Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Quandary.

Which one more effectively delivers the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" message: Voting for already-bailed Thompson or for not-a-snowball's-chance-in-hell Paul?
Posted by @
Labels: ,

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Depends. Are you mad as in crazy (that would be Paul), or mad as in pissed off (Thompson's your man then)?

1:44 PM, February 05, 2008
Tam said...

I have to admit that Paul's lack of a "Kill the Terrorists" plank is my main bone of contention with the guy. That, and he's kinda vague on "Punch the Hippies", too. Other than those sticking points, he's more or less my kinda crazy.

Thompson has the big advantage of being out of the race, and therefore can't get elected and spoil my image of him.

1:54 PM, February 05, 2008
breda said...

always, always vote to punch the hippies. srsly.

2:14 PM, February 05, 2008
staghounds said...

It's TENNESSEE, no one will notice. Jeff Davis and FDR still poll about three per cent between them.

Seriously, a vote for ABT won't be noticed, I think- lots of early/absentee votes were filed before he quit, weren't they? Also it's his home state.


I think Paul would kill terrorists, but not by occupying angry foreign countries and trying to make them different. More of a DME/Tomahawk/SEAL team approach.

2:24 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Better yet: express your frustration by punching hippies as they exit the polls.

2:25 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Tam,
As I recall, Paul voted to go slaughter the terrorists in Ashcanistan. THough he has not been supportive of Shrub II's decision to refight his daddy's war.

I guess I see Paul's policy as: If someone hits you, deck them, if it's just some small dicked crazy paraplegic talking about kicking your ass, smile, nod, and go on about your business.

Admittedly, I thought of Thompson as the same as the rest but with better writers and a better suit.

2:28 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

'I have to admit that Paul's lack of a "Kill the Terrorists" plank is my main bone of contention with the guy.'

I dunno. Paul has always struck me as (to paraphrase someone who I can't recall so as to give proper credit) a 'rubble don't make trouble' kinda guy

-SayUncle

2:36 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

I couldn't vote since Florida is a "Invited Guests Only" type of state (party restricted) and I'm not registered with anything, but I'd have been in the same problem.

But, like when I hit the real polls, if Ron is running, he gets my vote. I don't agree with his foreign policy, but then again I agree with so much less with the other schmucks, it's irrelevant.

If Ron ain't running, I'm writing in Fred. So, I'd suggest you give Ron your vote and encourage him. He won't win, but neither will Fred.

2:53 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Here, Tam. Just for you

2:58 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Seeing as how Thompson's a neo-con and would be more of the same, I'd say go with Paul. Contrary to popular belief, Paul would just like Congress to actually issue a declaration of war...you know, like in that Constitution thing.

3:02 PM, February 05, 2008
Tam said...

Boy, "neocon" has become as completely f___ing devoid of meaning as "fascist" and "commie", hasn't it?

3:07 PM, February 05, 2008
Matt G said...

I'm lately thinking Ron Paul. At least he'll make a splash on the radar. (Not much of one, but hey, it's a start.)

In the winner-take-all electoral college system, it's so damned frustrating. I'd like to see some EC votes go Paul.

Tam, I'm actually willing to do without a "Kill The Terrorists" plank. That's not a plank-- that's just SOP in any good administration. Like: Defend the Constitution-- it's implied in the oath.

When we make it a plank, we get all obsessed with our Wars On Nouns.

In this time of desperate need for a true third party, where is our T.R.?

3:32 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Tam said...
Boy, "neocon" has become as completely f___ing devoid of meaning as "fascist" and "commie", hasn't it?

3:07 PM, February 05, 2008

Not really, unless "pretend conservative" is devoid of meaning. And I thought you were a Libertarian?

3:52 PM, February 05, 2008
Yosemite Sam said...

No OA, contrary to your usage, NeoCon has a specific meaning, to wit, former Leftists who decided that the U.S. should use military might to expand democracy throughout the world. There was no place for their beliefs in the Democratic Party, so they became Republicans. Fred Thompson, to the best of my knowledge, has never been a Leftist and I suspect that his support for the Iraq war is for other reasons besides spreading Democracy. Thus he is not a NeoCon.

Words mean things.

4:30 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

She's more of a librarian, considering how many books she reads.

4:32 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Paul. His foreign policy is iffy, but if we lose the war at home, game over. (Besides, Thompson is a quitter.)

4:33 PM, February 05, 2008
Brian J. said...

I colored the little circle in for Thompson here in Missouri. On a paper ballot, too, so in case they have any questions or think I might have been confused.

Perhaps I should have underlined it, too.

4:34 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Yosemite Sam said...
Words mean things.

4:30 PM, February 05, 2008

Oh look, cutesy condescension on the internet. How quaint.

Look up Fred's entire record. He might not be blood kin to them, but he shares some of the same ideals. But hey, if you want play the "words have one strict meaning" game, have at it. I concede the point.

