2007-10-04 00:26:03 · 8 answers · asked by Dawnita R 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clearly, that would have to be Ron Paul. He has stood consistently for the original intent of the Constitution for 10 terms in Congress. He opposes all tax increases, pay raises. anti-2nd Amendment laws, anti-1st Amendment laws, "anti-terrorism" laws (which are actually anti-freedom laws), and the stupid War. He wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve so that it can no longer destroy the value of our money and harm the poor and Middle Class (for the benefit of DC, of course). He wants to eliminate the IRS and replace it with nothing, which would be a far more effective way of eliminating poverty than any of those "anti-poverty" programs have ever been (isn't it better to let people keep the money that would go to the government than to redistribute a small portion of that money to try to make up for the poverty caused by taxation in the first place?).
Well, Ron Paul is the only Republican with any chance of winning the election (because any candidate who is perceived as pro-war is unelectable and he is the only anti-war Republican, though a pro-war candidate can win by pretending to be anti-war, just as Richard Nixon did in 68). However, the president is most likely to be Hillary Clinton, especially if the majority of Republican voters are as far out of touch with reality as they seem. Hillary will be the Democratic nominee, and while she is not the worst candidate (Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and Edwards are worse, among the supposed "top-tier"), she is going to repeat what George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did before her; become the worst president since Nixon.
2007-10-04 00:39:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ron Paul/Denis Kucinich=winners.
2007-10-04 07:42:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd say Ron Paul. He comes across as very principled, whereas the rest of the candidates that I've any knowledge of (left and right) are just a bunch of shills - especially Giuliani and Clinton (they make my skin crawl). I don't even agree with much of Paul's politics, but I'd vote for an honest person I disagree with before a dishonest person I agree with.
2007-10-04 07:47:28 · answer #3 · answered by 8Dave 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, as far as the last noble President I saw, that would have to be President Jimmy Carter. He was just to honest and good to be President.
Edit: Sorry. You said contenders, but I'm going to let my answer stand anyway.
Re-Edit: I don't care what you say, I liked President Gerald Ford too.
One more time: Senator Clinton will be our next President.
2007-10-04 07:34:21 · answer #4 · answered by Michael A 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Historically, the more noble (or even the more well-qualified) has seldom proved a good quality in terms of being elected, Some of our best qualified candidates have not been elected.
2007-10-04 07:28:32 · answer #5 · answered by Uncle John 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
John Edwards.
2007-10-04 07:29:32 · answer #6 · answered by barbwire 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Nobility is sadly lacking in the 08 race.
I favor No ONE at this point in time.
2007-10-04 07:28:39 · answer #7 · answered by Angelbaby7 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ron Paul. I hope so...
2007-10-04 07:55:06 · answer #8 · answered by Shinkirou Hasukage 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