I Voted -- Against The Status Quo
California is already going solidly socialist for Obama, and I'm so disgusted by him, his socialist opponent McCain and his rashly chosen, unqualified V.P., that I voted early last week for that execrable loser, the "Libertarian"-for-20-minutes Bob Barr.
I did it as a protest vote, as a way of saying I'm one of a growing number of people who thinks we need a third party in this country, and because I'm for libertarian values more than I am the values of the hand-your-money-to-the-poor, government-as-nanny Democrats, or the hand-your-money-to-the-rich religious nutter Republicans.
Make no mistake: Barr disgusts me, and I'm even more disgusted that, in of all years, the idiot Libertarians didn't get their shit together enough to put up a candidate who at least has the charisma of Palin or Obama. And who is a real libertarian, not just somebody who hitched his broken down wagon to the party as his apparently last resort.
Jack Shafer at Slate pretty much sums up how I feel about Bob Barr:
I've continued to punch Libertarian on my ballot because no other candidate or political party comes close to reflecting my political views of limited government, free markets, civil liberties, and noninterventionist foreign policy.This year the party put up as its candidate a former Republican House member from Georgia, Bob Barr. As Libertarian candidates go, he's a chowderhead's chowderhead.
He continues with the bad news here:
Raffi Khatchadourian's profile of Barr in this week's New Yorker depicts him--accurately, I think--as no more Libertarian than your standard Newt Gingrich clone. Barr, Khatchadourian reports, is against the legalization of such illicit drugs as crack and heroin. Khatchadourian continues:[Barr] wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, voted for a constitutional amendment outlawing flag desecration, and even tried to legislate against Wiccan soldiers who wanted to practice their faith while in the service. A churchgoing Methodist, Barr rarely invoked religion when discussing policy with his aides, but he told constituents that "God's hand" was guiding his votes.Some libertarian.
There's more bad Barr news. A Cato Institute blog item, reviewing Barr's House votes from 1995 to 2003, tags him an enemy of free trade. In 2003, Reason magazine called Barr "one of the most conservative members of Congress." In his defense, Barr told Newsweek that was then and this is now. He's grown! Since being voted out of Congress, he's laundered his hard-right résumé with a consultancy at the American Civil Liberties Union. He has stated his regrets for having voting for the Patriot Act.
Who is the real Bob Barr? When he was an unrepentant hard-right Republican, he did have notes of libertarianism to him. But in his libertarian rebranding, he can't quite mask his old, musky self. He's a fraud.
...He gets my vote not because he'd be a good president. He wouldn't. He gets my vote not because he has a chance of becoming a president. He doesn't. And I didn't vote for him because he represents my views. He doesn't. I voted for Barr because he happens to stand adjacent to a set of values I cherish and that I've gotten into the habit of resubscribing to every four years--peace, prosperity, and liberty.
By the way, in yet another act of bureacratic stupidity, it was very unclear as to how much postage you have to put on your vote-by-mail ballot (a much better name than the "absentee ballot," as I'm not absent; I just prefer not to spend half an hour in line and perhaps encounter problems with the voting machines).
I guessed, based on the oversized envelope, that the amount was 59 cents, but the story the LA Times did on vote-by-mail included everything but that item (I guess they fired all the adequate reporters), and when I wrote to an editor there proposing doing a wee piece on this I never got an e-mail back. Nor did anyone from the election commission write back. Yeah, patriotism! The right to vote, if you can guess the right postage!
In other voting news, I also voted against almost all the California proposals, which are bad, wrong, and big boondoggles. The exceptions: the poorly written proposal for the veterans housing bond at the end of the ballot, which I voted for (Prop 12, I believe), and the very good proposal for redistricting (Prop 11).
And finally, in what happens overall in this election, as in all elections, I wish for a Republican president and a Democratic Congress, or a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. Anything that will prevent the person in the highest office from getting much of anything done. Sad, but true. I'm awaiting a candidate for president I can vote for without needing an airsickness bag in close proximity.
