Friday, February 03, 2012

"Poly" = Many; "Ticks" = Blood-Sucking Insects

I suppose I ought to have something to say about the GOP slugfest between Newt and Mitt, but it's like watching two drunken bums fighting in a open-topped septic tank while the MC sprays 'em down with even more sludge. I suppose it's exciting if you're into that sort of thing, but from any distance away, it just looks sad.

("O-M-G, Mittens doesn't care about the extremely poor!" Yeah, 'cos face it, they get better press than he does, and probably more contributions, too; ill-stated as it was, there really are a lot of programs and helps for those who have fallen right over the edge. It's not a solved problem -- I think history so far demonstrates it's not a solvable problem -- but given that Johnson's "War on Poverty" is still being waged, I'm darned if I know what else the Press thinks a President ought to be doing that, say, the current one ain't. Don't even get me started on the PR disaster/slime explosion that is Newt, or the crazed way he seems to think the path to victory is followed by winning High School Debate Club-type points.)

Even more sad than any of that is having to watch the Republican faithful as, once more, they play the Battered Bride, talking themselves into the belief that a liberty-fearing Massachusetts patrician won't be so bad, not really, I mean, at least he's not a Democrat, right? (Got news for ya, kids: in Indiana or elsewhere in flyover country, he probably would be). Or that Newt has any chance at all, or that Ricky's blend of rose-colored glasses and generalized xenophobia (where "xeno" means "doesn't resemble any member of his immediate family") is somehow a Good Thing. --Or even that Ron Paul hasn't been Goldwatered out over his own decades-old past by the press once more.

Face facts: any of them are DOA on the November ballot. --Or as good as; Mr. Romney might have a bare chance, though so far he seems to have just as much aptitude for torpedoing himself as any of his primary opponents, but he's a Milquetoast middle-of-the-roader, liable to appoint wishy-washy turncoats to the Supreme Court at least as bad as anyone Mr. Obama might choose, if not worse.

Vote for whatever Noble Failure the GOP faithful trot out? I'm not doin' it. Makes my gorge rise. While I am still thinking about giving Dr. Paul a shout-out in Indiana's primary (assuming he's still on the roster), I am more likely to sit it out and vote Libertarian when the main event comes 'round. Or, hell, Communist; the way things are going, we may need a Marxist or two for the lamp-posts and wouldn't you really rather have an overt one than a sneak?

Nobody running in the Presidential primary is your friend. No friend to gunnies, no friend to the small businessperson and no friend to free individuals. They see your liberty as a threat; Mr. Schumer over in Congress speaks for all Washington when he wants you injected, inspected, detected -- not neglected! -- issued a card and sat down, probably, on the Group W bench with "all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people..." And not a one of them will even bother to ask, "'Kid, have you rehabilitated yourself?'"*

I dunno about you but I still haven't. A pox upon 'em.

A pox -- and a ballot. It's the only thing other than money that gets their attention.
* A few lines there from a possibly-familiar song.


Bob said...

Where's Justice Harriet Miers now? Oh, that's right, she didn't get confirmed; the Senate got up on its hind legs and refused to let Bush get away with a crony on the Court. He gave us Alito instead, and Alito helped bring about Heller and MacDonald.

We just need to re-capture the Senate, not a difficult task this cycle, and make our voices heard when Mittens goes to nominate some squish for the Court.

Panamared said...

I understand your angst, been there done that and the t-shirt wore out years ago. Given that, I would urge you to go to the polls and vote the down ballet. If the House remains Republican, and the Senate is turned, at least the laws getting to the Presidents desk may move things in a favorable direction. Yes that's a lot of ifs and maybes but that's the way the game works in the real world.

Anonymous said...

In a country of 300 million plus people, is this the best we can do?

I'll be at the bar. Hold my calls.


Robin said...

To quote from SayUncle: "Cam on twitter: Reality check for those threatening to stay home if their GOP candidate doesn’t win: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder."

Anonymous said...

If not Ron, vote Green Party. If the Greens can get 5%, they'll be eligible for Fed campaign funding which, will seriously degrade the Democrapic party. All the eco terror libtards would be drawn away from them, splitting their party.

Seriously, it's too late to change the course of the Republic through the electoral process. It's a huge $hit sammich and we're all gonna have to take a bite.

Spartacus said...

