The only candidate I like

mvardoulis's picture
Submitted by mvardoulis on Fri, 2008-10-17 03:50

The only candidate I like is Sarah Palin. I particularly enjoyed the Vice Presidential debates, where she appeared to be the ONLY shamlessly non-political politician I've seen in this election since Ron Paul. She is the true maverick and the closest thing to a political 'outsider' than anyone among the major parties. Even Barack Obama's relative inexperience (which he sometimes tries to leverage as his 'outsider' credibility - but in my opinion, fails) can not trump Sarah's 'down-home' demeanor.

The other three major party candidates have got nothing on her. Sarah is arguably more libertarian than any of the others as well, though that isn't saying much. I have submitted some time ago my column for the upcoming Free Radical wherein I said I was going to sit this election out in protest, not even offering my usual throw-away angry vote for the now completely useless Libertarian Party (Bob Barr is easily the worst candidate the Libertarian Party has ever produced for President). I have even landed in some hot water here on SOLO for publically stating my decision NOT to vote for President.

I want to publically reverse that decision, partially. If there was a way to vote for ONLY the Vice Presidential candidate, I would. But since that option, along with many other things which would make more sense in American electoral processes, is not available to me I must by default include a vote for John McCain. Senator McCain I still find to be every bit as bad as Barack Obama, as someone has already pointed out on SOLO, the only difference between the two is their particular flavor of socialism. Biden is a parrot of the same. Only the Alaskan Governor stands out, even when compared to 'alternative' party candidates Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, etc.

I'm not saying I embrace everything Sarah Palin believes in (is it a coincidence she carries the same last name of my favorite Python?), or everything she has done in office. But I'll take an alleged 'bridge to nowhere' over two career politicians and a charm-driven re-packaging of New Dealism presented under the ever-ambiguous 'change'. About the only good thing McCain has ever done or said in this election or his entire boot-licking statist political career was ask Sarah Palin to be his running mate, and for that, I'll be pinching my nose as I cast my vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.

Mind you, they have no chance in hell of winning. Obama will win by a Reagan-level landslide. I find it tragic the first black President has to be such a misery-perpetuating re-hash of Franklin Roosevelt with questionalbe-at-best racial beliefs.

A brief footnote from (CNN) -- Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin plans to appear on "Saturday Night Live" this weekend, multiple sources told CNN Thursday.

( categories: )

Well spotted, BTW, Olivia

mvardoulis's picture

Biden is one of the slimiest of our slimy politicians, it would not be a surprise if he hit on Sarah a few times by now! Eye

Believe me, Robert...

mvardoulis's picture

...Obama is not alone in his 'positive rights' beliefs, all major party politicians believe in and utilize this anti-liberty notion to varying degrees. It's how they gain and hold office, by bribing people with their own money, the counter-revolutionary American political tradion which began early last century. At least Obama is arrogant enough to be open about it, but I still can't get how ANYONE in any right frame of mind could support someone who comes right out and says "After I am elected, I will OWN you" (and notice the irony, anyone, this is coming from a black man!); he's actually TELLING us he wants to do away with individual liberty and everything that ever made human beings thrive! WHO CAN POSSIBLY WANT TO INVITE THIS ON THEMSELVES!!!

Airhead America is sadistic.

The clincher for me...

Robert's picture

Was Obama's discussion about how the Constitution was lacking in positive rights.

His stated intention to institute socialistic bromides at the Federal level and then constitutionally enshrined them, scares me big time.

As I understand the interplay between the 9th and 14th Amendments, the individual States have greater latitude in instigating such policies. And citizen's are free to move about the greater USA to avoid those policies as they choose. But how much harder is it to escape, or even reverse, such infringements when they are set at the federal level?

Moreover, as PC points out, as POTUS he will have the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court judges and thus ensure that his 'legacy' out-lives any term limits on his presidency.

His philosophical opposition to the restrictions placed on the legislative branch of the Federal government ranks as one of the biggest threats the USA has faced since its inception.