Here's my very sharp friend Jill Stewart on some of the proposals. For example, she writes about the veteran's bond proposal I voted for:
Providing for veteran's home loans, it is the sole bond measure that will be paid back by its recipients, the veterans, not taxpayers.
Just keep saying "unqualified" and it'll come true. Also, whatever you do, don't ask Biden anything.
Jim Treacher at November 2, 2008 8:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602150">comment from Jim TreacherShe actually is unqualified (and I'm sorry I forgot to e-mail you back - have a huge backlog because I'm finishing my book...last chapter is a killer).
So many people don't seem to get it: Disliking Palin doesn't mean I like Biden. Being against Obama doesn't mean I think McCain would be a good president.
What shocks me is how many people are such "team players." They pick a side and anything that side does is just fine. People whose political opinions I respect most are those like Matt Welch who looks very critically at both sides. Like me, he isn't a "joiner."
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2008 8:57 AM
Between bad and worse, you made the good choice. I wish I had the same luxury than you a month ago.
Toubrouk at November 2, 2008 9:12 AM
I wish for a Republican president and a Democratic Congress, or a Democratic President and a Republican Congress.
Absolutely right. Given that we're assured of a Democratic Congress, I can respect anyone who voted for McCain on that basis, even though I voted Barr.
Rex Little at November 2, 2008 9:31 AM
> idiot Libertarians didn't get
> their shit together enough to
> put up a candidate who at least
> has the charisma of Palin or Obama
Someone here earlier pointed out that Libertarians don't do charisma. Nothing personal, it's just not what they're about. Pygmys don't do height.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 2, 2008 10:41 AM
Surprisingly I'm leaning towards McCain for the balance issue, same with my states senator race far more important at this point imho here in Oregon.
I've voted 3rd party the last two Presidential elections and generally vote by what info I can get out of each candidate compared to my beliefs/desires for government. I have real problems with Barr. I suppose I could write in Ron Paul but he loses me on anything other than economic issues.
Sio at November 2, 2008 11:06 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602170">comment from SioAbout the only thing I like about Barr is the "L" next to his name.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2008 11:12 AM
I thought it was going to cost 59 cents -- like it says on the back of the envelope -- to send my vote, but as I was buying stamps I asked the post clerk what was up, yo, and she was all, "let me weigh it". Turns out it costs 49 cents if you detach the stub on the top of the ballot. I don't know if that's the standard , but that's what happened to me.
Jason S. at November 2, 2008 12:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602182">comment from Jason S.Idiotically, it says "apply first class postage," best as I can recall. Most people will think that means a 42-cent stamp.
My neighbor, who'll vote early in the day on Tuesday, is thinking of going to our voting place on Tuesday night with chocolate-chip cookies she's going to bake for all the people standing in line. Any issue seems to stop the entire line for 20 minutes.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2008 12:41 PM
Love the idea of chocolate-chip cookies. I used to get a real kick out of going to the polls on election day. Handing out barf-bags and nose-plugs sounds like another appropriate festivity.
Jason S. at November 2, 2008 1:02 PM
I was discussing your election with a fellow Vancouverite on Halloween. While we're both terrified of Obama, McCain is not our candidate of choice either.
It does seem rather odd than in your country of 300 Million people, that these are the best two people chosen to run the country.
I can't say that Canada is much better, though our current PM, Stephen Harper, is a pretty bright economist. The rest though of them though ... ughhh!
Robert W. at November 2, 2008 1:07 PM
We were stuck with a lousy assortment of candidates in this election. And like any presidential election of the last 30 years, there are choices besides the 2 major party candidates who have been able to use the modern media to make their candidacy known. But none of these alternative candidates has any chance of winning. Ross Perot did the best, and all he did was ensure that we elected a president who was voted for by the smallest percentage of the population ever.
So, only the major party candidates have a chance to win. And they are both flawed. When we are stuck with lousy candidates, we are no longer voting "for" the best candidate, but rather "against" the worst candidate.
From his poor list of accomplishments, to his poor choices in friends/associates/advisors, to his poor record of voting (or not voting, really), it is clear that Obama is the worst candidate in this race that has a chance of winning.
