Soccer Mom: Unplugged

raves, rants, reviews and recounts of life in middle America

2008/2/8

Vote! Vote! Vote!

@ 10:42 AM (10 months, 17 hours ago)

I have said repeatedly that I would sit out the presidential election in November if McCain was the GOP nominee.  I have also said I would vote for Obama or write in Ron Paul.  I want to clarify and qualify these statements.

I will be voting in November.  At this point, I will likely write in a presidential candidate.  BUT I will be voting a straight GOP ticket otherwise and here's why:  With either a Democrat or a non-conservative in the White House, we need to provide opposition in Congress to provide some barrier to liberal lawmaking.  Rush Limbaugh was making this point today on his show and I had to laugh because I swear he's got me wiretapped.  I was explaining this very position to my husband on Tuesday night and it is the only way to limit the damage done in the next four years.  If we can't control the policy - we must impede the other guys from doing it.  It is that simple.

Yep - we've become the movement of "Obstruct. Obstruct. Obstruct"  Sad, isn't it?

Comment(s) »

  1. Ron Paul!Ron Paul!Ron Paul!

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/08 @ 10:57 AM — (Reply)

  2. ok, Dugg, you're on.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/08 @ 12:06 PM — (Reply)

  3. With all due respect, a vote for RP is a vote for McCain and possibly for :shock::roll::evil::twisted: Hillary.

    The straight GOP is fine for any other office. Now is the time to support Obama. Hillary is America's worst nightmare and a write in is a Hillary vote.


    Ed

    Comment by Ed— 2008/02/09 @ 01:16 PM — (Reply)

  4. Sorry, Ed, I actually considered Obama up until about 2 days ago. He is now in the "ain't no way" category.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/09 @ 03:50 PM — (Reply)

  5. Ed is a terrorist supporter.

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/09 @ 02:31 PM — (Reply)

  6. Dugg is a Hillary sniffer.

    Ed

    Comment by Ed— 2008/02/09 @ 02:46 PM — (Reply)

  7. I would appreciate your explanation regarding why you would prefer Hillary to Obama Cate.

    Ed

    Comment by Ed— 2008/02/09 @ 05:13 PM — (Reply)

  8. I don't read her saying anything about Hitlery, Ed. Just you saying you support a terrorist.

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/09 @ 07:30 PM — (Reply)

  9. Hey Genius....not voting against Hillary is voting for Hillary. It is the duty of you and every sensible American to support Obama who TODAY is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary. That's reality. Get real.

    Comment by Ed— 2008/02/09 @ 07:38 PM — (Reply)

  10. 1- Obama's voting record is much more liberal than Hillary's and he is 100% against the war while Hillary has dodged commitments regarding Iraq, suggesting she realizes that, partisanship aside, we can't afford to lose.

    2- Obama isn't going to win, anyway, as Hillary is courting all the superdelegates.

    3- Obama has no definable positions other than perhaps, "attack Pakistan" which reveals his lack of foreign policy experience.

    4- Obama attacked Romney after he left the race which shows an incredible lack of class completely shattering the self-erected illusion that he was above the mudslinging. One of the only reasons I was willing to give Camelot II a chance.

    5- And most importantly, I'm waiting for the chance to impeach a second Clinton.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/09 @ 08:57 PM — (Reply)

  11. 1. Iraq isn't the issue, terror is. Personally I don't want to see the last American helicoptered off the embassy roof ala Viet Nam. Rather than dragging out the quagmire, Obama actually has the best shot of getting us out with dignity.

    2. The super delegates are going to vote for who they think can beat McCain and most of them would like nothing better than to smite the Clintons for good.

    3. The President is the country's inspirational leader. President's have what are called advisors. Are you afraid Al Sharpton is going to head up the defense dept.?

    4. Noboby is the used car salesman Romney is. Any shot he gets is well deserved.

    5. HAHA. Like anything really happened to the first Clinton. Personally I'm not up for at least four more years of fighting about insignificance coming from DC. That's been going onlong enough. The Clinton's can simply be prosecuted for perjury countless times in multiple state courts.

    I'm a life long conservative republican. The system IS broken. Something radical is required. The viable option for real change, and change is needed even if Obama's change scares you. McCain and Hillary = no change. Morale of story - Support and vote for Obama.

    Otherwise you get Hillary. Think about Pelosi. then think at least 10 times worse.

    Forget the wait four years and get a republican in. If Hillary wins, she is in for eight.

    Ed

    Comment by Ed— 2008/02/09 @ 09:12 PM — (Reply)

  12. Getting us out with dignity?
    That would require an apology for our illegal invasion and a prompt withdrawl.

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/10 @ 10:08 AM — (Reply)

  13. Change for the sake of change? Okay, let's revoke our independence and become a British colony. Better yet, let's crown our own monarch. How about we dissolve the union and let each state stand alone as 50 independent nations?

