Wanna Know Who Is Running For U.S. President?

[Julie Marie]

Project Vote Smart

Click on a candidate's name to get more info on them.

Among the running you will find George Bailey, Rutherford B. Hayes and HRM Caesar St Augustine De Buonaparte.

Who are you voting for?

[Ann Onymous]

Who are you voting for?

far too early to even form an opinion given that prospective candidates that MIGHT be worth a look still have not made a decision...but I know I will not be voting for the incumbent.

[Julie Marie]

For the record, there are 21 Democrats, 26 Independents, 3 Libertarians and a whopping 86 Republicans, a bit over 50% of the total number of candidates.

As for me, I'm kinda likin' Michelle Bachmann.  She's wacky, flaky and says the darnedest things.

"It is a brand new, billion-dollar high speed train that is going to go from Disneyland up to Las Vegas. ... Harry Reid, the senator from Nevada, was behind this measure, and it makes us wonder, is he more interested in making sure kids start gambling at younger ages?" –Michelle Bachmann on the House Floor

And if we could get Fred Karger to be her VP, we'd have quite a dashing pair!  The country would be hoping Bachmann's good looks could cure Karger of his homosexuality.  The White House Soaps!

[tekla]

Obama and Romney, it's going to be excursions in bland as the big-money corporatism candidate takes on big-money corporatism candidate.
(Who in the hell do you think runs this anyway?  The Voters?  Oh wait, your serious, let me laugh harder.)

Because if the 'Pubs run someone who is NOT Mittens, they are going to be committing suicide given their other choices.  Yes, there are some people who can be assured a solid 20% of the vote, (because I think that 20% of the American public is pretty much insane), but that's giving an 80% landslide to the other side, it's electoral obliteration.

So, who else do they have? 

Well Obama took care of Trump inside of a week in what is going to go down in Political Science courses as an absolute masterpiece of candidate destruction.  And out of the bunch Trump was perhaps the most dangerous one for Obama to have to run against.   He was already well known a total media god rock-star business guy, had a huge image already sold, had piles of money at his disposal, has something akin to (but not exactly) like charisma, and could have done a much better job of selling the idea that he should be in control because he know how 'to get things done.'  (He doesn't, but image trumps reality in this stuff.)

Gingrich had destroyed himself - or more correctly let his dick do it for him - years ago.  T-Paw (what is that like some Minnesota rapper name?) was so boring that even the week they gave him saturation coverage as the 'new front runner' no one even noticed his was on.  And Rick Perry sounded like the total 'Pub tool/tard the other day saying that 'Govmunt dun't create any jobs, like no sane person is supposed to notice that HE HAS A GOVERNMENT JOB AND WANTS ANOTHER ONE.  Besides, joking or not (and I'm leaning toward not) he's on tape advocating that Texas succeed from the union.  Only getting caught with a troop of cub scouts in his bed working on getting their naked merit badge could have done a better job of killing any chance he had at a national election.  Ever.

Oh, let me add a personal note here.  Hey Republicans.  Don't you think that Lincoln weeps with Jesus up there in heaven at the very idea that someone who advocates succession could run for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States?  That's like totally, completely and utterly morally vapid.  And not only is it morally vapid, it's profoundly intellectually bankrupt.  What, don't y'all remember how well that worked out for you late time?

But here's the kicker, they got at least 3, 4 if you count Cain which I don't, candidates who are even more crazy, MORE profoundly intellectually bankrupt, more unelectable on a national level than Perry.  Palin, Bachman and Santorum.  Pain has enough fans - and rabid ones, truly - to possibly get close to the nomination because of the way the primaries are structured, Bachman is insane, but not stupid and does an incredible job of appealing to a huge number of people in this country who already were believing what she is saying.  She's dangerous in a way Palin never could be.  Dear Sara is a tool, pretty much a ho who will do anything given enough money and fame, but Bachman operates on a level of wanting, needing and craving power, and them folks is always bad news.

So there you have it.  Stay tuned, it's going to be hysterical.

I think they are already well under way to see who can out crazy the other.