And any vote that is not helping the only other viable candidate win is a defacto vote FOR Obama.
Don't cut your nose off to spite your face, folks.
Don't waste your vote on "sending a message" that no one will hear, and no one would care about if they did hear it.
Don't let an admitted socialist who has repeatedly tried to persecute people who disagree with him win this election.
PinkoPerforator at November 2, 2008 1:09 PM
"Some libertarian"
But by voting for him, you've endorsed his brand of opportunistic, faux-libertarianism, and made it that much more unlikely that the Libertarian Party will come to their senses the next time around.
Your choice, of course, but it's a strange one.
Martin at November 2, 2008 1:17 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602195">comment from PinkoPerforatorIt's a message I hope the Libertarian party will hear: Put up a viable candidate next time.
Also, I think they get that nobody likes him, and many or most aren't voting for him because they endorse him.
And is there any reason to believe McCain has a chance of winning California? And, yes, I do admit I'm assuming that gangs with vast ranks will not maraud around California on Tuesday strapping all the Democrats to their beds.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2008 1:29 PM
I too voted for Barr, the only rational choice in this election. Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard wrote a nice piece about McBama and I think he's right. The only legitimate choice here is Barr. While some have called him to be a 'faux-libertarian', I defend him on grounds that I have asserted here before: one does not move to the LP to be 'opportunistic', and, it is difficult for me to question a person who has accurately stated the growing disatistfacion of the GOP's leftward march to national socalism; I wonder what event would make some of these 'bob-barr-is-a-fake-libertarian' critics satisfied that they are wrong? My guess is nothing would, in fact, satisfy them. Ever.
PinkoPerforator, your comment is disgusting. To tell someone that thier vote counts for socialism if the vote isn't for McCain, when clearly a vote for Barr is the ONLY vote that is AGAINST our progression to socialism, is mind-boggling. Tell tell them that 'nobody will hear thier voice' is an argument to absurdity; when WILL the GOP realize they have sacrificed laissez-faire capitalism to populism if not during the elections? How much longer are you willing to hold your nose for GOP candidates that are either unqualified, anti-free market, and/or collectivist in mind? To continue defending that group who is walking to Moscow instead of skipping to Moscow is a travesty because you give sanction to those who would have socialism-lite, yet, socialism nonetheless. In turn, it is puzzling as to why you seem to suggest that voting for anyone but McCain is a vote for socialism, when voting for McCain is exactly that.
When the United States raises the hammer & sickle instead of the stars and stripes, people like yourself who compromised economic freedom for political security deserve neither.
farker at November 2, 2008 1:51 PM
Way to Go AMY! We all need to vote 3rd party and send Washington a HUGE message!
Don't think it's only those 2 running. There are other choices.
Good luck to us, as a country.
take it back!!!!
Melody at November 2, 2008 3:38 PM
At this point, a vote for anyone but McCain is a vote for Obama. I was unhappy about my choice, but not as unhappy as I will be when Obama makes it impossible for me to achieve the traditional American Dream of getting an education, working hard and having more than my parents did. That dream will be replaced (if it hasn't been already) by the New American Dream - a subsistence living by government handout without having to get a job.
Beth at November 2, 2008 3:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602222">comment from BethAt this point, a vote for anyone but McCain is a vote for Obama.
Not in California.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2008 3:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602224">comment from Amy AlkonForgot this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_mccain_vs_obama-558.html
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2008 3:54 PM
Amy, if Barr gets more votes, or the same, as previous Lib candidates, then you've only sent them one message: Run more candidates like Barr. The assumption that a state is going a certain way, so why bother voting opposite, is what wins candidates states they don't actually carry. Does ObamaNo carry california? San Fransisco and hollywood sure, mid and southern maybe not. Where is more of the population?