Honestly now, does anyone think Fred Thompson the politician (sorry folks, just because he played a part in a movie or teevee show you like doesn't mean he'd morph into that kind of president) would fight tooth and claw with a democratic congress for actual conservative ideals? Kind of, sort of conservative ideals? Hell, just stopped runaway government spending, cancerous growth, and nanny statism? My god, the man half-assed his campaign and quit the race before it was through turn one. Might as well give him Bush's rubber stamp...

5:34 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

OK, this will probably get me banned, or at least stoned (the kind with rocks, thank you very much) but I am still going for Huckabee. The ONLY candidate who is both rock-solid on the Second amendment, and for replacing the income tax with the Fair Tax. No, he can't win, but this is on principle!

harryk9

6:26 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Sadly, "delivering the message" is not paid any attention. The only message that counts is that nobody but the winner gets to implement policy. So, tonight I'm off to the Colorado carcases, where the [stealmeme]legions of the dense[/stealmeme] get to pick the contenders for [stealmeme]prancing prats on the Potomac[/stealmeme].

Whatever. Maybe I'm just not good with Tuesdays.

6:36 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Ron Paul all the way.
Only one who's even kinda serious about shrinking the fed down to something manageable.

6:46 PM, February 05, 2008
New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

One of two guys will win, but you dislike both of them. Equally bad primary choices

You have guys that can't win, but like best.

Vote for the one whose type you want to see more of the NEXT time. So do you want Fred types, or Paul types next time?

7:11 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Paul, Tam. (I hope it was.)
Only guy likely to even CONSIDER working on whacking the nonsensical "Sporting Clause."

(Why do I picture Santa on Skis every time I see that phrase?)

I want my affordable parts kits back, and my $2 a box Norinco 7.62x39, too.

8:22 PM, February 05, 2008
Sebastian said...

This is one of those times when you really need a dead guy on the ticket.

8:41 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

"Vote for the one whose type you want to see more of the NEXT time. So do you want Fred types, or Paul types next time?"

That's it, exactly.

9:06 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

I'll take Reagan, please...a.t.

9:21 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Paul for me - No chance in hell, butsomeone somewhere will get the hint if enough do it.

I strongly agree with 90% of his platform, which is more than I can say for anyone else running. Also he's the only candidate even mentioning trying to do ANYTHING to shrink the Fed and slash alphabet agencies into oblivion.

And no, I'm not a Ron Paul Spambot - I'm just sick of business as usual.

ColtCCO

10:07 PM, February 05, 2008
Anonymous said...

Hey, I voted for Ron Paul tonight. Perhaps if more and more of us vote for him, he'd be the major upset in this bid for nomination for the GOP to be President against those two doofuses McCain and Romney. He'd be like the Giants against the Patriots in the Superbowl.

12:43 AM, February 06, 2008
Roberta X said...

The way I figure it, Dr. Paul is prolly gonna burn upo on re-entry; but he will make one heck of a light. Maybe some of the wonks that run his party will look up and see the light; maybe a burned chunk'o'freedom will knock 'em sensible. It's all I've got left to hope for.

6:29 AM, February 06, 2008
Dr. StrangeGun said...

*Sigh* I drove past my precinct voting location an hour before they opened, and once again two hours after they closed.

That's what I get for working 30 miles from home and forgetting to vote early...

7:33 AM, February 06, 2008
Yosemite Sam said...

"But hey, if you want play the "words have one strict meaning" game"

Dude, whatever. I was just pointing out the definition of Neocon. I'll concede that the words mean things was a bit snarky, but calling everyone you don't like a neocon is a bit silly as well. As is saying that Fred Thompson is a "pretend conservative". So if Fred Thompson isn't a real conservative, who is? This purity thing is really getting out of control

9:30 AM, February 06, 2008
Anonymous said...

"As is saying that Fred Thompson is a "pretend conservative"."

Do the research. Take an in-depth look at his voting record. Perhaps he's conservative by today's big-government, micromanaging republican standard, but he isn't an actual conservative (you seem good with definitions, I'm sure you know what all that entails). At best he's a status quo republican. They've been great these last eight years, haven't they?

"This purity thing is really getting out of control"

Yes, because we're so much better off with politicians that might as well be one big party of overlords.

10:11 AM, February 06, 2008
Yosemite Sam said...

"At best he's a status quo republican."

At the rate this country's going, I would be happy with the status quo right now. It's like I woke up one morning in bizarro country; everything is upside down.

Anyway, my point was that Thompson is hardly a neocon. He may not be as conservative as you or I may wish, but he was certainly better than McCain or Romney.

I suspect that we won't have a choice to vote for anyone even slightly conservative for a long time to come(that has a chance in hell of getting elected).

12:38 PM, February 06, 2008
trainer said...

Thompson was still on the ballot here in Joisey.

I was one of 3113 who voted for him.

McCain 309,622 55% 52 dels.
Romney 158,533 28%
Huckabee 45,625 8%
Paul 26,861 5%
Giuliani 14,253 3%
Thompson 3,113 1%

3:28 PM, February 06, 2008
Don said...

You know, when I got into the voting booth, there were no Ron Paul supporters. Suddenly, it seemed OK to vote for him.
Funny how that works.

8:09 PM, February 06, 2008

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)