Election today

[Ron Davis]

If the election were held today who would you vote for.

1. George Bush clone - status quo where things proceed as during the last eight years.
2. Hillary Clinton
3. John McCain

[Gary Swartzlander]

Can you add an option for other?

This is a pretty narrow field.

[Ron Davis]

Can you add an option for other?

This is a pretty narrow field.

I'm not interested in who anyone prefers for President. The last few elections from my point of view have resulted in only bad choices requiring a choice of the lesser of two evils. I'm exploring how far people will go down a party line path no matter what. In other words what would it take for a long time Republican voter to vote another way.

I just thought a choice between a George Bush type candidate and Hillary Clinton to be an interesting challenge. I threw John McCain in to find out how many people are happy with George Bush and would vote for him again.

[Mark Metcalfe]

An interesting poll was taken in the last election.
When running against a "nameless" candidate, the President seemed sure
to lose the election. However, when they put a name to it, such as
"John Kerry," the poll reversed itself.

Therefore, "anybody" is better than George Bush, unless anybody is somebody.
It would be pointless to debate whether other names would
have fared better than John Kerry, but a number of NazNetters here
thought Joe Lieberman would have swayed their vote.

I suspect for this particular poll, John McCain will win for similar reasons
as "nobody" -- it is a NOT Bush, and NOT Hillary vote far more than it is
a vote FOR McCain.

Mark

[Ron Davis]

An interesting poll was taken in the last election.
When running against a "nameless" candidate, the President seemed sure
to lose the election. However, when they put a name to it, such as
"John Kerry," the poll reversed itself.

Therefore, "anybody" is better than George Bush, unless anybody is somebody.
It would be pointless to debate whether other names would
have fared better than John Kerry, but a number of NazNetters here
thought Joe Lieberman would have swayed their vote.

I suspect for this particular poll, John McCain will win for similar reasons
as "nobody" -- it is a NOT Bush, and NOT Hillary vote far more than it is
a vote FOR McCain.

Mark

You are probably right. As the poll stands the results so far are indicating little support for George Bush. After this one closes I may try one without McCain as a choice.

An interesting question might be under what circumstances would you vote for Hillary. At lease the question would be interesting for our U.S. participants.

[Cindi Hammons]

An interesting question might be under what circumstances would you vote for Hillary.

The day that hell freezes.

I would vote for Bill Clinton (again) before I would vote for Hillary.

Cindi H.

[Ron Davis]

The day that hell freezes.

I would vote for Bill Clinton (again) before I would vote for Hillary.

Cindi H.

Why?

[Cindi Hammons]

I voted for Bill Clinton the first time he ran because I was young and thought he would make financial changes to help out my generation, which I didn't think George Bush Sr. would do. I did not agree with his abortion stand at the time, but had to make a choice. Even though Bill Clinton certainly didn't adhear to any decorum in office, I think financially, he was a really good president. I did not vote for him the second time he ran. Among many reasons for that vote was a vote against another 4 years of having to listen to a "President" Hillary. Unfortunately, my vote didn't matter much and I had my four more years anyways. When his term was up, I was glad to see him go.

I cannot give you many cold hard facts regarding my feelings on Hillary, so anything I say can be smashed by someone else's opinion as well. I still cannot shake the feeling that the Clinton's were involved in shady business. I can't say what, and they've not been convicted, but it is a feeling. I can't forget listening to NPR every morning on my 40 minute commute to work and daily hearing about Hillary exploits (health care, etc). I still can't forget the comment the Clintons made that as Bill Clinton being the president "we get two for the money." We did not get two for the money...we voted for one, and one is all we should have had. Even though it was a legal political move, Hillary had no business running for office in New York, where she did not live until she decided to run for the Senate. Yes, yes, yes, I know...she established residency and it was totally kosher...it just felt cheap. I also have not liked her many hard-line comments that she has made during her time as a Senator. After the 9-11 attack, Pres. Bush made a speech before Congress. After the speech, he came down into the gallery and shook hands with Congress-people of both parties. Even Ted Kennedy grinned and shook the President's hand. Hillary did not.