The fact that you voted for a self proclaimed religious nutter who is far more socially right than McCain says a lot about what is important to you. Interesting, really, that the libertarian label is what counts to you most.
momof3 at November 2, 2008 5:15 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602243">comment from momof3The fact that you voted for a self proclaimed religious nutter who is far more socially right than McCain says a lot about what is important to you. Interesting, really, that the libertarian label is what counts to you most.
Do you cover your eyes while reading my blog items or just try really, really hard to seem like you did?
For future reference: don't assume you understand the slightest thing about how I think or what my priorities are, because you're clearly wildly incapable of it.
For remedial assistance understanding the views I've posted above: look up the word "execrable." And, next, the word "loser." Both of which I put before the name "Bob Barr." Next, you'll have to ask somebody to explain the rest of this blog item to you. The thought of it makes my teeth hurt.
As for "religious nutters," I don't expect any candidate to rubberstamp my every belief, and I would have voted for Newt Gingrich as president in a hot second. Why? Because he's very smart, very knowledgeable, wise on terrorism, very unlikable (which I prefer in a leader to the near-deification of Obama and Palin) and is qualified to be president.
My preferred presidential candidate, one who mirrors my fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism, and is adequate for the office, has yet to run during my years as a voter.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2008 5:52 PM
Bob Barr voted for a constitutional amendment against flag desecration? If that is true I can't possibly vote for him - how anti-libertarian can you get? I was going to skip the whole election, but I need to vote for Paul Ryan, who I am proud to say is my congressman. Also, I need to vote against a total nanny-state referendum on the ballot in my town banning smoking in all workplaces. So I still don't know what to do about the president. Is there any other, more obsure third party candidates that would be better than Bob Barr? P.S. I've mentioned before that I was voting for McCain, but let's just say I've changed my mind.
Karen at November 2, 2008 6:03 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602255">comment from KarenI would've voted for somebody I liked, and who doesn't have views that make me ill, but I decided to vote for the Libertarian party. Believe me, I don't like voting for Barr (see words "execrable loser" above), but I wanted to be part of what I expect will be a growing number of people (if small) who are voting Libertarian. Unless they're utterly brain-dead in the Libertarian party, they have to know what a loser candidate they have. He's not going to win. Not the slightest chance of it. If he had a chance, I would have voted for somebody else.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2008 6:08 PM
Given that Bob Barr is the first candidate they've run in my lifetime that is actually eligible to take the office (Larouche never was, to my recollection) and is not certifiably insane (Ron Paul, anyone?) what leads you to believe that they are anything BUT brain dead?
brian at November 2, 2008 7:01 PM
What ever happened to the Ron Paul blimp? I know, I know...Google it.
Jason S. at November 2, 2008 8:29 PM
A few years ago, my grandfather died in agony from metastasized colon cancer.
Last year, I had my first colonoscopy. The doctor found a small cancer tumour and removed it before it had a chance to spread. This year I had a second colonoscopy. Just 2 benign polyps showed up. I have another one scheduled for next year. Not very pleasant, but it beats dying of cancer.
As I see it, the choice between McCain's brand of RINO socialism and the Obamunist's naked Marxism is very much like the choice between colonoscopy and cancer. An Obamunist presidency, combined with a Pelosi congress and a Reid senate, could do fatal harm to the Constitution and the health of America's body politic and spirit. No future Republican or Libertarian president would be able to undo the damage.
For all of you who have yet to vote, please choose wisely.
Martin at November 2, 2008 8:35 PM
A thought I forgot to add to my comment above: The first principle of the Hippocratic Oath is "First, do no harm". The first principle of voting in a democracy is to vote for the candidate who will do the least harm to the country. A bad government can do much more harm than a good government can do good.
Martin at November 2, 2008 8:45 PM
Given that Bob Barr is the first candidate they've run in my lifetime that is actually eligible to take the office (Larouche never was, to my recollection)
You've got your parties confused, Brian. LaRouche was never a Libertarian candidate (he's not remotely libertarian, among other reasons). The L.P. candidates for President before Barr were John Hospers, Roger MacBride, Ed Clark, Andre Marrou, Ron Paul, Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik. To the best of my knowledge, all were eligible to hold the office.
