POTUS.
Beg pardon, but all the campaign related nonsense that is floating around right now has me snarky. There is almost certainly negativity to follow. Godspeed.
I don't think I want to vote for any of the Presidential candidates. The Republican selection is the absolute scrapings of the barrel--wholly unappetizing. But the present POTUS, with his weekly promises to act (in lieu of laws allowing him to act) as he desires, will probably drive me to vote for one of them.
I will not vote for Perry, Paul, Bachmann, Huntsman, or, most likely--it pains me to say--Gingrich.
Perry is an idiot savant. I don't care how effectively you balanced the budget of your state; I do not desire a President whom I feel a burning desire to muzzle every time he gets up to read his next list of ill considered remarks. On top of that, his particular brand of Christianity makes me bristle. Give me a nice staid catholic or something; not an ecstatic.
Ron Paul. It's funny to watch his followers lick their chops after they say his name, much like I imagine Grishnakh doing after he mentions the Nazgul; kind of savoring the taste of the name. Ron Paul campaigns tend to run like Nazgul campaigns; lots of men get attacked, and if one did not bother to read the appendices, then one might believe that the attack was the whole substance and purpose of his campaign. Paul has no apparent understanding of compromise, and even less of dignity.
Bachmann and Huntsman, thankfully, are well out of the running at this point. I think both--perhaps in childhood?--contracted the same disease as Perry resulting in diarrhea of the mouth.
And my dear, my very dear, Newt. He's like some sort of ADHD leprechaun; pointed in every direction at once and seemingly always purposing mischief. The man cannot hold a position for longer than 20 minutes, and then goes on to hold the opposite position next. Sure, I like his books. I like that he has cleverness and charisma; that he does not have the same hoof-in-mouth syndrome that so many of his peers display. I think he has more than enough promise to win the presidential election, and then proceed to total the Republican party...again. The one constant with Newt is his Ego: omnipresent and powerful.
The thing that sucks...if it comes down to one of them versus Obama; I will have to vote for him/*gulp* her. Lunacy, viciousness, and mediocrity are preferable, in so far as their personifications are less likely--I believe--to abuse executive power and act in a manner that usurps the power of Congress. A substandard piece that fits its place in the machine is better than the piece that believes it is a machine unto itself, damaging the machine by its action. This is called compromise. I might have to forgo ideological purity in order to move away from a greater evil.
Though I still refuse to rule out a miraculous showing from the Petersen Party.
I don't think I want to vote for any of the Presidential candidates. The Republican selection is the absolute scrapings of the barrel--wholly unappetizing. But the present POTUS, with his weekly promises to act (in lieu of laws allowing him to act) as he desires, will probably drive me to vote for one of them.
I will not vote for Perry, Paul, Bachmann, Huntsman, or, most likely--it pains me to say--Gingrich.
Perry is an idiot savant. I don't care how effectively you balanced the budget of your state; I do not desire a President whom I feel a burning desire to muzzle every time he gets up to read his next list of ill considered remarks. On top of that, his particular brand of Christianity makes me bristle. Give me a nice staid catholic or something; not an ecstatic.
Ron Paul. It's funny to watch his followers lick their chops after they say his name, much like I imagine Grishnakh doing after he mentions the Nazgul; kind of savoring the taste of the name. Ron Paul campaigns tend to run like Nazgul campaigns; lots of men get attacked, and if one did not bother to read the appendices, then one might believe that the attack was the whole substance and purpose of his campaign. Paul has no apparent understanding of compromise, and even less of dignity.
Bachmann and Huntsman, thankfully, are well out of the running at this point. I think both--perhaps in childhood?--contracted the same disease as Perry resulting in diarrhea of the mouth.
And my dear, my very dear, Newt. He's like some sort of ADHD leprechaun; pointed in every direction at once and seemingly always purposing mischief. The man cannot hold a position for longer than 20 minutes, and then goes on to hold the opposite position next. Sure, I like his books. I like that he has cleverness and charisma; that he does not have the same hoof-in-mouth syndrome that so many of his peers display. I think he has more than enough promise to win the presidential election, and then proceed to total the Republican party...again. The one constant with Newt is his Ego: omnipresent and powerful.
The thing that sucks...if it comes down to one of them versus Obama; I will have to vote for him/*gulp* her. Lunacy, viciousness, and mediocrity are preferable, in so far as their personifications are less likely--I believe--to abuse executive power and act in a manner that usurps the power of Congress. A substandard piece that fits its place in the machine is better than the piece that believes it is a machine unto itself, damaging the machine by its action. This is called compromise. I might have to forgo ideological purity in order to move away from a greater evil.
Though I still refuse to rule out a miraculous showing from the Petersen Party.
Wooooooo! Petersen/Casey '!2!!!
ReplyDeleteAnd I cannot express how loudly I chortled at your summations of both Newt and Dr. Paul. Ha-to the-ha-ha.
Well done.
ReplyDeleteI'm less bothered by the presumptive inevitability of a Romney candidacy than most, insofar as I respect that Romney, as a stuffed-shirt managerial type, at least retains a wisp of humility at the prospect of governing 300,000,000-some human beings. And of course, Newt's numbers are suddenly making Romney look less inevitable, and that makes me nervous, indeed. I wholeheartedly agree Newt would be a disaster, even (perhaps especially) if he should actually win. Where's the None of the Above option?
I have equally "meh" feelings about both Newt and Romney. But overall, I agree with you, Patrick, on your assessment of the slate of candidates this year.
ReplyDeleteAs Conservatives, we get rather used to pinching our noses shut whilst filling in a ballot; this year, however, it seems we must blind our eyes and stop up our ears as well.
Thank you especially for your take on Ron Paul. Having recently been involved in a short internet debate with one of his rabid supporters I can say your characterization is true.