Hillary being female has nothing to do with it. I'd vote for a women with no problem...just not that woman.

On the other hand, if Pres. Bush could run another term, I'm not sure I would vote for him again...unless there was really no other alternative. So, there's my thoughts. I'm sure plenty of people will be able to slash away at my opinions. People, just don't get too personal if you please.

Cindi H.

[Mark Bolerjack]

Hillary being female has nothing to do with it. I'd vote for a women with no problem...just not that woman.


I agree. I have often said, mostly joking, but partially serious that I would move out of the country if she were elected. I also have no problem with voting for a woman, but she would have to be qualified.

[Gina Stevenson]

yeah, aren't they the ones who were going to move out of the country if Bush were elected? Most of them -- or all of them -- are still here, right? :p

I agree. I have often said, mostly joking, but partially serious that I would move out of the country if she were elected. I also have no problem with voting for a woman, but she would have to be qualified.

[Marg Webb]

If Joe Lieberman would have been the runner for President, he would have had our family vote.

[Bruce Carriker]

Fairly disillusioned, but hardly surprised at the results of this poll. Thankfully we have a 2-term limit for the presidency, and Jeb Bush doesn't seem interested in the job.

[Bruce Carriker]

An interesting question might be under what circumstances would you vote for Hillary. At lease the question would be interesting for our U.S. participants.

Of the Republicans who might run - Rice, Frist, Brownback, McCain, Giuliani, Allen - I'd probably vote for Hillary if any of them except McCain was the Republican nominee.

I never thought I'd say that. I voted against her husband twice, and she was part of the reason. But the GOP has become the party of the rich and the (self-)righteous and I just can't support them anymore.

[Donna Adams]

Bush any day..again.

[Stan Hall]

I, too, am rather disheartened by the Republican offerings. But I certainly wouldn't vote for Hillary. Sure, she coming across as more moderate these days. She's trying to appeal to the right. I don't believe a word of it.
I don't see any of the above actually supporting the Constitution. At this point, I'd vote Libertarian. I know Libertarians never win elections, but at least I'd go home with a clear conscience.
And this tired old cliche that Republicans are the party of the rich... That's just echoing the class-envy mantra. The Democrats in Washington are richer than the Republicans. They just lie about it to buy votes. "Vote for me and I'll give you more stuff that other people (the rich) have to pay for."
I never understood the denigration of the rich. The vast majority of the wealthy in this country got that way through hard work, perseverance and making wise choices. Why is that bad? Why is success reviled?

[Pete Vecchi]

Hillary being female has nothing to do with it. I'd vote for a women with no problem...just not that woman.



Cindi H.


What if Condi Rice would run in 2008?

[Jim Franklin]

Well as a resident of Arizona, I could never vote for John McCain for he is far too liberal for this Conservative and both clintons have no integrity IMHO. I am sorry George Bush did not seek charges against the bc team that trashed the White House computers etc. on their way out. I am also sorry there was not an investigation of those pardoned by bc on his last day. McCain is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). The two women in the public scene now that I could vote for are Condi Rice and Laura Bush. I wish Jeb showed some interest but my favored candidates right now would be Sens. Brownback and Allen. If the national press had done the investigation on bc that they have done on the Bushes and the Doles we would never have had to suffer those years from Jan 20, 1993 to Jan 20, 2001.

As for reviling the rich it seems a lot of those with lesser means are always suspicious of how they got there with the question in their minds "How much cheating or how many did they step on to get there particularly when people like the Enron officers appear to have spent their employees and stockholders retirement funds on mansions and yachts etc.

