Bradley in DC
01-08-2008, 08:19 AM
http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11027
Why I plan to vote for Ron Paul
by: Eric B.
Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:52:49 AM EST
(Eric v. intertubes, pt. XII - promoted by Eric B.)
Well, we've officially reached the part of the presidential nominating process during which the next contest is absolutely the most critical election ever held on Planet Earth until the moment that the ballots are all counted and the candidates flee for the next state (or, when the entire thing starts to lose its luster, the next grouping of states). What with Michigan's Banana Republic Democratic primary coming up in a very short time, might as well endorse something ... and this year, I plan to cross party lines and vote for Ron Paul.
I arrive at that conclusion with all the seriousness that it demands, which isn't a great deal. The thing is a farce, and a publicly funded farce at that, and taking it seriously only ratifies the mess that it's been since Day One.
At the beginning of the process, I leaned towards supporing Bill Richardson. Western governor, likes guns, has a good track record on energy and impressive foreign policy resume. Then he said a bunch of dumb things while campaigning, culminating in his comment that Wisconsin is awash in water. No good Michigander of conscience can support that kind of candidate.
Fortunately, I had an easy out. He withdrew his name from the Michigan primary ballot because the state party had broken the rules in moving its contest up (something promptly rendered moot, since both New Hampshire and Iowa responded by moving their contests back out front). Richardson was out, but so was the guy who I probably would have leaned towards as an alternative -- John Edwards. And, the candidate who I probably would have backed as a second alternative -- Barack Obama. In fact, it wasn't until you hit my fourth choice that you could find a candidate who I probably would have supported ... Chris Dodd.
I have to confess that despite this, I wasn't too upset. The nominating process, after all, is a private affair. The parties aren't public entities, and as an avowed independent, I have no right to actually participate. I'm told that I've been disenfranchised. I respond that I've been disenfranchised only in the same way that I'm not permitted to vote as a stockholder of a company in which I've invested nothing.
Eric B. :: Why I plan to vote for Ron Paul
So, the primary is a farce. It is also a publicly funded farce. At a time when the state just raised taxes because the amount of revenue it is bringing it doesn't match the amount we need to spend, the state Legislature -- urged chiefly by GOP state party chairman Saul Anuzis, a never-held-elected office Republican who frequently complains about wasted taxpayer dollars -- appropriated at least $10 million of my taxpayer dollars to pay for a contest in which I am not entitled to participate. The next time the local school board talks about cutting busing because there isn't money in the budget, I plan to recommend that they appeal to the state parties directly for financial assistance.
There is one more insult to be heaped on top of this. It is the voter lists that will be compiled as a result of this expenditure of public tax dollars. We've been through this issue enough times here that we need not rehash the entire history. Suffice to say that I am still galled that my tax dollars will be used to compile a list that will aid party officials to call me on the telephone come September and October (probably during dinner) and ask for money and my support, and to fill my mailbox with ridiculous, unsolicited junk mailings that I will be responsible for throwing out.
Because of this, and because it's happening on my dime, I feel compelled to participate. So, I will, and I will do so in a way that properly expresses my feelings.
I plan to cross over from the party whose primary most people would have assumed I'd participate in. I plan to do this to render the information gathered at my expense of as little use to either party. I endorse others to do this because I wish for every phone call soliciting donations, every piece of junk mail left on my doorstep, to be a potential landmine of wasted time and energy.
There has been murmurs of voting Uncommitted these last two days in the wake of Iowa. I suppose that for partisans deeply committed to their candidates and party, this is the way to go. But, to vote Uncommitted for me is to abdicate my decision making to someone in the party. As someone who doesn't belong to a political party, my job is finished once I cast my ballot. Voting Uncommitted to me is just another way of saying, "Uhhhh, here, you decide for me."
Why Ron Paul? Because, his ability to rally the Libertarian base of the Republican Party makes him dangerous. He has already left open the possibility that he might run as a third party candidate, and that would mean siphoning off lots of votes from whoever eventually gets the nomination.
I know what some of you are thinking. Why not go for Mike Huckabee? Here is my answer:
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for a scientifically illiterate rube. As little dignity as I see in this primary, I will not stoop to that.
I realize that, at the bottom of it, this vote is cast according to entirely negative criteria. You cannot find a positive sentiment in there at all. I plan to cast my vote in a way meant to spread discord and confusion, and plan to break things apart rather than build them. Fine, I accept that. On the other hand, I have entirely negative feelings about this charade, and can see no silver lining. In fact, I'm totally disgusted with the entire thing and, given that my choices on the ballot I would prefer are totally unpalatable, feel that my vote is best cast as an expression of disgust.
