sad

and as far as Powell, while he may still be very respected, and i could be waaay off base, but I think that he has been out of the public eye long enough that he doesn't have the same influence as he used to. Americans are fickle as well, you know

And the the Dems put Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and she is just awful. Way to set that idea back 20 years, guys!

good point, why is it the nutty fems are the ones who even get close to power??? (Hilary included )