Undecided, and It Feels So Wrong

Undecided, and It Feels So Wrong


O.k., it’s a matter of hours before 2008 and I have no idea who I’m supporting for president. Still plenty of time before November, you say? Are you kidding? In a month this whole thing will be whittled down to two (maybe three) candidates. Then I’ll just have to hold my nose and pick.

Now’s the time to get on a wagon. Even if your guy comes in 8th in Iowa, at least you can spend the rest of the year saying “well, I was really for_________.” So, here’s where I’m at on the top contenders:

The Democrats

Barack Obama: Maybe. He seems to me to be a conservatively tempered liberal, which makes me think he’d be a pragmatic leader. He has the intelligence to make up for his lack of experience. But his stated desire to bring unity to the nation seems in conflict with his uninspired, liberal Democrat policy positions.

Hillary Clinton: I don’t think I can do it. It’s not that I think she’d be a bad president or even that I greatly disagree with her policies (she has some reasonable ideas). But after two decades of Bush/Clinton/Bush and the accompanying divisiveness, I’m ready for a change.

John Edwards: Nope. I supported him in 2004 because he seemed to be a centrist who keenly saw America’s inequalities and had practical solutions. Since then he’s drifted much further left and is now more of a liberal crusader (like a reconstituted, genetically altered Robert Kennedy) than a leader I’d want.

Bill Richardson: Quite possibly. I know he’s not a contender and he’s had some wishy-washy answers on national security, but he was my favorite Dem from the start. I like his experience and his independent, Southwest attitudes.

The Republicans

Rudy Giuliani: A slight maybe. I supported him early on but my enthusiasm has waned considerably. He panders too often and too poorly and he really doesn’t seem to be running on anything expect his extraordinary leadership in the 9/11 aftermath. That’s certainly compelling, but it’s not enough. He’s got to show us a lot more.

John McCain: A definite maybe. McCain irritated me last summer with his clumsy attempts at pandering and his carefully parsed statements, so unlike the straight-talk for which he was once famous. But he’s regained a bit of his mojo and he just might be my favorite Republican at the moment.

Mike Huckabee: Unlikely. He seems to be overusing religion to mask his deficiencies as a leader. He supports the Fair Tax plan (which is intriguingly bold) and recognizes the health care system is broken (which is unusual for a Republican) but he seems to be running for pastor-in-chief more than president.

Mitt Romney: No. He’s a phony. Says what he thinks needs to be said to get elected. Loved his Massachusetts health care plan but I can’t trust this guy.

Fred Thompson: Possibly. But I only say that because I know so little of the man. He’s rather bland, isn’t he?

Ron Paul: A slight maybe. See here.

So, there you have it. I’m flummoxed. At least I don’t feel compelled to give anyone money – or pester my friends with candidate info. Maybe I will just have to wait until there are just two options from which to choose. Or hope this quixotic effort produces results.

Cross-posted at Maverick Views.

  • Elisabetta

    Not much to comment here.
    Dems are unequivocally out as an option. A is Ron P.
    For the remnant, I am still weighing the pros and cons.

    The following deserves some consideration ~
    “Mitt Romney…Loved his Massachusetts health care plan…”

    I’ll take a guess. You probably don’t live in MA. In which case, before you google-eye this fiasco, move here and experience, first hand, the results of this colluded piece of legislation.
    Afterwards, you can make an informed determination. It’s a plague you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy. Besides, aren’t you and the gang supporters of “freedom of choice”?
    For the 200 thousands or so of us that will have foot the inanity of this bill, is no picnic.
    The only way out is to find better pastures.

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    ” …and it feels so wrong.” – ASC

    Tell me about it. Since the very last thing I want to see is another Single Party Government, I am compelled to support whatever Republican gets nominated, and I really don’t like any of them – except Paul who has no shot, Hagel who is not running, and McCain – whose war stance is unacceptable.

  • http://maverickviews.blogspot.com/ Alan Stewart Carl

    Elisabetta: Fair enough. I should have said I liked the will to embrace new ideas embodied in the health care plan. I am unfamiliar with the actual execution and whether it’s working.

