The Last Conservative
Feb. 7th, 2008 05:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fantastic_jackieSince Mitt Romney dropped out of the race today, I have no candidate I can fall behind. But I'm still going to be actively campaigning, and I'm still going to vote. You'll never believe who I'm voting for this year, let alone for whom I'll be volunteering.
There's also the Congress, and that's where I'll be shifting my focus.
The Presidential election is lost for me, and for the US, too: we're GOING to have a liberal democrat in office. The only question is from which party will they come.
You may count me in the, "Crush McCain" camp. Ali said, "Now you know how we feel about George Bush." No, I don't. The campaign against Bush was just "Anyone but;" I want McCain to stand absolutely no chance of winning. If we're going to have a liberal democrat in the White House, let's get one that's honest about who they are. One that doesn't attack and demonize his - or her - own base. There's more trust in the situation, and frankly, the other candidates deserve it more than he does. - Not that any of them should be POTUS.
As such, I've got a couple different options I'm playing with, and these are my choices. I will choose to vote for one of them:
A) Ron Paul
B) Write In
C) Hillary Clinton/Barak Obama (Also, fundraising/campaign volunteering)
D) The Unknown - AKA, the Third Party Candidate
Option A.
Ron Paul is the last "Conservative" left in this race. He's actually a Libertarian, and voting for him would mean putting aside a lot of my moral principals and love of the military. Because I wouldn't be voting for him for any other reason than choosing him as my candidate. If I choose to vote for him, it will only be during the Primary.
He has a lot to offer domestically. The foreign war is lost, and I don't mean the actual war. The GOP is relying on the "Anyone but Hillary" base within the party, but if Obama is the nominee, then we may as roll out the red carpet because no one can stop him; the man has charisma, vision, and motivation. As for Hillary, she's a Clinton: she's got it.
But back to Paul; assuming he had a chance to get into office (and I know he doesn't, but voting for someone implies you want them there), my purpose in voting for him would be to be as a check on excessive spendetures in the Congress and for him to be a lame duck on everything else because he wouldn't be able to pass anything with either party controlling the Congress.
Option B.
Writing in is what I want to do, but I'll only do it if I'm sure McCain is going to be thoroughly crushed. My write in would be Newt Gingrich, as he's the candidate I picked from day one. I might write in for the Primary, I might not; it depends on if I can stomach a vote for Paul.
Option C.
Yes, you read that correctly. I will be volunteering for the Democratic Party this year. I have given up hope for the next 4 years, and that is to say that I know I'll probably be extremely active politically sending letters and maybe even organizing/attending events like I have in the past. I don't think everything will change, but enough will. I'm putting my cards on a Carter/Reagan election cycle in 2012.
Taxes are going to rise: you can bet on it. Whether McCain, Clinton, or Obama, no matter what. This is going to affect the economy - negatively. Abroad, who knows, and I don't know if we'll be attacked again, either. I like to say that I have faith in the people that protect us, but it's all incumbent upon how tied their hands become. One thing's for sure, though: just because George W. Bush leaves office doesn't mean that suddenly we have no threat on our hands. The WoT doesn't end. - At least until we're forced to retreat.
So voting/campaigning for the dems is a backwards strategy, but I feel it's the only liable one that exists; I will be genuinely happy when the Dems win this year. If we're going to have a liberal in office, it should be on the party that is openly for such policies. I can and do respect Clinton and Obama as politicians; they're brilliant. McCain is a pansy. He's as Rhino as they come, and he has absolutely no respect for the Conservative principles that govern the Conservative Base of "his" party. I tell you this now: if the Republican party doesn't start shifting back to the right, I will be leaving it.
Additionally, if McCain stands the slightest chance of winning (which I doubt he will, but you never know), then I'll also vote Democrat, although living in Texas, I'm not sure how much effect that will have... ;)
Option D.
A lot of talk has popped up about a true Conservative running as a third party candidate. If such a person arises, of course dependent on who they are, I'll vote for them. I'll volunteer for them, instead, as well; spliting the Conservative vote does enough to guarantee McCain's defeat.
