Mitt Romney and his massive assaults on individual liberty as Governor of Massachusetts.
Rick Perry generally coming across as a soft-headed dullard who REALLY hates the homos
and now this fucking communist!
If you think otherwise you’re part of the problem, NOT the solution.
So in November, like many others, I plan to vote for the lesser of two evils. From my score card that’s Barack Obama.
If your card looks different, let me know.
Sigh…
Yeah I’ve been avoiding News discussing the Presidential race because it makes me VERY grouchy.
I’m pretty much solid that it’ll be Ron Paul in the Mass Primary (because the crazy bastard has been asking to go down in flames for decades, I think he deserves it!) and the Zero in the general…unless Paul actually wins. If I’m voting failure I’ll vote for the failure who says a few things I agree with.
Don’t blame me….I voted for Kodos!
Wow! (& so few would get that!)
I did! There was a LOL!
Kodos for the win!!
The wrong lizard is gonna win. Mostly because we’re only choosing between lizards.
That being said, right now I expect I’ll be voting for Obama as well – because I think the Rethuglicans will carry Congress, and I want gridlock.
WV: R2F5 – R2D2’s understudy?
I’ll probably be throwing away my vote on Ron Paul. It may be the equivalent of voting for Kodos – I mean ‘The Anointed One.’ But at least I won’t have voted directly for him. Small consolation there. But at least there’s some…
Doesn’t matter which of the lizards win. Vote independent or Libertarian, or just write in “Jesus H. Christ.” I want to see enough non-Republicrat votes tallied to loosen some bowels in DC. Give the bastards an inkling of what’s coming down the pike.
The best we can get at this point is a bitterly partisan divided government that can’t do anything. We should be so lucky.
At this point I’m feeling so utterly betrayed by both sides of the aisle that I’m planning on voting for every single challenger, mostly as a way of saying “eff you” to all the incumbents.
That is pretty much what I do every year, simply because I believe chaos/turnover in government is a good thing.
In this case, though, my Presidential lever-pull will be “third party”.
I plan to vote the lesser Evil. In 2008 I was NOT voting for Bob Barr.
I voted McCain Palin, and I didn’t like having to make the choice, but I don’t think I made the wrong choice.
What in God’s green earth makes you think that we would have gridlock if we took Congress?
When have we ever had gridlock that mattered from the GOP?
THEY ALL SUCK. Even Ron Paul. He’s not as libertarian as he appears. He sure put a lot of pork into his district even though he votes “no.” And his foreign policy scares the crap out of me.
They are ALL politicians. They all think that government can solve problems. THAT’s why they are running for office. All of them will use the power of government to advance their agenda. Do you think Paul could get rid of agencies willy nilly without massive blowback? And I say this as one that wants a few departments to go away too.
Well, you may not like him. And I don’t think that I’m voting for him unless he’s the nominee (at the moment, I’d vote for a syphlitic camel over Obama), but here’s a fair assessment of Newt’s idea of conservatism. Remember he’s all about process. FDR is his idol because he was able to get things done. NOT because of what those things were. He’s all about efficiency.
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2011/12/14/taking-newt-gingrichs-ideas-seriously/
We’re never getting a candidate that will be able to reverse the bad stuff all at once. It takes a ship a long time to stop or turn…..even when we’re heading over a waterfall.
At least, one of the GOP candidates would be willing to listen to a GOP Congress’s bills. Notice I did not say conservative, because the majority will still be incumbent establishment GOP.
An Obama without the need to get re-elected scares even more crap out of me. There will be a Supreme Court opening next year. A GOP Senate will NOT stop any of his candidates. And we still won’t be able to repeal ObamaCare because we won’t be able to override a veto.
BO/HICA 2012!
“FDR is his idol because he was able to get things done. NOT because of what those things were. He’s all about efficiency.”
Not to Godwin, but Hitler was MIGHTY efficient. Efficiency is NOT always good.
