I'm back from vacation and the first thing I do is hit you in the face with politics. Sorry about that, but I can't help it. Every four years, my political urges become not unlike Mister Spock's once-every-seven-year mating frenzy.
(Great way to start a post. I'm going to tell you I voted for Ron Paul and I basically out myself as a geek.)
It's Super Tuesday, and Massachusetts has it's presidential primary today. And, as the feline I let escape from the sack already told you, I voted for Ron Paul.
I am not going to make a big sales pitch here. I have to assume that, if you care at all, you already know the candidates and probably have at least a strong leaning for one or another. If not, and if my endorsement can sway you, I'd appreciate you casting a vote for Dr. Paul. But, if you must pull the lever for someone else, I assume we can still be friends.
So, as I said, no sales pitch. However, I'd like you to answer a couple of questions, if you have the time. If you voted today (or if you voted in an earlier primary) for whom did you vote? If you wouldn't be uncomfortable doing so, would you tell us which state you voted in? Feel free to give a SHORT speech, if you wish (but, please, limit yourself to the absolute must-get-it-out-of-your-system stuff, and give others a chance.)
Above all else, I request civility. I never censor comments here, but today I reserve the right to pull those that make personal attacks. Argue policy and agenda, but no calling anyone a stupid poopyhead.
(I was exit-polled today as I left the voting place in Watertown. It is the first time in my life I was ever exit-polled. That's what made me think about doing my own bit of polling today. Thanks for taking the time to comment, whether you agree with my choice of Ron Paul or not.)
Soon, with less stuff about politics and more stuff about vacations.
28 comments:
Dang. . . I always get confused by that every-seven-year-mating-frenzy thing. I keep thinking it's 'seven times every year'. Or is it seven times a week? I'm so confused. . .
But, you know, mating frenzies are always good things. . .
;)
-----
OK, you said some things about politics here, didn't you?
Speaking purely on my own behalf, the only 'Publican I WON'T vote for is the Newt. That whole dumping-sick-wives thing just grates on me. Since, you know, you asked. . .
In Michigan, we voted last week, and it was near to a dead heat between Romney (who actually grew up here, while his daddy was our governor) and Santorum. Don't know that either of 'em gets my heart beating, but either of 'em is better than any Dem. So thinks I, 'tanyrate. . .
By the time us folk here in California finally get a chance to actually mark a ballot (June 5, I believe) most of the deciding of candidates will probably have been taken out of our hands.
The big concern here is that a lot of ballots won't get counted because the post office won't have them delivered to the clerk's offices in time because they're close down something like 14 sorting facilities real soon. So if GS and I vote by mail our ballot will travel something like 350 miles now instead of about 12 miles... or, to put it in other terms, it will now take a week instead of three days for the mail to get across town.
I better stop now, before I say something regrettable
As a lifelong Democrat I'd never vote for any of these guys, although I was rather impressed by Huntsman.
Santorum--a religious fanatic who says he wants small government but would put the government in everyone's bedroom. Can't forgive him for pressuring Bush's government into sticking it's nose into the Terry Schiavo case.
Romney--how can you trust anyone who will say anything to get elected. The government shouldn't be run like a corporation. The government shouldn't be about making a profit at the expense of its citizens
Gingrich--perhaps the most despicable man to hold public office since Aaron Burr. To think that he was banging a woman, not his wife, in a car near the capitol while he was impeaching Clinton. He believes he is above any law he would propose, and he now hides behind Catholicism to excuse his sins.
Ron Paul--anti gay but hides it well. He is too rigid in his interpretation of the Constitution and most of what he says is impractical. But he is the most honest Republican in the field and one who actually says what he believes. He doesn't weigh his thoughts against the polls and for that I give him high marks, even though a vote for him is wasted.
If I had to accept one of these candidates as my president I'd reluctantly choose Romney because I think he'd do the least damage.
Well, being a long time Liberal I would not vote for anyone in the current line-up. But I am glad to see that you picked the only honest one.
It's really sad that the representative government we have seems to represent nobody
Stephen -
I would argue that Paul is not anti-gay, and that the only wasted vote is one cast for any candidate other than the one you truly like.
Would you mind giving me your reasoning as to why you believe he is anti-gay?
Our primary isn't until the 24th, and i am leaning very strongly toward Ron Paul.
Who's Ron Paul?
KIDDING!!!