Five (US) bucks says, Uncle Linz...

mvardoulis's picture

...McCain will say/do/not do something that will cause you to view the presidential race as unthinkable versus unthinkable before November 4th. If I'm wrong, I'll pay you before your departure back to New Zealand. Eye


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm not going to sit this one out. Given the new stuff that's come out on Obama just these past few days (see the other election threads here), confirming that he's unutterably vile, unAmerican and treasonous, intent on "breaking free from the constraints of the Founding Fathers," I'm repairing to my paraphrase of Rand's position: that it's permissible to vote for the unspeakable when the alternative is unthinkable.

Robert got it right

mvardoulis's picture

And you may chalk up one other American who agrees that pretty much every election I've ever voted in has been nothing but a re-arrangement of deck chairs on a sinking titantic of a once-great nation (once the greatest nation in history) now firmly in the grip of a socialist police state. I like Palin (not so much McCain) largely for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Moeller, and also for her sense of life, even if it is a bit tainted with 'religious nuttery' and the like.

After Bob Barr (ugh!) gained the Libertarian Party's nomination for President, I took the 'sit this one out' stance and that was some time ago. In Spite of Palin, I think I'll be abstaining from the vote for President as McCain has revealed himself to be unsupportable no matter who he picked as a running mate. I see some interesting folks have joined me after all in not voting for *either* candidate, Linz, Leonard, whose next...?

And after all the *shite* I got for posting a few months ago that I wasn't going to vote for either candiate... Eye

Mr. Moeller

Lindsay Perigo's picture

BTW, good to see you posting again.

And it's good to see you posting again, to your usual high standard.

Incidentally, I understand that Leonard has announced his intention not to vote for either candidate, so we may assume the fatwa is no longer the party line, but "sitting this one out" is.

Interesting Point, Boaz...

Michael Moeller's picture

But if I understand you correctly (re the "meta-issue"), I would have to disagree. I think there is a considerable difference between being unintellectual and anti-intellectual, which I think would encapsulate both Palin and Bush.

As Rand stated in "How to Judge a Political Candidate", we should not be in search of a "Philosopher-King", but rather demand "political consistency" from our politicans. This is the problem with the unintellectualism of people like Bush, that is, that they do not have a cogent and consistent ideology.

However, Obama does, and it is completely the wrong sort. Notice a subtle difference in the debates that many people do not pick up on--i.e. the outright denial of the efficacy of capitalism. While Obama/Palin denounce the "greed of Wall Street", they are not denying capitalism altogether. By contrast, how many times have Obama and Biden referred to the "failed ideology" that markets can solve everything and the "need for a 21st century regulatory scheme". THis has been a repeated theme since the bailout package.

Ask yourself what is more dangerous--a consistent advocacy of a pernicious and failed ideology, or an inconsistent advocacy of American ideals? One could say, as Rand did, that the difference may be between crawling into the abyss versus leaping head first into the abyss. However, if the goal is, as many Objectivists claim, to bide time for the right philosophy, which is superior?

As you yourself stated, I think it is important to ask what exactly is Obama's ideological stake in the political outcome? According to his own ideology, what are his goals and political desires? If Palin is the logical end-point of the right, what is the logical end-point of Obama's ideology? In my mind, its Trotsky and Lenin.

Was Obama truly ignorant of his fellow travelers in the Chicago political scene, such as Ayers, Wright, Pflegler and a host of others? Ayers is a self-proclaimed small "c" communist. I mean, we are talking hardcore, radical left-wing ideology. In fact, a report is coming out that Obama sought out these creatures in the Chicago political scene.

You see, I agree about the importance of ideology, but I think you are misdiagnosing the case. Contrast this with the Framers, not only were they extremely rational and had a political stake, but the debate between the different factions (ie. states' rights vs. federalism) took place with the ideological backdrop of individual liberty. In contrast, the backdrop here is the opposite ideology with Obama and his clan be the most consistent advocates. What does it say when he wins?

As a capitalist, I find the Messiah-complex surrounding Obama--especially when his advocacy is nothing more than a repackaging of failed socialist ideas--to be downright frightening to the core.

BTW, good to see you posting again.

"a more heightened level of fraud."

Robert's picture

I see your point, the intent is to deceive (or spin) is there but the execution is off. That makes her an incompetent confidence trickster as opposed to a competent one like Bill Clinton. Morally I see no difference - both kinds of con-men should be barred from office.

