Well our little Vermont primary that nobody cares about (actually this year they did care a little about) has come and gone. I proudly walked into the Sheldon school and gave Ron Paul some love. I flirted with Mike Huckabee, but in the end I decided to vote my consistent pro-life convictions (which means a very conservative approach to war..I like the Catholic notion of a "just war").
As far as the general election goes, here is where I am at.
If the Dem. nominee is Hillary, I will vote against her with every ounce of strength that I have. That means a no-brainer vote for McCain. I consider the family Clinton and the family Soprano moral equivalents.
If the Dem. nominee is Obama, I will probably wait until close to election day to decide. The only way I could vote for Obama is if I conclude that killing soldiers is a much higher moral issue than killing babies (which is very much doubtful but I put it out there as a possibility).
However, my conscience against killing soldiers might prohibit me from voting for McCain. So that would mean the possibility of an alternative party.
So the factors that I will think about until November are:
* Between now and November, have I found a good reason for voting against Obama.
* Is there an alternative candidate out there that I really like. In other words, has either the Libertarian or Constitution party nominated someone half-way serious instead of a bozo (Ron Paul as a Libertarian would be great).
* How do I view the current status in Iraq. There is no doubt (to me anyway) that this was a blunder of the first degree. However now that we are there, is it (a) a hopeless quagmire (b) a winnable conflict that we are very close to winning (remember even though it was a mistake imho, it does not mean that once we are in the war I am not pulling for success..it is not as though we are on the side of moral evil there..contrary to what the left believes). I go back and forth between the two views.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Swiftboating Obama
I came across this link on the internet. My first reaction is whether Hilary is now trying to swiftboat Obama. I wouldn't put it past her.
For the record I do think that any previous behaviour by a candidate should have an expiration date to it.
I mean I would be in trouble if I ever ran for President and stuff from my age 17-19 time period surfaced. However after age my life was pretty boring.
Oh, somehow this year I screwed up my taxes and owe the feds about 2K. Ouch. That means I owe the state about 500. So today I am an anarchist and want no government. But seriously, I am still going to support Ron Paul when our little primary than nobody cares about happens in 2-3 weeks.
Edit. The political ads have started for both Obama and the wife of Bill. Fortunately in 2 weeks this will pass.
For the record I do think that any previous behaviour by a candidate should have an expiration date to it.
I mean I would be in trouble if I ever ran for President and stuff from my age 17-19 time period surfaced. However after age my life was pretty boring.
Oh, somehow this year I screwed up my taxes and owe the feds about 2K. Ouch. That means I owe the state about 500. So today I am an anarchist and want no government. But seriously, I am still going to support Ron Paul when our little primary than nobody cares about happens in 2-3 weeks.
Edit. The political ads have started for both Obama and the wife of Bill. Fortunately in 2 weeks this will pass.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
McCain 2.0
OK..I was reading this evening where my hero Ann Coulter said that she will be campaigning for Hillary since McCain is the nominee.
I have read this evening that McCain is a RINO that should be expelled from the Republican party.
So for all those who are likeminded with Ann Coulter, below I have a list of Senators ranked from the most liberal Republican Senator to ten points above McCain in 2006 by this organization. You tell me where the cutoff point is. Below this point we are in RINOland and these folks should be expelled. Above this point we have orthodoxy.
Chafee (RI) 24
Conrad (ND) 33 (Dem)
Snowe (Maine) 36
Nelson (Fl) 40 (Dem)
Specter (Penn) 43
Collins (Maine) 48
Voinovich (Ohio) 56
Stevents (Alaska) 64
Lugar (Indiana) 64
Warner (Va) 64
Nelson (Neb) 64 (Dem)
McCain 65 **********************
Cochran (Miss) 67
Coleman (Minn) 68
Bennett (Utah) 72
Alexander (Tenn) 72
Gregg (NH) 72
DeWine (Ohio) 72
Smith (Oregon) 72
Shelby (Alabama) 75
Hagel (Neb) 75
Domenici (NM) 75
I have read this evening that McCain is a RINO that should be expelled from the Republican party.
