Tuesday, February 5, 2008

@ivoted in the #caprimary

You can follow people who voted (and, in some cases, who/what they voted for) via a Tweetscan search for @ivoted.

Here's what I tweeted:

@ivoted #caprimary huckabee (2nd choice cox). yes 91 (transportation). no 92-97 (community college, term "limits," 4 indian gaming compacts)

While much of the Twitterverse is going toward Obama (which makes sense, since he appeals to more educated people), I was debating on the red side of the ticket.

I ruled out Brownback, Giuliani, Hunter, Tancredo, and Thompson early. Not that I was averse to voting for a withdrawn candidate if said candidate best reflected my views, but I wasn't really inspired by any of them.

I wasn't going to vote for Keyes; talk show hosts (of the left or right) do not good Presidents make. You need a different skill set to yell at the idiots, rather than working with them to lead the country.

Which brings us to Ron Paul, who had three strikes against him. First, using "conservative" in the true (Goldwater) sense of the term, Paul is too conservative for my tastes. Remember how people claimed in 1980 that Reagan would guy the government? Paul actually would gut the government. Second, I don't necessarily see leadership qualities in him; in fact, he's more like a talk show host than a political leader. Third, it's no secret that his baba booeys have turned me off completely.

As for McCain, I have to admit that Kennedy-McCain still stuck in my craw. Perhaps it's not the Christian thing to do, but amnesty isn't the long term answer to illegal immigration; think of what happens AFTER this group of illegal immigrants is legalized. In the last debate, McCain, for all of his so-called straight talk, wouldn't answer the question of whether he would vote for his own bill today. Heck, when Jim Bakker (the "I was wrong" guy) does more "straight talk" than you do, your "straight talk" credentials are questionable. In addition, I'm not sure whether McCain is pretending to be a maverick, or is pretending to be part of the Beltway establishment. I suspect he's part of the latter.

So we're down to Romney, Cox, and Huckabee.

Romney and his danged gold and silver medals after every primary and caucus (and yee, we'll hear the stupid medal analogy from him again tonight), as if the Olympics have anything to do with private enterprise. Romney, who can appeal to Massachusetts voters one minute and to the true blue conservatives the next. I just never got excited about him.

As you know, I seriously considered John Cox, and got ripped for it. (Anti Cox: for Romney's true conservative credentials, see my comments on Paul and Romney above, and on Huckabee below.) In the end, I voted against him for the same reason I voted against Keyes and Paul; Cox is not equipped to be a political leader. But boy, was I tempted to go in his direction.


First off, Huckabee is not a conservative. But neither are Romney, McCain, or even Keyes. Despite the numerous definitions of conservative, I hold by the old axiom that conservatives don't like a lot of government. Conservatives don't like a lot of wiretapping and spying. Conservatives don't like to tell the states what to do. Conservatives don't like to run up huge amounts of national debt.

Second off, Huckabee is not perfect. I've known pastors who were not perfect.

Third off, I don't agree with all of Huckabee's ideas. While the I-95 public works idea is appealing (I believe that government has to take action during a recession, and if we're going to spend the money anyway, better to spend it in this country), I'm not quite sure how you can eliminate the IRS at this stage of our country's history.

But, all of that aside, the best thing about Huckabee is that he is not John McCain, Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney.

Hmm...perhaps I should have voted for Cox.

I'm going to skip over the propositions except for 94-97, upon which I made my final decision at 6:30 this morning. At one point I was considering voting for some and not others, but since three of the propositions covered one county it wouldn't really matter. In the end, I decided that a "Yes" vote would restrict the ability of Pala and other gaming casinos to grow, while a "No" vote could lead to reopened talks. (The four tribes, after all, have an economic interest in re-negotiating in order to increase their profits.)

Anyway, that was some of the so-called rationale behind my votes. And if you hate my rationale, go out and vote yourself.

[mrontemp business] | [mrontemp politics] | [mrontemp technology] | [mrontemp del.icio.us tags]

Sphere: Related Content