Yes, the 44 Senate Democrats total wealth would undoubtedly be more than the 55 Republicans. The two from Massachusetts might do it all by themselves. John Heinz, the Pa. Republican Senator who unfortunately was killed in a plane crash must be rolling over in his grave to see how his widow has used his legacy for with her wealth she makes her current husband worth close to 1 billion.

I just wish there had not been a two term limit for Reagan and this Bush. Good men who have and are trying to seek God's guidance in their decisions should be supported by all Christians.

[Pete Vecchi]

I'm exploring how far people will go down a party line path no matter what. In other words what would it take for a long time Republican voter to vote another way.

For me, it's not a party line. I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool republican. I have some areas where I disagree with President Bush's policies. But I agree with many of them -- more than those with which I disagree. It has nothing to do with going "down a party line path no matter what."

However, party politics is a reality in this nation. Given the choice between a Republican congressional or Senatorial candidate or a Democrat one, I not only have to decide which candiate I prefer, but which party I prefer to be in control of that house (or both houses) of Congress.

I am not totally happy with the directions the Republicans have gone -- in my opinion they have not been conservative enough, especially fiscally. But their fiscal policies are still more conservative--and therefore much more to my liking--than those espoused by the Democrats. Therefore, if there's a close race projected for control of Congress or the Senate, I'll likely vote for the Republican candidate to ensure that the Democrats won't run the business of one or both Houses of Congress.

Speaking of which -- from everything I've heard, I hope that Samuel Alito gets voted upon favorably by the Senate. If the Democrats would have been in the majority, I don't believe that he would have even gotten through the Judicial Committee.

[Hans Deventer]

And this tired old cliche that Republicans are the party of the rich... That's just echoing the class-envy mantra. The Democrats in Washington are richer than the Republicans.

Stan, I always understood this to mean, the Democrats get most of the votes of the poorer people, while the Republicans get most of the votes of the richer people. Did not think it had anything to do with the personal wealth of Republicans or Democrats. Am I mistaken?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Someone who's more experienced than I: Does Barack Obama have little chance of being recognized as a candidate this election? If not, why not?

[Pete Vecchi]

Someone who's more experienced than I: Does Barack Obama have little chance of being recognized as a candidate this election? If not, why not?

Well, MY personal take on it is that he hasn't yet had enough experience to be a candidate as early as 2008. At that time, he will have served only 2/3 of a single term in the senate.

But don't count him out in the future.

I'd say there's an OUTSIDE chance that he could make a viable run in 2008, but I don't think it's likely.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

None of the above.......

And i am with Cindi on the woman issue. i wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were the last person on the planet.

[Bruce Carriker]

Stan, I always understood this to mean, the Democrats get most of the votes of the poorer people, while the Republicans get most of the votes of the richer people. Did not think it had anything to do with the personal wealth of Republicans or Democrats. Am I mistaken?

Hans, you understand correctly. Stan's response is merely the the way those who support Republicans avoid addressing the fact that their policies almost invariably favor business and the wealthy, while hurting the poor.

[Bruce Carriker]

Someone who's more experienced than I: Does Barack Obama have little chance of being recognized as a candidate this election? If not, why not?

Jeremy...he's probably too young, inexperienced at this point. Provided he stays out of any "DeLay-type" scandals, he will likely emerge as a serious contender in 2012.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Cindi,

I tend to agree with you 100%. Makes sense to me.

Barb

[Gina Stevenson]

Agreed. So, who would we write in? Condi Rice says she doesn't want to ... would she change her mind, were there a big women's write-in campaign? ;)

None of the above.......

And i am with Cindi on the woman issue. i wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were the last person on the planet.

[Cindi Hammons]

What if Condi Rice would run in 2008?

Hi Pete.

Condi Rice? Well, honestly, I don't know that much about her as a politician. I do know that she does a good job in her cabinet position...but that is not always the same. I wouldn't really be able to say one way or another without more information.

Yes, she would be the first woman and African American. That would be a very good thing. But I don't know what kind of president she would make.

