This is still premature, but my compliments to friend-of-the-blog John Stegeman on the quality of his bet in this years primary wager. He's the only man with more than one horse still in the race. John's $1 bet on Ron Paul may end up winning the whole thing. If it goes to Romney, John and I tie. If Gingrich, then God help us all.
I still consider Paul to be a "speculative" candidate, but he's been polling pretty consistently in the top three since Cain dropped out. Those who are crushed by apathy toward Romney, and revolted by everything that is Gingrich seem to be wising up that Paul is a true-blue libertarian who has a faint hope of changing the game in a general election. That's all a little pie-in-the-sky, but it might be true that those right-leaners who realize they're probably going to lose, would rather lose big on someone they actually like, and care about.
For all of the races for an "unconventional", third party type of candidate, this is it. I decree: If Paul doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire, it seals the fate of any similar candidates in future races. Might as well hang it up, because this is the time. This is the perfect storm. The only competition is a robot and a sociopath. The Lord of Abraham has parted the Red Sea, and cleared a path of safety. If Ron Paul lacks the muscle to push through the crossing, then this was a lost cause to start with.
I don't want to make any predictions, because Iowa is so decidedly unpredictable. It in the hands of Almighty Fate, now. A blowup or burnout from the front runners is possible, but we're at T-Minus 19 days and counting. Best to hold off judgement, and see what comes out the other side of Iowa. After that we can survey the landscape again.
I do hope that Paul wins. I would not and will not vote for him, not just because of the candidate himself, but because of the state of the party as a whole. It's not ready for power yet. It needs defeat. But in Paul I see someone who is both representative of the Tea Party as well as sincere and decent. He deserves to run for President. Not to mention, the debates between Obama and Paul would be interesting. A Gingrich run would be fun to watch, in a way; but morally corrupting. The man infects everything he touches like a putrid fever. Anyway, he doesn't deserve the prize. No, I'm putting my hopes in a Paul victory, followed by a Paul defeat. So let it be written. So let it be done.
I don't think a vote for Paul is really a vote for republicans. He IS a third party candidate who knows his only shot is a nomination.
ReplyDeleteHe's the only candidate capable of ushering in major change, but major change is scary and even I'm not sure I want it.
"Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster, and TV, and my steel belted radials and I won't say anything." - Network
But nevertheless, if radical change is possible, he's an independent thinker who would go in probably expecting to be a one-termer and get stuff done.
I'm recently being reminded of why I didn't like/don't like President Obama and all those reasons are still there four years in, so I'll be likely to vote for the winner of this dog and pony show.
As for the bet, I'm glad to be confirmed so far.
What happened to this? http://johnstegeman.blogspot.com/2011/09/dungys-right-punish-them.html
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to debate the merits of Obama (although I think he does have merits, and he's worthy of defense, that's not the issue), but what happened to voting 3rd party, democrat or abstaining? This party has shown itself to be just as crazy - if not moreso - than it was a few months ago. If you vote in affirmation, even for Paul, it WILL ENABLE that behavior. They are looking for any signs of approval, even mixed signs.
How can you reverse yourself so frequently and easily? You seem to forget your own record on a whim; is it deliberate or merely a lack of effort? Either way - lame.
I make a deliberate effort to keep this from being the John Stegeman Project, because it's my natural inclination and I don't think it's a healthy one. It takes a supreme effort of will to resist that urge.
ReplyDeleteI think I've been pretty good about that for the last few months, so I'll let myself indulge and have a cookie.
In my judgement (if that's worth anything), your greatest personal virtue is your innate modesty and humility (and as a byproduct, temperance of judgement: moderation). As much as it does you credit, it also serves as your chief vice. Because, you use your modesty of ego as an excuse to think irresponsibly. When you contradict yourself, and are subsequently caught in the act, you don't really repent and commit to fix the problem, you just let your ego take the hit, and slide back to business as usual. You seem to say, by way of explaination, "I'm dumb. I don't have a head for this. I didn't mean to say that, or think that. I just didn't think it through. I wish I had your insight, Dungy". You do have insight, if you put the effort into judging yourself.
As the good book says, "The M******* is his own judge, and a pitiless judge he is". How can you share my disgust with the GOP so openly, then inexplicably reverse that opinion and pledge to vote for whoever gets nominated? It doesn't make sense. What logical process motivates you to such action?
I recognize that I have the power to change your opinion about particular things. But what good does it do (other than flatter my vanity, which BTW is, IMO, MY chief virtue/vice) if you let yourself revert to your previous position after awhile? My ego doesn't need any extra service, so I am not enhanced by this cycle. And you have not really changed in anything other than the short-term, so you are not enhanced either.
If you disagree with something, then by all means, disagree. If I convince you, and you change your opinion, then by God stick with it. Be your own judge, and hold yourself to account. Persecute yourself.
Wowza.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I still maintain that sentiment (from the old blog) about the republicans. A loss deals them a blow they've earned. They allow too much stupid.
But thinking about it when I wrote that, Paul is kind of a third partier.
Maybe you're right and it will embolden them but in my mind Paul steps in and says fuck the party, and does his own thing.
Also, I just said I've recently been reminded about the things I dislike about the president, that's why I'm feeling likely to vote for the republican winner.
I am that undecided voter pundits are always going on about. I have an opinion on this today, it may be different when new information is input.
Also, not to defend my failings, but I forget lots of stuff. I make plans and have no memory of making them, I tell Kelli I'll do something and the next day won't remember the conversation. Happens more than I would like but most recent doctor I spoke to about it seems unconcerned.
I forget my own damn views on things. I assure you, it's more frustrating for me than it is for you.
You are a difficult man to stay angry at.
ReplyDeleteLove ya buddy! I do understand your frustration, but I feel like my views are in flux a good bit too.
ReplyDeleteSmootch
ReplyDeleteJohn probably suffers from anterograde amnesia, or something similar to it.
ReplyDeleteJohn, so with how you stand now, instead of voting for Obama, our semi-sophisticated up-and-coming tyrant, you would rather elect whichever dumbass circus clown the Republicans put forward? I don't understand. Why even bother voting at all?
Actually, I could understand if you voted for Ron Paul. He kind of is in a category all his own. Hell, maybe I would vote for him too?
Matt, yes that's my thoughts on Ron Paul. He would be scary, but he might just change something.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'd support Romney as the other republican candidate, but I don't think I'll be voting for him. Also don't think it'll be Obama.
Guess I should start looking at the third parties.
"semi-sophisticated up-and-coming tyrant"?
ReplyDeleteIs that tongue-in-cheek? I don't understand why it's suddenly becoming so fashionable to bitch about Obama. I'm generally satisfied with the job he's done. It's not a homerun, but I've never seen a homerun. In regard to jobs, I think we're gonna be stuck at or around 10% for the next decade, regardless of who is in office or what policy is pushed in Congress.