I agree with you that politicians who act on principle (even wrong-headed ones) are superior to those who do not.

I wouldn't want to bet anything on whether you could label Obama a politician of principle, the amount of saccharine he's added is designed to disguise the rancid nature of what he is shoveling. And in that way, I don't see him as any different than Palin.

However, you make a good point about Palin's apparent intellectual naivety. Superficially it appears as if Palin is cast in Bush's mould: An honest person who doesn't understand the need to acquire knowledge in an independent fashion throughout one's life.

IMHO Bush does not seem to care for that sort of reading and is too reliant on his advisers. Without even a modicum of independently acquired knowledge he is at the mercy of the smoothest sounding sophist that comes along (enter Paulson-Mussolini et al.). But on the evidence of this Bail-out bill, I'd place both McCain and Palin in that camp - certainly where the economy is concerned.

The only doubt I have about this prognosis is that Palin's political rise may have been too meteoric for her to figure out her limitations and to realize how to address them properly (e.g. by reading independently). What that says about the nature of her ambition is an open question. You may be right, she may be leaving it all to god...

Like I said, the best thing would be to get a do-over and start again. These candidates frighten the crap out of me.

I never scream like a woman,

Boaz the Boor's picture

I never scream like a woman, except in key. And I wouldn't mind a woman within earshot as long I knew as she was caged.

I read that as an invitation to listen to you impersonate a countertenor at an S/M friendly function. Hmm. No, I'm afraid I have to decline. And I'm a little scared now.

I not only don't like the Brahms 4, I don't like the 3, 2 or 1 (apart from the outbreaks of Romanticism here and there).


And I don't like Sarah, I love her (a woman, even! Sense of Life level, only, of course).


BTW, re your difficulty in giving up women,

Not difficult, Lindsay. I just to have to die first.

did you know there are support groups available like Heterosexuals Anonymous? They help to bolster your resolve in overcoming this irrational addiction. Just when you think your self-destructive cravings might get the better of you, you can phone them up for a hug.

Change that to "homosexuals anonymous" and you'll probably get Sarah Palin to fund it for you.

Matty is crazy, of course. Nephew Vardoulis is bat-shit crazy. Me, I wrote the manual on craziness. Which of these propositions didn't we know the truth of already? If craziness be the food of truth, play on! Let there be a surfeit.

Hear, hear!

Hey Robert

Boaz the Boor's picture

As for talking populist boiler plate bilge, that goes for every toss-pot on the voting paper. Every single insult you throw at Palin can also be leveled at Biden, Obama and McCain.

There's blather as pro-forma public performance, and then there's blather as cover for ignorance. McCain was blathering about "greed on Wall Street," for example, because he doesn't know what he's talking about. But what about when someone uses the wrong blather? What if the answer they give, even on the most general level, is entirely irrelevant to the question. Not only is he ignorant of the right answer; in the latter case he displays total ignorance of the range of the subject matter -- maybe even of its existence. It's like showing up to an oral exam with the wrong cheat-sheet. Beyond being really pathetic, I believe that to be a more heightened level of fraud.

Yes, most politicians rely on pro-forma boilerplate bilge in the normal course of these election rituals. But it's not hard to figure out when someone has knowledge within a given area and when he doesn't. McCain occasionally talks sense on some relevant issues, e.g., military history, foreign policy and strategy. Ditto Obama, on constitutional law, history, occasionally religion and politics. Biden, too. Does it matter that a given politician, no matter how wrong, is at least the kind of person who takes an independent interest and stake in the matter? Should they at least be capable of this? I would say yes.

This is a meta-issue, about what kind of qualities are necessary for (and reflective of) a healthy polity. Politicians in principle should be in it because they have a good-faith ideological stake, because they know something and can act independently to effectuate it. Palin embraces the *opposite* principle, that it is a virtue not to know. She is thus the logical end-point of what religious conservatism has become in this country -- she and Huckabee. More dangerous on policy in the short term, embracing the worst aspects of right and left. More dangerous in the long-term in what they represent -- unrepentant anti-intellectualism and populism, unlimited executive power. All faith and no reason. Trust your feelings, Luke. Or: Kill your son, Abraham, because you love the lord. These people are the end of the line. I'll take almost any mushy liberal socialist over them *anyday*, thank you very much.

