Crushers, Feeders, Conveyors, and More

Magazines.com, Inc.


Friday, December 28, 2007

Purplecons for Obama

If you are a conservative like Andrew Sullivan is a conservative (we dub thee “Purplecon"), then Sullivan wants you to vote for Obama.

In Obama, disaffected Republicans also have a chance to punish their own party for its abandonment of conservatism, embrace of dumb authoritarianism abroad and spendthrift liberalism at home.

That’s right, to punish the GOP, Sullivan wants you to vote for someone who isn’t conservative, promises scary big expansions of government programs, no vision on salvaging the tattered future of Social Security without resorting to massive tax increases, and a cut-and-run-quicker-than-Hillary foreign policy approach that should leave Iraq’s future looking even more dismal than Social Security’s. Because the way to really push for a more accountable, more fiscally responsible, more conservative Republican party is to vote in droves for the exact opposite.

The logic is undeniable.

Shawn Macomber’s response to this idiocy is perfectly on point:

Look, Andrew, the Republicans we have running are bad enough, okay? I already feel like I’m being punished. Why I would want to compound that pain by voting for a kneejerk liberal who is going to spend the next four years lecturing me on the never-ending list of virtues he attributes to himself--before going ahead and injecting the government into ever further reaches of my life for my own good anyway? I mean, if I wanted a preening, pious megalomaniac I’d just vote for that Baptist guy who stays at the Holiday Inn Express.

Obama is running on a platform remarkably similar to Hillary’s, he’s just more likable and he’s staked out ground a little further to the left (but not all the way out into Kucinichland). Frankly, I’d rather vote Hillary (and if the choice was Huckabee v/ Hillary, that’s probably what I would do).

I’m not in the business of endorsing candidates--I don’t precisely hold the position of prominence that cries out for political recommendations. For the sake of conversation, though, I will admit that the only person I have given money to during this election cycle has been Fred Thompson. I tend to like his policies, and, while it was mistaken for people to see him as the Gipper reincarnate, I think that he has the temperament and intelligence to do the job well. Sadly, it looks less and less like he has a legitimate shot at the nomination, but while there’s a chance that Thompson (or one of a few other GOP candidates) can still gain the nomination, I’m sticking with my party instead of abandoning it for the flashing smile and extravagant promises of an unreconstructed leftist who doesn’t come close to addressing my biggest issues with any authority.

And, anyway, if the choice comes down to Obama or that “Baptist guy who stays at the Holiday Inn Express”, I’m voting Ron Paul for the improved entertainment value and wholesale destruction of useless government agencies.

Comments & Trackbacks
The trackback URL for this entry is:

You have probably never been one of the voters who can only remember faces and votes for the only name he remembers. Since Fred Thompson has been on TV, those voters I’ve just mentioned just might get him the nomination.

on Dec 28 2007 @ 05:05 PM

If you’re a conservative like Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, you’re a liberal.

The only way you could call Andrew Sullivan a conservative is if it’s followed by the phrase “self-described”.

on Dec 28 2007 @ 08:06 PM

How long is Sullivan going to pout about gay marriage anyway?

on Dec 28 2007 @ 08:39 PM

Virginia, one of the women in my office (who says that she refuses to vote Hillary because Hillary is a woman) says that she’ll consider voting Fred because she liked his character on TV. I found myself in the odd position of arguing that it was stupid to disqualify Hillary because she’s a woman and vote for Fred because he’s a likable actor.

Sometimes I hate politics.

Andrew Sullivan so obviously went off the deep end on his one issue (gay marriage, indeed) that his self-proclaimed authentic conservatism is only good as a joke. I understand that he has his priorities; it’s just sad that it has colored so much of the rest of his thinking that he can’t much be taken seriously anymore.

on Dec 28 2007 @ 09:41 PM

I say that because I always end up thinking of his infamous “gas is woefully undertaxed” column.

on Dec 29 2007 @ 06:10 AM

Zomby - can you please flatten that woman’s tires on election day?  We don’t need idiots voting. 

