Which presidential candidate best represents the working stiff in this nation?

Question

Which presidential candidate do you feel best supports the causes and concerns of America's working class?

Answer 1

Without a doubt it's RON PAUL!

He alone as a member of Congress has introduced many ,many Congressional Bills that are intended to help the working classes of Americans. Please search this site, and click on the "Index" tabs:

http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml

Very unfortunately for all of us working stiffs, the Congress, Senate, and Executive branches of government are intent on supporting the minority of Rich & Elite special interest groups, who contribute huge sums to candidates that will benifit their agendas.

To prove this point, most of the Ron Paul Congressional legislation aimed at helping the working stiffs does not get enough votes to pass.
More proof is the nickname of Doctor "NO" that has been tacked on him for many years.

You see, he earned this nickname by voting against legislation that benifits the rich & elite classes, by taking tax payers dollars and using these dollars in ways that hurt the working classes of Americans.

Thank you for the question!
******************************************************

Answer 2

One: They need to BE younger. You can run for president when you're 35. Most of the people running now are over 60, or in some cases over 70. Two: Address the issues young people care about - the costs of college, loan interest rates, availability of good jobs, etc... Young people don't really care about medicare prescription plans or social security. Three: Address the Iraq problem directly instead of dancing around it. Most younger people are turned off by it, but those of the baby boom generation who grew up in the cold war support it more. Only Obama really seems to be speaking to anyone under 30 or 35. This is not an endorsement of him by any means, though, since he has his problems. Candidates would speak to the younger demographic if they actually voted. Because they don't vote in large numbers, there's no reason to really speak to them. They're more likely to vote for American Idol.

Answer 3

Dennis Kucinich

Review his voting record

Dennis Kucinich concluded his smart, pointed yet good-humored participation in the latest Democratic presidential debate by telling the crowd at Dartmouth College that they could have a President who has consistently opposed the war in Iraq, defended civil liberties and fought for single-payer healthcare. "Or," he said, "you can have a President who is tall." Unfortunately, the next President is likely to be of a different stature than the Congressman from Cleveland. But it is far too early to elbow Kucinich off the debate platform. It is troubling that a former big-city mayor, veteran Congressman and one of the earliest and most consistent critics of a war opposed by the vast majority of Americans has already been excluded from some high-profile candidate forums. And it is unacceptable that political and media "deciders" are beginning to angle for more exclusive debates.

There is nothing evenhanded about our presidential selection process. The system generally regards as most "serious" those candidates who can raise the most money, while it excludes those who offer radical alternatives, even if they hold views that more accurately reflect those of the American people. Party leaders and media stars err on the side of style over substance. This leaves little space for candidates like Kucinich, who stake out positions that are more visionary than those of the ordained front-runners and who inject ideas into the debate that would otherwise be skipped over. It's not easy to explain the strategic value of disarmament, diplomacy and the need to address persistent poverty in a thirty-second answer to a question about national security. Even Kucinich sometimes stumbles as he tries to leap the hurdles moderators erect to narrow and control the discourse.

Kucinich is not always as flexible or strategically smart as his circumstances demand. And while the candidate has more grassroots support than many senior senators, his seat-of-the-pants organization fails to inspire confidence that he will do much better this year than he did in 2004. But it is a corroded democracy that marginalizes a speak-truth-to-power candidate when so much of the electorate is eager for an alternative not just to the Bush/Cheney Administration but also to the compromises of Democratic Congressional leaders and presidential candidates.

No doubt, it would be easier for Hillary Clinton and her most competitive rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, to debate without facing the inconvenient truths that Kucinich, Bill Richardson and Mike Gravel have brought to the podium. But avoiding tough questions about how the occupation of Iraq will end and how a war with Iran can be avoided, about failed "free trade" policies, about the advantages of a single-payer healthcare system, won't make Clinton, Obama or Edwards stronger contenders in next year's election. Wrapping up the nomination and presenting it to an intellectually untested candidate rarely makes for a better nominee, let alone a better President.

It is for this reason that even Democrats who would never consider voting for Dennis Kucinich for President should recognize the value of his continued presence on every debate stage of this front-loaded, pundit-defined, money-managed primary campaign. Perhaps the Congressman is too idealistic to match our strangled definitions of a nominee or a President.

But Kucinich is standing tall for progressive values, bringing bold ideas, tough questions and a sense of purpose to discussions that require these precious commodities. And he should be a part of the debates for as long as the campaign for the Democratic nomination continues.

Answer 4

Actually Ron Paul. You need a Libertarian to do this right. I don't know where in the world people think Democrats are the ones to do this. I believe it is due to the popular misconception that small government, free market thinkers are out for big money while Dems are looking out for the poor guy - this is not only ideologically flawed, but also has no historical date to back it up.

Yes, Dems will place a higher tax burden on the rich, but they cannot legally do so so much that it offsets the little guy to no accept any of that burden. Across the board their plan to spend money already will make taxes go high for everybody across the board. Tax relief is the only true way to put more money in someone's pocket. It is the avenue where it is not secretly placed somewhere else as is unequitable tax relief. They will tax the wealthy more, but it will come back to the poor poeple in another form. Ron Paul's flat tax will ensure equal tax expense to everybody; and best yet, it is at your decision - if you don't want to pay tax on something, ou can decide yourself rather than the government take it for you! Plus, he wants to decrease goverment program size, not increase them like Dems. This will free up a lot of money from your wallet to make sure it goes to the right places more efficiently. Also, putting the dollar back on gold standard is an excellent idea. Once it was taken off the standard in 71' it has lost it's value. They keep printing money making inflation goe up whcih makes your buying power go down. This past week the dollar has dropped 10%! That means everything you have for retirement, pension, stocks have decreased. This is not good for anyone; especially the working poor and the elderly who rely on these pension for a decent retirement.

Paul is a Libertarian and has to run on Republican ticket because we treat third-party candidates like crap in our unfair system. He is not part of the Neo-Conservative which makes up the rest of the Republican ticket. They are the same big spenders as the Dems - the only difference is that rather than pumping the tax money into social programs they want more to go into this war!

Good luck!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Answer 5

Ron Paul

Answer 6

Obama

Answer 7

None. How would any of them actually know what it's like to be a "working stiff." They couldn't hold down a REAL job longer than a day without crying for some new government program to CYA.

Answer 8

me mum that is ONLY RON PAUL!

mum doesnt like any of the democrats or republican. the are the same, no good.

ron paul would help get some constitutional changes to stop and redo all the bad things that have been happening.

Answer 9

None of them.

But then again, why should a presidential candidate represent or be beholden to ANY specific class?

They should represent ALL Americans, and should be beholden to the Constitution.

Anything else is wrong.

Answer 10

I don't know of any working stiffs that would be able to raise enough money to run for Govenor, much less President.