Yes to say that Obama is the most liberal president we have ever had is such nonsense, especially when we have had two years to asses the man. His so called Obamacare means billions for the health care industry and was written for them and by them. Look at his cabinet pick, especially Robert Rubin, he is the person most responsible for repealing the Glass-Stegall Act and visa via the economic mess we are in today.
Then there is Tim Geithner and Ben Bernake. More illegals have been deported under his administration then Bush's. I could go on and on, but the point is wake up you fools and look whats going on around you!

This is a party's election disputes problem, I believe that as long as the final and deal with good benefited or the people

Brett D is right in saying that the Republican Party should run Ron Paul. Ron Paul would not only grab the Republican team player voters but would also grab most of the independent voters.

Brett, you are however, dead wrong when you call Obama the "most liberbal president ever". Is that supposed to be a joke? It is laughable and is undefendable. That is also the same kind of crap rhetoric that will get the Republican Party beat.

Obama has presided over the greatest increase in national surveillance ever. He has not met his promise to end both wars. He supports the current Israeli Regime that is now threatening to attack Iran, while keeping its own citizens in a state of military occupation, denying them many fundamental human rights. He also supports the Bahraini and Syrian kings/dictators in their brutal suppression of freedom protesters. He has had as many corporate donations if not more than Bush. He has kept in contact with, and essentially coddled, the scumbag crooks that helped send this country and the globe into a recession.

I don't want to hear about his Healthcare plan. It didn't go far enough. And no self respecting "most liberal president ever" would have continued a tax cut for the richest people in this country.

I found this http://www.nolanchart.com/article9095-dont-waste-your-vote.html and immediately thought of this article here.

Here's a quick summary from the end of the article - but you should really read the entire thing.

"Back to wasted votes; how can you waste your vote? I see several obvious ways; I'm sure there are more.

1. By not using it at all. Even this is not a waste is you choose not to vote because you don’t understand the consequences of voting for someone or something.

2. By using it to vote against something. Those who count the votes don't care how you feel - they only count the tally marks as votes FOR whatever you voted for.

3. By voting in support of someone or something you disagree with. This is a slight variation on voting against something. If you vote for it, you are counted as a supporter. This is why there is so much passionate pressure to vote the party line come November. By playing to your fear they hope to get you to vote “against” the bad guys even though your vote will only be counted as a vote for the other bad guys.

4. By not using it to influence a real outcome such as saying you are a libertarian but not having the sense to participate in the GOP primary to get Ron Paul nominated. That is a real waste of a vote.

Is voting for a third party candidate wasting your vote? I can't tell.

If you cast your vote in hopes of turning a third party into a viable national party, yes, definitely. You are ignoring reality and wasting your vote on a fantasy.

If you cast your vote because no other candidates represent you then no, your vote isn't wasted.

If you cast your vote to add your tally mark to the pool so in the next election cycle some major party candidate may attempt to lure you to their side then no, your vote isn't wasted.

If you register with a third party or remain unaffiliated you are proactively wasting your vote even before you cast it."

In a perfect world you would have something to believe in and vote accordingly. I think it's sad that everyone is willing to settle and vote for "anybody but". Even worse is that you think Rick Perry should be that "anybody". The man is my Governor and I'm embarrassed of that fact. I don't know how anyone can watch and listen to him and have any respect left for him.

I, at least, have something to believe in so I will be able to vote for someone I believe in...instead of settling for "anyone but".

Find something to believe in people. Stop settling...that's what's wrong with our country.

I don't think the GOP really wants a Conservative. If they did, they would without a doubt nominate Ron Paul.

In the American Journal of Political Science, 42 (July 1998), pp. 954-993, they did a scientific study on every member of Congress since 1937. The objective of the study was to weigh how each member rated between Conservative and Liberal.

Out of 3,000+ Congressmen, Ron Paul was the MOST Conservative of all of them. It can be argued Ron Paul is the most Conservative to have ever served in Congress.

Ron Paul actually polls second best against Obama, right behind Mitt Romney, according to Real Clear Politic's national polls.

Further, Ron Paul is unique of all the GOP candidates because he draws a lot of young voters to the Republican Party. His supporters are more savvy and dedicated than Obama's and would overwhelm him in a general election.

Whomever the GOP chooses, they must know they have to compete with Obama's youth crowd and his $1 billion war chest.

Ron Paul had 100,000 unique donors in the 3rd Quarter. This was almost more than all the GOP candidates combined.

I just don't understand the logic of not putting the most Conservative candidate against the most Liberal President we've ever had.

Ron Paul attracts every group. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, etc. Most importantly, he even converts former Obama supporters to become Ron Paul supporters. Why is the GOP not realizing that is exactly what we need in order to beat Obama?

Sorry, but if you overlook Paul and nominate Romney, we will lose. If you nominate anyone else but Ron Paul, we will lose. It should be very obvious.

I voted for Mitt Romney in the primary last time and then for John McCain (my least favorite candidate of them all) in the general election. I understand it's not a perfect world, believe me. I think it's more than fine to support a candidate who is the most electable and also fulfills certain conservative criteria. I'm not sure who that is this time around.

Ms. Markowicz;

In a perfect world, folks would line up behind the person whom they believed would be the best to fill the office, even regardless of party.

Now, this isn't a perfect world and that's for sure. However, is there a conflict between putting your shoulder to the wheel for the person you believe is the best and instead stumping for the person of your party whom you believe has the best chance of being elected?

Perhaps this is another way of approaching the question of party vs. country priority in democratic nations.