...Over Sarah Palin as the GOP's VP candidate.
She's pretty darned good in many ways and at least her position's no different to Ronald Reagan's on the things about which I look askance.* I suspect her of being able to think on her feet, to not be especially boring or colorless, to be able to spell and a pretty safe shooter. This sets her way above most Veeps in my lifetime.
One of the things I've been hearing is that if Senator McCain wins, Governor Palin is a shoo-in for the 2012 Presidential nomination; it's there that my "srsly?" alarm goes off. The GOP has a history of chewing up their best conservatives, the ones who believe government is best kept small and out of your peaceable private life, in favor of big-tent compromisers or leaders who want to meddle just as much as the Other Side does, only along different lines. How many runs did Ronald Reagan make at the White House, and how did his party treat him? Have you read up on the nasty infighting Nelson Rockefeller did against Barry Goldwater, leaving the Democrats with plenty of ready-made openings to use?
I've been let down frequently by the Republicans. Gun-owners in general are the battered spouse of the GOP, getting plenty of bruises but always coming back when they tell us they love us as elections loom, especially at the Federal level -- here in Indiana, we've got gun-friendly motorcyclist Mitch Daniels in the Governor's office, not my ideal choice but a pretty good guy; but in the Senate, our one (1) elephant man is smirking Dick Lugar, in no way an ally of the individual citizen gun-owner. They take us for granted.
So when they hand us a really great choice for V.P., man, that's fantastic and no snarkin'. But they're not making any promises.
Let us not build castles in the air. Is she a good choice? Yes. Does she make the McCain ticket more appealing to me? Somewhat. If she was running against Bob Barr, I'd be hard-pressed to make up my mind. But she's not. She's not even running against Senator Obama.
I'm leaning McCain-Palin. But it's not November and my homework's far from done. I refuse to limit my choices to Party Right or Party Left just because they're the only ones from which a possible winner can come: both of them are fronting Presidential candidates who have acted and spoken against the Bill of Rights, an act of treason for which, in a better world, they would be duly charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. (Along with most of the House and Senate. Hey, a girl can dream, can't she?)
...Of course, if that happened after the election and the GOP had won, we'd get Sarah Palin in the Oval Office. H'mmm, Palin or Biden? Like I'd have to think twice?
Damn, that elephant's lookin' better again.
__________________
* And wouldn't you just like to know? Probably not hardly but in any case, tough luck.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
7 comments:
No candidate is perfect. Ever. None ever will be. And what is perfect for one is often not even good for another, even within the same party. Ask those who voted for Perot and handed the presidency to Bill Clinton. The opportunity for harm is too often too great.
All those elections where I said to Republicans "If I vote Libertarian and your guy loses, don't blame me; blame yourself for offering me such a lousy candidate."
This year? This year I have to say to the Libertarians "If I vote GOP and your guy loses..."
Sorry, but Bob Barr ain't the guy. He's no more a Libertarian than Cynthia McKinney is.
Point taken, Tam, though Mr. Barr swears on the road to Damascus, it was a bright light he saw and a voice spoke to him. I dunno.
Og, thing is, when I go vote, I don't happen to give a rat's rear about what's good for you, the gal next door or even my siblings. I go vote for the one I wanna see have the job. If I can't find anyone running I think should have the job, I stay home.
As for Perot, harm, schmarm: more voters voted for Bill Clinton. Not every Perot vote was a lost Bush vote. The electorate got what they deserved, good and hard. H. Ross was a message; not one the GOP actually got but it should've been a warning to them. Instead, they ran a guy with a funny accent and big ears.
I could vote for Pat Paulsen for president, if I believed he could do the job well, but that doesn't mean it would be a good choice, or that my vote would not be wasted. It is your responsibility not to "send a message" about who you want as CIC, but to do what is best for your nation. If you want to send a message, as Frank Capra said, try western union.
If your car's alternator is dead, and you have to replace it, you have a lot of choices. You could install another alternator. But that's boring. You could install a lovely Bananna Split, made with Breyer's Ice cream. You could put in an alternator from another car, maybe a 6 volt generator from a tractor. In order for your car to run properly, you must choose the replacement part that fits your car, or modify one that is nearly correct to fit; it's not a matter of doing what you would like, sometimes, but doing what is best to keep the vehicle going down the road. And sometimes it's boring and sometimes you want that pretty chrome aftermarket alternator in the window at JC Whitney, but most of the time you just have to put in that boring OEM replacement. The responsibility of the voter is to keep the car moving forward, not see how pretty he can make the non-running car look.
More people voted for Clinton because Perot f**ked the race up so bad no conservative would ever have been elected. And that's what third party candidacies do, on a national level. I'm also not a huge fan of the two parties, but it's what we have, and like it or not, you play the cards you're dealt.
Well, sir, that is one take on it.
I believe it represents an attitude responsible for much of what is wrong with this country. What do I know about the "common good?" Nil. In fact, I don't care about the common good; I'm no altruist, I care about what's good for me. What do I know about the kind of person I'd like to see in Congress or the Executive Branch? Quite a lot. Should I vote my ignorance or my knowledge?
If the Federal gummit is a car, I'm okay with walking. This might be where we part ways -- IMO, 90 to 100% of the Federal government is a useless excresence, a parasite that takes much and returns little. I don't think it will be worth fixing next time it breaks.
Love to hear your take on this. I shall not address the subject further in this set of comments -- it's my blog, if I get gottahavelastworditis bad enough, I'll do a new post! :)
"Point taken, Tam, though Mr. Barr swears on the road to Damascus,"
"...and look! The chicken head! It's hangin' outta my mouth, here!"
OK. Addressed at Neanderpundit. Come join, I would cut off a ffinger before I'd offend, so I'll say what i have to say there.
Post a Comment