So for all those who are likeminded with Ann Coulter, below I have a list of Senators ranked from the most liberal Republican Senator to ten points above McCain in 2006 by this organization. You tell me where the cutoff point is. Below this point we are in RINOland and these folks should be expelled. Above this point we have orthodoxy.
Chafee (RI) 24
Conrad (ND) 33 (Dem)
Snowe (Maine) 36
Nelson (Fl) 40 (Dem)
Specter (Penn) 43
Collins (Maine) 48
Voinovich (Ohio) 56
Stevents (Alaska) 64
Lugar (Indiana) 64
Warner (Va) 64
Nelson (Neb) 64 (Dem)
McCain 65 **********************
Cochran (Miss) 67
Coleman (Minn) 68
Bennett (Utah) 72
Alexander (Tenn) 72
Gregg (NH) 72
DeWine (Ohio) 72
Smith (Oregon) 72
Shelby (Alabama) 75
Hagel (Neb) 75
Domenici (NM) 75
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain
In a way I miss Jim Jeffords.
Gentleman Jim always gave the wife and I an excuse to watch the Vermont Senate debates on Vermont Public Television channel 33. The beauty of these debates is that all of the candidates are included. In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates you would have:
* The Vermont Grassroots party: The agenda of this party is the legalization of pot. The funny thing here is that I am sure the Vermont Grassroots party candidate debated stoned. What a hoot.
* The Vermont Natural Law party: Meditation anybody
* The Liberty Union party: Bernie Sanders is a right winger
* The Libertarian Party: Actually these guys were normal and interesting
However when Jim Jeffords ran there would always be one conservative running who would be the vote of conscience. One year there were two, and my wife and I decided to split our votes (my guy won with 6% of the popular vote while her guy only got 1%).
When we lived in Maine we did the same thing with Olympia Snowe (except that you didn't have the gamut of candidates to choose for and the televised debates). One year I voted for a guy you wouldn't want as dogcatcher, but he wasn't Olympia.
And that's the purpose behind these conscience votes. You really don't want that clown you are voting for to get elected (they are obviously not up to the office). You are voting to send a message. If I vote for Ron Paul (or Huckabee) in the Vermont primary that nobody cares about, it is essentially the same type of vote.
And that is legitimate. I would never say that voting for a third party is wasting your vote because you know your guy is going to lose. Otherwise according to the same logic, voting for the 'R' candidate when the opposition is Patrick Leahy is also wasting your vote.
I guess what I am trying to say is this. I understand voting on principle rather than party. I understand that there is a time and a place to vote for a third party candidate as opposed to a candidate of your party who might be only marginally better than the candidate of the other party. I have voted that way myself. Several times.
It is just that I am not sure that now is the time and that McCain is the candidate to do this on.
Now my family remembers with fondness my talk radio stage. When travelling to pick up my kids from school, they remember with fondness listening to either Rush between 12 and 3 or either Sean Hannity or Howie Carr between 3 and 6. Although I don't listen to talk radio as much as I used to (I prefer the Classical Music stations), once and a while I tune in to see what they are up to.
They are now going nuts at the prospect of John McCain being the 'R' nominee. They are saying that there is not a dimes worth of difference between him and Hillary. They rattle off the list of known transgressions (campaign finance, immigration, global warming, etc).
What they don't point out is this.
If I were to hold their favorite (Romney) up to the same standard they impose upon McCain, he should be equally unacceptible if I were to judge on the basis of his record in Massachusetts (see abortion and universal health care for example). Thus they have double standard.
By any metric that independently and impartially weighs the record based on a large number of votes (instead of cherry picked ones), McCain falls as a moderate/conservative. Last year McCain scored a 65 on the American Conservative Union rating metric. The year before he scored an 80. His comparables were noted liberals like Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Richard Lugar of Indiana. Not Hillary Clinton of New York and Barak Obama of Illinois (who scored about an 8).