I’ve said it before, life under Deval Patrick in Mass (who is ideologically, and politically identical to Barack Obama) is considerably better than life under Mitt Romney (who while is a super-liberal Republican, nationally, in Mass *like Christy in New Jersey* he is about as good as they come as far as conservatism.
So why do I hate Romney so much to the extent of preferring an ideological enemy like Patrick? Efficiency. Like Obama, Patrick is a lay-about. A local talk show host calls him the “Absentee Governor” (he’s out of the country right now on a junket) and even with the super majority Democrat legislator, he doesn’t actually manage to get anything done.
Romney would be WORSE for this country if he was elected president, of that I have little doubt. As for Gingrich, I don’t see any real differences between him and Romney on how they view the people…so to condemn one, and support the other would make me look like a fool, and a partisan hack.
“Gridlock” may be too strong a word, but at least we would have parties whose goals are in conflict. It may not eliminate either party’s ability to cause damage, but it would at least reduce it.
An (R) president, though, would basically get a free pass from an (R) controlled Congress – and quite frankly, I just don’t trust Gingrich to be what he presents himself as – more so than I distrust the other candidates. Mainly because, as my parents keep pointing out, he is a very smart man (sadly, they’ve swallowed the Gingrich kool-aid), and I think he’s much better at disguising his true nature.
I expect very statist SCOTUS nominations from him. By itself, that’s no different than I expect from any of the other candidates, on either side. But at least with Obama and a Republican Congress there would be at least some opposition. Whether it could be effective or not is another question, but it would be impossible for it to be effective if there isn’t any majority party opposition at all, which is what you’d get with a Republican president.
I’m with cargosquid. I’m very concerned about an emboldened Obama who doesn’t have to worry about getting re-elected.
Less worried than an Obama with a Super Majority at his fingertips and a high approval rating?
Logic doesn’t seem to follow as many would predict. Just look at the soft-sworded, centrist 2nd term of George W. Bush.
I’m not saying its not going to be bad…I’m just trying to pick what’s less bad.
Less bad?
Under Bush you got Alito and Roberts on the SC, as well as the expiration of the AWB and guns in national parks.
Under Obama you’ve got Kagan and Sotomayor, and a handful of pro gun riders that would have gotten vetoed had they been independent bills.
How is Obama less bad?
Here’s how I see it. Either way, we’re screwed. The guy we got now is going to royally screw us,insult us the whole time he’s doing it, let his buddies ransack our place, run up our credit cards, drain our bank accounts, and post naked photos of us on the internet.
On the other hand, the other guys will at least pretend to be interested in what we have to say, will have the courtesy to at least write us an IOU when raiding our piggy banks, and we may not only get dinner, but maybe even a little reach around.
LOOOONG way to go, wake me up after Labor Day.
Two things Weerd;
First, what I hear (in a string of obviously context-free statements) are a consistent litany of qualifications; “liberal”, “progressive”, “democrat”, “effective”, “20th century”, “politician”. What I don’t hear being said is anything about his intention or desire to emulate FDR in any fashion other than those qualified. Now, we can all have our individual standard of acceptable conduct from a “politician” (and that’s a pretty low standard right there), but we don’t all get our own standard of fact. Gingrich may not be any of our preferred choice, but I think you’ll agree he deserves a fair judgement.
Second, Gingrich has a long political history of setting up strawman objections against himself for his more eager opposition to latch on to, thereby allowing him to counter their more substantive objections by treating them as further examples of falsehood (usually cast as “misguided” or “ill-informed” – he is an experienced professional politician after all).
I’m not going to characterize Larry Correia’s rant here (or at his blog either), but I do think you, he and others may have bitten a bit too hard on the first point I offered above and are now well positioned to experience the second.
Finally, I’ll close by observing that Newt Gingrich has a well documented record of publicly admiring and deliberately emulating Ronald Reagan and I submit that is the more likely model he would try to fashion his own presidency after were we to elect him to the office. I think this alternative has it’s own litany of potential problems, but they aren’t in the same catagory as the FDR-based one’s are IMO.