Saturday, February 11, 2012

And they say your vote doesn't count...

So at the Fun Show in January, the state Republican organization had folks wandering around with clipboards, trying to get signatures for Gingrich and Santorum and others, to get them on the state ballot for the primaries. The Paulbots had a table full of clipboards, where I stopped to sign to get Captain Wookie into the lists, because there's just not enough crazy in American politics these days.

I gave the roving clipboardteers the cold shoulder.

"Ma'am! Would you like to sign a petition?"

"For...?"

"To get Rick Santorum on the ballot in the state of Indiana?"

"Not bloody likely!"
I noted with amusement that one of the guys lugging a Gingrich clipboard for the GOP was actually wearing a Paul button...

I woke up this morning to the news that


because he came up eight signatures short in the 7th District... Roseholme Cottage's district. I just checked, and Bobbi didn't sign any Santorum petitions at the show, either, so that accounts for 25% of the reason Santorum may have to sit the Hoosier primary out right there. And they say your vote doesn't count...

27 comments:

Divemedic said...

That's great.

Bob said...

Bravo Zulu, Tam.

wv: roons. As in, that roons Santorum's chances in Indiana.

Old Windways said...

While that may not have restored my faith in our political system, it certainly brought a smile to my face this morning.

Good on you!

Weer'd Beard said...

Wow that's an even better feeling than when I told the Scot Brown worker I was voting for the Moonbat because I couldn't tell the damn difference.

She just sounded sad and surprised.

This is the BIG payout!

greg said...

Outstanding. I'll admit that up to a week ago, I didn't know much more about Santorum than he wasn't Crazy like Dr. Paul, and his name wasn't Romney. Then I did a little research, and I think in the old 'top two' primaries Washington ran I would vote for Romney...

Still can't see me voting for him in the General Election though.

atlharp said...

Santorum will just blame it on gay marriage. LOL!

perlhaqr said...

*high fives*

------

atlharp: And Santorum might even be partially correct, though it's probably more accurate to say it's his position on gay marriage...

Jim said...

Nice of you Hoosiers to try to rectify Iowa error.

OT: Please check your email.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

"Reinstating the ant-buggery laws will turn the economy around!"

Stranger said...

That reminds me of 1948, when I worked like a dog hanging posters for the Truman campaign. At times I though I had hit every telephone pole in Chicago.

After the results were in it became public that one more Dewey vote in half of Chicago's precincts would have made the crime fighter from New York President. And changed history.

For better or worse, I cannot say.

Stranger

the pawnbroker said...

"...there's just not enough crazy in American politics these days."

Although your gleeful non-vote would indicate only subjectively selective crazy qualifies?

wv: impti...The list of 'pub candidates is impti of constitutionally-guided conservatives.

Drang said...

Good for you. Th more I learn about Santorum the more likely I am not to vote for President. I fear he'd be the President all the barking moonbats think Sarah Palin would be. (Even though her track rec0ord as Governor says otherwise.)

Ken said...

What, no visit from the "But you GOTTA line up behind Slick Willard, or we're all DOOMED! DOOOOOOOOMED, I TELL YOU!!! AND IT WILL BE ALL! YOUR! FAULT!!!!leventy!" brigade? What a letdown.

Still voting for the wookie in the primary and the general, though I'm listening to overtures from Sweet Meteor of Death, Kobayashi Maru, and Cthulhu.

Roberta X said...

NJT: "'Reinstating the ant-buggery laws will turn the economy around!'"

While I am generally not a fan of any law not of the malum in se sort, if ant-buggery has not already been outlawed, it prolly should be. Ew.

Fiftycal said...

Uh huh. And I guess you want MITTENS to run against ObamMAO? Gee, I'd rather have GUN RIGHTS than the government issued "right" to marry my dog. BTW, I think MITTENS would appoint the same judges ObamMAO would.

The Scribbler said...

Always nice to know that you actually are capable of making a difference. My initial impressions of Santorum were positive, but that's taken a nose dive ever since. It's disappointing.

Tam said...

Fiftycal,

While I appreciate your devotion to Senator Santorum, I don't think anybody who can't even come up with enough organization to get on a damn ballot is in any danger of winning a general election.

Tam said...

Fiftycal,

"BTW, I think MITTENS would appoint the same judges ObamMAO would."

Damn skippy, which is why I wouldn't vote for Romney on a bet.

Divemedic said...

Fiftycal: "Gee, I'd rather have GUN RIGHTS than the government issued "right" to marry my dog."