[Ann Onymous]

And Rick Perry sounded like the total 'Pub tool/tard the other day saying that 'Govmunt dun't create any jobs, like no sane person is supposed to notice that HE HAS A GOVERNMENT JOB AND WANTS ANOTHER ONE.  Besides, joking or not (and I'm leaning toward not) he's on tape advocating that Texas succeed from the union.  Only getting caught with a troop of cub scouts in his bed working on getting their naked merit badge could have done a better job of killing any chance he had at a national election.  Ever.

SOUNDED like a 'tard?  He IS a 'tard.  <insert gratuitous aggy joke here>

Governor Goodhair will eventually toss his hat in the ring, but there are not enough Aggies that vote that can make up for the rest of us that know he is an idiot (and a closet case...although no cub scouts have been involved).  Remember, some of us have been stuck with him as a governor...and that came after having the Shrub for a while. 

[tekla]

Well you know because you live there, and me because I loved to read Molly Ivans, that being governor in Texas is - by some weird Constitution deal - largely a ceremonial position, the Lt. Governor, LiteGov as Anne called it, really has the power and the job description to, you know, govern.

[Ann Onymous]

Well you know because you live there, and me because I loved to read Molly Ivans, that being governor in Texas is - by some weird Constitution deal - largely a ceremonial position, the Lt. Governor, LiteGov as Anne called it, really has the power and the job description to, you know, govern.

oh, you mean our current Lt Gov, David Do-Nothing, err Dewhurst...

I just hope we don't have the misfortune of foisting Goodhair on the rest of the country the way Shrub was...

[tekla]

Hey, we have an elderly action movie star, ex-Kennedy, Mister Universe who made soft core gay movies when he was young and likes to help out the maid with her work.  Let me know, I'll ship him to you.

[JulyaOrina]

Funny, I haven't seen anyone mention Ron Paul yet.  He would do the most good for our community, and the nation.  With his stances on personal freedom, fiscal responsibility, and ardent adhesion to the Constitution;  Government waste would be reined in, and personal persuit of happiness would thrive.  Not to mention he polled higher than Obama in '08, and can unify a broad sentiment of the nation.  Look him up; he is one of the few HONEST politicians in Washington.

[ToriJo]

Bachmann's husband runs a de-gaying clinic (it does other "Christian" counseling too).  I don't know his views towards trans-persons, but I bet it's not good.   Now normally I wouldn't care what a spouse said.  Unfortunately Michelle has also spoken out very strongly about how horrible gays are - it seems that the two of them are definitely on the same page here.

I'll vote for whoever has made the most compromises to pass middle-of-the-road legislation, rather than standing firm and screaming, while getting nothing done.  As far as I'm concerned, anyone currently in congress is disqualified because they've shown that they are completely and utterly unwilling to do their job (witness the current debt talk stuff - neither side will compromise, so they are waiting until last moment to do anything, because that's what the extremes in their bases want).  No matter how "right" I was, if I behaved like they did at work (never doing anything I didn't personally want to do), I'm sure I would be fired within a day.

[AmySmiles]

Ron Paul (and for the most part libertarians in general) have always been attractive candidates for me.  Paul does have his issues - I used to fully subscribe to many of his policies, but they would only work if the current system was not the way it is.  Free market economics only works well in a truly free market, for example.  Otherwise it merely unfairly benefits the generally small number of corporations that have arisen as a result of a government-regulated market.

That said, I'm all for rolling back much of the wasteful spending (middle eastern wars) we have and reforming certain programs (medicare/medicaid) to not be so wasteful in a way that doesn't screw over everyone that paid into them.  If that's even possible.  Paying down the national debt is the issue I currently feel most strongly about because I feel we are screwed if in the long run if we don't start doing so in the next few years.  I'm just extremely doubtful of the ability of ANY president to do so, being that they have to go through congress to get anything done.  And going through congress can be like herding cats.

[Julie Marie]

Romney's LDS affiliation will hurt him but the money the LDS makes sure is funneled his way may counter that.  Having an LDS member as president is a scary proposition.

Chris Matthews actually predicted Bachmann will get the nod as the Republican candidate.  He cited several reasons and felt sure she would ultimately win.  It's going to be who has the best voting power, the LDS or the Tea Party?

Either way, neither of them is a friend of the LGBT community.  Foe is a better description.