And it is not that the Republican party is dealing from a position of strength here. From any polls that I have read, both Clinton and Obama kick donkey over any Republican candidate not named McCain. At the same time, McCain and both Democratic candidates are virtually tied.
I remember Florida of 2000 where the Ralph Nader voters essentially delivered that state to Bush. I wonder rather these Nader voters wish they could have their votes back.
I am sorry, but if Nader 2.x is where Rush is going, then Rush is wrong on this one.
However, that all having been said, it is entirely possible that I will vote third party this November if there is a third party candidate I like better than McCain. The reason for this is the state I live in. One day I figured out that under the electoral college my vote does not really count. Neither do the votes of 80% of Americans who live in clear red or blue states count.
My vote does not directly decide the Presidential race. My vote only decides what electors Vermont contributes to decide the Presidential race. If Vermont were to send red electors, this race would already be decided in an electoral rout for the Republican party. If this election is close, Vermont will be a decidedly blue state.
Since that is the reality living in Vermont, I figure that I am free to vote for the person I like the most and not worry about a vote for a third party being really a vote for the opponent. So if I really like the Libertarian party candidate (meaning Ron Paul is running as a Libertarian) or Constitution party candidate I would have no qualms about voting for them. It doesn't really matter.
Gentleman Jim always gave the wife and I an excuse to watch the Vermont Senate debates on Vermont Public Television channel 33. The beauty of these debates is that all of the candidates are included. In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates you would have:
* The Vermont Grassroots party: The agenda of this party is the legalization of pot. The funny thing here is that I am sure the Vermont Grassroots party candidate debated stoned. What a hoot.
* The Vermont Natural Law party: Meditation anybody
* The Liberty Union party: Bernie Sanders is a right winger
* The Libertarian Party: Actually these guys were normal and interesting
However when Jim Jeffords ran there would always be one conservative running who would be the vote of conscience. One year there were two, and my wife and I decided to split our votes (my guy won with 6% of the popular vote while her guy only got 1%).
When we lived in Maine we did the same thing with Olympia Snowe (except that you didn't have the gamut of candidates to choose for and the televised debates). One year I voted for a guy you wouldn't want as dogcatcher, but he wasn't Olympia.
And that's the purpose behind these conscience votes. You really don't want that clown you are voting for to get elected (they are obviously not up to the office). You are voting to send a message. If I vote for Ron Paul (or Huckabee) in the Vermont primary that nobody cares about, it is essentially the same type of vote.
And that is legitimate. I would never say that voting for a third party is wasting your vote because you know your guy is going to lose. Otherwise according to the same logic, voting for the 'R' candidate when the opposition is Patrick Leahy is also wasting your vote.
I guess what I am trying to say is this. I understand voting on principle rather than party. I understand that there is a time and a place to vote for a third party candidate as opposed to a candidate of your party who might be only marginally better than the candidate of the other party. I have voted that way myself. Several times.
It is just that I am not sure that now is the time and that McCain is the candidate to do this on.
Now my family remembers with fondness my talk radio stage. When travelling to pick up my kids from school, they remember with fondness listening to either Rush between 12 and 3 or either Sean Hannity or Howie Carr between 3 and 6. Although I don't listen to talk radio as much as I used to (I prefer the Classical Music stations), once and a while I tune in to see what they are up to.
They are now going nuts at the prospect of John McCain being the 'R' nominee. They are saying that there is not a dimes worth of difference between him and Hillary. They rattle off the list of known transgressions (campaign finance, immigration, global warming, etc).
What they don't point out is this.
If I were to hold their favorite (Romney) up to the same standard they impose upon McCain, he should be equally unacceptible if I were to judge on the basis of his record in Massachusetts (see abortion and universal health care for example). Thus they have double standard.
By any metric that independently and impartially weighs the record based on a large number of votes (instead of cherry picked ones), McCain falls as a moderate/conservative. Last year McCain scored a 65 on the American Conservative Union rating metric. The year before he scored an 80. His comparables were noted liberals like Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Richard Lugar of Indiana. Not Hillary Clinton of New York and Barak Obama of Illinois (who scored about an 8).
