I voted for him and I would reluctantly do so again considering the alternative (considering major parties only that is). Due to the gridlock in congress and the total idiocy and childishness on both sides of the aisle, I'd prefer to go libertarian or green party if I truly voted my conscience. Instead, I try to go for the lesser of the evils which, in present times, will always be a democrat for me. As long as the extreme elements continue to dominate the republican party and stand for things like restricting the rights of American citizens based on their gender or sexual orientation and the imposition of christian tenets on the American public, I will never be able to support them. Remember Barry Goldwater's (a true conservative if ever there was one) famous quote:
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
His prophecy has sadly come to pass. It's truly a sad state of affairs when the only real choices you have are bad and worse. I therefore choose bad. What a fucked-up mess we are in in this country!!
My feelings exactly.
My issue with Romney was more to do with his work as a private equity vulture. Not all of them are 100% bad, but I have no love for them. Generally, they do not build companies as much as they bleed companies. Although I told my current employer during the initial interview that I would not have even taken the interview if they were still owned by a private equity firm (too much prior history dealing with that ilk), being there in the aftermath of the rape and pillage that took place has meant an amazing and lucrative opportunity for me. And I had no use for Ryan because I didn't agree with his social ideology or political philosophy. Reading over his budget ideas also meant that I would never support a ticket that had him on it.
Deregulate and cut taxes (for the super rich) is hardly an original idea. If the GOP nominees had been Chris Christie and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, then my decision likely would have been much, much tougher.
I am afraid that Ron Paul being the nominee would have made the landslide of 2008 look like a nail biter. I like him and his economic policies are gold.
Pun intended?
I've always found Ron Paul to be rather interesting, in a quasi-Ross Perot sort of way. But I'm not certain how practical or well thought out many of ideas are. At some point, in order to effectively govern, you have to have the ability to present practical solutions, not just criticize what's on the table now - simply eliminating the Fed and moving to the gold standard are ideas that suggest that he may not truly understand or fully appreciate economic history and unintended consequences. Apart from his theories and some rather fascinating speeches, I'm not sure that Ron Paul could really get done what needs to be done. But now, I don't know. I would say the same of Steve Forbes, who I also find very interesting. Even if I don't completely agree with everything they're saying, I'm inclined to listen more to people who focus more on economic issues and less on social issues, opposing the ones who pretend that they care about fiscal issues (my biggest issue with the TEA Party), when it's social issues that they are truly wrapped up in.
Much like my recent vote for Terry McAuliffe for Governor of VA, my two past votes for Obama have had more to do with who I did NOT want to see in the White House (no Palin... no how, no way!!!) more so than who I did want. I have a number of issues with Obama and his style of dealing with conflict and problems. I also do not care for his tendency to get involved in micro social issues at the expense of more serious domestic issues that affect the greater nation. He has made no attempt to develop or implement a longer term manufacturing policy. He has made no attempt to develop or implement a longer term education policy. These are two issues that are rather near & dear to me. And I'm disappointed that he would rather focus on things like gay marriage than anything to do with domestic manufacturing or education (which would benefit people who are gay too). But I suspect that under a Romney Administration, since he had so much trouble articulating
any sort of broad economic plan (much less get into specifics), I would be even more frustrated.
So, as seems to be happening more and more these days, I chose the less ugly of the two ugly sisters that were presented to me. And since the uglier one hasn't gotten any prettier, no reason to think that I would go back and change my choice now.