I wouldn't be surprised if Biden "retires" from public office and Hillary ends up as VP on the Obama 2012 ticket.  It would be the perfect segue to Hillary running in 2016.  And I think she'd win easily.  But would Biden be willing to go along with that?

Politicians kissing the butt of the uber rich may seem the practical thing to do but in the long run it will hurt them.  As the gap between rich and poor widens, a revolution will result.  Right now the GOP is worshiping at the altar of the big money, giving them everything they want.  The Dems, not so much.  And when this country is financially ruined because the uber rich have all the money (which BTW, they don't seem to reinvest like we were told they would) it will be the party that put up the most resistance to handing them all the cash that will emerge.  Or maybe the U.S. will just end up a dictatorship.

[ToriJo]

That said, I'm all for rolling back much of the wasteful spending (middle eastern wars) we have and reforming certain programs (medicare/medicaid) to not be so wasteful in a way that doesn't screw over everyone that paid into them.  If that's even possible.  Paying down the national debt is the issue I currently feel most strongly about because I feel we are screwed if in the long run if we don't start doing so in the next few years.  I'm just extremely doubtful of the ability of ANY president to do so, being that they have to go through congress to get anything done.  And going through congress can be like herding cats.

That's why I support everyone paying the same percentage for social security and medicare.  If I pay roughly 7 percent of my income to Social Security and my employer does the same (as does the employer of the poorest employed person), than the CEO of Citibank should pay 7% of his salary (and so should his employer).  As it is, he pays close to 0% (he pays 7% on the first bit, up to the cap, which he well exceeds).

But "no new taxes" means "let's give the rich more money while making the poor pay for more things directly".  That's not helpful.

Likewise, I'd support bringing back the tax code that the first Bush inherited from Reagan.  I can understand why the rich wouldn't like that though - much more taxes for them under Reagan.  But failing that, bring back the code that Bush Jr. supported.  If we're out of money, it's stupid to tax less.

Likewise, it's also stupid to spend like there is no tomorrow.  You want to save money?  There's a simple solution: grow government, not shrink it.  There should be less people getting rich off of government.  Why are the people paving roads working for private companies?  Why don't we just hire the people doing the work directly (heck, it would be good prison labor), without someone making a profit in the middle?  The same for military - why doesn't the military do most of the war fighting, why do people get to get rich on war?  If you cut out the government contractors, you would cut out a huge chunk of government waste.  But the group that claims to want to cut spending seems to have no problem with the wasteful government contracting system.  Heck, neither does the side that wants to spend more.

The IRS used to say they obtained $14 that *we* were owed for every $1 spent on auditing.  Basically, they got people who owed lots of money to do the same thing we all have to do: pay what is legally required.  Of course that got cut this year - congress voted to let the rich get away with less tax auditing, as, apparently, rich campaign donors don't like tax audits.

I used to work for government.  I saw us pay $100,000 for a simple web form (from a government contractor) that let people apply for a government program (it printed their application, which was processed just like every other paper application always was processed - it cut out no processes, nor did it streamline anything).  The worst part is that the web form never worked, but you paid for it anyhow.  I saw a welfare program that was over budget over three times the initial expected cost (another contractor) that, when I asked, "How many lines of code have been written so far for this 9 figure program?" I was told - when it was over budget x3 and two years late - that no code had actually been written yet.  But the government was fine with continuing to pay the bills for what appeared to be zero accomplishment by the contractor.  But I've yet to see a politician who really wants to correct these types of corruption.  The sad thing is that it would be easy to do - the GAO already knows where the waste is, but they are powerless to do anything about it (intentionally so).

[tekla]

I wouldn't be surprised if Biden "retires" from public office and Hillary ends up as VP on the Obama 2012 ticket.  It would be the perfect segue to Hillary running in 2016.

She's already said she is retiring from public life when she leaves the Sec of State job.  She's always been good to her word.  By 2016 she will be 69 years old - so basically the same age as Regan was when he won, and McCain was last time around.  I don't see that winning.  She can leave now and teach at Wellesley College, which she would dearly love to do.  Do fundraisers that would be big money and be a power player in the party.  Run some NGO for millions and millions a year. 