And it is not that the Republican party is dealing from a position of strength here. From any polls that I have read, both Clinton and Obama kick donkey over any Republican candidate not named McCain. At the same time, McCain and both Democratic candidates are virtually tied.
I remember Florida of 2000 where the Ralph Nader voters essentially delivered that state to Bush. I wonder rather these Nader voters wish they could have their votes back.
I am sorry, but if Nader 2.x is where Rush is going, then Rush is wrong on this one.
However, that all having been said, it is entirely possible that I will vote third party this November if there is a third party candidate I like better than McCain. The reason for this is the state I live in. One day I figured out that under the electoral college my vote does not really count. Neither do the votes of 80% of Americans who live in clear red or blue states count.
My vote does not directly decide the Presidential race. My vote only decides what electors Vermont contributes to decide the Presidential race. If Vermont were to send red electors, this race would already be decided in an electoral rout for the Republican party. If this election is close, Vermont will be a decidedly blue state.
Since that is the reality living in Vermont, I figure that I am free to vote for the person I like the most and not worry about a vote for a third party being really a vote for the opponent. So if I really like the Libertarian party candidate (meaning Ron Paul is running as a Libertarian) or Constitution party candidate I would have no qualms about voting for them. It doesn't really matter.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Bill and Hillary 2.0
Up here in Vermont, we do something that I just don't understand.
We vote for some cabinet level positions. The last election there was a tight race for the position of "Auditor of Accounts". As I recall there was a recount, and in the recount the Democratic challenger defeated the Republican incumbent who was previously ahead by a couple of votes.
Auditor of Accounts?? How in the wide world of sports do I vote for auditor of accounts. How do I know which of the two folks running for this position is the best qualified for it. The fact is that I don't. I don't even know what an "Auditor of Accounts" does. I am not qualified to pick a person for "Auditor of Accounts".
Same thing for Attorney General, Secretary of State, and the other cabinet level positions that perplex me every second November. I leave these positions blank.
The older I grow, I am finding the less I know. This upcoming election is supposed to be about the economy. Now I did have an economics course in college, but thirty years later I must confess I have totally forgotten about it. The only thing I remember is some professor drawing these curves on the blackboard and saying they mean something. So how do I know which of the two folks who want to be my President is best at managing the economy? Guess what, I don't.
Same thing with global warming. Al Gore believes that it is real, that we did it, and we darned well better fix it soon or dire consequences will result. For all I know he is correct. Still there are some scientists who disagree (I don't think the disagreement is whether it is real or not, I think the disagreement is whether this is caused by humans and its severity). And I do remember in the 1960s reading similar dire consequences that would hit the planet in the 1990s over the population explosion. For that matter I remember reading about dire consequences that will happen to the earth and its computers when the year 2000 occurs. Come to think of it I remember watching Pat Robertson on TV in the 70s and being told that Christ will return in the 90s. So I also know that people exaggerate and get things wrong. So who knows. I don't, at least for sure.
The point is that in most of these issues, I may have my tendencies and beliefs, but I don't know for sure. Take Iraq for example. When the war started, I was sitting on the fence. So I decided I was going to watch this and learn. When we kicked butt the first month or so, knocked down the statue of Saddam, and declared that "mission was accomplished", I was all for it. But as we encountered problems mopping up the accomplished mission (and never did find the weapons of mass destruction), I found myself as an opponent to the war. But now that the surge is apparently working, I find myself changing again to "it probably was a mistake to begin with, but at this point it is best to finish the job and do it right than to leave it as a mess". Who knows how I will change again in the future.
However, I do think though that I am at least a fairly decent judge of character. And the older that I grow, the more important character becomes to me.
Which is why the prospect of Bill and Hillary 2.0 is alarming to me. I have been following this campaign at least a little (I do notice that the political adds on Vermont TV have stopped now that the NH primary is history). Watching the smear job and blatant lies that Bill and Hillary are applying to Obama (who at least seems to be a decent human being..even though he does support the deliberate killing of innocent human life) reminds me of everything that I hated during the Clinton era.