In the short term, though, I agree with you. We're screwed. I'm getting more scared of Obama, however. He disarms. People want to please him and will hate opposing him. I fear he will have unprecedented power as a result, and not simply because the democrats are riding high.

If we stay at this long enough, I'll end up arguing that it would be better to have Palin as president. She and her constituency are the end of the line, if we ever get there. But she wouldn't have anywhere near Obama's power today.

Good to see Lindsay is still

Callum McPetrie's picture

Good to see Lindsay is still available. Smiling

Although he may be rather disappointed with my personal sexual preferences...

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

"her record against some pretty horrid accusations"

Robert's picture

Are we talking about Obama or Palin here?

As for talking populist boiler plate bilge, that goes for every toss-pot on the voting paper. Every single insult you throw at Palin can also be leveled at Biden, Obama and McCain. Unfortunately, you seem to be the only American I've met who can acknowledge that. Everyone else has their head in the sand.

This isn't a fucking election. It's a rearrangement of deckchairs while the country sinks below the waves of socialism.

I want a do over. And I also want the current President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and every single prick who voted for the bail-out bank nationalization bill to on trial for treason. And as I recall, that would mean two presidential candidates and one VP candidate in the dock. Palin gets a pass by default on that.

Better go out and replace your wallets with wheelbarrows while you can kids. Hyper inflation, here we come.

Bah Humbug.

Sarah Palin is the most

Boaz the Boor's picture

Sarah Palin is the most excellent less horrendous candidate for vice president. (Or Biden, I'm supposed to choose.)

Sarah Palin pros: perkiness.

Cons: Policy: domestic: populist, socialist, corrupt, censorious, bigoted, conflates religion and politics.

Cons: Policy: foreign: [.....]

Cons: Beyond all that, she doesn't know anything. Not necessarily because she's stupid, but because she's not predisposed to care much about ideas. She deals in dogma. She likes her tribe, she dislikes the other tribe. A person who had some viewpoint on economics or terrorism would be rushing to articulate them in some form, in her own words, and would have developed some facility in doing so. Maligned and teased by everyone from the media on down to her own party, she would have spoken up with something comprehensive, intelligible, perhaps even semi-literate.

For instance, she would defend her record against some pretty horrid accusations, she would persuade on tax policy, she would demonstrate her own familiarity with...something. She would say something besides the retarded nonsense which anyone with monkey-brains can recognize is either canned bullshit or (when under pressure) the feeble, panicked attempt to grasp at random snippets of canned bullshit. Haven't you ever seen someone bullshit? Desperately repeating boiler-plate generalities and changing the subject (and meanwhile you think to yourself, "who does she think she's kidding?") She uses words, sometimes whole phrases, which she clearly doesn't understand. Asked about the possible unintended consequences of supporting democracies in the middle east (when elections bring undesirable elements to power), she gave an answer which made it clear she didn't understand the questioner's allusion to Hezbollah or Hamas.

Now, you might ask: why is any of that significant? After all, Joe Biden is a foreign policy champion; he can recite chapter and verse about comparative constitutional law and tell you the leaders of Turkmenistan -- and yet he's still wrong about everything. In other words, having knowledge is no guarantee of wisdom, it can mean (among other things) that a person gets things REALLY wrong because they pursue a totally wrong-headed policy consistently. Fine. He's bad.

She's worse. Do you actually think that using the right words about terrorism, "America," "winning the war," blah blah blah, is somehow an accurate reflection of anything? If so, I've got a real nice cabin in Alaska to sell 'ya where you can learn all about foreign policy by using a pair of binoculars. (She was serious about that. She was so earnest -- it was almost cute! Yes, being from Alaska means I know more about foreign policy because of my proximity to a foreign country!) Anyway, on top of her economic populism and vacuity she's a religious nutter. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

But why do I argue with someone who obsesses about the *most dangerous man in the world*....because he was born with a muslim middle name? His ancestry? Where he was born? Jeezus. (And no, his connection with Wright is not insignificant. That matters.)

Anyway, back to work.

Given a choice?