The last round in 2006 was about the Republican party "teaching" the GOP that we're tired of our core values being ignored. What I'm doing is not tied to petty party differences: I genuinely believe liberal principles will destroy this nation, and endorsing that destruction takes a lot of gull, especially considering how much I love the US. That being said, America is stonger than one liberal democrat in the White House. One liberal democrat in the White House will (mostly - hopefully) not affect my life too drastically: I'll still depend on myself for things. Hopefully the government's fingers won't pry too far into our lives.
As such, I've got a couple different options I'm playing with, and these are my choices. I will choose to vote for one of them:
A) Ron Paul
B) Write In
C) Hillary Clinton/Barak Obama (Also, fundraising/campaign volunteering)
D) The Unknown - AKA, the Third Party Candidate
Option A.
Ron Paul is the last "Conservative" left in this race. He's actually a Libertarian, and voting for him would mean putting aside a lot of my moral principals and love of the military. Because I wouldn't be voting for him for any other reason than choosing him as my candidate. If I choose to vote for him, it will only be during the Primary.
He has a lot to offer domestically. The foreign war is lost, and I don't mean the actual war. The GOP is relying on the "Anyone but Hillary" base within the party, but if Obama is the nominee, then we may as roll out the red carpet because no one can stop him; the man has charisma, vision, and motivation. As for Hillary, she's a Clinton: she's got it.
But back to Paul; assuming he had a chance to get into office (and I know he doesn't, but voting for someone implies you want them there), my purpose in voting for him would be to be as a check on excessive spendetures in the Congress and for him to be a lame duck on everything else because he wouldn't be able to pass anything with either party controlling the Congress.
Option B.
Writing in is what I want to do, but I'll only do it if I'm sure McCain is going to be thoroughly crushed. My write in would be Newt Gingrich, as he's the candidate I picked from day one. I might write in for the Primary, I might not; it depends on if I can stomach a vote for Paul.
Option C.
Yes, you read that correctly. I will be volunteering for the Democratic Party this year. I have given up hope for the next 4 years, and that is to say that I know I'll probably be extremely active politically sending letters and maybe even organizing/attending events like I have in the past. I don't think everything will change, but enough will. I'm putting my cards on a Carter/Reagan election cycle in 2012.
Taxes are going to rise: you can bet on it. Whether McCain, Clinton, or Obama, no matter what. This is going to affect the economy - negatively. Abroad, who knows, and I don't know if we'll be attacked again, either. I like to say that I have faith in the people that protect us, but it's all incumbent upon how tied their hands become. One thing's for sure, though: just because George W. Bush leaves office doesn't mean that suddenly we have no threat on our hands. The WoT doesn't end. - At least until we're forced to retreat.
So voting/campaigning for the dems is a backwards strategy, but I feel it's the only liable one that exists; I will be genuinely happy when the Dems win this year. If we're going to have a liberal in office, it should be on the party that is openly for such policies. I can and do respect Clinton and Obama as politicians; they're brilliant. McCain is a pansy. He's as Rhino as they come, and he has absolutely no respect for the Conservative principles that govern the Conservative Base of "his" party. I tell you this now: if the Republican party doesn't start shifting back to the right, I will be leaving it.
Additionally, if McCain stands the slightest chance of winning (which I doubt he will, but you never know), then I'll also vote Democrat, although living in Texas, I'm not sure how much effect that will have... ;)
Option D.
A lot of talk has popped up about a true Conservative running as a third party candidate. If such a person arises, of course dependent on who they are, I'll vote for them. I'll volunteer for them, instead, as well; spliting the Conservative vote does enough to guarantee McCain's defeat.
The last round in 2006 was about the Republican party "teaching" the GOP that we're tired of our core values being ignored. What I'm doing is not tied to petty party differences: I genuinely believe liberal principles will destroy this nation, and endorsing that destruction takes a lot of gull, especially considering how much I love the US. That being said, America is stonger than one liberal democrat in the White House. One liberal democrat in the White House will (mostly - hopefully) not affect my life too drastically: I'll still depend on myself for things. Hopefully the government's fingers won't pry too far into our lives.
There's also the Congress, and that's where I'll be shifting my focus.
The Presidential election is lost for me, and for the US, too: we're GOING to have a liberal democrat in office. The only question is from which party will they come.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 01:47 am (UTC)The #1? Because men and women have died in the war, given up time with their families, lost limbs and more, a war that IS winnable and necessary, and to simply put our tails between our legs and whimper home is the most dishonorable, unappreciative, and unfaithful thing we can do for their sacrifices.
The people that are against the WoT see terrorism as a necessary evil: we trade a few thousand citizens every couple years for our freedom, and hey, that's just the way it is. Sorry, but I belive freedom is something to be defended, even abroad. And we can play Monday morning QB all day long, but based on the intelligence we had back then, it was the right decision, not to mention that Al Quaeda has made Iraq one of their [weakening] strongholds. And again, we could debate if the circumstances that led to that were right or wrong, but the fact of the matter is that that is the issue now, and Al Quaeda is our enemy in this war.
Morality isn't the government's job, nor should it be; historically, it's never really worked out, especially not in line with the core American values! They're completely at odds!
Our Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and established this nation never believed that morality was irrelevant to its governing! Morality and Christianity ARE American core values. And that doesn't make us a theocracy; no one is forced to believe in God nor attend church every Sunday. No one wants that. But we have our roots and simply denying them doesn't mean they cease to exist.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 02:46 am (UTC)And what of the many, many military families and members of the military who support Ron Paul and the other anti-war candidates? Are they disloyal for questioning not the military, but the government that commands the military? I appreciate our military's sacrifices; I hate that they had to make them because our government screwed up.
Sorry, but I belive freedom is something to be defended, even abroad.
But we've lost freedoms to defend freedom. They haven't had to attack us again for us to sacrifice liberties for the fear of another attack. I'm all about a good defense -- but the best defense isn't always a good offense.
The hostilities al Quaeda have toward us are not as simple as they hate our freedoms and they hate our way of life. They are hostile toward us because we can't. keep. our. noses. out. of. the. Middle. East. And we're hypocrites about it! Most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia and we're best buds with Saudi Arabia because we want their friggin' oil. We're not trying to spread Democracy to them and they're more hard-core than Iraq!
And fine -- if we wanted to depose Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity, then that's noble -- but even if that were the case, we still should have hesitated to take out their infrastructure without really understanding the centuries-old lines drawn between groups of people there. When Cheney was the Defence Secretary he even said it would be a quagmire to invade Iraq!
But what about the genocide every day in Africa? We're not overthrowing governments over there! We leave the poor Africans to fend for themselves: because they are not a threat to us, nor are they of economic interest to us. Unlike the Middle East. And the Clinton Administration was ripped for sending troops to Kosovo...
Our Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and established this nation never believed that morality was irrelevant to its governing! Morality and Christianity ARE American core values.
Of course they didn't. But morality isn't strictly rooted in religion, though, which I talked about on your other thread, and the moral laws that do protect citizens and maintain law and order in this country are already in place -- perhaps too much in place in some cases. I might believe something is immoral, but that doesn't mean it has to be illegal. It's a waste of government resources to have to police personal moral issues that aren't infringing on other people's way of life. It's unnecessary big government.
And again, it's the Church's business to spread Biblical morality -- government has just become the Church's crutch because there are a lot of issues we're afraid to tackle head-on -- like the issue of homosexuality. The Church still isn't really comfortable dealing with hetereosexual issues, so now that homosexuality is open in our culture, the Church panics and tries to get the government to make Constitutional amendments about marriage so that we won't have to look at what we don't want to look at.
Jesus didn't have much to say about the government. He told people to pay their taxes to Caesar -- and I don't think anyone would dispute that American culture has nothing on the immorality of the Roman Empire. Jesus' ministry was about having dinner with prostitutes and other sinners. It was far more effective than any government could ever hope to be.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 06:44 pm (UTC)They have more right than anyone to dissent. At the same time, what of those who are in the miltary and their families who both support the war and know that we're winning and that it's worth it? What? Do we enjoy the the sacrifice or something? It's fun to worry when that scheduled checkpoint doesn't happen for days on end? To know the faces and characters of the men and women that don't return? Should we openly embrace their deaths as meaningless in a battle we know we can win and think absolutely nothing of it?
But we've lost freedoms to defend freedom.
What freedoms have you lost in conjunction with the War on Terror and the Bush Administration? This is a line that's always being repeated again, and yet, I've yet to see a single person list even ONE freedom that they've lost, let alone multiple.
They are hostile toward us because we can't. keep. our. noses. out. of. the. Middle. East.
9/11 was our fault, of couse. And the USS Cole. And the embassy bombings. And the first Trade Center bombings. All the way back into the 70s in Jimmy Carter's Administration: justified retaliation. Against civilians. 9/11 was just the "chickens coming home to roost." Things are never as simple as good and evil... Jealousy, brainwashing by dictatorships, our ally in Isreal, and a violent religion have absolutely nothing to do with their Jihad against us, I'm sure.
Most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia and we're best buds with Saudi Arabia because we want their friggin' oil.
Oi, we're not the party to blame for that, you know. We're not allowed to dig for our own oil due to all the environmentalist wacko red tape, and a new refinery hasn't been opened in the US since the 1970s. We have no shortage of oil; we have a shortage of refineries. Thank the liberal hippies for that; we're the ideology that's continually pushing for independence from foreign oil, and considering how dependent we are on oil in this country, it's no wonder we didn't go after them first. We have so much oil in this country, but we can't even explore it.
And the Clinton Administration was ripped for sending troops to Kosovo...
He was ripped because the United States military is not a peace corp! That's the UN's job! The reason we went into Iraq was because we perceived them as a threat because as to our knowledge and pathetic intel (agian, thank the Clinton administration for that; they cut the intelligence agencies and US military so far back that they were boardering on inept! The two intel agencies weren't even allowed to talk to each other becuase of what Clinton did!) that they were producing WMD. I STILL wonder why Saddam, if he was so innocent with nothing to hide, didn't respond when it was clear that we were serious. Why kick the UN inspectors out and obviously hide things if they weren't up to something? But that's speculaltion. Changing Iraq into a democracy was part of a comprehensive strategy in the WoT. Because free people aren't subjected to indoctrination without recourse, and freedom from that indoctrination is the only way to eliminate the generational hatred for America in that region.
It's a waste of government resources to have to police personal moral issues that aren't infringing on other people's way of life. It's unnecessary big government.
We already agree on this issue; laws can't give God people's hearts. I think one of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of was the law against sodomy. I didn't even know it had existed until I read about it being struck down, and Justice Thomas put it best in his separate opinion. ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 07:18 pm (UTC)I think this is ridiculous and I'm not even going to continue a debate here because it's not even a debate -- it's just name-calling and hyperbole.
What freedoms have you lost in conjunction with the War on Terror and the Bush Administration? This is a line that's always being repeated again, and yet, I've yet to see a single person list even ONE freedom that they've lost, let alone multiple.
I know exactly what you'll say to this, that it's a right I should be willing to give up, but I'm not willing to give up something so basic which has nothing to do with keeping us safe from terrorists: every time I fly on an airplane I have to remove a jacket, a cardigan, my shoes, my belt, every bit of jewelery I'm wearing, and run it through a machine. If I happen to have a bottle of water on me, it will get confiscated. I have seen women and children pulled out of line and frisked. And we won't even go into the racial profiling. Terror aims to make people so scared that they will give up the smallest thing. Everything snowballs from there. And it's freaking stupid.
Because free people aren't subjected to indoctrination without recourse, and freedom from that indoctrination is the only way to eliminate the generational hatred for America in that region.
By subjecting them to our will and indocrinating them with our ideas?
So many Iraqi civilians have died in this war! It's one thing for people to die for their own freedom, but we imposed this on them! They're people. Revolution has to come from within. And when do we know it's done? When they've completely given up their religion and their differences and look just like us? What if that never happens? Or what if it appears to, we leave, and then they degenerate into this same sectarian violence again, and more innocent lives are lost?
We're not allowed to dig for our own oil due to all the environmentalist wacko red tape, and a new refinery hasn't been opened in the US since the 1970s. We have no shortage of oil; we have a shortage of refineries. Thank the liberal hippies for that;
You know, if you want to be taken seriously, you really ought to stop using terms like "environmentalist wacko" and "liberal hippies". You can respectfully disagree with people without resorting to trite name-calling.
The answer to the problem is that we stop using oil. :)
I'm done.