An Obamunist presidency, combined with a Pelosi congress and a Reid senate, could do fatal harm to the Constitution and the health of America's body politic and spirit.
Get a grip. We've had socialist Democrat presidents backed by Congressional majorities before: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter. They were bad, but the country survived. Obama isn't going to do us in.
Rex Little at November 2, 2008 10:21 PM
Sure, farker, I am disgusting.
But I am not the one who is kidding him/her self about the bottom-line reality of this election.
I wonder if you will be singing the same tune when the Zerobama's thugs silence you...
PinkoPerforator at November 3, 2008 4:00 AM
Rex - I don't know about the others, but Badnarik and Paul are fucking nuts.
I just don't see the benefit of a lunatic in the white house.
And why is it that the LP is starting off going for the brass ring? Why aren't you running reasonable, intelligent, SANE candidates at the city and state level? I never see any campaign material or signage for LP candidates anywhere in CT. Occasionally one shows up on the ballot. But if I don't know anything about a candidate before election day, I assume insanity and vote accordingly.
Now is not the time for "protest votes". I do not honestly believe we can survive a second Carter term. We barely survived the first. In fact, we're still suffering from it on account of the CRA that Carter passed back then and his foreign policy bungling.
In fact, if it weren't for the Carter legacy, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because we wouldn't have the problematic world we now have.
Think on that. The legacy of the Obama presidency will be felt thirty years on. Cater was fucking things up when my brothers were born. And we're still suffering for his failure.
brian at November 3, 2008 4:14 AM
Amy, I did read your post, and commented appropriately. The fact that you voted for someone you agree with not, and think is a loser, because you HOPE it will bring the libers to their senses and make them run a candidate not at all like Barr next time is, let's say, odd at best. People tend to run candidates very similar to the ones who have already gotten them votes.
Given that your views, much as I agree with some of them, are very different from a majority of the country (hard to believe, I know, for people who don't live in fly-over country) I doubt you'll ever get to vote for someone you largely agree with.
You'd have better luck making yourself heard if you joined their party, and attended meetings. Much better than hoping they can read your mind with your nonsensical Barr vote, who you hate.
momof3 at November 3, 2008 4:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602393">comment from brianAnd why is it that the LP is starting off going for the brass ring? Why aren't you running reasonable, intelligent, SANE candidates at the city and state level?
Great point.
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2008 6:01 AM
the LP is, you know, running such candidates at the local, city, county, and state levels. It's pretty clear from checking out thier website (it took me all of 3 minutes).
farker at November 3, 2008 7:04 AM
Nobody in my district in CT, but on the CT page, there's an article about the gold standard.
So the libertarians are still bugfuck crazy.
brian at November 3, 2008 9:42 AM
She actually is unqualified
Keep saying it. Maybe it'll work.
Jim Treacher at November 3, 2008 10:17 AM
What shocks me is how many people are such "team players."
What shocks me is that you have to slap a label on me for disagreeing with you.
Jim Treacher at November 3, 2008 10:18 AM
Way to go, Amy. Insanity is repeating the same mistakes, expecting different results. I too am not a Barr fan (I think Mary Ruart (should have been their choice), but I'll pull the lever for the "L."
WolfmanMac at November 3, 2008 10:25 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602438">comment from Jim TreacherWhat you could do is list all the reasons you think she's qualified rather simply saying she is.
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2008 10:34 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602439">comment from Amy AlkonWhat shocks me is how many people are such "team players."
If this doesn't describe you, why do you take it as a personal attack?
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2008 10:35 AM
Perhaps because you say it to everyone who doesn't hate Palin?
brian at November 3, 2008 11:15 AM
"Make no mistake: Barr disgusts me, "
Wait, you dislike both major-party candidates, so you vote for the 3rd-party guy, and even HE disgusts you?
Could it be that Amy Alkon just dislike everyone?
Could that point to, possibly, that the problem is with Amy Alkon?
Toad at November 3, 2008 3:26 PM
Bob Barr.
Bob ... Frickin' ... Barr.
