Oops! I meant to post up this entry to accompany Gary's poll, that way you can discuss it all week until voting is closed.
Well, it's here now. Have at it.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Who would you vote for today?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
What, no Huckabee? Gary knows who I'm voting for, so just add one more to the tally.
Barack Obama is going to get my vote.
I don't like any of the choices. Being a conservative, I don't feel like I had a legitimate choice this year. Don't get me wrong, there were conservative candidates but none of them had a real chance of winning. Of the three that are left, none of them qualifies as a conservative. I'd vote for McCain but only because the next President will have to appoint more Supreme Court justices. I'm nervous that McCain will nominate another Suter but the thought of what Clinton or Obama would nominate frankly scares the hell out of me!
Jim, it sounds to me like you think Republicans have jettisoned conservative philosphy. Didn't you figure that out around 2002 when government began grow unchecked by the Republican congress as they spent and borrowed more money than any group in US history?
Jim,
Throw out the delegate math for a minute. You get to choose the president from all the candidates who declared they were running this year. Who would you pick to run the country starting next January?
Fred,
Looks like some people get all excited about principles at election time but then during the tenure of the elected officials go numb and dumb about those same principles.
JMO,
It's all about 'your team' winning isn't it?
Wow! One comment and two responses! I'll take them both in order.
Fred, just because I said I don't feel I had a legitimate "this year" doesn't mean I felt I had one back in 2004 either. I've not been happy with Republicans since 2003. Since 2003 I've seen a steady move away from the Reagan conservative "everybody has a stake in this" and towards the Blue-blood "we know what's good for you". Sadly, I put John McCain in the later category.
Ok, now reality based your asking for a hypothetical on who I'd vote for in a perfect world. Sorry, I don't do hypotheticals. I can answer your question by saying that at the very start of this campaign I was looking towards Thompson. Then the campaign started and he did nothing. Then the debates started and he skipped them to chat with Jay Leno. Not surprisingly, his candidacy died. I started looking at Huckabee about a week before Iowa. He had been running a positive campaign in the face of some nasty and false accusations from Romney. Then after winning Iowa, instead of continuing this positive campaign he comes out with this "here's the nasty attack ad that I spent campaign funds to make but won't show because I'm above that" crap! At that point he stopped caring about winning and it was all about getting Romney back for his nasty ads. Now he's got a book he's hawking so I don't know whether he's still campaigning or just marketing now! This leaves me with...gulp(clenched teeth)..McCain.
Hope that answers your question.
I don't know why you thought that was a hypothetical. I was just trying to get an idea of who you thought was the best fit for your perspective without the constraints of thinking about who could win it.
Will you vote for McCain or sit this one out?
Jim,
If you're not happy with the direction your club has taken for the last 5 or 6 years, why would you consider voting for a guy that would probably continue taking you down the same worn out tracks?
I'd say both clubs need a kick in the butt, and as an Independent I'm going to give Obama a shot. Clinton and McCain represent more of the same poop.......I call them 'Republicrats' for lack of a better term.
reality_based,
The delegate math is part of the choice. To ask me to ignore this point makes the question hypothetical. As I said before though, I'm not sure who speaks for me this year. Initially I thought it might be Thompson but he ran a lousy campaign and dropped out. Then I thought it would be Huckabee but as far I can tell he's in it now to sell books or to position himself to be McCain's VP nominee. From the beginning I had issues with Guiliani, Romney, and McCain.
To answer your second question, I will vote for McCain. I can understand why conservatives might consider sitting this one out but I think that strategy is short-sighted. McCain will be the Republican candidate and either Hillary or Obama will be the Democratic candidate. There's no chance that McCain will overwhelm is democratic challenger so he's going to need all the votes he can get. Since I really, really, really don't want either Hillary or Obama as president, my one chance to stop that is to vote for McCain. It would be fair to say that I will be voting against the democratic nominee rather than for the republican.
Fred,
First of all, I never said that Republicans are my "club". I'm not a Republican, I'm a Conservative. I lean towards Republicans because they say more of what I believe than Democrats do. If the Democrats start churning out candidates like Harry Truman or Sam Nunn again then that may change.
Why not vote for Obama if I dislike McCain? Because Obama(or Clinton as I don't see a huge difference between the two) stands for everything I don't. He's anti-Second Amendment, anti-Life, pro-big government, and he thinks the federal government has a right to more of my income.
I find it interesting that you were so upset with Republicans for the increase in spending and your candidate has already stated he plans to raise taxes. When has any politician(regardless of party) ever raised taxes and decreased spending?
