« C.C.C.ongress.P. | Main | Meet Matthew Murray »

Vote For Sale

Well, we're coming down to the wire for the New Hampshire presidential primary, and I find myself utterly undecided about who to vote for. This isn't like the general election, where it's a simple binary decision; as a registered independent, I can vote for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, simply by declaring myself a member of that party just long enough to vote, and then promptly resigning again. (I forgot that last part in 2000 after voting for Bill Bradley, and consequently spent the next five years as a registered Democrat until I finally got around to fixing that.)

So I'm turning to you, the readership, to give you a chance to participate -- ever so slightly -- in the New Hamsphire presidential primary. I'm looking for your guidance on who should get my vote.

OK, the headline is a bit sensationalistic. My vote is not "for sale." It's not even up for election. I'm looking for persuasive arguments on how I should cast my ballot, and I've narrowed the field of candidates down to five.

I'm not going to name any names (feel free to guess on which is which, but I most likely won't confirm until after the primary), but just describe my reasons for voting for each of them. (And no, none of them is Ron Paul. Or, on the other end of the nutty bar, Dennis Kucinich.)

Candidate A is the one with I believe I would be most comfortable as president.

Candidate B is the most popular candidate I believe I could tolerate.

Candidate C has the most potential to be a great president -- or a disastrous one.

Candidate D is the one from the party I would not want to win whom I think will do the least harm.

Candidate E is the one from the party I would not want to win whom I think would be the most easily beaten.

I almost included Candidate F -- the one from the party I would not want to win who will do the most damage to that party's eventual nominee -- but I'm not quite that cynical.

And I'm not going to write in anyone. If they aren't on the ballot, they don't exist to me.

So have at it, folks. This is your chance to have even just a little say in the legendary New Hampshire presidential primary. Help me choose who'll get my one vote come January.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/26093.

Comments (23)

Far be it from me to tell a... (Below threshold)

Far be it from me to tell a New Hampshiritian how to or not to vote in a New Hampshire primary. After all, you've been the "first in the nation primary" since Hillary Clinton was still in pigtails with ribbons. Besides, we South Carolinians subscribe to a MYODB philosophy, in the hope that if we don't meddle in your affairs, perhaps you will keep your Yankee noses closer to home - except for brief vacations, when you are encouraged to bring plenty of what Ron Paul describes as "illegal, unconstitutional, fiat money." We'uns like the stuff.

Nonetheless, in the spirit of reaching out across the Mason-Dixon Line in friendship and peace - as if allowing Boston College into the ACC were not enough - I offer you my own private, personal recipe for selecting Presidential candidates in a primary, which I of course use for medicinal purposes only.

I vote for the candidate who comes closest to my own opinions and priorities, but who also has a reasonable chance to win. Casting a vote for someone who can't win might make me feel good about myself, if I were a moron, but otherwise wastes my franchise. So, my plan resembles plotting a graph, with one axis being how close a candidate meets my personal specifications, and the other measuring his chance of winning (as best I can determine both). Where they cross = for whom I vote.

Your alternatives of sabotaging the opponent would come into consideration only if our nominee were certain. For example, in 2004, with Bush unopposed, I voted for Edwards in the Democratic Primary in SC. My whole and entire purpose was to prolong, if possible, the Democratic contest, which might have led to more internal discord on their side had my gambit succeeded. It did not, but it cost nothing. In 2000, 1996, and 1988, I voted in the GOP Primary, which contests remained undecided.

Vote for Hillary. She need... (Below threshold)
Bob:

Vote for Hillary. She needs the support since she's lately been slipping, she's better than Obama on foreign policy and guns, and the post-nomination campaign will be much more fun if she's in it. (She'll be the Republicans biggest fundraiser.) After yesterday's debate, how could you vote for any of the Republicans?

What's wrong with just plai... (Below threshold)
kapow:

What's wrong with just plain old sensational? Why's everything gotta be "istic" these days - jeez.

Vote for the bitch.... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Vote for the bitch.

Vote for C - Huckabee. (Or... (Below threshold)
BlueNight:

Vote for C - Huckabee. (Or is he A?)

