Wednesday, January 04, 2012

The world is collapsing around my ears...

...but I voted for Rick Santorum, so I can't hear it.

Seriously, Iowa? Seriously? Y'all liked ol' Rearrange-the-Deck-Chairs Rick? Fantastic. We'll be living in yurts, warming our hands over dreary little fires of worthless dollar bills, sending our children to Chinese slave labor camps to pay the national debt, but at least them homos won't be able to get married. The guy with the gross name is more concerned about birth certificates and marriage licenses than stock certificates and business licenses.

In second place we have Obama with an only slightly worse tan. If you vote for Obama, you're voting for a guy who hates guns and loves socialized medicine, whereas if you vote for Romney, you're voting for a guy who loves socialized medicine and hates guns.

In third place, we have the guy who is rapidly becoming the most, if not only, palatable GOP candidate to me, which says more about the rest of the field than it does about Ron Paul. At least his campaign seems to revolve around laws he wants to see repealed rather than ones he wants to see passed. People are yelling that he wants to dismantle the federal government and pull all our troops back to a defensive posture (as though these are bad things) but we're only voting for president here, not priest-king. He's not going to be able to unilaterally do a lot of the things people are afraid he will.

A president can want a lot of stuff, but is lucky to see a tiny fraction of his wishes come true. At least I can find a tiny fraction of Ron's dreams that I wouldn't mind seeing come true myself. We've had both the Legislative and Executive branches pulling on the same end of the rope in the game of Government Growth Tug-o'-War for almost a quarter century. Why not let one guy pull on the other end for a couple years and see what happens? I doubt it'll make much of a difference, but let's at least try flapping our arms a little before we hit bottom. What can it hurt?

C'mon, y'all; let the wookie win.

49 comments:

Nathaniel said...

Amen.

Frank W. James said...

If you factor 'money spent' as fuel burned, the Republican Obama isn't getting very good mileage. Me thinks there are a large of people like myself who see little difference between him and President Unicorn.

As you said, Paul is the only one addressing the issues that need to be addressed. Eliminating a number of federal agencies would free up the budget and put some cash in Uncle's savings account, but I digress...

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Bram said...

You are absolutely thinking the same way I am. I imagined that I would consider voting for Ron Paul - then the GOP went and fielded a pack of losers out of which he is the best choice.

I am also amazed that people think every campaign promise from a candidate will become federal law on inauguration day. Obama didn't break them of this belief?

Anonymous said...

My rights are not violated because homos can't marry. This is a non-issue and shouldn't even see the light of day considering the other problems America has on its plate

Gudis said...

Am I the only one who gets grossed out when they talk about santorum on the radio? What two Iowans do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business, but I really don't want to hear about it on the drive to work.

Joseph said...

In third place, we have the guy who is rapidly becoming the most, if not only, palatable GOP candidate to me, which says more about the rest of the field than it does about Ron Paul. Pardon me, but tru dat!

At least Ron has read the constitution and seemingly would attempt to take the brick off the debt accelerator. I concur with your endorsement even though I don't agree with some of what Ron has to say.

the pawnbroker said...

But...Ricky heard you when you said: "...I'll start voting for the first candidate to promise to bomb you people (Allah-dins) forward into the stone age on general principles."

And the snark that got you linked at Insty's was to him a ticket to the Big Chair: "A Short Victorious War".

And now you've abandoned him for the wookie. That may be because you see that his path to less is more when it comes to gov intrusion, but he'll probably think it's just because he looks too much like Steve Carell.

But I too am down with the wook. We could certainly do better, but more importantly we could, and seem determined to, do a lot worse.

Win, wookie, win!

perlhaqr said...

I doubt it'll make much of a difference, but let's at least try flapping our arms a little before we hit bottom.

Heh. QFT.

Jeffrey Quick said...

"Am I the only one who gets grossed out when they talk about santorum on the radio? "

I get grossed out when they talk about santorum anywhere. Mr. Santorum, OTOH, isn't nearly so gross as to deserve what Dan Savage did to him.

As for Ron Paul, given the attempts of the conservative blogosphere to turn him into a nonperson, I would vote for him out of spite even if I didn't agree with most of his positions.

