[Nathan]

Which possible Republican presidential candidate has the greatest chance of beating Hillary if she is the Democratic presidential candidate? I saw Fox News ask this question to political experts they had on their show, and the consensus was that Mitt Romney had the best shot.

[twinzplus3]

Not Guiliani? I'm surprised.

[pattiewrites]

I read that most conservatives think Guiliani is too liberal, since he is pro life and supports gay marriage. Also, polls on CNN showed Hilary beating him in a general election.

[cocotbo]

I think that, sadly, whoever runs for the GOP is going to be a sacrificial lamb at this point. The President's approval ratings aren't high enough to carry a third Republican term. Unless the GOP can run a strong candidate and enough Hillary haters get out to vote, we may be stuck with her socialist idealogy and her philandering First Lady for four years. Quite frankly, I'm scared.

[MJ7]

Whew! I echo Cocotbo's thoughts--emphasis on the concern about Hillary's socialist ideology. Though I'm not so confident that Hillary would get presidency--not just because she's a woman, but because she is so Left and frankly annoying IMO. I'm wondering if we might either see an Independant in office or a different Democrat. I think we'd have to have a pretty moderate Republican and one who likely speaks opposition to the war if we are going to keep a Republican in office.

[jadis]

Man, I am the opposite. I am counting down the days to when the GOP is OUT. Although, I must admit, GW was good for an occasional laugh.

I live north of the border, and some think that I shouldn't have an opinion- but US policy affects our own due to our proximity, and in the work both me and my fiancee do, we end up seeing firsthand the effects of what political party is in office. My boyfriend has also worked in the US, and we may be returning there at some point in the future if we get an offer we can't pass up.

Although, at this point, the Dems aren't that much better that the Reps- I'll take them.

[MJ7]

Though I hear what you're saying Jadis, everytime a democrat gets elected, it seems to cost us (U.S.) tax payers more money. I do live in a highly taxed state though. Too often people look at the immediate economical situation and are quick to point their finger at the current president. I think many people--even some democrats don't want socialism in the US. Anyway, the parties are changing so much nowdays, it's hard for me to figure out which party stands for what. All I know is I do NOT want Hillary in office.

This brings up a good debate discussion too--if I dare tread here...:

If were between a man and a woman running for president and both were equally as capable with the same views, would you choose the man or the woman?

[jadis]

The thing is, Hillary Clinton is very far from a socialist- you can say that some of her ideas are somewhat socialist in nature, but to call her a socialist is a fallacy. Compared to Canada's more left-leaning parties (the NDP and the Green Party), Democrats (including Clinton) are more centrist- kind of like the Liberal Party in Canada.

I am actually all for paying more in taxes if it means better health care and programs such as subsidized daycare and aid for the elderly. Maybe some would consider me a socialist- I just consider myself a humanist.

Interesting question relating to gender- I honestly doubt there would ever be a situation where there were two people so equally matched, especially if they were running against one another. American politics are very adversarial- each candidate would make a point of stating how different they are from one another. Besides, if they were equally matched the debate would be kinda boring

What interests me isn't only the question of gender, but of race. I think there will be a female president in office long before there is a non-caucasian in office (especially an african-american). As much as people like to pretend race no longer matters, it apparently does but in more subtle ways.

[MJ7]

You raised a good point Jadis regarding Canada's politcal parties vs. the US. They are quite different so I understand by Canadian or other national standards, our democratic party is probably less liberal.

I believe things are usually better when the power is with the people. If we didn't have multiple options, I don't people certain "businesses" would be held as accountable. We pay our own healthcare. As a result, yes the taxes in the US might be less (depending where you are) than in Canada (which leaves us more $$ for other things to contribute into our economy). But if I don't like the care I'm getting, I can find an insurance provider who will offer me better options. Similar with doctors as well because drs typically aim for customer (patient) satisfaction.

Though there are some who argue about high healthcare costs (and they can be high), our nation does have a public health system for those who make below a determined amount. As well, if anyone is injured, our county hospitals are required to give basic nessisary treatment. In addition, we do have the county health clinics that see some for free or on a sliding scale if they should need vaccines etc.. Worse cases, basic needs are typically covered (I'm sure there are exceptions in every case).

I believe too that when their is competition between businesses the people usually benifit. It tends to drive costs down. Take the phone comanies for example--even cell phones.

When businesses are required to pay higher taxes, their employees often suffer. I come from a family of buisness owners and my grandparents have had to let people go even from taxes going up. Those who worked very hard to be in a comfortable position financially should not be penalized for their hard work by paying so much higher of a percentage in taxes than others. I'm not talking about the very rich either--even the upper middle class.

By allowing Government to dictate so much, I really believe we would be promoting poor work ethics for many. If people know they'd better get a good education and a good job because the government isn't going to be there to support them, I'd bet we'd see a lot more people working harder. I beleive those who work hard for what they have to own also take much better care of it. Perhaps people would plan their lives better not being so confident that welfare (tax payers) will support them should they need it.

I know there are people who are unable to work. What did people do before the gov. stepped in? Good people took care of each other. I have heard that private nursing homes are better than the public or subsidized ones. I believe this has a lot to do with choice as well.

School systems seem to do better too when power is given to the people (yes, I watched the John Stosel report on Stupid in America ). Seems that even charter schools do better and run off less funds because there are different standards for teachers. Private schools and homeschools tend to test out higher and run on less funding per student than the public schools do because there is more accountablity. I have not seen any evidence that taxing us more will benifit us more.

I'm NOT anti-tax. Our kids should be entitled to public schooling funded by us, but if the $5-8k would follow each child to a school of their choosing, not only could I get them in an awesome school for less, but likely save the gov (tax payers) some money too! I believe our military, and other public services need to be funded within fair reason.

How this relates to debate? My views here are considered "conservative" and most often it's associated with the Republican--and even Libertarian party. Seems too often we're taxed on things we don't really need: paying for congress people to attend a meeting in a tropical paradise like Hawaii. Putting hundreds of thousands of dollars of art in an unoccupied prison, giving overpaid polititians rediculous pay increases...

It just seems so many polititians are such hypocrites. Often I hear politcians stating they are against school choice, but don't have their children in public school. They talk about the poor like they care while they're writing off their extravagant "business expenses" in which the burdon seems to fall on those of us who are middle class. I fear having a democrat as president with the house and senate the way it is!

Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of good things people do too. Sorry this is so long. I am not a long poster, and will not do it again. Just wanted to share another POV.

[SueR]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Which possible Republican presidential candidate has the greatest chance of beating Hillary if she is the Democratic presidential candidate? I saw Fox News ask this question to political experts they had on their show, and the consensus was that Mitt Romney had the best shot.

Heh. Consider the source.
McCain has the best chance against any Dem candidate, I'm a Democrat so I don't like him much but I know he has a lot of support in the center.
Giuliani could get the center but would lose the far right. Romney could get the far right but would lose the center. McCain is the only one who I think could walk the tightrope.