~ sigh ~
I guess you really, really showed "them".
Who ever "they" are.
BumperStickerist at November 3, 2008 3:26 PM
Why? Maybe because Ad Hominem is still a fallacy even when the attack is incorrect.
Yu-Ain Gonnano at November 3, 2008 3:29 PM
She's managed an 80% approval rating as a governor while pissing off government Republicans by being a reformer and pissing off the media by being a Republican. She knows the Constitutional role of the office she's running for well enough to explain it to a third grader, even if she can't dumb down the explanation enough for Joe Biden or George Will to follow. She had enough respect for the precept of limited government to start her term by vetoing a bill that took her position on benefits for gay couples because she recognizes the state isn't the appropriate vehicle to propagate her theology. If you're interested in using the Constitution to limit government control over your life instead of wadding it up as a handkerchief to wipe tears from the eyes of the dispossessed, she's the whole ball game in this election.
If she took money from me and handed it to Snidely Whiplash of the RNC Landlord's Subcommittee, I missed it.
bgates at November 3, 2008 3:37 PM
Some protest vote. Barack obama thanks you for your support.
jr565 at November 3, 2008 3:43 PM
Face it: Amy just helped vote the worst, most statist, most anti-freedom candidate ever into the Oval Office at a point when it was almost assured he'd have large enough Congressional majorities that there'd be no way to stop his agenda.
And she's proud.
Because he's not Sarah Palin.
I think I know all I need to know abo ut Amy Alkon.
DaveP. at November 3, 2008 3:45 PM
No, you voted for Obama.
Gary at November 3, 2008 3:47 PM
Amy, I did exactly the same thing on my California vote by mail ballot, too. For pretty much the same reasons.
I couldn't vote for O-Hitler, even though my copy of The Economist that showed up in the mail today had a nice shot of The One on the cover -- they apparently think he's good enough for the Europeans and citizens of other countries who donated to his campaign. And since McCain hasn't got a prayer here in Cali, Barr got my vote. While I am registered Libertarian, I'm holding my nose, too, Barr is really a member of the Opportunitarian party.
Sadly, I'm only registered in California...right now, I wish I had the chance to vote in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, too, but I couldn't get ahold of my ACORN rep in time.
Concerned Citizen at November 3, 2008 3:48 PM
I just don't get all this ongoing "unqualified" nonsense.
There's exactly one candidate on the ballot who's absolutely unqualified for the office he's seeking, and that's Obama. Unqualified by dint of experience and by dint of his worldview.
Palin's more than qualified for VP - and what she lacks in experience she makes up in honesty and work ethic. And her pattern of governance in Alaska has been far closer to a practical libertarianism than Barr's history makes him out to be.
This being California, we can figure the Obamabots are going to take the state, but I'll cast my vote in solidarity with the serious-minded folks elsewhere in the country who aren't ready to see someone with a fifteen-year record on the fringe left and no executive experience at all get into the Oval Office based on a year of centrist fraud.
mrkwong at November 3, 2008 3:58 PM
Amy. You should have drunk a bottle of wine before you voted.
If not exactly a "in vino veritas" state of conciousness, you might have realized that a flushed toilet does not advance the agenda of liberty and that the staus quo is not impressed by random acts of futility.
A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for B Dubya. Neither will ever occupy the White House, but Barack Obama will still be a talentless little shit who very well may.
Way to "stick it to the man", baby.
In my own defense, I assert that I will decline the nomination if offered, I will not run for the office, and I will refuse to serve, if elected. Right...
B Dubya at November 3, 2008 4:00 PM
For those of you in "swing states" who voted Barr, I hope you enjoy President Obama's large statism you have foisted upon us. At least with McPain, the congress and he would stymie each other some of the time and have "small" statism that might be more easily reversed, especially with more originalist justices on the Supreme court instead of Kelo-backing morons like Stevens. Under Obama we will see a court packed with hardcore statist liberals who will make legal doctrine that will take a generation to reverse.
Here in Texas, or in Washington State, one can vote third party with a clear conscience, as there are not enough of us to matter either way.
