. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Since you losers couldn't even tell me who to vote for, I'll have to make my own decision.

I'm closest to the "Anybody but Huckabee" camp right now. The only reason he wasn't my least favorite of the viable candidates was that I didn't realize he was one. If the Republican party wants to jump off a cliff, Huckabee's the way to go, but I'd much prefer a viable opposition party.

Democrats have a odd way of making people hate them. If only the Democrats had some shadowy silhouette somewhere that could be their candidate, labeled "not a Republican." That candidate would march to victory, probably with a unanimous electoral vote. But instead, they have Clinton, and it's not even clear that the Democrats are even going to win the presidency. Obama wasn't too far from the "shadowy silhouette" until recently, but he's been having to open his mouth to get the Democratic nomination, and that'll really cost him in the general. I'm pretty unclear on how exactly the two differ in terms of their actual platforms (something about kindergarten ambitions, last I heard), but it's not like I trust a word Clinton says, so her pre-election platform is largely irrelevant to me. (This actually makes her a more attractive candidate in my eyes, and if my vote mattered, I'd probably vote for her)

Republicans, though, know how to be likable. That's why Huckabee is surging among Republicans by promising to be the most liberal president since George W. Bush, which is saying a lot. I don't know why people like him hate freedom, but that's the way it works with those religious nuts.

Oddly enough, despite overplaying the "old white guy" card, the Republicans seem to show a lot more diversity of opinion in their field than the woman and the black guy, who are now discussing who spoke more syllables in support of peace during the past three weeks. Or something.

Unlike Huckabee, the other Republican candidates may actually have a chance at beating the Democrat. This is why Huckabee is surging. The media loves him, because he gives them the best chance of getting Clinton into office, which would mean an unending stream of scandals... and dollars, for media folks.

On the other end of the scale is Fred Thompson, who may or may not be running for president. It's really hard to tell, and the media wants to keep it that way, because what could they do with Fred Thompson? "You did something bad!" "So?" "Oh, no, we can't write about that! We're all fired!" Fred Thompson is the federalist in the race (Ron Paul isn't a person, so he doesn't count). Since he's willing to stand up for principles, rather than just parroting whatever will get him the most votes, he won't get many votes. Sadly, Thompson is the closest thing there is to a candidate I agree with, politically, in this race.

In between is Mitt Romney, the most democratic of the candidates. He seems likely to turn whichever way the wind blows. People are dumb, though, and I don't much care for such candidates. Also, he's kind of creepy.

Rudy Giuliani is running for president, and I remain at a loss to figure out why. He doesn't seem to have anything to offer in terms of ideas or goals or whatnot. This makes him the favorite.

John McCain hates free speech. If all I wanted was someone to go to war, McCain would be my guy, but voting for the guy who doesn't like rights because I think he can win a war seems to be a dangerous approach. Until he gets down on his knees and apologizes for the Free Speech Reduction Act, I will never support McCain. After all the arguments about fairness and dirty money and whatnot, at the end of the day, he supports letting the government decide what can and cannot be said about the government. That's a tool we can't give up, even if we trust them now. Once it becomes the case that we can no longer trust them, it's too late to get that tool back.

And Huckabee is the anti-libertarian, who takes the nanny-stating of the Democrats and the morality-imposing of the Republican to form an enemy of freedom more powerful than you could possibly imagine. I'd almost vote for Ron Paul over him. Fucking Huckabee. Hurry up and scream like a retard.

I'm a decline to state dude, so I probably won't bother voting in the primary, even if it's still a live issue by the time it gets here. And, as a Californian, there's no sense in me voting in the general election. It makes presidential politics quite sporty, rather than, say, a matter of life and death for millions.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 12/22/2007 02:10:00 AM #
Comments (6)
. . .
i would have just told you to vote ron paul, but im sure id get yelled at. im voting for him, or any of the dems besides clinton.
Beetle, why do you dislike Ron Paul?
I was beginning to enjoy your blog but now you just sound like every other whining tool, Ron Paul may be the best hope this Country has, too bad your sentiment is a common one.
Well, our "best hope" can't possibly win, so what's your plan? Give up on America? We can join the racists, conspiracy theorists, and anarchists, or we can talk about things that might reasonably happen. Which side do you want to be on? The one that tried to change things for the better, or the one that clung to an illusion whining "Oh, if only everyone listened to me, things would have worked out fine" as the world collapses around its ears?
Get off your soap box for a second. The people that are supporting alternative candidates, true activist support, are demonstrating to you and the rest of the clones that votes for the status quo are not guaranteed. You have already joined the racist, the conspiracy theorists, and the system that breeds anarchy. You are lockstep in line behind the two-party system. This is the same system that keeps minorities in poverty, believes that the U.S. is a victim of those "that hate our freedom", and brings political unrest and violence to the world. You are clinging to the illusion.
I don't want the system that breeds anarchy, so I should support Ron Paul? Seriously? Minorities are in poverty, so I should join with the folks who take the "states rights" view on civil rights (as Ron Paul does)?

In order to demonstrate that votes for the status quo are not guaranteed, Ron Paul would have to be in a position to plausibly win. He is not in that position, so nothing has been demonstrated.
Post a Comment

. . .