Saturday, January 12, 2008

Presidential Politics

I'm not a single-issue voter. I do, though, have some points that are necessary, but not sufficient, for a politician to get my vote. In other words, I may not vote for that person if they agree with me on such a point, but I won't vote for him/her if he/she disagrees with me on such a point.

So, herewith, is my list of major presidential candidates and why I won't vote for them.

Democrats
Edwards--socialist, slimy/gross
Obama--socialist, either dumb or naive
Clinton--socialist, anger issues

Republicans
McCain--enemy of the 1st Amendment, anger issues
Huckabee--socialist

If either of those two Republicans are the party's candidate in November, I will cast a protest vote (California Republicans do that anyway) for a third party candidate or perhaps, for the first time in my adult life, not cast a vote for President.

Update: Here's a quote-of-the-day from Ace regarding supporters of a particular fringe candidate:

"If you dream it, you can do it" is a silly bit of twaddle told to eighth graders at "Be Somebody!" self-esteem rallies. Adults who consider themselves astute and savvy really ought not be indulging in such childish sloganeering.

As someone who's sick of hearing about people's self-esteem, I love that quote.

Hat tip to RightWingNation (see blogroll) for that link.

24 comments:

Bill A. said...

Obama a socialist... interesting. Was Martin Luther King a socialist too?

Can you name a Democrat that's not a socialist, or are they all?

(At this rate, you could be McCarthy!)

Side Note: You say socialist like it's something bad, silly!

Darren said...

1. Being a socialist *is* bad.

2. James Loewen, leftie author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, claims King was a socialist. He probably was--so is the Pope, if we put him in charge. What's your point? Good people can have very bad ideas. Dr. King had some great ones, and if Loewen is correct, he also had some ideas I'm *very* glad he didn't bring to fruition.

Do a search for "martin luther king jr socialist" and see how many hits you get, and from what sources. It's a pretty impressive list.

Good try, though.

Darren said...

Hey, look what falls into my lap?
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/blood_unstirred/

I agree completely.

nebraska girl said...

There are very few candidates on either side that I can stomach. I hope November doesn't come down to the lesser of two evils.

Ellen K said...

My list is pretty much like yours. I could support Thompson or Hunter, but the media seems intent in creating a confrontation between what they think are traditional values (Huckabee) and "modern" values (Clinton/Obama) I think both parties will end up with brokered conventions, with the Republicans shedding less blood. While I dislike and mistrust Clinton, I am more concerned that if Obama gets elected then anything he does, even to our own detriment, will be sacrosanct. That's a scary vision where nobody can contradict him. And Edwards is just like those lawyers on cable TV who fish around neighboring states for clients so they can make a class action suit. That's how he made his money. It would be a pay cut to be in the Oval Office.
McCain is too old, Huckabee is Jimmy Carter all over again, Romney is simply to flat and liberal. Where are the Real Middle Americans going to go for leadership? Very discouraging.

Carson said...

Mr. Miller How is McCain an Enemy of the first amendment?

Eric W. said...

What makes you call Huckabee a socialist?

Darren said...

I call him a socialist because he *is* one. Let me be clear about faith: Christ instructed us how we should act as individuals--we should be generous with the poor, we should protect the weak. Those are good things to do, but when government does them for us, we as individuals no longer have the opportunity to do so. Socialism isn't very Christian.

McCain doesn't want you to say anything he doesn't like. McCain-Feingold will hopefully assume its rightful place on the ashheap of history, placing, as it does, very real restrictions on political speech. Also, McCain's been quoted as saying he'd rather have "clean" government than government where people (those he doesn't agree with) can lie (say things he doesn't like). He's done and supported many things I don't like (see http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjUzOGY0ODA1YzBmNjFhOWE5NWU0OTY5NTZiOGNhOGQ= for details) but it's his apparent disdain for the 1st Amendment that gives him a "no go" at my station.

Anonymous said...

“McCain doesn't want you to say anything he doesn't like. McCain-Feingold will hopefully assume its rightful place on the ashheap of history, placing, as it does, very real restrictions on political speech. Also, McCain's been quoted as saying he'd rather have "clean" government than government where people (those he doesn't agree with) can lie (say things he doesn't like). He's done and supported many things I don't like”

Darren, I like to remind the McCainiacs out there that the Senator from AZ likes to lecture people about getting the “money out of politics” he is a member of the Keating Five. For those of you a little young to remember this Mr. McCain and four other Democratic senators took donations from Charles Keating in exchange for interfering with federal investigations into the collapse of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. I guess he is an expert at taking money from “special interest”.

In discussions with some of my friends they are astonished that I wouldn’t “vote” for McCain (further explanation in a minute) because he’s a veteran. I explain before I mention any point of the issues that Senator George McGovern was a bomber pilot in WWII and deserves a lot of respect for his service to the country. It’s just his ideas that are dangerous to our nation. It’s the same with Senator McCain.

