Saturday, September 22, 2007

Why vote for Cthulhu?

Oh, jeez, it's started already. I found this in comments at KdT's:
The place to make your displeasure known about Rudy is in the primary, not the general. Are you folks really trying to tell me you wouldn’t vote Giuliani in the general over Hillary? WTF? How irresponsible is it to hand the war effort over like that because you’ve got a bug up your ass about “true conservatives”.
Well, Henry, that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you. This is the sad impasse your party has come to; if the best thing you can offer me on election day is the gun-grabbing mayor of NYFC or the governor of Taxachussetts, I don't see any reason not to stay home. Don't ask me your tired "Would you rather see Hillary as president instead of Rudy?" questions because the answer is that between the two, you might as well flip a coin from where I sit. This ain't a high school football game, sport; I'm not waving pompons for the guy just 'cause he's wearing the jersey.

Get that through your head: From my viewpoint, and the viewpoint of many others, in a Clinton v. Giuliani or Romney v. Obama election there would be no lesser evil. I'm not going to vote for someone who is politically opposed to everything I believe in just because there's an "R" next to his name, capiche? He is not on my team, nor am I on his.


Glenn B said...

I lived in NYC when Giuliani was a prosecutor. I still worked in NYC when he was mayor. He did a good job on many things, he is a strong leader (not just a manager); but I agree he is not in our corner at all on the right to keep and bear arms. With that said, I also have to say, I am truly surprised that if he were to make it through the primaries as the choice of the republican party, and he were to run against Hillary Clinton, you would not vote for him, but would choose to stay home. I once did something similar and I voted for Ross Perot. There was a distinct better candidate for whom to vote, and it was not Bill Clinton, but I felt a protest - akin to not voting - woas needed, so I voted third party. What a mistake I made in throwing out my vote.

I think if it comes down to either Clinton or Giuliani, you would in effect be making a huge mistake not to vote for Giuliani. He may not be pro gun rights; however, he is not pro-socialism as is Clinton. Of course, one can only hope that a candidate like Tom Tancredo would get the nod from republicans, but that is just a fancy I have. There are others who also would be much better than Giuliani, and only one worse than Clinton, but who is on the Republican ballot right now - that would be, in my opinion, Ron Paul.

All the best,
Glenn B

phlegmfatale said...

I'm dismayed that I feel this disillusioned about '08 more than a year in advance. Meh.

Anonymous said...


couldn't have said it better myself, so I'll let you say it for me.

Earl Harding

Christina RN LMT said...

I haven't voted for a while exactly for this reason.

It's like knowing in advance you're going to get a fatal disease, but you get to pick which one.

Anonymous said...

Worst case scenario, I have to believe Rudy's nominations for supreme court justices would be preferable to Hillary's.

Even if you would just as soon not bother picking between them, there are still other elections that'll be decided that day. Some of those can have a greater impact on your day to day life.


Kim du Toit said...

The prblem, Tam, is that there is a HUGE amount of difference between just about any Republican candidate and Hillary. As Anon said, there's more to a President than social- or even foreign policy: there's Supreme Court judges to nominate (and if you think that Hillary's picks would be no different to -- say -- Guiliani's, I have a NYC bridge to sell you).

Yes, RINO presidents suck -- but the difference in suckage between even a RINO and a "moderate" Democrat like Hillary is between blowjob strength (RINO) and Electrolux (Democrat).

GeorgeH said...

When it comes to guns, I think we would have a better chance with Hillary. There is a good chance we could hold together 40 senators to block gun legislation with a democrat in the whitehouse. With Rudy in the whitehouse we wouldn't have a chance.

I don't see any democrat as a real threat on middle eastern policy. Does any one else remember how long it took us to get our equipment packed up and shipped home after the first Gulf War? Over three years. And that was with an order of magnitude less equipment and without enemy opposition. There is no way the military can get themselves out of Iraq in 5 years, even if ordered to.

As a prosecutor, Rudy was happy to prosecute the Wall Street crowd, even when he knew the convictions would be overturned on appeal, for the publicity, and to punish people he didn't like with crippling legal fees. How is that different than Mike Nifong?

This will be my 10th presidential election, and it may be the first one in which I vote democrat.

AnarchAngel said...

Forget about the president; its the executive branch bureauocrats I'm worried about. Christ, the Clinton era appointees are one of the biggest problems we have in government today.

You don't vote just for the president; you're voting for the entire executive branch.

Anonymous said...

Decisions, decisions. Kim, I understand your point. However, I side with Tam.