Sandi's picture

Sarah Palin is the most excellent candidate for vice president. (to quote your disgust)

or Biden? (to quote the other option)

Who you callin' crazy?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I never scream like a woman, except in key. And I wouldn't mind a woman within earshot as long I knew as she was caged.

I not only don't like the Brahms 4, I don't like the 3, 2 or 1 (apart from the outbreaks of Romanticism here and there). And I don't like Sarah, I love her (a woman, even! Sense of Life level, only, of course).

I guess I just have to accept that you're not the one for me, because of irreconcilable differences, Boaz. But how can we divorce if we don't marry first?

BTW, re your difficulty in giving up women, did you know there are support groups available like Heterosexuals Anonymous? They help to bolster your resolve in overcoming this irrational addiction. Just when you think your self-destructive cravings might get the better of you, you can phone them up for a hug.

Matty is crazy, of course. Nephew Vardoulis is bat-shit crazy. Me, I wrote the manual on craziness. Which of these propositions didn't we know the truth of already? If craziness be the food of truth, play on! Let there be a surfeit.

Actually, I'm so pissed with McCain I'm ready to join the ranks of the conscientious objectors. Let Airhead America stew in its own spirulina, tofu and marshmallow. As I said elsewhere ... pity; it was great while it lasted.


Boaz the Boor's picture

Well I refuse to give up women, and OF COURSE you would scream like a woman if I even brought one within earshot of our marital bed. That's a deal-breaker. AND you don't like Brahms 4. Unacceptable. Also, too, though, you like Sarah Palin, also. Disgusting.

Sarah Palin is the most excellent [sic] candidate for vice president


You're all crazy. Matty's crazy, too, because he likes Obama. Ridiculous!

I'm callin' *you* grumpy ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... Boaz, you grumpy old fart. Nice photo though. So, will you marry me?

I have no doubt

Sandi's picture

(even if I too do not fully agree with her on some issues), that Sarah Palin is the most excellent candidate for vice president.

Michael, as for McCain, I tend to agree with a few bloggers that the socialist media selected him as the next candidate and the republicans never figured this out until it was too late.

I do have to say that one thing which thoroughly nauseates me about McCain, is when he refers to everyone as "my friends". Such shallowness highlights how little he values such. I wonder what he calls his real friends or doesn't he have any?

Michael's Itch

Boaz the Boor's picture

What about Harriet Miers? Too old?

Too qualified, maybe.

(By the way, I just finished eating some kung pao chicken. That must mean that I now know more about China and foreign policy than I did before.)

Who you callin' grumpy?

Boaz the Boor's picture

Linz, you sly dog, you old so and so! How they hangin'?

Wait, don't answer that. Shocked

Given that...

Olivia's picture

smarmy smile Biden keeps flashing at Sarah Palin, I think he's totally charmed by her tits too.

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

I should say ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I love Sarah Palin too. Not for her tits, but her sense of life. But I think I already said that on other threads.

Not sure what's confusing Mr. Boor...

mvardoulis's picture

...but since we now have our presidential candiates 'paired up' with vice presidentail candidates, I look the presidential race as now containing FOUR candidates instead of two. Of those four (Biden, Palin, Obama, McCain), the only one I can stand to listen to let alone support is Sarah Palin, for reasons I've described.

And yes, Linz has decided I in fact like Sarah Palin for reasons *other* than I listed, mostly pertaining to her physiology. But after meeting up in person with Lindsay for the first time in four (or was it five) years, since Linz is in my neck of the woods at present-here in Southern Calli, accusations of less-than-honorable intentions toward the Alaskan governor are bound to appear. All of which are part of Linz' shameless attempts at assasinating my well-deserved puritanical reputation. Eye

And yes, it was great to see you again, dear uncle! Hope to do so again several times before your eventual return to New Zealand.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

One of your six-monthly cameos? Good to see you, you grumpy old thing.

Linz the Wretched Oaf

PS - Don't worry about my wayward nephew Michael V and his thing for Sarah Palin. He really just likes her for her tits.

PPS - Wayward Nephew Michael: a delight to catch up yesterday.

The only candidate I like is

Boaz the Boor's picture

The only candidate I like is Sarah Palin.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.