So the short answer is, I don't know.

Cindi H.:fav04

[Carsten Schermuly]

Important is also,
more on this bank of the pond will vote next times for the conservative side - Dr. Angela Merkel & Co :fav18

For this we need not only a good US american foreign politic, we need to see clear lines inside the US. Insider will know what to do - but the most of us can look only on surface, must believe what journalists will say.
We wish a very stabile inner and outter politic for the US.

It must not be done all things best - mistakes are allowed - but it must be done powerful and clear - to make others willingly to follow.

[Billy Cox]

If the election were held today who would you vote for.

1. George Bush clone - status quo where things proceed as during the last eight years.
2. Hillary Clinton
3. John McCain


After a two-term president, a same party successor will adopt more moderate policies. Naturally the other party will seek to undo some of the more problematic policies (from their point of view) of their predecessor. Either way, the next president will not be a clone of George W. Bush.

The only evidence I have to support this position is the Reagan to Bush Sr. succession. The Democrats have not managed to hold the White House for more than two terms since FDR.

[Pete Vecchi]

After a two-term president, a same party successor will adopt more moderate policies. Naturally the other party will seek to undo some of the more problematic policies (from their point of view) of their predecessor. Either way, the next president will not be a clone of George W. Bush.

Am I understanding this correctly, that you believe that the current President is a clone of the previous President?

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

Agreed. So, who would we write in? Condi Rice says she doesn't want to ... would she change her mind, were there a big women's write-in campaign? ;)

Nope - i am not on a campaign to vote someone in just to push a button regarding gender, race, religion. To me that is high school stuff.

i vote the person - regardless of the outward appearance.

The only write in i have DONE - is write in Dave McClung. He is the one i voted for before...........

[Gina Stevenson]

Yes, I understand voting the person and not the party, having voted for more than one party in some elections for some offices.

Wasn't suggesting anything to "push buttons," tho' it may have sounded like it ;) ... it was just that someone had mentioned some women in particular, so picked up on that tho't for a minute. ;)

Nope - i am not on a campaign to vote someone in just to push a button regarding gender, race, religion. To me that is high school stuff.

i vote the person - regardless of the outward appearance.

The only write in i have DONE - is write in Dave McClung. He is the one i voted for before...........

[Ron Davis]

Some have indicated they would like a none of the above choice in the poll. In the real election none of the above would mean not voting for either candidate. Given the choice between a Bush clone and Hillary Clinton it would seem a none of the above vote would favor the most objectionable candidate. So why would you vote for none of the above?

[Billy Cox]

Am I understanding this correctly, that you believe that the current President is a clone of the previous President?

No, I'm not insane. Historically, the next president is NEVER a clone of the previous one; not even when they are of the same party.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Nope - i am not on a campaign to vote someone in just to push a button regarding gender, race, religion. To me that is high school stuff.

i vote the person - regardless of the outward appearance. Bold and Underline added by Quoter.


But so many people do vote based on just one issue ("principle").

Further, sometimes to we need to "break the ice" by pressing an issue (gender, race, etc.). This is what many believe happened with the final GS election last summer.

Lastly, how can you separate "religion" from "person"...? While I shy away from the word "religion" in describing a person, I cannot ignore it as a follower of Christ. Perhaps you just meant the simple labelling techniques that we perform today (i.e. "JFK was Roman Catholic," "George Bush is Protestant," etc.).

[Rick Morton]

Stan, I always understood this to mean, the Democrats get most of the votes of the poorer people, while the Republicans get most of the votes of the richer people. Did not think it had anything to do with the personal wealth of Republicans or Democrats. Am I mistaken?

