Patterico's Pontifications

2/8/2008

Heh

Filed under: 2008 Election,Humor — Patterico @ 12:01 am



Some Republicans are so fed up with their choices, they say they’ll vote for a Democrat.

OK, then.

UPDATE: Politico explains how they will go after McCain.

36 Responses to “Heh”

  1. I been thinking- what if Giuliani were winning today? He was clearly more liberal and had far more baggage than McCain. Are we just fed-up that no conservative Republican was serious about the race?

    Well, in any case, at least we are hearing less and less from the Paulnuts.

    Demetri (c3f397) — 2/8/2008 @ 1:30 am

  2. Day by Day had that idea already… šŸ™‚

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 2/8/2008 @ 5:37 am

  3. I don’t know what I’m going to do in November. My daughter insisted that I vote for Hillary in the primary “because there has never been a girl President” and it’s a fair bet that she’ll want me to vote for her in the general election too. I can’t lie to her so my hope is that Obama will be the Democratic candidate. Otherwise … I dunno. Would it be just as dishonest to vote for both Hillary and McCain thus invalidating my ballot but still tell my six-year old that I *voted* for Hillary?

    nk (4ebdf4) — 2/8/2008 @ 6:47 am

  4. nk, you HAVE explained to your daughter how a vote for Hillary is a vote against feminism, correct?

    Wouldn’t your daughter prefer a girl president who does a good job, as opposed to a shitty one who’ll turn Americans off to the idea of ANOTHER female president for several generations?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 2/8/2008 @ 6:53 am

  5. Sigh. Never mind, Scott.

    nk (4ebdf4) — 2/8/2008 @ 6:59 am

  6. Liers, liers, everywhere;
    Who can you trust?
    Why is life so unfair?

    Another Drew (8018ee) — 2/8/2008 @ 9:11 am

  7. I really don’t understand this. Sure, McCain has several positions that are anathema to many conservatives, but the American Conservative Union still ranks him as an 80% score. Hillary is a 12, Obama an 8. So, as a Republican, you’d vote for that? Makes no sense to me.

    JayHub (0a6237) — 2/8/2008 @ 10:27 am

  8. 7, JayHub, Maybe you just don’t accept that some people are Conservatives first, and GOP second if at all.

    PCD (c378fd) — 2/8/2008 @ 10:47 am

  9. “I dunno. Would it be just as dishonest to vote for both Hillary and McCain thus invalidating my ballot but still tell my six-year old that I *voted* for Hillary?”

    -nk

    Probably. I mean, your vote wouldn’t actually go to Clinton.

    I think your daughter would respect your vote one way or another, as long as you explained the principle behind it. If you think Principle dictates a vote for McCain, then vote for McCain. On the other hand, if you can’t think of any reason to vote for McCain, maybe a straight up vote for Clinton is the right way to go: at least you can honestly tell your daughter you helped elect the first girl president (which, I think, is a legitimate justification in the face of such a shoddy alternative).

    Actually, the way to go might be to write in the name of a female politician you think would make a good president. You’re still voting, your vote’s not going to anyone you hold in contempt, and you can still say you tried to elect the first female president. All in all, I think your daughter would respect that.

    Leviticus (68eff1) — 2/8/2008 @ 10:53 am

  10. JayHub, #7:
    On the vast majority of what I would call “house-keeping” votes, Sen. McCain votes with the ACU. The problem is that the 20% he doesn’t are the trivial things like McCain-Feingold, Amnesty, Gang-of-14, virtually every piece of legislation that he shares the title with a Dem.
    He might be a “hero”, but he has no principles that I can discerne, or that I can agree with.

    Another Drew (8018ee) — 2/8/2008 @ 11:24 am

  11. Another Drew and PCD, I certainly see your argument and admire the principled stance, but practically aren’t we usually faced with the lesser of two evils in Presidential elections. Other than Reagan and Goldwater, who else meets the standard you’re setting. Bush 41 and 43 looked liked they did, until they were elected. “A plague o’ both your houses,” will probably mean returning the Clintons to the White House.

    JayHub (0a6237) — 2/8/2008 @ 11:55 am

  12. I’m pretty unhappy with McCain but I can’t imagine voting to put the Clinton’s back in office to continue to carry out their disfunctional marriage onto America’s political life.

    SPQR (26be8b) — 2/8/2008 @ 11:59 am

  13. Yeh, SPQR, I have this dark vision of Bill being caught with his pants down in some foreign President’s daughter’s bedroom when Hillary appoints him as Roving Goodwill Ambassador to the World, and that’s the least that would happen.

    JayHub (0a6237) — 2/8/2008 @ 12:09 pm

  14. Additionally, McCain has made it clear he has no use for conservatives, and holds us in contempt. Carol Liebau has a post on this subject today.

    McCain’s ACU ratings are less than they seem, more details here.

    Then, there is McCain’s character.

    I expect McCain to explode (and thus implode) sometime during the campaign. The MSM has been giving him a free pass for years, but that will end now that he will be campaigning against a liberal Democrat.