As for voting for Hillary over Huckabee, I urge you to lock your doors as the Republican death squads are surely on their way. (I’d do the same thing, by the way, if that was the choice).

on Dec 29 2007 @ 10:03 AM

There are opinions widely held concerning women which, if we are to be intellectually honest, would disqualify “women” from being President, or at least trend that way. (IE, if you really think that most women are less rational than most men, for example, which a lot of people still do believe, and you believe that Hillary falls into that category...well, why vote for a woman, then?)

I can think of a nuanced case for why liking someone’s acting could qualify them for the presidency, but I doubt your co-worker is making that sophisticated case. After all, she’s a woman, and incompetent to do so. She’s just voting her feelings.


on Dec 29 2007 @ 10:07 AM

We don’t need idiots voting.

Well, good luck with THAT Sisyphean task.

I say we go back to tests at the polls, but fairly applied. I suggest a high school math test and an essay section where the voter lays out the fundamentals of the American government. (If you can factor an equation and name the three branches with their roles, you qualify.) That’d weed out 90% of the problem right there.

An alternative, to make it less binary, would be just to scale votes according to your SAT score. You can retake it once a year to try and boost your numbers, but basically 400 = 0 votes, 1000 = 1 vote, 1600 = 2 votes. The potential for humiliation (you have to announce your score and show your results sheet) would disincent a lot of the stupider half.

on Dec 29 2007 @ 10:12 AM

Also of interest is a book I am currently reading, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies.”

Excerpted from Amazon:

Drawing extensively from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy, Caplan discusses how rational consumers often make irrational voters, why it’s in politicians’ interest to foment that irrationality, what economists make of the (non) existence of systematic bias and how social science’s “misguided insistence that every model be a ‘story without fools,’ “ has led them to miss the crucial questions in politics, “where folly is central.”

on Dec 29 2007 @ 10:43 AM

Zomby, I would SO vote for Ron Paul, strictly for the reasons you mentioned.  I’d vote for him over Hillary in a Heartbeat.

on Dec 29 2007 @ 11:43 AM

What happened to the pledge to stay home and drink heavily!!!  I thought we had a deal!?!

Anyway, one of my reasons for supporting Fred Thompson is that he’s a likable actor.

Why, do you say?

Because one of the significant problems of the Bush Administration is being unable to do the right thing because the President was unable to articulate his ideas to the people past a hostile press.  Fred Thompson, like Ronald Reagan, clearly has this vital ability.  Fred would be able to make anyone who opposes Social Security reform look dang stupid, I think.
On the other hand, I guess it’s not JUST because he’s a likable actor; the second major significant problem of the Bush Administration was trying to triangulate, to add “compassion” to his conservatism to appeal to the moderates.  After 9/11, we didn’t need that anymore, but he still did it.  Fred Thompson clearly understands the main issues for conservatives, and has strong conservative policies as planks in his platform.

Bush was a 60% acceptable conservative; some good ideas, some bad ideas.  But he was unable to explain, articulate, and defend his good ideas.

Fred Thompson, accomplished actor, will be able to rally great support to the conservative cause if he is elected President.

on Dec 29 2007 @ 12:23 PM

Andy and I are simultaneously reading the same book. Look out, world!

on Dec 29 2007 @ 01:26 PM

I’d rather vote Hillary (and if the choice was Huckabee v/ Hillary, that’s probably what I would do).

I’ve shied away from adding Huckabee to my “Republicans I would never vote for” list—which is currently headlined by John McCain and Ted Stevens—solely because I wouldn’t want to dignify him that way.

But the man is dissing Reaganomics, so I may no longer have any discretion in the matter.

on Dec 29 2007 @ 03:55 PM

FWIW, I’m very close to, “Vote for the Socialist Bitch, it’s important”, in the event of a Hillary/Huckabilly general election.  Are there any actual Republicans that want to vote for Huckabilly?

on Dec 29 2007 @ 04:29 PM
Post a Comment
© 2005 by the authors of ResurrectionSong. All rights reserved.
Powered by ExpressionEngine