Jay,I don't know i... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Jay,

I don't know if this will appeal to you ideologically, but I will reiterate a comment I just made at the Evangelical Outpost about yesterday's debate. One thing happened at the debate that I think is very telling, and in the case of one candidate, very disturbing.

Q. Is global climate change is a "serious threat and caused by human activity?"

Huckabee, Romney, McCain and Giuliani all say yes. Of course, if these candidates believe that, then action must be taken. Action to limit your freedoms and increase government power.

There are some stalwart conservative Republicans for you.

Huckabee's support of the global warming paradigm is the most disturbing. It should be apparent to all observant Christians that global warming is a competing religion and a societal regression into paganism. Since he is a seminary-trained Southern Baptist minister, I find Huckabee's endorsement of the global warming hysteria deeply offensive. He may as well have bowed himself to a pagan idol on the stage. The other candidates can plead ignorance. Huckabee has no such defense.

As you may know, Thompson got in a little tiff with the moderator over this question. He did not endorse the global warming hypothesis.

This is just one little snapshot of why I support Fred Thompson. There a many other reasons, but this incident tells real conservatives about all they need to know.

Vote for who you would be m... (Below threshold)
Chaz:

Vote for who you would be most comfortable with as President.

My entry:Candidate... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

My entry:

Candidate A - Thompson

Candidate B - Giuliani

Candidate C - Romney

Candidate D - Obama

Candidate E - Hillary

I may have Romney and Thompson reversed in your mind, but when I think "comfortable" Thompson is automatic.

Why vote for the lessor evi... (Below threshold)
David:

Why vote for the lessor evil, vote Cthulhu.

You should vote for Fred be... (Below threshold)
Old_Dawg:

You should vote for Fred because, according to IMAO, he will hunt you down and kill you if you don't :)

You didn't name names, Jay ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

You didn't name names, Jay Tea, and neither will I as there is no need to, based on what you posted.

Vote for "Candidate A".

Everyone should vote for their "Candidate A".

On the republican side, it ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

On the republican side, it is too early for me to decide. The frustrating vacillation is ongoing. JT, it will be difficult for you.

On the democrat side, Hillary will get the vote. Obama should not even be considered he is so empty. Richardson is the one that should get the vote but won't. ww

Whatever happened to that q... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Whatever happened to that quaint notion of voting for the person you think will make the best president? I for one don't want to use comfortability as a reason to elect someone. God knows lots of folks with buyers remorse used that as a factor in voting for Bush

Is there a message in its conspicuous absence from your list?

Vote for Thompson. He'd wo... (Below threshold)

Vote for Thompson. He'd won my loyalty long before the debate yesterday by being articulate, strongly conservative, and simply comfortable in his own skin. A President isn't just a man, he's all the people that he gathers around him in his Administration. Thompson will attract men and women like himself, and that's good.

Yesterday, he smacked down the moderator and made the other candidates look like spineless sheep. It was a breathtaking moment, Reagan like, and I want more of that.

Vote for Fred. He doesn't really want to be President, but he knows he's right for the job.

I genuinely believe there a... (Below threshold)
Steve:

I genuinely believe there are a number of ticking time bomb issues which if not dealt with under the next president, may never be resolved positively. The issue of illegal immigration, for instance, is reaching critical mass. The more illegals stream into this country, the more paralyzed our leaders become in their willingness to sacrifice the Hispanic demographic by dealing with it. The global warming hoax is gaining traction due to the echo-chamber consensus effect. They're already sacking vital power generation projects for the sake of an imaginary crisis. Militant islam and anti-American coalitions are making political, if not territorial gains worldwide. Our next president must not be the kind who is squeamish about waterboarding murderers. How can such a man be expected to hunt down and kill our enemies? And what other security policies will he sacrifice when they come under broad criticism in the media? Our entitlement programs are going bankrupt, and if not dealt with, sooner rather than later, only the most disastrous remedies will remain for future leaders.

In my opinion, we really can not afford to get this one wrong. If I lived in an early primary state, I'd throw in for Thompson. He's got the right ideas, the right personal qualities, and he can beat the Dems.