I explain that the only way I would “pull the lever next to McCain’s name” is if he is the Republican nominee (please God let that nightmare not occur!) and the alternative is giving any Democratic nominee the White House. Voting against Hillary or Obama may be my only choice. Third party or staying home only puts a Democrat closer to the Presidency.

Overall I can most strongly vote for Thompson. He’s the only one I don’t say “I can vote for him but the only thing I don’t like is…” I have my reservations about Rudy but he’s a leader and good on the economy and foreign policy. Mitt Romney…again, I’ll vote against Hillary/Obama.

Darren said...

I'd rather have Clinton or Obama as president than McCain or Huckabee. The Republicans in Congress would feel a wrong-headed urge to support a Republican president; they would oppose a Democrat president who would push for exactly the same policies as McCain or Huckabee would.

Tyralis said...

You left out:
Ron Paul- nutjob

Darren said...

3 things about him:

1. I said "major" candidates.
2. My (so far only) update refers to him.
3. Had I included him, your reason would have been the one I'd have given.

Ellen K said...

Any Huckabee supporter might want to here what a Republican from Arkansas thinks about their "favorite son."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faKzzgXVAv8

rightwingprof said...

Have you noticed we haven't heard anything about McCain's anger this campaign? I think that's a little odd, especially when it was such a big issue in the past.

allen said...

Adults who consider themselves astute and savvy have done right well with exactly that sort of childish sloganeering. That's why it's a widely-understood cultural reference. Not that I agree with the sentiment but the emotional pandering inherent in those slogans works.

People have been elected and laws passed on just those sorts of empty catch-phrases.

Maybe I'm unreasonably optimistic but I see a diminution in the value of that sort of ego candy. We're still vulnerable to it but the attraction of the slogans, and the policies they represent, is dropping off.

Anonymous said...

You say being a socialist is bad.

You say that Martin Luther King and the Pope are socialists.

Yet you said they were "good people."



I'll let that speak for iteself.

You're probably the type of person that would vote for Romney, anyway.

Neko said...

Myself, I'm waiting until the final canidates are chosen. No point getting all excited about (or worried about) Canidate A if Canidate B is the one who ends up winning for the party.

As for choosing between the final two canidates, I think many of us have gotten to a point where we are not voting FOR someone as much as voting AGAINST the other canidate. It's unfortunate, but I think many races have often come down to choosing the "lesser of two weasels."

Darren said...

I already said, anonymous: good people can have very bad ideas.

Now let me say this: you are an idiot. You contribute nothing of value here, just as you contribute nothing of value in--how shall I put it--other fora or endeavors.

I invite you to take your idiocy elsewhere. Start your own blog, if you must, but don't come back here.

Mrs. C said...

Well, I'm "throwing my vote away" on Ron Paul. I like that he is looking at the CONSTITUTION to guide what ought to be done in government. I can't imagine voting for Huckabee after he pandered to the NEA (barf). I think homeschoolers would be "safest" with Ron Paul because he'd leave us alone.

Usually I get a Democratic ballot (we get to pick whatever in Missouri) and I vote for the biggest liability to the other party. It won't work this time... things are too close and you know one of these people is going to win LOL!

MikeAT said...

Spotter

As much as it galls me to do it, if left with the choice of McCain/Huck or any of the Ds, I'll hold my nose and pull the lever next to Mac/Huck.

1. If a bomb goes off in the Empire State Building parking garage I don't think Mac/Huck will ask the AG to look at indicting someone nor will they make a speech at the UN demanding action.

2. I shudder at the though of Hillary/Obama appointing 200 federal judges, including probably 2 SCOTUS justices in the next four years.

3. Mac/Huck we will probably lose the Bush taxes cuts of 01/03. With Hillary/Obama loosing the 01/03 cuts is only the beginning of "feeling your pain".

4. This is personal. Having Mrs. Bill Clinton working health care would be a disaster to me and my future. Because of a for profit health system there were medications developed in the last 15 years that treat my disease. Getting her paws around that will paralyze the development of new medicines in the future.

Again this may be, as we all hate, the lesser of evils. If that is my choice...

Ellen K said...

I can't support Huckabee. I have relatives who have experienced his dubious conservatism and believe me, he and Carter are peas in a pod. If you want a real constructionist, look at Thompson.

Polski3 said...

Look closely at Fred Thompson. He did such a good job as the DA of NYC ( on LAW AND ORDER ). Doesn't that mean he'd be a good President ? After all, didn't Teddy Roosevelt go from being Chief of Police in NYC to one of our greatest Presidents ? ;-)

GO FREDDIE !

Darren said...

I don't think I've ever seen Law and Order. I do remember Fred on Hunt For Red October, though, and for once giving a Republican response to one of President Clinton's SOTU speeches.

MikeAT said...

“I don't think I've ever seen Law and Order. I do remember Fred on Hunt For Red October, though, and for once giving a Republican response to one of President Clinton's SOTU speeches.”

And don’t forget he was a tough ass head air traffic controller in Die Hard II! :)