Big difference between saying that the government shouldn't get to decide who marries whom and condoning people marrying animals.

You are using the same logic as the gun banners: "If you are against common sense gun laws, you must want criminals to own guns." Same logical disconnect.

I won't vote for Santorum because I don't want religious zealot telling me what to do. I won't vote for Romney because I don't want a Liberal in the Whitehouse being supported by a Republican Congress simply because he is a Republican.

Why can't the Republicans nominate someone other than a Religious zealot or a liberal? Is this really the best that they have to offer?

Kristopher said...

Divemedic:

You get two classes of candidates from a political party: Professional politicians, and people supported by interest groups.

Pro-liberty folks keep failing to get involved much in politics, so we get an endless stream of religious candidates and professional politicians from the republican party.

Don't like it? Then ya should have been involved quite some time ago.

There is no "they". There are only people who choose to get involved.

Fiftycal said...

Well, the upshot of waiting for Eisenhower or Lincoln or whomever to be resurrected into the present day will result in Obammao getting another 4 years to shit on this country. Mittens may or may not be different. Newt, Santorum, hell even Ron Paul would be "less evil". Now I know the puritans in the "conservative" class can ONLY vote for the "pure" non-evil. But this isn't about perfection. It's about the CHOICES we have. And keeping Santorum off the ballot becuz of a, b, c is restricting the CHOICE we WILL end up with. If that is your goal, to get Obammao another 4 years cuz you think that 4 years from now people will be so fed up with socialism and (your perfect candidate) suddenly materializes, then you may be very sad. 4 more years of Obammao and there may not BE ANY MORE ELECTIONS!

Tam said...

Fiftycal,

Gosh, I've never heard any of that before.

#1) I refuse to engage in political discussion with anybody who does that third-grade playground name-calling of "ObamMAO" or "Bushitler" or any of that stuff. Is it too much to ask people to write in plain English? It's annoying to have to run people's posts through my Little Orphan Annie Partisan Decoder Rings (one on the Left hand and one on the Right: don't get them mixed up!) to get any sense out of it.

#2) There was a petition being circulated that I should sign if I wanted Santorum on the ballot. I did not sign it, because I do not want Santorum on the ballot, and I will not lie and say I do. There was not a petition circulating asking if I wanted Santorum in Hell, but I would have signed it if there were. I'm glad you have a strong preference 'tween the two, but were an imaginary Obama and Santorum crossing the street ahead of my, I'd do my best to go for the 7-10 split.

Patrick said...

Is it me, or does Santorum spend way more time getting sweaty over gay sex than any straight man should...?

Just Sayin'.

If history and irony are in abundance, I see a press conference and a tearful apology for "letting down my God, my family and my supporters" somewhere in Santorum's future.

And the dude has a slight "Google Problem".

Wes said...

Mitt: NDAA, TARP, gun grabber
Newt: Patriot Act, gun controller
Rick: Patriot Act, TSA, bedroom enforcer
Paul: champion of the Constitution

Wes said...

Ron Paul:
takes the Constitution seriously
never voted for a tax increase
never voted for an unbalanced budget
never voted to raise congressional pay
never voted to raise the debt ceiling
against TARP
against Patriot Act
against NDAA
against TSA
wants to audit the Fed
wants to cut spending
wants to balance the budget in 3 years
wants to defend America's borders
no amnesty
most pro-gun candidate
gets more donations from active-duty military than all other candidates combined

omg he's crazy!

Fiftycal said...

Gee, I didn't know you were a ronulan, oh, sorry, let me put it in PLAIN ENGLISH, a supporter of Ron Paul. Is your "plan" that by wasting your vote on R. Paul and helping get Barack Hussein Obama get another term that things will be so out of control by 2016 that the magic saviour will appear (Rand Paul) and bring the country back from the brink?

If you have to chose between 2 evils (and you do), why would you CHOSE the greater evil?

Rich Hailey said...

Hmmm.
More choices = better.
Fewer choices = worse.

Putting a candidate on a ballot is not the same as voting for him. On the other hand, deliberately working to keep him off the ballot so others can't vote for him is, well, suspect.

Let's play a little game. Which of the following statements is not like the other?

I can't vote for Paul because his foreign policy will get us all killed.

I can't vote for Santorum because he's not on the ballot.

I can't vote for Gingrich because he has big government tendencies that I don't like.

I can't vote for Romney because he's too similar to the guy in the White House right now.

Ironically, Obama won his first election be challenging petition signatures and removing every other opponent from the ballot. Looks like that strategy is still working for him.