Stuart the Viking said...

I WILL NOT cast a vote for the "white obama" (Romney for those of you who aren't paying attention). What would be the point? Ron Paul, on the other hand, while I dislike him, I would crawl out of my cave and throw a vote his way if only to stir the shit pot that is the US economy. SOMETHING has to.

Anonymous: "My rights are not violated because homos can't marry. This is a non-issue and shouldn't even see the light of day considering the other problems America has on its plate"

Anonymous, whoever you are, you are a selfish prick. When liberty is denied, even when it does not effect you personally, the light of liberty shines less brightly for all. (this coming from a strait guy who doesn't even currently have any friends who are gay)

s

Boat Guy said...

I'm hardly impressed, in fact increasingly de-pressed, at the GOP "field". I'll wait to see who emerges from the convention, though. If it's Romney or Gingrich I'll just not bother to send my "Recommendation" to my state Electors.
Paul's "foreign policy" such as it is is far more isolationist than "defensive", unless I hear more lucid comments from him in this regard, I can't bother with him - not that my support or lack thereof will matter much.
I'm far less worried about Santorum's domestic agenda than having either of the Obamas in charge.

rickn8or said...

Don't try to read too much into this; after all, last time around Mike Huckabee was The Fair-Haired Boy.

Pol Mordreth said...

@Stuart, It's not a liberty issue at all. There isn't anywhere in the US that gay marriage is illegal. Anyone can get married to anyone anywhere in the US. Full stop.

What is being argued about now is whether or not to extend the federal subsidies to them. That is all.

Regards,
Pol

Mike said...

It’s like you show up in the emergency room with an appendicitis and Doctor Bar-bar tells you not to worry because the aroma therapist will take care of it, Doctor Mitt says it will require a sweat lodge, Doctors Rick (Santorum and Perry) will lay hands on you and use the Jesus, Doctor Newt orders you to just walk it off, and the only one who is talking about surgery is covered in feces, stinks of cheap booze, and is wearing a propeller beanie.

Maybe he is nuts, maybe he isn't, at least he's naming the problem, and that is more than anybody else is doing.

Bob said...

Even Santorum's nephew wants the Wookie to win, which says something about both the Wookie and about Santorum.

I looked at Paul back in 2008 and liked what I saw, even though I supported Thompson and McCain back then. Now, here at the very start of the primary process, we have a chance to actually make a difference and not let the RINO (Romney) get enough momentum to become inevitable.

Let the Wookie win, indeed. Ron Paul for President!

Anonymous said...

@pol: Being free to marry in a state that doesn't recognize it is like being free to drive without a license as long as you stay on your own property. Marriage, as commonly understood, is a social institution that includes legal rights and responsibilities. Marriage without those rights and responsibilities is not equal.

I'd be in favor of governments getting out of the marriage business. The legal entity would be a civil union, with contractual rights and obligations, that any two competent adults could enter into. Marriage would be a private/religious matter with no legal bearing.

Desertrat said...

The Wookie is the only one who seems to have a handle on the money thing, beside which most everything else pales to near-insignificance--even Iran. (Well, okay, he's spot-on about Police State stuff.) Wasting psychic energy on gay rights and other such trivia is pointless.

At the rate the present gang of Fearless Leaders are going, the new national sport will be Dumpster Diving.

Ed Foster said...

Seeing as how the Anointed One is almost a shoo-in for reelection, I was wondering who to give my protest vote to. There is no way I could ever vote for Plastic Mitt, and Santorum is the John McCain of this election.

Despite the admonitions of several Tea Party friends, I held my nose and voted for McCain as the lesser of two weevils. I suspect Santorum still is.

But I'm thinking now that perhaps I was wrong, and should have made that protest vote. It might have shaken up the doddering dodoes who control the Republican Party just a bit.

While I agree with every single word Ron Paul has ever said about our domestic mess, I regard him as a complete, over-the-top nutter, as like it or not, we are the world's policeman, and the badguys are being encouraged daily by the inconsistencies of the Wimp-In-Charge.