Why I plan to vote for Ron Paul
by: Eric B.
Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:52:49 AM EST
(Eric v. intertubes, pt. XII - promoted by Eric B.)
Well, we've officially reached the part of the presidential nominating process during which the next contest is absolutely the most critical election ever held on Planet Earth until the moment that the ballots are all counted and the candidates flee for the next state (or, when the entire thing starts to lose its luster, the next grouping of states). What with Michigan's Banana Republic Democratic primary coming up in a very short time, might as well endorse something ... and this year, I plan to cross party lines and vote for Ron Paul.
I arrive at that conclusion with all the seriousness that it demands, which isn't a great deal. The thing is a farce, and a publicly funded farce at that, and taking it seriously only ratifies the mess that it's been since Day One.
At the beginning of the process, I leaned towards supporing Bill Richardson. Western governor, likes guns, has a good track record on energy and impressive foreign policy resume. Then he said a bunch of dumb things while campaigning, culminating in his comment that Wisconsin is awash in water. No good Michigander of conscience can support that kind of candidate.
Fortunately, I had an easy out. He withdrew his name from the Michigan primary ballot because the state party had broken the rules in moving its contest up (something promptly rendered moot, since both New Hampshire and Iowa responded by moving their contests back out front). Richardson was out, but so was the guy who I probably would have leaned towards as an alternative -- John Edwards. And, the candidate who I probably would have backed as a second alternative -- Barack Obama. In fact, it wasn't until you hit my fourth choice that you could find a candidate who I probably would have supported ... Chris Dodd.
I have to confess that despite this, I wasn't too upset. The nominating process, after all, is a private affair. The parties aren't public entities, and as an avowed independent, I have no right to actually participate. I'm told that I've been disenfranchised. I respond that I've been disenfranchised only in the same way that I'm not permitted to vote as a stockholder of a company in which I've invested nothing.
Eric B. :: Why I plan to vote for Ron Paul
So, the primary is a farce. It is also a publicly funded farce. At a time when the state just raised taxes because the amount of revenue it is bringing it doesn't match the amount we need to spend, the state Legislature -- urged chiefly by GOP state party chairman Saul Anuzis, a never-held-elected office Republican who frequently complains about wasted taxpayer dollars -- appropriated at least $10 million of my taxpayer dollars to pay for a contest in which I am not entitled to participate. The next time the local school board talks about cutting busing because there isn't money in the budget, I plan to recommend that they appeal to the state parties directly for financial assistance.
There is one more insult to be heaped on top of this. It is the voter lists that will be compiled as a result of this expenditure of public tax dollars. We've been through this issue enough times here that we need not rehash the entire history. Suffice to say that I am still galled that my tax dollars will be used to compile a list that will aid party officials to call me on the telephone come September and October (probably during dinner) and ask for money and my support, and to fill my mailbox with ridiculous, unsolicited junk mailings that I will be responsible for throwing out.
Because of this, and because it's happening on my dime, I feel compelled to participate. So, I will, and I will do so in a way that properly expresses my feelings.
I plan to cross over from the party whose primary most people would have assumed I'd participate in. I plan to do this to render the information gathered at my expense of as little use to either party. I endorse others to do this because I wish for every phone call soliciting donations, every piece of junk mail left on my doorstep, to be a potential landmine of wasted time and energy.
There has been murmurs of voting Uncommitted these last two days in the wake of Iowa. I suppose that for partisans deeply committed to their candidates and party, this is the way to go. But, to vote Uncommitted for me is to abdicate my decision making to someone in the party. As someone who doesn't belong to a political party, my job is finished once I cast my ballot. Voting Uncommitted to me is just another way of saying, "Uhhhh, here, you decide for me."
Why Ron Paul? Because, his ability to rally the Libertarian base of the Republican Party makes him dangerous. He has already left open the possibility that he might run as a third party candidate, and that would mean siphoning off lots of votes from whoever eventually gets the nomination.
I know what some of you are thinking. Why not go for Mike Huckabee? Here is my answer:
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for a scientifically illiterate rube. As little dignity as I see in this primary, I will not stoop to that.
I realize that, at the bottom of it, this vote is cast according to entirely negative criteria. You cannot find a positive sentiment in there at all. I plan to cast my vote in a way meant to spread discord and confusion, and plan to break things apart rather than build them. Fine, I accept that. On the other hand, I have entirely negative feelings about this charade, and can see no silver lining. In fact, I'm totally disgusted with the entire thing and, given that my choices on the ballot I would prefer are totally unpalatable, feel that my vote is best cast as an expression of disgust.