RE: Supreme Court appointments; I'm not convinced Rudy's would be so much better than Hillary's that I'm willing to - my opinion here - squander my vote on Rudy.

Overall, I suspect too many people would decide that "well, we won - we got a Republican instead of Hillary" and go back to sleep; Hillary in the White House would ignite such a high degree of attention and opposition - damn near every gunowner would know that Hillary's primary goal is to screw them - that there's a high probability that she wouldn't get anything she wanted.

That, plus I think we're not getting out of this without some sort of revolution (a peaceful one, hopefully), and a RINO like Rudy would just postpone that day. Better to have either someone like Reagan (closest we can come is Fred) or go with the opposite pole - Hillary - and get the show on the road and get the pain over and done with.

Tam said...

I am fully convinced that if Obama switched parties tomorrow, hardline GOP bloggers would be encouraging me to vote for the guy by saying "Hold your nose and think of the Supreme Court nominations!"

Thanks, but no.

Anonymous said...

Yes, there's a point to "Voting for the (R)". Several.

Supreme Court Nominees! Can you imagine how the USSC would be if Souter, Stevens and Kennedy hadn't been nominated, instead replaced by Democratic nominees?

There are reasons to vote for the "lesser evil".

There are equally valid reasons for refusing to do so. In some cases the "less evil" candidate can do far more damage. For instance, the newly-NRA-loving Rudy! condemming those "assault weapons" mowing down police, nuns, orphans, and Girl Scouts will have much more political impact and likely penetration and effectiveness than if HilDog were to lecture the nation on the impossibility of "hunting" with a "bullet-spewer"...

Lest anyone forget, the "A"WB of 1994 was set in motion with Bush's banning of "non-sporting" imports and placing the "sporting use" as the dividing line, and into the legal lexicon of the government bureacracy.

If we, as gun owners as a bloc, want our votes to mean anything, then we've got to be willing to sit our asses at home, or vote for the other guy.

If our votes will always go to the "less evil" candidate, why would any candidate ever stand up and be "good"?
Remember, the other guy would be worse.

Anonymous said...

Tam and I are for Coolidge. The gauntlet is thrown.

"Getting out of this" will entail voting in some congresses that do something other than mail home the pork and gang up on each other like the Sharks and Jets. We probably can't bring ourselves to do that.

We have to strap down our sieg-heiling arm. The President is not supposed to make policy on gun ownership, abortion, falling bridges or leaky borders. The republic is not "run" or "led." And yet, and yet...even to get out of the condition of being led, we seek a leader. Whenever I hear that non-argument, I say "Say it in German. It rings truer."

Anonymous said...

Our gummint has unevolved into a beurocrat (however you spell it) laden mass of career politicians. Party really doesn't matter so much, but since I lean toward conservative I also lean toward Republicans.

The one candidate I keep hearing talk about smaller government, less taxes, secure borders, RKBA and by the people for the people is Fred. Sure, Fred has issues too. They all do and we all do. But so far it's Fred for me.

And BTW Tam. When the shit hits the fan and you decide you are on the right side of the Mason Dixon line, but on the wrong side of the Mississippi just let me know. I'm not that far away.


Anonymous said...

Giuliani has no chance with educated gun owners. He has never been a friend to my civil rights, and I haven't heard the first convincing argument for voting for him.
I'm not completely thrilled with Fred, but he's the best thing going as far as I can tell...
This is the first election I've seen real evidence that some candidates (or their campaign managers) have a grasp of the internet, and are trying to create memes by massive blog posts.
All that aside, I really would hope the RNC gets the message loud and clear - Nominate Rudy and you've lost my vote. I'm not about to water that message down by saying given a choice between Giuliana and Clintboma I'd go with Giuliani - because I won't.
No chance. None.

Anonymous said...

Hilary is more radically leftist than Guiliani or Romney, but they're bad enough. OTOH, the Democrats got a majority in Congress only by running candidates who are well to the right of those RINOs in many places. Hilary isn't going to get any Republican votes in Congress on anything the least bit controversial, so she'll have to compromise enough to get virtually every Democratic vote to get anything through. Guiliani would be able to get some pretty bad stuff through by getting the socialist-Democratic votes + chowderheads who'll vote for anything with a "Republican" tag on it...

If one of the RINO's takes the nomination, I'm voting for a third party. Guiliani getting what he wants is a greater evil than Hilary and gridlock - and if the Republican party is capable of nominating a Guiliani, it seriously needs to clean house, otherwise the only point of having two parties is to fight over who gets to vote themselves riches out of our taxes.