And easily blackmailed Obama has rolled over and spread them for everyy penny the Pentagon wants. As POTUS, Paul would be Obama Lite (I shudder at the magnitude of that statement), making the situation dramatically worse.

The President is Commander-In-Chief of the military, it's his primary job, and Paul's ability to monkey with the works, or throw a monkey wrench into said works, would be virtually uncontrollable.

Still, since he's esentially unelectable, if he gets the nomination I'll give him my vote.

If not, there's always an option for a Mickey Mouse write-in, argueably the best candidate of a sorry lot.

I do want to see a Republican sweep in Congress, as that way our economy will go over the cliff at the legal speed limit, rather than the present 110 miles an hour on bald tires.

The cliff is inevitable, as nobody can make the changes necessary and stay in office.

But I don't want to get driven into a tree several years short of said cliff. Every extra day above ground is a winner.

On the gay thing, full points to Anonymous 10:38 a.m.

I have a nephew who is a totally disfunctional individual, a discrete sociopath who couldn't make a living or probably even tie his shoes without his mother around. Essentially he traded his body for a variety of social acceptance, albeit from an overtly "gay" society that defines disfunction more succinctly than any other word in the English language except murder.

If you think that opinion is a trifle extreme, take a stroll up along the northern end of Commerce Street in Provincetown Mass some summer day and watch the boardinghouse commandoes shrieking challenges at each other from sunrise until two in the morning.

They are all dieing of AIDS, and are desperate for every bit of simple pleasure, every chance to infect someone else and have company in their misery.

I also have a cousin who is a sweet and cultured lady, an exceptional teacher and giving person who can always be depended on, regardless of the time or cost. She and her wife have a stable and loving relationship, and don't bother anybody. What happens between them in the privacy of their own home doesn't raise my taxes or make my life less safe.

I don't think a law could be written that might cover the distance between the two of them, so let's just write no laws. If two people want to sign a mutually binding life contract in private, it's not my business or anybody else's.

Anonymous said...

To think that I would live in a time where the raving Wookie-tic is making the most sense is deeply disconcerting.

Shootin' Buddy

DirtCrashr said...

With Obama's ballot-stuffing DOJ and Teh-Mediaz on hand to ensure the outcome, go ahead and vote for whomever you want - it won't matter.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul, some of his kookier opinions aside, is the only candidate running for president who believes that there ought to be some kind of evidence and due process before the president declares me a terrorist and has me offed or thrown in a prison camp forever.

End of debate. Paul gets my vote.

It's a pretty damn low bar, but if nobody else believes in the rule of law, he's the choice by default.

And, BTW, quitting the business of fighting a damn war up everybody else's buttcrack is not one of Paul's opinions I find the slightest bit goofy. Minimally, our troops sent into harm's way deserve some kind of coherent mission and purpose to their fighting. Under the Bush-Obama regime, that's been sorely lacking.

Alath

Stuart the Viking said...

@Pol, Anonymous 10:38 basically covered it.

+1 and all that.

I think the first place where you miss the point is where you seem to equate liberty with something being constitutional. While those two data sets share some values, they do not have the same definition (note how slavery, which makes a total mockery of individual liberty) was once constitutional).

s

Pol Mordreth said...

@Stuart, No, I equate liberty with being free to act and being free from gov't interference. Currently gays can marry, and there is no government interference. Therefore, they have as much (or greater) liberty than straights. They do not get a package of tax incentives and (essentially worthless) legal statuses (worthless because they do not survive legal challenges without other supporting legal documents that cost money to have a lawyer draw up).

@Anonymous, I agree that the gov needs to get out of the business of sanctioning marriage. A straight up civ union contract that anyone who cohabitates and co-mingles finances can take advantage of, no romantic relationship implied or required, for the sole purpose protecting both parties property interests in event they dissolve their union.

Don M said...

Ron Paul was my representative when I lived in Texas.

For the rubes, he made a big deal that he never voted for an earmark for his district. Of course he made deals to put his district earmarks onto safe legislation, and he would then vote against it.