While I lean towards conservatism... politics just leave a horrible taste in my mouth these days. I have NO strong feelings for ANYBODY.
Not even Obama.
I feel sorry for him. Or any man who takes on the job.
Woops!
Or woman!
Bad me! Bad me!
I side with you in party, but not in candidate. Sorry, can't do it. I'm a Mitt fan.
The one thing I did wrong was teach my daughters to think for themselves and not vote for someone just because their parent were. That was during all those "mock school elections" when they were much younger. Last election they all 3 voted Obama. I have failed as a parent.
Sorry. I don't like Santorum for how he ran as governor in PA. Gingrich is just too shady. I don't know enough about Ron Paul to have an honest opinion. And Romney's not my cup of tea, but seems all bluster and no substance.
Which means I'm not into politics. On a lighter note, I did write an article about your childhood home town recently. That was enjoyable.
Texas doesn't get their say until May 29 - by then it will probably be decided. I'm not 100% about anyone, so I'm grateful for the extension, though. Being from Texas, I've been aware of Ron Paul for decades now, and one thing is for sure... he's consistently stayed the same. I do like that about him.
Another Californian here, impatiently awaiting my turn to vote. And I'll be voting for Dr. Paul as well. :) High five! I like that he's honest and down with the whole freedom thing.
Well Jim, as a registered Democrat and one who is fairly liberal too boot, the Republican line-up doesn't hold much interest to me. However, if I were following in my Dad's family's footsteps -which would be straight republican all the time, very conservative too I think -with my liberal leanings I'd probably be considering hari-kari or some such along those lines! In my opinion Newt is pretty much a male chauvinistic user of women, Romney -very indecisive, Paul -a little too quirky although most of the time I perceive him as sincere and Santorum -OMG! Now there is a total piece of work! A couple years back in PA politics he was running for something here -don't recall what now -but there was a bumper sticker out then that I loved. It said simply "Dump Rick" but I thought, initially, the wording was all one word and not two words and that it was actually saying DumPrick! I definitely felt it was applicable to Rick as well as to our local incumbent representative to Harrisburg too! (Who by the way -happened to be a Democrat so you can see I'm not a straight-party person after all!)
I assume we can still be friends.
You assume correctly. It's Paul's foreign policy that's the deal killer for me. Too bad about that, coz I'm one helluva lot more of the small-"L" libertarian persuasion than I am mainstream GOP.
NM doesn't vote until such time as we have lost what small amount o' relevance we may have had. But we WILL be relevant in The General.
Buck - Thanks for being gentle. I know we have a fairly strong disagreement on the foreign policy stuff.
I still say we're headed to a brokered convention, so don't rule out early relevance for NM just yet. Most everybody is underestimating Paul's delegate numbers. The beauty contests in Maine, etc., may well end up being states with more Paul supporters for the first balloting at convention than for the candidate who won the non-binding vote. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Paul ends up holding more delegates in Maine and Iowa, possibly Minnesota and Wyoming, than either Romney or Santorum, depending upon which one of them took the non-binding vote.
Much depends, also, on tonight, of course. Romney takes MA, easily, but a few delegates will go to Santorum; it's proportional with a proviso that each candidate has to break 15% to claim delegates. Paul has a long shot at that threshold, but I know my state and I highly doubt it. Santorum probably gets near to 20%, but he should make the 15% in any case. Romney also takes Virginia, although I think it may be closer than the 35 point victory some polls would tout.
Oklahoma goes to Santorum, probably Tennessee as well. Gingrich takes Georgia, and I wouldn't be totally surprised if Paul wins North Dakota, maybe Alaska, Idaho if something breaks right. Romney taking those three wouldn't put his campaign over the top, but it would look like it to a lot of people, and perceptions will count going forward.
Ohio? My guess is Romney, but I'd prefer Santorum take it, only because it would go a long way toward keeping this thing competitive and I really want to be right about the brokered convention prediction :-)
Shit, I've never considered myself a political animal - UNTIL.
A perfectly reasonable, sweet, middle-aged fellow blogger, who happened to be American, recently decided to nail her political leanings to the post, and elaborated on her reasons why.
Okay, she was on her soapbox, and had, by visiting my site first, invited my comment there.
We exchanged several, increasingly heated, comments thereafter. I came away believing she is not a sweet, middle-aged blogger, after all, but is in fact, the Anti-Christ (except lacking the intelligence).