Which is why I find myself pulling for Obama in the Democratic primary (even though he is the tougher 'D' nominee IMHO). At least if he gets it, Bill and Hillary 2.0 are history. Now I will never vote for him myself, because of my little thing about killing babies, but I don't especially dislike him, and I don't see myself voting against him (meaning that if I don't care for the Republican either, I have no qualms about voting 3rd party). This is in contrast to his female opponent. If she is the one, no matter who the 'R' is and how much I may dislike him, I will press the 'R' level in November.
We vote for some cabinet level positions. The last election there was a tight race for the position of "Auditor of Accounts". As I recall there was a recount, and in the recount the Democratic challenger defeated the Republican incumbent who was previously ahead by a couple of votes.
Auditor of Accounts?? How in the wide world of sports do I vote for auditor of accounts. How do I know which of the two folks running for this position is the best qualified for it. The fact is that I don't. I don't even know what an "Auditor of Accounts" does. I am not qualified to pick a person for "Auditor of Accounts".
Same thing for Attorney General, Secretary of State, and the other cabinet level positions that perplex me every second November. I leave these positions blank.
The older I grow, I am finding the less I know. This upcoming election is supposed to be about the economy. Now I did have an economics course in college, but thirty years later I must confess I have totally forgotten about it. The only thing I remember is some professor drawing these curves on the blackboard and saying they mean something. So how do I know which of the two folks who want to be my President is best at managing the economy? Guess what, I don't.
Same thing with global warming. Al Gore believes that it is real, that we did it, and we darned well better fix it soon or dire consequences will result. For all I know he is correct. Still there are some scientists who disagree (I don't think the disagreement is whether it is real or not, I think the disagreement is whether this is caused by humans and its severity). And I do remember in the 1960s reading similar dire consequences that would hit the planet in the 1990s over the population explosion. For that matter I remember reading about dire consequences that will happen to the earth and its computers when the year 2000 occurs. Come to think of it I remember watching Pat Robertson on TV in the 70s and being told that Christ will return in the 90s. So I also know that people exaggerate and get things wrong. So who knows. I don't, at least for sure.
The point is that in most of these issues, I may have my tendencies and beliefs, but I don't know for sure. Take Iraq for example. When the war started, I was sitting on the fence. So I decided I was going to watch this and learn. When we kicked butt the first month or so, knocked down the statue of Saddam, and declared that "mission was accomplished", I was all for it. But as we encountered problems mopping up the accomplished mission (and never did find the weapons of mass destruction), I found myself as an opponent to the war. But now that the surge is apparently working, I find myself changing again to "it probably was a mistake to begin with, but at this point it is best to finish the job and do it right than to leave it as a mess". Who knows how I will change again in the future.
However, I do think though that I am at least a fairly decent judge of character. And the older that I grow, the more important character becomes to me.
Which is why the prospect of Bill and Hillary 2.0 is alarming to me. I have been following this campaign at least a little (I do notice that the political adds on Vermont TV have stopped now that the NH primary is history). Watching the smear job and blatant lies that Bill and Hillary are applying to Obama (who at least seems to be a decent human being..even though he does support the deliberate killing of innocent human life) reminds me of everything that I hated during the Clinton era.
Which is why I find myself pulling for Obama in the Democratic primary (even though he is the tougher 'D' nominee IMHO). At least if he gets it, Bill and Hillary 2.0 are history. Now I will never vote for him myself, because of my little thing about killing babies, but I don't especially dislike him, and I don't see myself voting against him (meaning that if I don't care for the Republican either, I have no qualms about voting 3rd party). This is in contrast to his female opponent. If she is the one, no matter who the 'R' is and how much I may dislike him, I will press the 'R' level in November.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Ron Paul
It is getting to the time of year that I really wish we lived in New Hampshire.