    BTW, I’d give better than even odds that it will be Obama, not Hillary, that’s the Dem nominee.

    LarryD (feb78b) — 2/8/2008 @ 12:25 pm

  15. I dislike McCain.

    I was willing to support just about any GOP candidate, and did to the extent possible, to ensure he did not get the nomination.

    But that’s no longer an option. I don’t know what happened but McCain pulled it off.

    So, I will vote for McCain simply because I hate the Democrats that much and because McCain will carry on the WOT. It may not be much of a reason, but it’s better than letting HillaryObama! waltz into the White House. They may win anyway but not without a fight.

    I hope most of those who opposed McCain will not let that happen in November. Vent but vote.

    Meanwhile, conservatives have a lot of work ahead of them. The party wonks want our support but don’t seem to want to support us. That has to change.

    AKT (368f89) — 2/8/2008 @ 12:46 pm

  16. LarryD, “BTW, Iā€™d give better than even odds that it will be Obama, not Hillary, thatā€™s the Dem nominee.”
    ____________________
    All things being equal, I’d tend to agree with you. However, with the real prospect that the nomination will be decided by the votes of just 800 some Democratic party insiders, I’m less certain. The Clintons have long ties with all these people, will have fewer compunctions about buying their votes with Ambassadorships, whatever, than Obama (I think), and, in the last resort, know where all their bodies are buried. I think if the superdelegates decide, the Clintons win.
    Comment by LarryD

    JayHub (0a6237) — 2/8/2008 @ 12:52 pm

  17. NK–I would take this as a good time to teach your daughter an important lesson. Explain to her that Hillary is a greedy, powerhungry person, and that just because she would be the first female president is no excuse to vote for a person whose character is not worthy of the office. Affirmative action, if it is ever valid, is valid only when the candidates for the position are equally qualified.

    But, come to think of it, McCain can be described as a greedy powerhungry person who is not worthy of the of the office, so I suppose affirmative action would still justify a vote for Hillary.

    My own personal opinion is that Hillary, if elected, would pursue the WOT as vigorously as McCain, if only because she has an aggressive personality which tempermentally suits her to such a policy, and she will want to avoid accusations of being soft because she’s a woman. But I hope she doesn’t get the nomination, much less win the general election.

    kishnevi (bc62ea) — 2/8/2008 @ 1:20 pm

  18. The problem isn’t what Hillary will do — I also think she’ll be more aggressive in the WOT than she’s indiciating on the campaign trail, if for no other reason than to make sure she doesn’t have a terrorism strike on her watch before she would have to run for re-election in 2012. The problem is more what the people a Clinton II Administration would appoint would do once they got into power.

    Even if Hillary doesn’t believe a lot of the anti-war rhetoric because she and Bill have seen the intelligence reports during the 1990s, many of the people who would be named to key jobs actually believe this stuff, and truly think that the greatest threat to peace in the world is the United States of America under a Republican Administration. That’s how we got Jamie Gorelick during the Clinton I Administration saying there had to be a firewall between the FBI and CIA on sharing terrorism-related intelligence information.

    So anyone who either says they’ll vote for Hillary (or Obama) over McCain or is blaseĀ“ about whether or not there’s any difference between the two on the WOT needs not just to think about the candidates, but to think about all the aides, department heads and patronage bureaucrats who would be assigned to carry out the WOT. Take the whole spring, summer and early fall to look at the people likely to be serving in those posts and then see if you can say there’s no difference between the two parties.

    John (34537e) — 2/8/2008 @ 2:25 pm

  19. JayHub…
    I agree that we are usually faced with a choice between the lessor of two evils (or is it the evil of two lessors?). Since the beginning of the Politics of Personal Destruction by the Kennedy’s (try excusing the rousting out-of-bed in the middle of the night of steel executives by the FBI because the WH was upset about a price increase), good people have been few-and-far-between in the field of politics. We have fortunately, seen leaders of quality rise above the muck, but rarely more than once a generation – usually less.

    As government has become more intrusive in the requirements to enter government service (see financial disclosure requirements), fewer people of quality are willing to subject themselves, and their families, to the constant harrassment of the vox-populii, who strangely enough, are exempt from the very same rules they rail about for others.

    Romney will survive quite nicely in the private sector that his family is probably very happy for him to rejoin, if he does so. For Thompson, there is again Hollywood, where he is a character-actor of note, and demand, I would think.

    The rest are just pols, and will bend to whatever breath of wind they think will advance their individual interest, principles be damned.

    Many have mentioned that they think Hillary will be an effective CinC in the pursuit of IslamoFascists. I would hope so. But, if she wins the WH, and the Dems maintain or increase their margins on the Hill, the War is theirs, for better or worse.

    They need to be constantly reminded that the great heartburn re Vietnam among the silent majority, was not that we were engaged in a war that we shouldn’t have entered, but that we didn’t try to win, and we lost.

    America doesn’t like losers. We like them less than ever when we see that they have lied to us from the get-go.