I don't know who Dr. Paul is, or anything much of American politics, altogether. But I've lost several nights sleep over what the hell is going on with some of your voter's over there - I could literally weep over how dumb, blind and ignorant they are to the plight of some of their fellow citizens. Seems "I'm alright, Jack" rules with a good many. Thankfully, far from all, so at least there is hope (?)
i'm in PA and we don't have our primary until may sometime. since i am a registered voter but refuse to declare a party i can't vote in it anyway unless there is a referendum item on the ballot.
ron paul was my write in vote in 2008. he doesn't coat his speeches in bullshit. he doesn't pander. he doesn't pull punches....and yet...he wants to see diplomacy used more than our military (plus he's the only candidate ever to have served in the military, i believe). i do have some concerns about him though but he doesn't make me want to tear my hair out screaming the way the rest of the republicans do. lord have mercy....
I'm a Mitt gal. I like Paul but not all of his politics. A little too naive for me on foreign affairs. Geek ... how geeky is it that hubby and I are watching the polls on our computers in the results come in. Right now waiting for the Ohio results. Come on Mitt!
Well, I'm a life-long Democrat so I wouldn't be voting for any of that bunch. Although I admire Ron Paul, I suspect he is a much better senator than he would be a President. Of all the candidates the Republicans are offering, I suspect Romney would be the one I could live with the best. And one thing about both Romney and Ron Paul -- if either of them were the President, I would not be ashamed of them or find them an embarrassment as I have with some in the past.
Well as I live in England, I don't count as a voter, so I'd better slip quietly away.
Maggie X
Nuts in May
Shrinky - You needn't worry about any heated exchanges with me. I desperately try to avoid them, even when someone WANTS one. I only mentioned Dr. Paul because he is the first politician I have been truly anxious to see win in years.
Of course, that means that last night he didn't win a single one of the ten state elections going on. He finished second (of four candidates) in four of them, which was even more frustrating, I think, than if he had come last.
Dang! I knew you were going to ask me this.
Right now I don't believe that anyone of the Rep. candidates will be able to knock off Obama. And that makes me mad
Isn't there anyone out there with some charisma and brains??
Sheesh
Hugs
SueAnn
I don't even know if we had the primaries yet in New Jersey......
I get yelled at for this by pretty much everyone, but I'm not voting in the primaries (if indeed they haven't happened yet...). I am so ignorant of politics and politicians I wouldn't know who to vote for anyway, which I think is better than making an uninformed decision. (and before you ask, I have tried to learn about the various candidates, but I don't understand most of what I'm reading so I usually give up.) Come the presidential election, it'll be down the same last-second decision as four years ago--go the voting thingy, sit in the both, and flip a coin: heads = don't vote at all; tails = vote for the lesser evil.
:/
I dont think he has a chance but of all the contenders I think he makes less stupid mistakes and has not yet done any major flipflops ... this morning the talking heads said that while the President is not everyone's cuppa, the contenders for his job ALL seem to be seen even more negatively.
I love him but do not think he's strong enough or organized wnough to go up against Obama's 1 billion!!
For what its worth I am amazed when people say these candidates haven't substance or are not flashy enough. Two of them are deeply religious squeaky clean gentlemen- when did that become a negative in this country? Vote for substance not a fad..See where that got some of us !!!I'd like to see those men on the ticket together !!!
I am in line with what ibeati is saying. These gentlemen believe in something, I would be glad if only politicians would be like that in Canada too.
Here's what I think about Obama; it was great, America elected him to have a black guy for the first time, and prove it is not a racist country. But okay, now that the country is wrecked, that he lied to Americans at so many things (including military), it is time for Americans to wake up and elect a real government.
Any republican that can slash taxes would be good.
Now about which one- Ron Paul, I believe he would be able to really boost the economy perhaps tackle corruption. I am not sure thought if completely removing military from all over the world would be a good thing. I think I would vote for him though if I was in America
Mitt Romney - I see him as a strong leader, with good values. Would he deploy military for an extended period of time for no good reason? that is a good question.
There will be plenty of battles and wars to be fought in the future, but I am not sure that deploying numerous costy forces around the world for no reason would be a good idea. Making bases maybe a good idea, but not sending mass troops around, and especially when you see that afghans don't seem particularly thankfull for American help
Post a Comment