I don't think it has any thing to do with wealth. What divides us the most is one thing abortion. This one issue has ran million of poor to the Republicans. It's the flagship of the Democrat party not the poor not the working blue collar. Ever issue that comes up with Democrats is will Roe vs Wade get over turned. Republicans do side with business but the Democrat and the poor? Not since what my grandparents seen with FDR. I'm not rich have worked most of my life from sawmills,welder,Army to one of the worlds largest food producers. I live in a part of Georgia that the average house hold income is only around $27,000 but vote around 70% Republican why? (Abortion) At one time my family were all Democrats now unless it someone from Atlanta I don't even no any. Maybe they will wake up someday and become the party they once were the one my grandparents new one that worked for the ever day man.

[Billy Cox]

If the election were held today who would you vote for.

1. George Bush clone - status quo where things proceed as during the last eight years.
2. Hillary Clinton
3. John McCain



I'm curious as to how many people still feel like they would vote for the status quo (a 'George Bush clone') in 2008.

[Kevin Bowser]

Rather than a George Bush clone, how about a Ronald Reagan clone! I'm tired of the Bush family. :cool:

[Cindi Hammons]

None of the above.

[Bruce Carriker]

None of the above.

Bush clone: Jeb's not going to run. And I don't think anyone who is closely identified with this administration has any chance of winning in 2008, unless they perform a remarkable recovery in the next 18 months.

Hillary: No. I want a Democrat to win, and I don't think she can, for several reasons:
1. Everybody...and I do mean just about everybody...knows how they feel about her. If you took a poll today, another one in six months, and another in a year, her numbers would probably not shift more than perhaps the margin of error of the previous poll. She is incredibly polarizing and people have already decided about her. A race with her in it will be the ugliest thing this country has ever seen, even if she never opened her mouth.

2. I don't believe there's a single state that voted for Bush in 2004 that she can carry for the Democrats in 2008. Under the electoral college, you don't win by getting the most votes (see 2000). You have to win states, too. And I don't think she can do any better than Kerry did. All she would do is make the blue states bluer.

3. She would motivate the far right wing of the Republican party at the grass roots level, and stimulate big business money pouring into the GOP coffers at levels we've never seen before.

McCain: Probably can't win his party's nomination. He's not "ideologically pure" enough to suit the right wing fringe that dominates the GOP primary election process. Both parties suffer from this, but the Republicans more, I think. They will bury McCain before he ever sees a nominating convention.

[Jim Franklin]

Word is out that Jeb Bush would not rule out an eventual run for the presidency and I would like to see him run. I think from what I have heard that he would be better that either his father or his brother. How come this poll was closed before I had a chance to register my vote?

[Gerald Spear]

Pat Bucannan gives Obama a 50% chance of running

Bill Press gives Obama a 90% chance of running.
Press defended Bill all the way, He said today that Obama was Hillarys worst nightmare
Carlton Tucker had an hour long show today on the likly hood of Obama vs Clinton.

Clinton and Obama may just slug it out and let a lesser known take the top post,

[Billy Cox]

The thread was originally posted in January 2006. I thought it would be interesting to revisit it.

[Ron Davis]

Revisiting this now is interesting. A new poll might be in order. My question is who can the Republicans nominate that could win an election against a moderate Democrat.

On another note I find the idea of another Bush in office to be depressing.

[Gerald Spear]

Fred Thompson.

If Fred put his hat in the ring, the climate would change for both parties.

[Ron Davis]

He would be an interesting option. The last actor/President we had worked out well. Is he still involved in politics?

[Gerald Spear]

Fred, is the go to man when Bush needs legal advice and needs and investigation for Supreme Court Judges, etc. He is very much involved but in the observed positions, He will emerge again.

[Bruce Carriker]

Thompson also does political commentary for NPR. Based on what I've heard over the last couple of years, he's perfectly content to be a political consultant and part-time actor. Although I like the guy a lot, I'd be surprised if he jumps back into political life as a candidate for elective office.

[Gerald Spear]

On the 12th of Dec. 2006 I predicted that Fred Thompson would make his move when the water was right.

It seems like the Lawrenceburg, Tenn. native could be an alternative to the top 3 republicans that are active today.

