Thoughts on the Election

I was certainly disappointed but not surprised when I read that Thompson dropped out of the 2008 race yesterday. For the first time since I was able to vote, I actually had a candidate who I wanted to vote for, not just vote against. Unfortunately, the candidates left don't include anyone I can give my vote to in good conscience. Who's left?

Republicans:

McCain: Gun grabber. Has used the First Amendment for toilet paper. Pro-amnesty for illegals.

Romney: Has all the trustworthiness of the slimiest used car salesman you can imagine. Unlike Hillary Clinton, he has actually implemented socialized health care and an assault weapons ban.

Huckabee: Jimmah Cahtuh with an "R" after his name. Pro-amnesty for illegals. No offense intended to my Christian friends, but I don't want a preacher for a president (nor would I want a rabbi for a president, either).

Paul: I like his domestic policy agenda but his foreign policy would be a disaster. Shrink the military to 20% of its current size? WTF? Really, WTF?

Ghouliani: Mussolini on the Hudson.

Democrats:

Clinton: Two power-mad socialists who know better than you for the price of one. Gun grabber. Thinks we should look at Africa of all places as a source for inspiration on child rearing.

Obama: An empty suit. "Change." What change? How about something more than platitudes for the people? Gun grabber. Came out of the Chicago Machine, which should scare the crap out of anyone.

Edwards: Stinking rich populist, the epitome of the limousine liberal. Tear down the man. Prettier than Clinton, though.

Kucinich: The mothership is calling and will be here shortly to take you home.

With Thompson out of the race we're left with a bunch of candidates who -- except for Paul -- want to increase the Federal government's role in your daily life and sellout to illegal aliens, who are by definition criminals. Neither side is espousing fiscal responsibility, as we lurch into a recession. Paul and Huckabee are solidly pro-RKBA, but the former's foreign policy is more suitable to 1808 than 2008. He has next to no chance of even getting the nomination anyway. The latter is a tax and spend liberal.

The strongest argument I've read for voting Repbulican is so that a Democrat president doesn't get to appoint Federal judges, including one or two vacancies on the Supreme Court. However, I'm not swayed. Why should a liberal Republican appoint conservative judges? Look at Bush I, who gave us David Souter, for example. Granted, Bush II gave us Alito and Roberts, but hpoing for another Scalia is naive.

Unfortunately, most of the obnoxious legislation that emanates from DC won't even go to the Supreme Court to get the chance to be tossed out. The best we could hope for is a conservative Republican president, not afraid to use his veto power, to provide a check against the crooks in Congress. It ain't happening this time.

I am beginning to believe that the way we found ourselves in this predicament is due largely to the philosophy of voting for the lesser of two evils. We've been forced to do so for so long that we are left with no choice but evil. Even worse, the electorate has been conditioned to seek out those candidates who promise the most largesse from the public trough. We have an ever increasing mass of voters who contribute nothing yet influence policy which ends up being redistributionist. Remind me again why universal suffrage is a good thing?

It looks to me that we're heading for a repeat of the 1970s and the fiasco of the Carter presidency. We got Reagan out of that mess but there was a lot of pain while the Peanut Farmer was in the White House. I can only hope that after the next four years of pain there's enough backlash that we get some true statesmen, not just politicians, as candidates in 2012.