His personal investments are in gold. I figure, for him, the ideal situation is people sitting around inadequate fires burning dollar bills. At that point, he would say 'I told ya so.'

Why the federal reserve? Why paper money? To expand the money supply. Why is money supply expanded? Because when money supply contracts, the prices of everything go down. Think of every gun store trying to sell guns they bought at 500$, and being unable to, while new guns are being offered for 300$. The price signals are all wrong. The consumer thinks, I should wait a year and the price will go down to 200$. Retailers go out of business. Employees are laid off.

So with Crazy Ron, we would still have a Federal Reserve, and its head would be Vladimir Putin. Sure, that will work out well.

Stuart the Viking said...

@Pol: Your argument is that gay marriage is MORE free? Yea, like being free from that pesky bit where you have to make hard medical decisions for your mate when he/she is sick; or in more extreme cases, the freedom to visit your sick mate in the hospital at all? Free from being able to benefit from pention and social security benefits? Free from being able to benefit from insurance benefits?

Liberty also implies equal treatment. Recognising non-gay marriage while not recognising gay marriage is not equal treatment.

The tone of your arguments are familiar, they sound just like the arguments against extending liberty to oppressed groups throughout history. I do, however, commend you for not stooping so low as to argue that gays don't deserve liberty because they are not fully human beings.

s

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. Nearly* all the good Wookieness of Ron Paul, without the nuttiness.

And maybe a good sized flock of people "defecting" to the Libertarian Party will be enough to give the Republicans the whack upside the head with a clue-by-four that they so desperately need.

* I dislike his stance on abortion. But I also realize that the topic is essentially dead from a legal standpoint, and his stance is probably the most practical balance from a political viewpoint. I can live with it as part of the package given his other positions.

Brock Townsend said...

Ron Paul 2008 & 2012.

Anonymous said...

As for me, I'm going for Pat Paulsen. The rest of the can go to hell.

Anonymous said...

+1 Shooting Buddy

It's as bad as voting for Jessie Ventura for govenor. You almost want to see the look on everyone face the day after the election until you realize your stuck with the nut job too.

Gerry

Pol Mordreth said...

Stuart: First, a bit of background. I became ordained in 1999 to officiate at the wedding of two lesbian friends of mine. At that time in SC I could have been arrested for doing so. Since then I have been the officiant at half a dozen gay weddings. So you can can the holier than thou arguements.

Now to your other points. More free? In some ways. You don't have to get permission from the state, pay a tax, and then register your marriage with the state after its completion. Pensions? That is a matter between you and your employer. More and more employers are extending what little pension benefits are still offered, and as an employee you are free to go somewhere that provides that if that benefit is important to you. Insurance? thats totally private, and between you and your employer and insurance carrier. If you don't like what your employer offers, get private insurance. (and before you start on about cost, I saved around 400 a month switching to private insurance from my company's group plan... its actually cheaper for the vast majority of the population)

Maybe I have been fortunate enough to work for hospitals that didn't have an issue with same sex spouses making medical decisions. Does it happen? sure. Is it common? not really, and is getting less common every year. Again, its a private business not a gov policy. And when it does happen it's usually because a family member got a court order challenging the decision, and this can happen to you whether you are gay or straight. The Schiavo case anyone?

Stuart the Viking said...

Pol: Does the federal government recognise those marriages? No. Do they recieve treatment from the federal government equal to "strait" marriages? No. It is a dubious liberty that does not include equality.

On that I rest my case.

We do agree that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether though, I have been saying that for many years.

s

OtherWhiteMatt said...

There's nothing kooky about Ron's foreign policy beliefs- since they follow exactly with what the Founders wanted. We don't need to be the worlds policemen when we can't even police ourselves. It just ends in dead bodies and lots of hate.

Don M- About the earmarks. While the money was going to unconstitutional things, he knew they would pass, so why not try to get some of his constituents money back if he can? I never understood what was wrong with that.

And wow you have a backwards view of money supply. The problem is that every time the money supply increases, dollars lose their value. So there will need to be a contraction to restore the proper value. It will stabilize, and then we won't have things like the housing bubble, or any other recession or depression- those things are the result of paper money. That's why nobody remembers the depression of the early 1920's- it was so insignificant because the Federal Reserve didn't increase the money supply.