[Jim Franklin]

Poll closed to quickly, I was on until 5:30 MDT yesterday and back again this morning but most of you know that my vote would have been for the Bush clone anyway. What we really need is "Righteousness exalteth a nation." So where do we find that type of candidate. Gov. Huckabee is a s close as I can find.

[Billy Cox]

I thought that the poll closed quickly, but then I noticed that this is the thread that was started in January 2006...which I brought back up (by posting to it) in December 2006, and Gerald has given it new life.

BTW, I don't think that 'righteousness exalteth a nation' has anything to do with the faith (or lack of faith) of the US President. We don't live in ancient Israel where faith was a matter of decree.

[Jim Monck]

What if Chuck Hegel runs? He is very very conservative on everything but the war. Will we vote for a liberal over a conservative just because of the war issue?

[David Pettigrew]

As an evanglical pastor and fellow Nazarene, I must say the results of this poll sadden me. It seems that the 30% of the people that are still clinging to the idea President Bush has done a good job are all Naz-netters!

Hillary Clinton and George Bush are both professing Christians. They are both Methodists, in fact, making them our theological kin folks. Why do we take Bush at his word, but not Clinton?

Hillary Clinton has a different opinion than I do on ONE issue - abortion. She does not support gay marriage. When Bill Clinton was president, abortion declined every year. Every year. So did poverty and crime, and it's a shame we don't see those as spiritual issues. Oh, and then there's the whole war thing.

When I moved to Arkansas in 2002, I was a registered, card carrying Republican. The rest of my congregation were yellow dog democrats. They always treated me respectfully. As a rule, they didn't disparage the President in front of me.

I wish I could say that I've received the same respect from the other side now that I'm one of the yellow dog democrats. Many question if I'm really saved.

My prayer for the 2008 election is that it will actually be about ISSUES and RECORD, instead of all the phony scandals that the Karl Rove crew can invent about Hillary. They've already started with two ridiculous stories (Hillary's team supposedly leaked that Obama went to some radical muslim school - wrong. The tree outside Hillary's window was green in her campaign announcement video, implying it was shot last summer. Who cares?)

I fully believe our next president will be a Democrat. I hope it's Hillary, but there are several exciting choices right now. Will we as the church waste eight years bellyaching like we did under President Clinton, or will we work with the president to build a more holy, righteous, just society? Maybe if we all prayed for whoever was in office, we'd have a better country.

Fellow Nazarenes - please consider all of the issues in the 2008 election. I know the vast majority of you will disagree, and I will probably be blasted for this. I respect your right to disagree; please respect mine.

[Billy Cox]

When polls show Bush's approval rating at 33%, it's those 33% who vote in primaries. Hagel has a snowball's chance of getting the nomination if he even decides to run.

[Jim Monck]

Billy: That is my point. This guy votes with Bush more than any of the others and is way more conservative. Are you saying the war is the only issue that matters? How does that make the conservatives any different than the liberal that the only issue that matters to them is the war? Will the issue in 2008 only be about the war like the elections in 2006 were? Is our future totally in the hands of the people of Iraq?

Personally I'm not endorsing him; I think Newt is the smartest man in or out of the race right now.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

One, George Bush can not run again right now.
Wonder how the church is progressing that someone told me that Carter and "Slick Willy" were starting. Carter? I am very surprised with Carter linking up with Clinton in anything.
Also, everyone that professes, does not always possess. I don't know people's hearts, so I will not commit on anyone in particular.
How about Frist? Thompson was an actor, like Reagan, I think.

[Billy Cox]

If the election were held today who would you vote for.

1. George Bush clone - status quo where things proceed as during the last eight years.
2. Hillary Clinton
3. John McCain

I thought it might be fun to bring this thread back up to the top on Super Tuesday. On the Republican side, the candidates are far more interested in associating themselves with Ronald Reagan than with George W. Bush.

