Well, I'm not sure... yet. But here's what I am sure of:
It is quite stupid to vote for the greater evil as a means of protest, in hope that your party will learn something. Fact is, parties have been not learning anything for the past 200 years. Why else do we have such a broad ideological range of candidates? Because issues don't sell in America; style and persona does. What else explains the Huckaboom? GOP primary voters don't typically vote for big nanny-state liberals, but they sure did in Iowa.
As for me, I focus on the issues. Not just one, but several that are important to me. Which is why I'm leaning toward Mitt Romney, a bitter-sweet candidate strong on the economy and defense, shady on gun rights, and questionable on other social policies since he'll say virtually anything for a vote. So why in hell would I support Mitt Romney?
Because we rarely get exactly what we want in a candidate, so we either play it smart and vote for those most compatible while lobbying him and the party to become more in line with your views. Or you can help ensure more life-time appointed federal judges very similar to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. -Yeah, that sounds like a plan.
I'm not saying I'm supporting Mitt as of now, but I am saying I could. I don't trust him when it comes to gun rights or abortion, but I do trust him on the economy, immigration, and defense. And that's more of my trust than any other candidate has right now.
1/22/2008
So Fred's out, now what?
If you like it, link it | 6 Comments:
I regret that I've come to the same conclusion that you have.
McCain? Let's not get foul-mouthed.
Huckabee? May as well vote for Obama.
Giuliani? May as well vote for Edwards.
I detest Romney's past on 2nd Amendment issues but believe him to be the most conservative man left in the race.
When you say that about a former governor of Massachusetts it's practically a curse upon everyone else.
I've seen enough polls to know that with Fred gone that Romney is getting his voters and that's more than enough to take McCain out of the race and put Giuliani on the skids.
So much for the way the MSM tried to make Romney's religion out to be some sort of bugaboo to conservatives.
To those of you whose main problem with Ron Paul is the Iraq issue ... I get it. I strongly oppose the pull out of Iraq and think it would be a long term problem for the US. The problem is that the domestic issues are now becoming so big, that I think it would be worth it in the long run to lose one battle overseas (and accept the consequences that follow us home) then to risk having a fascist pig like McCain in office in the up coming turbulence that we as a nation will face. Yes, Ron Paul is wrong about the war, but if we lose the war at home, it don't matter about any war abroad.
"Yes, Ron Paul is wrong about the war, but if we lose the war at home, it don't matter about any war abroad."
I'm sympathetic to that argument, really. This is by far the worst electoral season I've been through. So many bitter-sweet choices, though it feels more like the cure for cancer with a shot of arsenic. I feel that Iraq AND our presence everywhere else is currently as important as our impending domestic crises. Clearly, no nation can take care of a domestic crisis and an international crisis simultaneously. But I feel with the right candidate, we can nip the bud in our future domestic crises, while maintaining global stability. Ron Paul just isn't that man right now.
It's hard, if not impossible, to be pragmatic and principled, which is why I'm having a hard time figuring out where to throw my support. I'd hate to see a McCain nomination, which is why I want to support Mitt, but then I'd be risking more idiotic gun control.
Ok, so, that MIGHT have been Thompson (hence why I supported him). But, who now can possibly be good enough for both foreign and domestic problems? And if there are none, would it not be better to concentrate on what can be saved rather then spreading out so all is lost in the flood?
Stan when Mitt says assault weapons he means fully automatic ones not anti-gun liberal positions. Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation as Gov, regretted it and moved right on the issue and he is now an icon , why can't Mitt evolve as well?
He hasn't. He repeated his commitment to the AWB the other night on the debate. If he means machineguns, then he needs to be educated, and stop saying 'ban assault weapons', then I will reconsider him.
But I really doubt that, because you would think he knew what he signed into law as Governor of Mass.
Post a Comment