If you're going to give your vote to Obama by voting for a 3rd party candidate then vote for the Green party. If they take 5% of the national vote they qualify for federal funds. You might be asking "why do that?". The greens draw off the democrat base in the same way the Libertarians draw off the Repubs. Thus having the green party federally recognized will split the leftist base in future elections.

Roberta X said...

What, instead of voting for a candidate I actually support?

Voting for the Libertarian is not "giving my vote to Obama." It is being able to vote without having to hold my nose.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Well. let's do the Math. BTW, all the numbers come from the FEC. 1992 Election; Clinton gets 44,908,254; Bush (the Elder) gets 39,102,343; Perot gets 19,741,065. Most Poly Sci types that I asked in my University (full of Marxists,BTW) said that most Perotistas were just Mad about "No New Taxes" and would have probably voted for Bush (the Elder)\ if he had kept his Promises.

Jump to 2000 Bush (the Younger) gets 50,459,211; Gore gets 51,003,894; Nader gets 2,834,410. Same Poly Sci Types said that if Nader hadn't been in, the Greens would have probably gone for Gore, more than enough to get the Electoral College Votes needed.

So what can we surmise? It looks like a Strong 3rd Part Candidate may not WIN the Election under the Current System, but they sure can cause someone to lose!

But in this Election, could a Paul Candidacy swing enough Votes away from the Republitards, or should the DemaCommies be worried? And what if Paul does go "quietly in to the soft night?" And don't discount External Affairs, either. If Iran goes Stupid, the EU causes a Depression, or something weird happens, what this Administration does in RESPONSE to it can make or break a Campaign.

To be honest, come Nov.7th, I have no idea who's going to be Elected. But It's going to be one of those times where will either get 4 more years of the same old crap, or we get a "New, Tasty and Improved Crap" Sammich. But it won't be coming from a 3rd. Party Candidate.

Roberta X said...

Interesting but beside the point; I will vote for Dr. Paul in the primary, to send a message to his party.

...Please remember, his part is the GOP. He made his choice a long time ago and I think he will stick with it, for pretty much the kind of stats you have cited -- and previous comments have alluded to. The present Party System in the 'States -- by no means the first, not by a long shot -- appears to be well-entrenched and neither one is really your friend.

Withal, neither one has run anyone for President in the general election that I felt I could in conscience vote for. I used to just stay home on election day, mindful of Claire Wolfe's "If voting could change anything, it would be illegal."

Except voting can change some things, especially in smaller races and in some of them, there's actually a decent choice.

As for the Presidency, I don't know if I will ever see the big parties anyone run for the office other than charismatic boobs, Party-faithful nitwits, incompetents and crooks. Seriously, can you look at the choices in the last four elections and tell me, honestly, that any of the men they put forward in November would have been your first choice?

Spartacus said...

Rx I think you misunderstood, not surprising, I get dinged every year during evaluations for communicating. I wasn't trying to tell you who to vote for, just indicating how far to the dem's have spread themselves and how easy it would be to fragment their party into several incohesive splinter groups. That said, R.P. has some great domestic ideas but outside of that he kinda reminds me of my grandpa when we had to decide whether he could manage on his own without causing harm to himself or others, ultimately he wound up in a home. In my case, I feel anything is better than the current resident in the W.H. so I'll hold my nose and vote for the guy with an "R" after his name and pray that the rest of the electorate at least maintains the current balance in the house and relegates the honorable...choke...gag...cough...Hairy Reed to a minority position in the Senate.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Where is it written that xenophilia is our only option?

If foreigners clearly express a desire to immigrate, inundate us demographically, and turn the U.S. in to a shariah dung heap, tell me why I should pay attention to your disdain for xenophobia?

Roberta X said...

Colenel, y'all can do whatever you like with your own horse but you've gone a bit binary on me. "What isn't compulsory is forbidden" ain't how we do things hereabouts.

As for Santorum, his "xeno" runs much closer to home than at the borders; I guess as long as you're white, male, heterosexual and Christian, he'll treat you as if you were his equal. Me, I'm straight but I miss all the other categories. And Santorum misses out on very basic American principles -- much as you do.

If furriners wanna come here and become citizens, with all that entails, I welcome 'em. But the United States is a secular nation, with our very own secular laws, and it's gonna stay that way, with you and Mister Rick or without you.