Tragically perhaps for a lot of us, she's too sane to want it bad enough.  And Biden is great.  He hasn't run a god damn thing except his mouth - which usually has his foot in it - since he became VP, and that's a welcome return to tradition after the Dick Cheney years. 

Despite the whole Palin deal - and how much the press makes of it every four years - the VP never really wins or loses elections.

[Ann Onymous]

That's why I support everyone paying the same percentage for social security and medicare.  If I pay roughly 7 percent of my income to Social Security and my employer does the same (as does the employer of the poorest employed person), than the CEO of Citibank should pay 7% of his salary (and so should his employer).  As it is, he pays close to 0% (he pays 7% on the first bit, up to the cap, which he well exceeds).

Why should one be expected to pay over the cap?  It matters not how much you make over the cap, any benefits later paid are going to be minuscule compared to what one earned when you are in that bracket.  If I remember the last worksheet correctly, I can expect to see something like maybe $3K a month from SSI when I reach retirement age.  Anything above and beyond the current cap means I have to pay in for something I will never see again and instead goes to someone else...

But "no new taxes" means "let's give the rich more money while making the poor pay for more things directly".  That's not helpful.

and from my standpoint, when I read comments like that, it smacks of what I have seen on other boards of "well, you make more than enough already so why shouldn't the government ask you for more money?"  It is the money I invest that helps keep the wheels going around...

Likewise, it's also stupid to spend like there is no tomorrow.  You want to save money?  There's a simple solution: grow government, not shrink it.

we do not need MORE government payroll...as it is, many agencies are way too bloated and that includes the agencies that are not even needed.  They could line-item out the entirety of Homeland Security (as an example), to include the TSA, and instantly clear a good chunk of wasted monies. 

Government has gotten too large and fat, both payroll wise and employee-numbers wise.  We need some fiscal conservatism to whittle it down to size...

[AmySmiles]

If you cut out the government contractors, you would cut out a huge chunk of government waste.

I don't necessarily agree with this.  I work for a government contractor (I know, I know, but keep reading) and what most people don't understand is that we are forced to abide by government-set wage rates, which are quite a bit larger than they are in the public sector.  I've heard on the order of 4x as much.  And we don't even make more money for salary than public sector employees.  I'm sure if this wage rate problem was dealt with, the cost of many government contracts would also go down.  This is the whole reason my company set up a separate division for any government related work, by the way.  Because if we had to use government wage rates for our public sector work, we'd never win any bids.  Ever.

[gennee]

I'm not voting democrat or republican. I'm voting for a progressive candidate. The following are not my suggestions but food for thouught. Abolish the federal reserve. Have a flat tax for everyone (15%). Abolish the irs. Close most of the military bases because they are not needed (the COld war has been over for over 20 years. Those are a few of my thoughts.                   GENNEE.                 9,84

[Julie Marie]

Hmmmm..... Matthews' pick Bachmann might be a bit challenged by the allegations her husband is a closeted gay.  But, if so, he's doing the typical conservative two-step by running an gay curing clinic.  So maybe he can avoid the familiar path many gay-hating gays in politics and religion have gone.  Or maybe he'll join the ever growing list of outspoken, conservative, anti-LGBT crusaders when he gets caught with his own Rent Boy.  That would be fun.

Listen to him.  Is he gay or what?

[MeghanAndrews]

I'm voting for Tekla.

[tekla]

If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not... wait, the job comes with that plane don't it?  Damn, that's one MoFo perk there ain't it?  Air Force One.  Where ever I say I want to go...

OK, here's what I do.

My first act as your president will be to declare myself to be a national security risk, mostly because I deeply and sincerely believe that in a democratic nation there should be few to no secrets.  So for God's sake don't tell me.  Now, having excluded myself from anything, and everything that's important I'm going to use my time and my office to truly engage in a massive goodwill tour those nations that have beaches and tropical, to semi-tropical climates.  And countries that have ski resorts.

Aruba, Bimini, Tahiti will be ignored no longer!  Arise island nation friends and let's make some of those fancy drinks and get to know each other.

And the G8 all have ski resorts (I'm no dummy), except for England.  No tropical/semi-tropical beaches either.  That's OK, I can catch half of England in the Costa del Sol or Rivera every year.