You see in Vermont, you can't watch the tube for one hour without hitting upon a commercial for Obama, Hillary, Mitt, Rudy or some other Republican or Democrat who wants to be president. Unfortunately in Vermont our vote doesn't even count. In the Presidential race you can just about chalk up Vermont as a blue state (if it were ever to be competitive you would be in the midst of a Republican landslide in which my vote still doesn't matter). And we have a dinky presidential primary that nobody cares about. So we in Vermont get blessed with all of these political commercials that aren't directed at us. How annoying.
Ah New Hampshire. That is where your vote counts. First of all it is a classic swing state (trending red but whatever). And they have the first presidential primary where a state of what 600K or 700K folks have a way disproportionate role of choosing the next President. I would think that at the least if we in Vermont have to put up with all of these political commercials, that we at least should have a primary that somebody cares about.
Which brings me to Ron Paul. For the last month or so (to the annoyance of my family), I have driven my green suby with a Ron Paul bumper sticker. This is the first political bumper sticker of any stripe that I have allowed to grace any of my cars..and the last since I think we had "American Abortion - Hitler Would Have Loved It" that I think we got from my grandfather who got it I think from Jimmy Swaggart ministries. That was back in the 1980s.
I got the bumper sticker while in downtown Burlington from a Ron Paul stand set up on church street. It was raining and I really didn't have time to talk to the campaign volunteers, but I did manage to scrounge a bumper sticker.
Now politically I have one absolute. I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate (now at times I might vote for a pro-choice candidate like our governor as the lesser of two evils, but never a pro-abortion candidate. Maybe a second, I will not vote for a candidate that supports gay marriage, but these candidates are rare and to be honest the gay issues are much less important to me than the abortion issue (killing innocent human life is much more weighty than unjustified governmental preferences). I am more interested in gay issues from the perspective of protecting the rights of folks and religions who have dissenting views than in stopping a couple of gay guys from getting a civil union (I can really see on down the line the United States becoming like Sweden where pastors get thrown in jail for preaching a sermon against homosexuality).
That having been said I have a number of political preferences (a preference is something I can change my mind on).
* I really value character. It would be a hard sell to vote for somebody I consider a slime ball.
* I prefer small, unobtrusive government to overpowering government.
* I want my government to be very conservative when it comes to sending our sons and daughters off to war to get killed. Only if it is well justified please (Iraq is not).
* I like fiscal responsibility. If I have to balance my checkbook, I would think the government should do the same.
* I would like a very small federal government. Defer as much as makes sense to the states please. Leave hot-button issues up to the states.
* In the same vein, please appoint judges that will defer to the states. If the good people in the state of Mississippi want to ban abortion and if there is nothing in the constitution that specifically allows abortion, then let the good people of Mississippi do what they want. It's their state. The same BTW works with Massachusetts and gay marriage. Just don't impose gay marriage on the other 49 states without their consent.
* Big changes have unexpected consequences. Work incrementally please.
As you can see, my political philosophy is conservative / libertarian (in fact I like to call myself a pro-life libertarian..I can explain that or a small "l" libertarian). Now pure libertarianism takes some stuff to extremes that I am not comfortable with (legalization of drugs for example), but there is much basis for agreement anyway.
Ron Paul (Libertarian presidential candidate in 1984 or 1988) is the only Presidential candidate that is an identical match on my absolutes and all of my preferences and is a near match on my philosophy.
I can eliminate the Democratic candidates right off for being pro-abortion. I am trying to decide whether Rudy is eliminated on a mixture of pro-abortion and general slimeball (plus being a Yankee fan does not help). The remaining Republicans are mixed on my preference.
BTW, if Ron Paul were not in the race, I think I would be supporting John McCain. Although he and I disagree on Iraq, he has earned enough respect from me over his career so that I can forgive him (and he was right on the surge). All of the other Republicans..meh at at best now (this includes Huckabee whom I am deferring drinking the kool-aid on right now just because he is evangelical Christian..I did that on Carter and Bush 2.0).
And I really wish Sam Brownback were still running.
