15 March 2006

Meaningless straw poll

on the 2008 primaries, over at GOP Bloggers. I say it's meaningless because politically speaking, there's a long way to go until the actual primaries. But it's sort of interesting, so go vote.

But I thought I'd take this opportunity to say a few things.
  1. John McCain will never win the primaries. I don't care how much the media loves him or how well he'd play among centrists. Centrists don't vote in primaries - the base does. And the base despises John McCain. I know this is anecdotal, but I read a lot of blogs, and I haven't run across any conservative bloggers or commenters who endorse McCain. I personally wouldn't vote for him even if he were running against Hillary.
  2. No, that doesn't mean I'd vote for Hillary. I'd probably vote for the Libertarian. I almost went Libertarian in the last election, because I disagree with pretty much every bit of President Bush's domestic policy. I love the concept of the ownership society, but his implementation is much too Great Society-like for me (i.e., my objections are based on fiscal conservatism). And oh, I hate NCLB. Not happy with the borders either. And pretty upset about the waffling over Social Security - as far as I am concerned, any solution that doesn't involve personal accounts is unacceptable. (Granted, that was Congress's fault, but offering to compromise on personal accounts didn't help. Personally, I'd really prefer to abolish Social Security entirely...)

    But in the end, I did cast my vote for President Bush on the grounds of national security. Badnarik is one of the head-in-the-sand Libertarians - the kind who think that if we just pulled in all our troops from everywhere, the world would get along perfectly fine, and no one would bother us. (I used to think that too, right up until one Tuesday morning about four and a half years ago.) So I couldn't stomach voting for him.

    Maybe if we're lucky, Jonathon "The Impaler" Starkey will run. No one could accuse him of being soft on terrorists.
  3. Romney sounded good at first, but I'm starting to doubt him because he's had some inconsistent stances. I'm sure it's difficult to be a staunch social conservative when you are running for office in Massachusetts, but still.
  4. Based on what I know about Giulani, I think he could be a good president, and I would have no qualms about voting for him. He's demonstrated leadership ability and a tough-on-crime demeanor. Nevertheless, I can't see him winning the primaries, because from what I understand, he has a lot of baggage (divorce, pro-choice stance, etc.) that will really hurt him among social conservatives*.
  5. I don't have comments about the others, because I don't think anyone who doesn't follow politics obsessively has any idea who they are. Giulani is pretty much the only one with nationwide name recognition. (Maybe Gingrich as well, but his name recognition isn't positive. Let's be honest.)
So, I expect to see the nomination won by someone who's not on the list.

And yes, I'd vote for Condi, in a heartbeat.


*I'm not sure if I'm a "social conservative" or not. Political affiliation tests invariably rate me as WAY socially conservative, but the trouble is, there's a difference between asking, "What is your opinion of [insert liberal cause célèbre here]?" and "What do you think the government should have to say about [liberal cause célèbre]?" My answers to those questions have no bearing on each other.

3 Comments:

Blogger BrewFan said...

Nice post, Mrs. Peel. With regards to NCLB, this is what happens when you compromise your principles to appease Democrats. The premise of NCLB is admirable and necessary. The schools in our country's inner cities are deplorable and getting worse. Without accountability they will never be fixed. President Bush nailed it when he pointed out that our inner city schools suffer from the soft bigotry of low expectations. Having said that, as a school board member I can assure you that the bureaucracy has already strangled the life out of NCLB. Next time we need to keep Ted Kennedy out of the process.

3:24 PM  
Blogger Retired Geezer said...

After the disaster that is McCain-Feingold, I can't understand why *any* Conservative would vote for McCain.
No, I can't explain why Bush signed it.

What Brew said about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
That's a pretty profound phrase.

4:53 PM  
Blogger Mrs. Peel said...

Exactly, Brew. I was excited about it before I saw how it was actually implemented. And unfortunately, that's true of nearly every one of Bush's domestic programs.

Which isn't to say I think he's a bad president. I think the advance of liberty under his watch has been incredible.

Geezer, right on.

5:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home