    Jimmy Carter had his famous “malaise” speech about the economy of the late 70’s. A great deal of that malaise could be layed at the doorstep to Vietnam. It took RR to get America re-energized, and willing to go-forth once again. I don’t see that same quality in our future.

    Some carp endlessly about what we are spending in Iraq/Afghanistan, when we have so many economic problems at home to deal with. They are economic and historic illiterates. The vast majority of sums spent by DoD, are spent right here. You can’t shoot a bullet in Iraq that you haven’t bought in the U-S-A (with the exception of those we buy from IMI because we allowed our infrastructure to become inadequate to our demands – as in many things, thanks to Congress).

    Sorry, I’ve ranted too long.
    I yield the floor!

    Another Drew (a28ef4) — 2/8/2008 @ 2:47 pm

  20. #9 Levi

    Not like it would matter who nk votes for…

    He does live in Illinois, after all…

    It isn’t like the state won’t go to the democrt, regardless.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 2/8/2008 @ 3:11 pm

  21. Another Drew, all good points, though I think the Politics of Personal Destruction are part of politics. Consider the slanders of Andrew Jackson (One pamphlet asked: ā€œOught a convicted adulteress and her paramour husband to be placed in the highest offices of this free and christian land?ā€)

    And is also “the evil of two lessers;” that we need to think about why we don’t get the best people we have running for President. Colin Powell, who I admire despite some mistakes, is head and shoulders above anyone who ran for this election, but he decided not to put his family through the torture of a campaign. At least that’s the CW.

    JayHub (0a6237) — 2/8/2008 @ 4:40 pm

  22. NK – could you just it’s up to adults to decide who to vote for, and then explain that votes are secret and so you can’t tell her who you voted for?

    I dunno. I have a four year old and I wouldn’t hesitate to tell her truthfully why I did or did not vote for a certain person, no matter what my daughter would prefer. I mean, I’m the grown-up and she’s the four-year-old, right? If tiny children have this much sway over our votes what is the point of the franchise.

    Missy (6ac4f3) — 2/8/2008 @ 4:50 pm

  23. Oops, meant in the above “could you just tell her that it’s up to adults to decide who to vote for”….

    Missy (6ac4f3) — 2/8/2008 @ 4:52 pm

  24. So you guys think I should break my little girl’s heart over such trivial things as national security, Supreme Court appointments, higher taxes, a national health service and the outsourcing of our government to China?

    nk (1e0a58) — 2/8/2008 @ 8:34 pm

  25. Absolutely not … but I confess that if I were in your shoes, I would be tempted to tell her that you’ve adopted a special anti-dynasty rule and you won’t vote for any Clinton or Bush. (But you may not share my opinion of Hillary, in which case you can forget this suggestion.)

    DRJ (517d26) — 2/8/2008 @ 8:41 pm

  26. I suppose I could tell her that I want her to be the first and only girl President because no other girl, including Hillary, is good enough for the job.

    nk (1e0a58) — 2/8/2008 @ 9:23 pm

  27. Make that *good enough for my vote*.

    nk (1e0a58) — 2/8/2008 @ 9:24 pm

  28. I like that. She’ll see right through it but I like it anyway.

    DRJ (517d26) — 2/8/2008 @ 9:29 pm

  29. That is a good one, nk.

    And for McCain, I’m still waiting. He’s got a long way to go, a vp to pick, a party to pander to, somewhere down the road he could even have an opponent *outside* his party … anything could happen.

    Joe M. (5d215f) — 2/9/2008 @ 8:47 am

  30. And then there’s this … with all due respect to wives and mothers everywhere, are we sure that we want a wife and mother for President?

    nk (1e0a58) — 2/9/2008 @ 9:33 am

  31. If we’re going to have a Nanny-State, shouldn’t the leader be someone who has demonstrated competance in the rolls of Wife and Mother?

    Another Drew (758608) — 2/9/2008 @ 2:35 pm

  32. Look out for that cast iron skillet.

    nk (1e0a58) — 2/9/2008 @ 2:49 pm

  33. RIGHT!

    And the last time Hill picked up a skillet was ???

    If her cooks are anything like the ones who worked for me (in a restaurant), they don’t let amateurs anywhere near their cast-iron.

    Oops… a lamp just came flying by. Gotta run!

    Another Drew (758608) — 2/9/2008 @ 3:12 pm

  34. nk, I apologize for my earlier comment. I think I might have taken your question a tad too seriously. When your daughter runs for President I will vote for her. šŸ™‚

    Missy (6ac4f3) — 2/10/2008 @ 8:31 am

  35. You can only be so serious in a post titled “Heh”. And I think that video I linked in #30 is the best version I have heard of “If Mama Ain’t Happy, Ain’t Nobody Happy”. šŸ˜‰

    nk (315ffd) — 2/10/2008 @ 9:34 am

  36. Excellent. I loved the way the jug player stopped blowing to sing backup.

    Now where did I put my skillet…

    Missy (6ac4f3) — 2/10/2008 @ 12:41 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0989 secs.