That isn't going to happen until they lose more elections. Of course, that house-cleaning is already needed badly as far as the "Republicans" in Congress go - with a Republican President, a clear majority in the House, and a split Senate, they still couldn't pass anything but pork and Medicare increases.


GreatBlueWhale said...

I’m not about making anyone do anything they don’t want to do. I make my choices and respect at least the right of others to make their own even when I don’t agree with them. So instead of saying what you should do, I’ll tell you why I’d vote for Cthulhu.
Even though I’ve never served in the military or any elected office, as an American who loves my country, I consider myself no less bound to an oath which might read,
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute my duties as a citizen of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, I hereby declare, on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." This is substantially the oath of the naturalized citizen of the United States.
As a citizen in this republic, one of my duties to preserve the Constitution is to vote for people to represent me in the government. Sometimes I’m happy to cast a vote for someone. Sometimes I’m happy to vote against someone. Sometimes I just have to suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils. However, I will be at the polls to vote on every Election Day. In my opinion, to do less is to spit on the grave or in the face of every person who has ever worn a uniform in service to our country.
Now, if you disagree with me, we can still be friends. You can stay home or vote third party: that’s your business. But practically speaking, how does that differentiate you from the lazy slobs who stay home because they can’t be bothered to figure out what’s going on, or the folks that write in Britney because, like, she’s had a hard time and could use the boost in self-esteem?
I’m not a one issue voter, and I suspect that’s true of most of you. So far, I can’t find a single issue where I agree with the Dems. I’m sure I can find at least one with any Republican candidate. That’s all I need.

Ken said...

Here's what gives me pause about a Giuliani administration. Yeah, he might beat Lady Macbeth, and he might be better on judicial nominations than any present Democrat contender...

...but he is also entirely capable of responding to an upsurge in terrorist activity in the US (a malls-and-schools strategy, say) with an "assault" weapons ban and more CCTVs on street corners. He'd peddle them as "lawn ordure" measures.

And then we'd be treated to the televised spectacle of F Troop enforcing Rudy's ban against a significant segment of the coalition that put him into office.

What do you suppose would happen in the next two or three elections after that? The long-term consequences could far outweigh the short-term gains, and I think the same is true for Mitt Romney and Johnny Goodgovernment McKeating.

Tam said...


"As a citizen in this republic, one of my duties to preserve the Constitution is to vote for people to represent me in the government."

"You can stay home or vote third party: that’s your business. But practically speaking, how does that differentiate you..."

Carefully re-examine what you just said there. Suppose neither major party candidate represents you? Is voting third party betraying something, or upholding something?

GreatBlueWhale said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GreatBlueWhale said...

Nope, voting third party isn't betraying anything, and for the most part, people who vote third party do it on high principle, voting for people who represent their views. I respect that even if I don’t agree with it. However, as a rule, third party and independent candidates don't get elected, seldom actually serving to represent anyone and seldom pulling enough votes to influence policy after the fact.

Practically speaking, with a few exceptions, the role of third party and independent candidates is at best to spoil elections. Perot, and Nader come to mind. Their second role is as ports of refuge for principle, say Ron Paul. But even Mr. Paul, a former candidate for President on the Libertarian ticket has decided to eschew the third party route, and was elected to the House and is now running for the nomination for President within the Republican Party. If Perot hadn’t melted down until he was no longer taken seriously, I believe he would have had a good shot at the Republican nomination.

And that’s why I said practically speaking. Please don’t be offended by my hyperbole. I have cast third party votes in general elections in the past, but just not anymore. Even now, in the primaries, I will readily admit to voting for candidates I don’t think have a ghost of a chance of winning (I’ve never been surprised by an unexpected victory). That is my protest/principle vote. In the general election, however, even if it comes down to two sorry candidates (and we’ve had quite too much of that since Reagan), I’ll vote for the ideal of the party, even if the candidate isn’t an exemplar, and then work from within to try to encourage and support candidates who are. I think that’s the attitude that got Mr. Paul elected to the House.

Promoting a political ideology is a process, not an event. And, sad to say, sometimes it is one step forward and two back, but that’s the description of any process that involves people. So, I’ve become more of a pragmatist when it comes to general elections. Perhaps that’s my loss.

Fletch said...

I won't vote out of fear of my party's opponent. I want to vote for someone who actually represents me.

But I'm taking it one step further, and voting for RP so the R's will know what I want.