I'm all for Ron Paul, because he will never do anything that he said he wouldn't. Unlike all the others, who just want to be elected.

Carolyn said...

Good expression of the widespread, deeply seated frustration over our choices across Conservaland. Thanks.

As far as Santorum's "gross name" goes, the gross definition was made up gay journalist Dan Savage in 2003 because he was irritated by Santorum's socially conservative stance on marriage and family. He created the definition, and created and publicized a website that trumpeted the made-up definition: libel, pure and simple.

Here's the whole story: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/172069/how-is-rick-santorums-google-bomb-holding-up-now-that-hes-surging-in-the-polls/

Whether Santorum is your guy or not (he's not mine) let's not play into Dan Savage's hands by giving free publicity to his attempt to destroy this man's good name.

Tamara (remotely) said...

Carolyn,

"As far as Santorum's "gross name" goes..."

Yes. I was making a joke.

"...attempt to destroy this man's good name."

From where I sit, that's something of an isometric exercise anyway.

LabRat said...

It wasn't just Santorum's "stance on marriage and family", it was specifically comparing repealing sodomy laws to allowing incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.

I don't care much for a lot of what Savage does, but he did not start the flinging of nasty names and associations in that particular tango. Santorum did.

Jennifer said...

Ouch! So true and so very depressing

Kevin said...

Anybody want a bumper sticker?

Ken said...

I'm down with the wookie. My bowcaster is clean and my conscience is clear.

Ken said...

PS -- everything is shiny, and I aim to misbehave. :-)

Bubblehead Les. said...

I'm waiting for the Ohio Primary so I can hold my nose and vote for one of what's left of the Pack, then I'm only paying attention if any of these Pols show up and disrupt my local traffic schedule. Then, come November, I'll vote against Obama. In between, I ain't giving myself anymore ulcers. There's enough Scary Stuff happening overseas with the Persians, the House of Kim, the EU Socialists sucking up more cash to keep their failed economies going right into the dumpster, etc. for me to worry about which Republitard is best.

John A said...

Rand Paul, maybe. But Ron? The guy who endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008? Being a sore loser over not getting the nomination, well maybe in private (or joking in public about endorsing Ralph Nader - oh wait, he did endorse Ralh as well as Cynthia...) but not for real. Unless you switch parties, like Regan.

Not that I would vote for or even minimally support LIttle Lizard.

Mittens, Santa - hmmm.

Buzz said...

When comments on blogs like this degrade into argument over social issues, the battle to unseat the usurper-in-chief has been officially lost.

Our national focus must be laser sharp on restoring this constitutional republic. Leave the social crap to state governments.

Anonymous said...

A Wookie will pull people's arms out of their sockets.

Paul ain't no Wookie. Not by a long shot.

BoxStockRacer

Anonymous said...

@LabRat,

I don't agree with Santorum's obsession with homosexuality either, but if we're going to specify exactly why we're mad at the guy, let's be accurate about it. He didn't compare the repeal of sodomy laws to pedophilia or bestiality, at least that I remember. The comparison that I remember - and the one documented in your link - was to adult incest, adultery, and polygamy.

Again to be accurate in representing what he said, remember this was a response to the Supreme Court case in which it was argued that any sexual activity between consenting adults should be constitutionally protected.

Santorum's point was that this standard could equally well be applied to adult incest, adultery, and polygamy. In other words, he's saying this argument is wrong because the standard would also protect these other things, all of which we are supposedly better off for having criminalized.

I do think he's correct that the standard "any sexual activity between consenting adults" does cover incest, adultery, and polygamy. Where I differ from Santorum is that I do actually think the standard is legitimate and should apply to polygamy and adultery. Although I don't myself practice either of these, or think they're a good idea, I don't either think the government has any business prosecuting them as crimes. I have to admit I'm not totally consistent in applying this standard, because I'm not willing to extend constitutional protection to adult incest. Yeah, I know I said I agreed with the standard, and yeah, the standard does apply, but... just... yuck.