The other thing I find interesting is that Obama is claiming the mantle as the outsider. Are you kidding me? He's a sitting US Senator! How much more insider can you get? When Reagan ran, he was an outsider. When Clinton ran, he was an outsider. This year the Democratic candidates look like the all Senators Club.(Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Biden, Edwards(former senator), and Gravel(former senator). The true outsiders were Vilsack and Richardson for the Democrats and Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, Keys, and Gilmore for the Rebublicans. If they cared too, Republicans could thump their chest over having more "outsider" candidates this year. I'm not sure what the point of that would be other than bragging rights as none of the real"outsider" candidates for either party is going to win this year. No, this year is going to come down to which "inside the beltway Senator" you like better. I like McCain better.
Jim,
Can we trade salaries just for a year? Because if your taxes are going up under an Obama administration you are making a good chunk of change ($250K+). This is a particularly tough year for us so it would really help. Thanks!
Fred,
Well I'd be willing to give the salary trade a go but I think you'd be disappointed. More to the point, Obama does not support the Bush tax cuts. If they are not made permanent everyone's tax rates will go up in 2010. Even yours. Obama's also not campaigning about how he's going to slash the federal budget or even honestly reduce spending. If he did then that would make him....well.....a conservative. Finally, this notion that it is somehow o.k. to "soak the rich" is a self-defeating attitude. We should be encouraging people to be the best they can and yes, maybe even become rich in the process. The fact that my government may be waiting to penalize me in the form of higher taxes because I worked my ass off and made more money then they thought was "fair" I find abhorrent a un-American. Besides, those people who do make more then 250,000/year will not "take one for the team" and eat the lost revenue that the increased taxes cause. Instead, they will pass this on in the form of higher prices for the goods and services they provide to us. Ergo, a tax increase by proxy.
Nice try, though.
Jim,
You are responding to me, not Fred. It is hard to believe you have actually read any of Obama's policy ideas.
I've read them pretty carefully and listened on the campaign trail. He has said the only tax cuts he wants to let expire are for those making 250K+.
Nowhere on his website can I find a call to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Nowhere on his platform do I see or hear a proposal to kill all Americans. In fact, he has proposals to improve the lives of people living in poverty...which would have a significant effect on abortion rates (I assume that is what you refer to when you say 'anti-life')
He also has an aggressive plan to reduce fossil fuel usage which would result in lowering some of those costs of goods and services.
Do you have any data to back up your assertion that we will all suffer a "tax by proxy"? Or is this just 'common knowledge' that 'everybody who knows anything' already knows?
I understand your opinions about fiscal conservativism. I'm on board with that as well.
A couple of points I'd like to make about Obama's vision comes from his book, "The Audacity of Hope."
First of all he is not tied to special interests in that he has not taken money from Washington lobbyists....that separates him from Senator Clinton right there.
He owes nothing to the petroleum industry nor anyone related to the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about many years ago. He wants to eliminate NAFTA becasue it's a failed policy. He also favors a "Pay-as-You-Go" funding program across the board so no money is taken from the treasury without a plan in place to replace the lost revenue.
The old "tax and spend" moniker leveled on the Democrats has been replaced with "borrow and spend" crowd on the other side of the aisle. Flip a coin, but borrowing money from China to give people more money to spend on Asian made products seems goofy and we're stuck with paying back the interest on the loan. Besides the lastest Rasmussen Poll indicated that only 18% of us are going to take the cash and buy stuff. Most of us are planning to pay off a credit card, pay an insurance premium or two, or simply invest it.
Finally, Barack Obama is the only one who has spoken out about the relationship between the Iraq War and our economy. We are now spending 350 million dollars PER DAY to fund the operation and I'm amazed that neither McCain nor Clinton have addressed the issue honestly.
I'm not bad-mouthing McCain or Clinton. I'm only telling people what I like about the the guy I'm supporting. I'd rather listen to someone tell me what they like about their choice rather than telling me what's wrong with mine. It's the difference between positive and negative campaigning.
Lastly, I'm encouraged to see that younger people who will inherit this country from us someday are finally taking an interest in the election
My apologies for getting Fred and reality_based mixed up on my last post. I had been discussing Obama with Fred and I just made a....here it comes....assumption...that I still was. Sorry.
"... I just made a....here it comes....assumption...that I still was. Sorry."
Hey, what's with everyone trying to be civil?
Being polite to people helps to encourage discussion and build community; and frankly, the recluse in me is afraid of community. So stop it.
(Virtual knuckle-bump to jim!)
Oh brother!
To Jay: If I have to take the virtual knuckle bumps in defense of civility then so be it.
To reality_based: We still disagree about the government's right to decide who makes a fair wage and thus it's right to punish them with a higher tax. I would invite you to look at realclearpolitics.com, ontheissues.org, and FactCheck.org about Obama. You will find at least some of what I mentioned.
To Fred: I'll have to take a rain-check on your offer regarding the "hot-button" issues. Today ends my vacation and with that my free time to blog in the first place.
Best wishes to all.(especially Jay) (The civility is just driving you nuts, isn't it?)
Post a Comment