  • Rob

    I hear you on Obama, he talks liberal centrist, but his policy positions are true blue :p If I thought he could deliver on foriegn policy, then maybe I’d consider him if Romney or Huckabee were the republican nominee.

    Clinton and Edwards aren’t even considerations and Richardson isn’t a contender.

    Voting for Ron Paul in the primaries to send a message to the GOP to get back on track. After the primary I’d sign on for McCain or hold my nose for Giuliani. Sadly Fred Thompson isn’t a contender.

    If the nominees contain two from the list of: Clinton.Edwards,Huckabee and Romney, then I will vote third party regardless of who’s running.

  • Elisabetta

    Alan, in a nutshell, the way it works and the beneficiaries.

    Everyone is ordered to get health insurance, whether you want/need or not.
    The big number of enrollees (circa 300 thousands) gets it totally free or subsided (lower premiums). It’s a ticket to the lottery for them.

    For the unlucky ones it’s an unfolding nightmare. If you comply you will have to make room in your expenses for a massive, unnecessary monthly bill. So skip the savings and start borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.
    Ignore this abuse of power and the State of MA has made provisions to deal with the non-compliant ones.

    Round one ~
    Income tax 2007 will cost those individuals their personal deduction -$219
    Still, better than the cost of the monthly premiums.

    Round two ~
    In 2008 things will escalate to new heights.
    The State has schemed to charge up to 1/2 of the premium, for those that will have the audacity to reject this forced insurance.
    The question remains as to the methods employed to levy the penalty for the new year.
    Initially, the idea of suspending the driver licenses of the “offenders” was considered and chucked. Too bad, as it might have caused people to rise from their torpor and fight it, killing it at the outset.
    Presently, there are talks of wage-garnishment….

    Let’s not forget the implementation of this plan is a windfall, either way, for the state and the insurance carriers.

  • http://itsthe21stcenturystupid.wordpress.com/ Jim S

    Alan, ignore Ron Paul’s campaign web site and go through his writings on lewrockwell.com. Didn’t the campaign mention the part where he wrote that states have the right to govern private lives in the name of morality? That he disagrees not only with Roe v. Wade, but also Lawrence v. Texas? Where is the liberty for those who aren’t the same as their neighbors in that world? In some other state you’d have to move to?

  • http://itsthe21stcenturystupid.wordpress.com/ Jim S

    And I assume that given his basis for disagreeing with those two cases that he’d also disagree with Griswold v. Connecticut.

  • Alan Stewart Carl

    Jim: I assume you’re refering to the Ron Paul post I linked to. My point was to say Paul is an important protest voice — I don’t forsee myself ever voting for the man unless I feel the need to make a middle-finger statement. Like Nader, the specifics of Paul’s beliefs are less important than his willingness to air viewpoints that, while not mainstream, are still worthy of debate.

  • Jeremy

    “I am compelled to support whatever Republican gets nominated, and I really don’t like any of them – except Paul who has no shot”

    Talk about gutless. Imagine if all Americans thought like this. ‘Well! I really think this is the best guy for the job but since he might not win I can’t give him my vote.’

    Kinda reminds me of these people that hate their home town sports team until they start winning. That is to say they have no loyalty or belief in principles. “They” said the same thing about Abraham Lincoln, that he didn’t have a chance in hell in winning. If everyone thought like mw only shitheads would get elected because the shitheads are “more likely” to win.

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    “Talk about gutless. ..” – J

    Talk about clueless. As I have posted both here and on my blog. Ron Paul not only has my vote, he has my money, and I’ve changed parties to vote for him in the California primary. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your mindless rants, Jeremy. Your fact-free ad hominem arguments are what we love about you.

    This does not change the fact that Ron Paul is not going to be president or the Republican nominee. I support him because he is applying a much needed libertarian cattle prod to the Republican party.

    Finally, I don’t need everybody to think like me. In fat, I’d prefer that 80% or so of the electorate continue to think like Partisan Dead Weight such as yourself. As long as the partisans stay polarized and balanced, I figure I only need about 5% or so of the electorate to think like me and keep our government happily divided, with the consequent limits in the growth of government spending, more oversight, more carefully considered legislation, and overall better governance.