The version you attributed to Santorum is similar to Dan Savage's misrepresentation. Again, no fan of Santorum or his views here, but I don't see the point of misrepresenting someone I disagree with. If I disagree, I'll disagree with what they actually said.

Alath
Carmel IN

LabRat said...

Fair enough, though if you parse the exact quote he does bring up both pedophilia and bestiality one line down, conceding that homosexuality is apparently not quite as bad as either.

The thing is, though, people tend to get rightfully irked when you go out of your way to make a point about one thing by categorizing it with a bunch of other things that are either clearly wrong or merely disgusting. I could make an argument about the persuasive power of institutions and social in-groups that included the Penn State football program, the Branch Davidians, the Khmer Rouge, and the Southern Baptist convention that would have Baptists quite justifiably annoyed with me even if all I were exactly saying was that they were/are all institutions and they all use similar basic methods of obtaining unity.

Santorum's also rung the 9/11 bell talking about gay marriage. He's not doing this by accident and being maligned later by the mean ol' gay agenda.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I get your point about lumping together-ery. Like, "People one encounters on the internet, like LabRat and Mall Ninjas." Yeah, I encountered both on the internet, but they're not exactly equivalent.

I do agree that Santorum's brand of GOP-ness - the so-called social conservatives - is not what we need. Almost ironic, in that I am in my personal life about as socially conservative as one can get - but I recognize that having the government impose my lifestyle on others is highly undesirable.

And, yeah, that 9-11 comment is just... yeah. Right. Gays wanting to get married is just like nutjobs blowing up with WTC and Pentagon.

As depressing as the social purity movement is, I find the Secret Police Security State movement even worse. Partly because it's so vehemently embraced by both parties, limiting the options to vote against it to kook fringe-y third parties. Also, because a properly toothless goverment couldn't do much harm to gays, even with Santorum in charge. The kind of government our two major parties are cobbling up is a threat to everyone.

atlharp said...

I have been following politics since the days when Mondale did his kamikaze attack against Reagan and I have to say that in a time when we really need someone competent we are constantly being handed either RINO sell-outs or the hand wringers from a church picnic! I have no stomach for any of them except for Ron Paul. Trust me, I tried! but they are all a bunch of useless clowns who seem to think that some band aids and chicken soup for the soul will be the thing that remedies this situation. Ron Paul seems to be the only one with the gumption to say what needs to be said about all of this. Whether if it's welfare entitlement spending or fantastic military adventures around the world; we are slowly killing ourselves. It's not that Ron Paul would be the best person for President, but he seems to be only the only one with some semblance of a clue about what we are gonna be facing very soon. The future should never be viewed with dread, not in America, but I dread our future in the hands of all of them.

Anonymous said...

Here's a little help for those of you thinking "Iowa?!?!? WTF?!?!"

There are two main factions to the Republican party in Iowa - one, the fiscal conservatives, the other, the social conservatives.

The fiscal conservative vote last time around was split between Romney and McCain. I know. I know. They're both socialists but it's the best the GOP has put forth so the fiscal conservatives vote for their party's man.

The social conservatives are basically Evangelicals who - as Tam said - are worried about birth and marriage certificates. They are grossed out by icky gay sex so they'll vote for whoever promises to put those icky gays back in their closet where we can ignore them. These are the people who voted for Santorum.

The oddball this year was Dr. Paul. He drew in a lot of independents. Those independents and the fiscal conservatives who realize that Romney is other Obama with a worse tan are the third that went to Dr. Paul.

I find it interesting that the media always talks about Romney and Santorum but fails to mention Dr. Paul considering these three were within a percentage point or two.

To me, this was a three way tie.

One group is voting for the "Most likely to beat Obama" yet forgetting that he's just like Obama anyway.

Another group is voting for the "Most unlike Obama and guy who's going to put away those icky gay people."

The third group is voting for smaller government, fiscal responsibility and the hope of a better future for our children.

The Iowa caucus wasn't so much about who was running but rather what's on the minds of voters and what's important to them.

Larry said...

Can't do it. Guess I'll sit this one out and just go out to support the down-ticket candidates.