    All change is not good, Ed. Offer me a candidate that promisies positive change and I'll give him my vote.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/10 @ 11:46 AM — (Reply)

  14. What negatives do you see in Obama's plan for change?

    BG

    Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/10 @ 11:58 AM — (Reply)

  15. Cate,

    Your point #2 echoes the pre-determined defeatism you stuck on Paul. Now, granted, you had other issues with Paul's candidacy, and you have other concerns with Obama's... but isn't the lack of a strong conservative candidate, in part, a result of just that sort of thinking on a larger scale?

    Comment by Michael— 2008/02/10 @ 07:33 AM — (Reply)

  16. I'm talking about primary electability - Ron Paul couldn't get it because a substantial part of the GOP will not accept premature withdrawal from Iraq. Obama could get it (the nomination from his party) but the pundits don't seem to believe he can, and I don't get to vote in the Dem primary so I can't help/hurt him anyway.

    There is a difference between voting for a candidate because you think he will have general appeal in November and recognizing that a candidate is unable to get his own party's nod.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/10 @ 11:50 AM — (Reply)

  17. It would appear, the "Hillary" inevitability may have been nothing but hype - Drudge has Obama pulling ahead.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/11 @ 08:45 AM — (Reply)

  18. it kind of reminds me of the New England Patriots

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/11 @ 08:45 AM — (Reply)

  19. A few months ago, wasn't it Guiliani inevitability? Then I seem to recall someone (Barry?) talking about Thompson's inevitability... Now all the pundits are talking about the McCain inevitability.

    You're late in the game if you only now start to recognize that Clinton might not be inevitable, or rather, have signed on with the punditry of your choice TELLING you that he might have a chance.

    Politics have often been looked at like a horse race, but increasingly it's blatantly obvious that the ones reporting on the race are also, to a large measure, jockeys pushing or slowing down the horses in the race. As Fox News proved a long time ago, if you say something on TV enough times, eventually shmucks start believing it.

    Why do we bother having elections, when we have our wonderful collection of political pundits there to tell us who can and can't win?

    Comment by Michael— 2008/02/11 @ 10:01 AM — (Reply)

  20. it's a vast right wing conspiracy at FOX ya know

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/11 @ 10:24 AM — (Reply)

  21. Amen to that. They blacked out Ron Paul despite record setting donation days - because they didn't like his anti war message.

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/11 @ 11:03 AM — (Reply)

  22. Yes - Dugg, they were extraordinarily unfair to Ron Paul and until recently they were so pro-Giuliani and Thompson that you'd have to be a brick to not see it.

    Now, they are pushing people to McCain - today I actually heard a "reporter" paraphrase Reagan saying that if you charge over the cliff waving your flag, you still charge over the cliff. The implication was that conservatives who refused to vote McCain were ruining the nation by tanking his candidacy. Since when is this kind of editorializing and verbal strong-arming "reporting" or "interviewing"?

    BTW, I would say that if I were charging toward a cliff, I'd want people to yell "Stop, you idiot!" And further, if we're going over the cliff anyway, with any of the three presidential hopefuls, I'm damn sure going to voice my discontent.

    Now, if someone will send me a candidate who can turn the doomed train around... or at least put on the brakes...

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/11 @ 11:35 AM — (Reply)

  23. If I really think about it I get scared at the thought of Hillary/Obama/McCain/Huckabee.
    It matters zero which one wins - they all will be exactly the same. We are so screwed.

    Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/11 @ 12:23 PM — (Reply)

  24. Exactly how I feel, Dugg. Like choosing between pink and yellow lemonade - no substantive difference.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/11 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)

  25. I big to differ. One candidate is a generation younger. The Hillary generation has shot it's load. It's time to move on. Sure...a conservative would be better. But the generational change is now the defining issue.

    Ed

    Comment by Ed— 2008/02/11 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)

  26. Good point Harry. That point #2 almost seems recalcitrant.

    How are you thinking about voting since there is no Neocon available? :grin:

    Did you already vote in your primary? If so, how so? If not, why not?

    BG

    Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/10 @ 07:53 AM — (Reply)

  27. Hey Dugg,

    Is it ever possible for you to say that anyone ever did something with best intentions and did a good job?

    BG

    Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/10 @ 11:15 AM — (Reply)

» Leave a comment


:mrgreen: :neutral: :twisted: :arrow: :shock: :smile: :???: :cool: :evil: :grin: :idea: :oops: :razz: :roll: :wink: :cry: :eek: :lol: :mad: :sad: :!: :?:

Preview:

You say:

To prevent spam, please type in the exact word you see in this image: CAPTCHA
To refresh the image, click here. Otherwise, contact us.

  • Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
  • Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
  • The line and paragraph breaks automatically