You see in Vermont, you can't watch the tube for one hour without hitting upon a commercial for Obama, Hillary, Mitt, Rudy or some other Republican or Democrat who wants to be president. Unfortunately in Vermont our vote doesn't even count. In the Presidential race you can just about chalk up Vermont as a blue state (if it were ever to be competitive you would be in the midst of a Republican landslide in which my vote still doesn't matter). And we have a dinky presidential primary that nobody cares about. So we in Vermont get blessed with all of these political commercials that aren't directed at us. How annoying.
Ah New Hampshire. That is where your vote counts. First of all it is a classic swing state (trending red but whatever). And they have the first presidential primary where a state of what 600K or 700K folks have a way disproportionate role of choosing the next President. I would think that at the least if we in Vermont have to put up with all of these political commercials, that we at least should have a primary that somebody cares about.
Which brings me to Ron Paul. For the last month or so (to the annoyance of my family), I have driven my green suby with a Ron Paul bumper sticker. This is the first political bumper sticker of any stripe that I have allowed to grace any of my cars..and the last since I think we had "American Abortion - Hitler Would Have Loved It" that I think we got from my grandfather who got it I think from Jimmy Swaggart ministries. That was back in the 1980s.
I got the bumper sticker while in downtown Burlington from a Ron Paul stand set up on church street. It was raining and I really didn't have time to talk to the campaign volunteers, but I did manage to scrounge a bumper sticker.
Now politically I have one absolute. I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate (now at times I might vote for a pro-choice candidate like our governor as the lesser of two evils, but never a pro-abortion candidate. Maybe a second, I will not vote for a candidate that supports gay marriage, but these candidates are rare and to be honest the gay issues are much less important to me than the abortion issue (killing innocent human life is much more weighty than unjustified governmental preferences). I am more interested in gay issues from the perspective of protecting the rights of folks and religions who have dissenting views than in stopping a couple of gay guys from getting a civil union (I can really see on down the line the United States becoming like Sweden where pastors get thrown in jail for preaching a sermon against homosexuality).
That having been said I have a number of political preferences (a preference is something I can change my mind on).
* I really value character. It would be a hard sell to vote for somebody I consider a slime ball.
* I prefer small, unobtrusive government to overpowering government.
* I want my government to be very conservative when it comes to sending our sons and daughters off to war to get killed. Only if it is well justified please (Iraq is not).
* I like fiscal responsibility. If I have to balance my checkbook, I would think the government should do the same.
* I would like a very small federal government. Defer as much as makes sense to the states please. Leave hot-button issues up to the states.
* In the same vein, please appoint judges that will defer to the states. If the good people in the state of Mississippi want to ban abortion and if there is nothing in the constitution that specifically allows abortion, then let the good people of Mississippi do what they want. It's their state. The same BTW works with Massachusetts and gay marriage. Just don't impose gay marriage on the other 49 states without their consent.
* Big changes have unexpected consequences. Work incrementally please.
As you can see, my political philosophy is conservative / libertarian (in fact I like to call myself a pro-life libertarian..I can explain that or a small "l" libertarian). Now pure libertarianism takes some stuff to extremes that I am not comfortable with (legalization of drugs for example), but there is much basis for agreement anyway.
Ron Paul (Libertarian presidential candidate in 1984 or 1988) is the only Presidential candidate that is an identical match on my absolutes and all of my preferences and is a near match on my philosophy.
I can eliminate the Democratic candidates right off for being pro-abortion. I am trying to decide whether Rudy is eliminated on a mixture of pro-abortion and general slimeball (plus being a Yankee fan does not help). The remaining Republicans are mixed on my preference.
BTW, if Ron Paul were not in the race, I think I would be supporting John McCain. Although he and I disagree on Iraq, he has earned enough respect from me over his career so that I can forgive him (and he was right on the surge). All of the other Republicans..meh at at best now (this includes Huckabee whom I am deferring drinking the kool-aid on right now just because he is evangelical Christian..I did that on Carter and Bush 2.0).
And I really wish Sam Brownback were still running.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)