Yeah you're not alone. I think the implication that republican = Bush supporter, in light of all his criticism, leads to the everyday republicans laying a bit low at times when it comes to announcing their political affiliation. Of course that strikes me as funny, since the democratic congress has managed to pull together a significantly lower approval rating than Bush himself. Don't get me wrong, I have my problems with Bush, but I also think he's blamed more (and for more) than is really fair. Going into Iraq, he was getting the same faulty intelligence everyone was getting (including Hillary Clinton); if Saddam wasn't acting so dodgy and defiant about inspections, he'd have been fine. Instead he made it look like he had something to hide.

I think the real issue is that Bush just doesn't have the public speaking skills that might earn him a bit more respect. Saying things like "strategery" just makes it too easy. Makes for great sketch comedy though, eh?

Interesting thing is, as many dems/libs as seem to be here, many if not all seem to support Ron Paul... who is, after all, a republican... Even if it's not him who gets elected, I'm betting big on a republican president in 2008. I think the democratic congress screwed themselves too hard to come unscrewed in time.

@Plague of Locust.
Well Ron Paul seems to be one of those wonderful liberal republicans who have distanced themselves from Bush. I think he seems like a fairly good guy to be honest. Do you know who I would like to see run for the Republicans? Arny, high public profile, liberal and amazingly (considering what he is) rather competent.

But to be honest I can't see a republican getting in, Bush has just screwed them over too much.

I like Ron Paul's refreshing honesty (perceived at least) and wish to downsize government. However as an economics major I have to say his ideas simply don't hold up. Income tax is necessary to provide basic services. That said, much of what he has to say about ending American overseas military expenditure would bring the US budget far closer to surplus. Deficits are not the end of the world popular media makes them out to be, but America's repeated deficits are simply becoming too large to be sustainable.

On the other hand many people in this thread have indicated a desire to vote for Barack Obama, and I would urge you to reconsider. I understand that his brilliant public speaking creates the impression that he knows what he is talking about, and that he offers the perception of hope a lot of Americans need to feel in this day and age. I also believe that he is honest in his belief that his policies can work. Unfortunately, he is incorrect. His fiscal policies don't have a grounding in reality, and as a result his entire spending program falls down.

Furthermore, his foreign policies (My minor is a Global Security course) are quite frankly ridiculous. To threaten Pakistan's leader (perhaps the most valuable partner in the war on terror the USA has) with pre-emptive strikes within his country's borders if he fails to act is bordering on lunacy. Also, stating that he would take the nuclear weapons option off the table in ANY circumstances is stupid. The best case scenario is that the world is rid of nuclear weapons, but as the USA has them, effectively removing the deterrence benefit in the face of so many global nuclear powers (some like Russia, China and North Korea are hardly allies) is plain unintelligent.

Perhaps these transgressions were not Obama's actual policies, but if thats the case then them slipping out is a dangerous highlighter of his inexperience. Do not be fooled by the promise of Utopia. Rights and freedom are worth nothing if you do not possess the money and might to protect them.

Well part of the problem with Obama is that he hasn't released much of his costing.  But he has outlined much of what he wants to do with the Health and Education system.  As nice as it would be to see what he wants done done, hes either lying or being naive to think that he as a president would have the fiscal flexibility to establish the much broader and more generous health and education policies.  His answer seems to be to simply end the Iraq, and shortly afterwards, the Afghanistan wars.  But what he fails to realise is that whilst this will save a couple of hundred billion dollars a year, it wont come close to dealing with the budget deficit. Most anti-war candidates on both sides of the political divide seem to think that ending these two wars will fix the governments financial nightmare, and they are all wrong.  But Obama is the worst as he combines this naivity with vast spending promises.

America has an enourmous trade deficit with China that isn't going away and is contributing to a perpetual (and growing) cycle of debt that could take America decades to get out of, and many economic commentators are speculating that the economy may be on the verge of a second post-9/11 recession.  However, Obama's tax policies take none of this into account.  He wants to lower taxes for the poor, which he can't afford to do or the budget deficit will be massively blown out (even further). He says that he will fund these tax cuts by increasing tax on the rich.  Unfortunately for Barack Obama (and the people of America and those in the nations America's economy interacts with if he is elected), when the rich are taxed at a higher rate it sends a shockwave down investment streams, which has the medium term effect of lowering investment, but the short-term effect of massively lowering investment. If investment slows whilst the economy is in such a precarious position, a recession will be unavoidable, as there will be a massive slow-down in growth.

So here is a summary of Obama's problems:

His only solution to the budget deficit is to end America's major wars, which won't come close to covering government debt, which will continue to blow out.

He is making wild spending promises which sound wonderful but in actuallity are only sustainable for an EXTREMELY short period of time in America's current political climate.

Lowering taxes for the poor (or anyone else) will make the budget deficit (and the trade deficit as more expendable income means more cheap foreign goods purchased) even more exhorbinate.

Raising taxes for the rich will create an immediate slowdown in investment, pushing the economy into a recession, at which point any chance of Obama meeting his spending promises is as likely as the Dreamcast making a comeback and winning the 7th generation. 

I believe the Republicans are toast in 2008 unless their nominee is either Huckabee or Ron Paul. I believe any other Republican is going to get their ass whipped by whoever comes from the Democratic side. And lets face it, it's not going to be Ron Paul. Ron Paul has as much chance to win the GOP nom as Joe Biden does the Democratic one. He's a true conservative really who's party has well moved away from him.

Some bring up the congress has a lower approval than the President, but part of that is the congress not standing up to Bush enough. It's still a very anti Republican environment. Bush's numbers are still in the toilet. People trust the Dems more on everything from Healthcare to the environment to the economy to Iraq. The only thing the GOP wins is on terrorism, but only by a narrow margain. The GOP is in the midst of becoming a minority party for a while, and that seems suiting given they elected twice one of the worst and arguably the most incompetent president we've ever had.

I agree that from an economics standpoint Hillary is the best Democratic candidate at this point in time, but even she places far too much hope in the idea that ending the two middle-east wars will create some sort of economic windfall.

"Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade."

wow. Now I'm out. Back to definitely being Obama or Clinton.

As a Muslim I am against abortion. It is just wrong. However, as human I am against judging anyone else. Only God can truly judge someone. This includes abortion. God is the only one who truly knows when the fetus has life. God is the only one who knows the reasons behind such a decision and if they are acceptable.

I really like Ron's position on Israel, but, Clinton an Obama are similar so and they aren't going to try to push religious views on the public. Don't people realize that the more we allow leaders to push religious views on all public law, (abortion and gay rights), the more they will push later? How do you all think the Middle East became so strict? It hasn't always been that way. What's next? Because the bible says women should wear head scarfs then it will be law as well. Bet some of you didn't even realize the Bible says that, did you?

Religious laws should not be forced on all of society.

Clinton is better. Come on health care for everyone?

Paul (edit: not Ron Paul but the apostle) said this when referring to women in church back in his day, not Jesus. Jesus had the most respect for women of his time, some even consider him an early feminist. Either way this will never be a law in the U.S. you should know America better than that.

Meanwhile the leader of CAIR (counsil on american-islamic relations) has been accused of saying he'd like the Koran to replace our Constitution!!! Apparently they aren't compatible. Muhammad had little to no respect for women other than adding more of them for his wives. Even stealing one of his sons' wives by telling him Allah told him to give her up to him - how convenient. Women wearing headscarves will be the least of our worries once our Consititution is replaced by the Koran.

BTW no Evangelical has said the Constitution must or should be replaced by the Bible- they are already compatible with each other, so there's no problem.