[Billy Cox]

I just noticed that this thread was originally posted on the community forum...probably should be in Current Events.

[Mike Wooldridge]

If the election were held today who would you vote for.

1. George Bush clone - status quo where things proceed as during the last eight years.
2. Hillary Clinton
3. John McCain
John McCain is a Bush clone.

[Ron Davis]

This was posted two years ago. My purpose at the time wasn't to see which candidate would receive the most votes but to get some idea of how objectionable Hillary Clinton was. My question still hasn't been answered entirely but based on her performance to date in the primaries the objections are as great as I expected. I may have a new opinion tomorrow.

[Jim Franklin]

If the GOP nominates McCain I will feel disenfranchised for his "straight talk" is about as crooked as a dog's hind leg. I honor him for his military service. I just wish I could feel better about Huckabee and Romney. Bush has been right in many ways IMO but lacked enough use of the veto stamp on spending for domestic issues. I know a person who lived in Arkansas who has expressed themselves so down on the clinton corruption that I don't think they would rate either of them as high as Cindi has.

[Ron Davis]

I get this far in my daily perusal of my addresses and news only to find out that at one o'clock this poll is already closed.

This poll was posted two years ago. Billy just decided to bring it back to the top to examine new perspectives over the past two years.

[Jim Franklin]

I notice now that it seemed like a distant recollection so I deleted that first line. There are many conservative leaning analysts and commentators who really have no use for McCain. I think Romney has a good chance of taking the Republican vote in California which may give his campaign a real impetus to go all out and even though I have posted here that I could not see myself voting for a Mormon, I will vote for him over anyone the Democrats will put up. Obama's pastor is extremely racist giving honor to Farakhan that he is way off the deep end. Hillary is Hillary, enough said. I just hope there is a conservative surge to deny McCain the nomination. He and Hillary are too much alike by record no matter what he says.

To those who feel that the Republicans are too strong for the business segment of the economy, it takes entrepreneurs to create jobs for the working man and woman. I, recognize that there have been businessmen who have rode rough shod over their employees and some who receive immorally high compensation like baseball players. I certainly do not condone that and like those in the scandel in Houston ought to be hung out to dry. But I have seen just as grievious treatment of the working men and women by the labor bosses. But to me moral issues such as abortion, gay wrongs, embryonic stem cell experimentation far out weigh the pocket book issues when it comes to Christians voting for President.

[Hal Paul]

...I could not see myself voting for a Mormon...

Living in Idaho, it is common for the leading candidates of both parties to be Mormon. What do you do then?

[Cindi Hammons]

Well, Jim, that one threw me! Ha! I had to go back and see what it was that I had written over a year ago. Aparently, I still stand by what I said! :)

I still don't like Hillary.

[Jim Franklin]

Hal, often there is no choice, my original statement was only in regard to Romney for president. There are those on this forum who may not believe this but I have even campaigned for a Mormon Democrat because he was pro-life and the Republican was pro-choice. The last time I saw him he said he had switched to Republican and bc made him do it and since then I have declared my independency from the Republican Party because there are gay and pro-choice Republicans that made me do it.

The old story is that when Utah was moving toward statehood the Mormon leaders thought that in order to be recognized as a fully functioning state with a two party system the bishops were told to stand before their congregation and tell those who happened to be seating on the left side were to be Democrats and those on the right were to be Republicans. Of course since then many of those Democrats have followed their basic values and have become Republicans. The last Democrat Congressman from Idaho was Richard Stallings who is Mormon. Most of the Mormon Democrats in Idaho are centered around Pocatello because of the railroad unions.

Our current governor, Butch Otter, is a Catholic who had his first marriage to Jack Simplot's daughter annulled until he was inspired to marry a former Miss Idaho.

A large percentage, in the neighborhood of 80% of Mormons, are Republicans.

[Pete Vecchi]

I'm still supporting Huckabee