Fred. No more nonsense.</p... (Below threshold)

Fred. No more nonsense.

Go for candidate A, assumin... (Below threshold)
kbiel Author Profile Page:

Go for candidate A, assuming that candidate A is Fred Thompson. Forget the popularity contest, that's mostly media generated anyway as they are trying to manipulate the primaries.

As an agnostic, you have to like the fact that he is conscientiously avoiding injecting his religious beliefs into his politics.

Otherwise, he is right on all the important social and fiscal conservative issues. Additionally, he is the only candidate of the ones you listed (assuming none of them are Duncan Hunter) who seems to actually revere the constitution and the philosophy behind it. In other words, as a New Hampshirite, Fred Thompson is the candidate that should most appeal to your sense of independence and state's rights.

Vote for Paul in the primar... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Vote for Paul in the primary. I don not think he will be President, and will likely not get the nomination, but America seriously needs an enema from the status quo. It's time to send a message and I think NH has the best chance of doing it.

Paul Bunyan has it right. ... (Below threshold)

Paul Bunyan has it right. Always vote for the person you think would be the best president.
"Electability" is a myth. The most "electable" candidate in the primary has more often than not gone on to lose the general election (Ford, Dole, Dukakis, Kerry, I could go back farther if you like). Better to go with who you like.

Comfortable? Yikes!<... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Comfortable? Yikes!

I want a President that kicks ass-ya baby.

That guy is Giuliani.

Listen let's go back to the days of the Greeks-why were governments first formed?

To protect and defend the very existance of the group as a whole.

What is the one thing that you cannot do as an individual?

Defend yourself from the maruading horde.

And no sorry Tancredo that ain't the Mexicans.

We need a strong national defense and we need to project that out into the future because the enemy is an unknown entity right now.

Research and development is paramount to the defense of this country these days because we will never again win the numbers game -a war of attrition.

Trust me their are plenty of groups out there (yes groups- learn it- the "nation state" boundaries have been blurred by the new rules of war set by terrorism)- who feel they have population to spare even women and children.

And you can tell this in particular by how they treat the most defenseless of those groups.

Know of any countries that murder female infants?

That ain't a good sign....

I'll say it again.

Giuliani if you listen to him-is always the guy that prioritizes this-and there's a reason for that- Plato knew it-

if you can't defend the nation state not much else matters.

Please vote for Senator Oba... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Please vote for Senator Obama. If Senator Clinton loses NH, we will force her campaign to stop this "inevitability" nonsense. She'll have to answer real questions. People will actually THINK about a Clinton Presidency. They will start to evaluate her actual qualifications. And she's toast.

The alternative to Obama is Clinton, a hopelessly diseased and corrupt sack of fecal matter. If she gets in the White House, she and her husband will once again abuse the highest office in the land for their personal gain.

Is that the message that we want to send to the world? That the United States is so hopelessly corrupt that we know these two are criminals, but we can't find anybody remotely qualified to be President, so we'll just elect gangsters.

Is that the message that we want to send to our children? Don't lie. Don't steal. Don't betray the public trust. Except that it's OK if you're really good at what you do. Then you can do all of those things. Hell, you can sexually assault others or enable a serial sexual predator, and you can get elected President. It doesn't matter.

Character matters. The Clintons have none.

a lot of people are assumin... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

a lot of people are assuming that you have Thompson as your "A" candidate. he could also be your "C" candidate, i suppose, except i don't see him capable of being a disastrous president. i say vote for Fred, i at least plan to.

He's been consistent, he's been forthright, he's laid out his policy positions in ways that I can understand on a first read. And BONUS: I agree with about 99% of what he says.

if you don't agree with what he says, vote for someone else. unless it's ron paul. i think you should vote for the person you agree with the most. that's what it comes down to.

Vote Fred.Need mor... (Below threshold)

Vote Fred.

Need more info go here: www.fred08.com

Or scroll down to Thursday Round Up and watch the video clip to see which sheep raised their hands in response to the question. Romney was the only one who tried to cover after realizing he'd just made a mistake.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy