Comments on: How Al, Mike & Newt Should Run For President

By: Cabra

Cabra — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:39:05 +0000

Bloomberg/Paul 08

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:23:23 +0000

i love the idea of reform, so much that I would be excited to see a new party emerge. Remember, despite the notes on the White House website, Republicans were a new party once too. Wasn’t Lincoln the first Republican president? My my how far away from that ideal have we gone?

The time came that Federalists and Whigs needed to be retired permanently, and I firmly believe that time has come for Republicans as well. Let’s not simply vote them OUT of office, let’s vote them out of EXISTENCE! Can anyone look at me with a straight face and tell me why we should EVER vote for another Republican anywhere? Or can you tell me in all seriousness what any Republican president has done FOR Americans, rather than TO Americans in the last 100 years? If I ever hear the words “I’m a uniter, not a divider” again I shall truly vomit!

How about a Constitutionist party, that reads, acknowledges, understands, protects and governs by the ideals set forth in our backbone documents? I’d vote fo rthat, anyone in favor? Say AYE!

By: wj

wj — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:24:43 +0000

Scott, certainly I understand the desire to vote for someone. On the other hand, politics ends up being about compromise a lot of the time. A good case could be made that those of us who insisted on voting “for” someone ended up giving us 8 years of George Bush.

Would Al Gore have been a great president? Personally, I doubt it. Would he have been better for the nation than Bush? I’d say that was a virtual certainty. But enough better to make voting against, rather than voting for, the right choice? I suppose that depends on what you think Gore would have done in detail.

(I should, perhaps, note that the trade-off is different for those living in a swing state vs. those in a less marginal state. In California in 2000, I could vote “for”, secure in the knowledge that the state would go one way by a substantial margin. If I had lived in Florida or Ohio, the calculation would necessarily have been different.)

By: Scott McDonnell

Scott McDonnell — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:40:54 +0000

wj,

THAT’s the problem. People are tired of voting “against.” That is why elections have been so divided and close. Basically, two candidates are picked and they are both terrible choices. So, we then vote “against” one (usually based on our party allegiances.)

Don’t people understand that one set of extremely influential people could infest the top of both parties and use this psychology against us so easily? All they have to do is “buy” the top tier of both parties and offer us two terrible choices. We will vote for one because we are voting ‘against’ the other. Whether or not this DOES happen, I will leave to late night conspiracy talk-radio, but it is definitely too possible for me to feel comfortable about it.

This time I will be voted “for” someone, not against. And I will do it whether he gets the nomination or not. I will not put my endorsement behind evil, regardless of the party it is wrapped up in.

By: wj

wj — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:18:07 +0000

Justin, you don’t want to let the perfect become the enemy of the good (or even just the less bad). In particular, even if there is not a candidate who embodies the kind of change you want, that doesn’t mean that there is no significant difference between the two (or even three) candidates on offer. And sitting out the election means failing to vote against the candidate who you think would be worse for the country.

I really hope you (and the rest of us who want reform) will not let our disappointment with the available choices keep us from voting.