I just wish we would had a real alternative. Barr is not much more than a protest vote, not a libertarian one.
Nightsapper at November 3, 2008 4:04 PM
The US is a two party system. It wasn't designed that way by the founders, but that's the reality, and because of that it's unlikely that any third party will have a strong candidate for President. Most politicians who know they can run and actually win will naturally affiliate with one of the two major parties. That means that the third parties tend to attract the losers.
I know it's popular to rail against the two party system, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Having only two parties tends to keep members of both parties from moving too far from the center. In parliamentary systems, you get minority interest blocks combining votes, and they rarely vote outside of their party. In the US it's common for politicians to come across the aisle; in fact, it's almost a necessity in order to get anything passed. Unfortunately, we're probably headed for at least a couple of years where that isn't true - but on the other hand, it's still not uncommon for the majority party to look for votes from the minority when passing major legislation, in order to provide "cover" in case things go wrong.
RJ at November 3, 2008 4:18 PM
I don't believe you are stupid enough to have wasted your vote on Barr since that would be the same as voting for Obama since there are the race is really McCain V Obama.
Qualified? Do you really think that Joe "the drunk" Biden will be sober long enough to provide any help to unqualified junior senator? Biden has been wrong on every issue but one and that was when he said Hillary would have been a better choice.
So, set 'em up Joe...
Biden Sings: The Villages (This One Deserves It's Own Headline
Biden Sings: The Villages (This One Deserves It's Own Headline) Joe Biden could very well be the next Vice-President of the United States.
www.mikechurch.com/joomla/daily-show/biden-sings-the-vi... www.mikechurch.com/joomla/daily-show/biden-sings-the-villages-this-one-deserves-it-s-own-headline.html
78k - 11 sec @ 56k
Gaffmaster: Joe Biden Disses "The Villages" In a Song and Dance
Was looking on YouTube for Joe Biden gaffes today. When watching this one, I saw - at the end - Joe dance and sing to the advertisement for the Florida retirement town, The Villages.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2095955/posts
M at November 3, 2008 4:35 PM
I'll take Sarah Palin over Joe Biden. She has more executive experience than any of the boys running AND she has more common sense than any politician I have listened to in years.
As far as the boys running - I am voting against Barack Obama. Those of us that wish to protect our freedom will do the same.
Sweetie, it's a free country...for now so you can throw away your vote if you wish. I do have to question your thought process though.
Real Woman at November 3, 2008 4:44 PM
Are you lucky that men and women have died for your freedom to be so foolish with your vote?
We have the "National Security Force":
I guess Obama can't count on the US Military to shoot citizens but the Nation of Islam and goon squad certainly will.
Obama's communist roots go back generations. He is a COMMUNIST and worse, unlike most dictators he would not side with the United States over the Arab countries which he told us in his own words!
The idea of having this "chosen one" coming from slave-trader roots that have not been mentioned. He is African-Arab NOT AFRICAN-AMERICAN.
Bill Ayer's said killing 25 million American's would not be a problem - we have ties to people that hate and want to kill you!
The Global Poverty bill will be sending something like $87 million to Kenya (Obama's true country of choice)It will allow the UN to tax us AND disarm this country. People don't have a clue, why not? This bill explains why Joe Binden was the VP pick.
The sub prime loan mess was brought to us by a combination of corrupt politicians and Fannie Mae. Looking at the cast of criminals, there are real ties to the Black Caucus, ACORN... I would like to know how much of the $700 billion dollar bailout went to George Soros. We are seeing what I would call FINANCIAL TERRORISM and manipulation.
Energy - we still are not allowed to go after oil WHERE THE OIL IS. This is a deliberate mission to hurt this country when the manipulators cut off our supply. This is a homeland security issue. No Energy? We'll just sit in the dark and freeze!
Democrats already have a plan: The Government Seize All 401k Funds and "spread the wealth around"! Now they will have all your money and make everyone poor!
Taxes - I truly think every WORKING American will have huge tax increases. The goal of the elite is not to bring everyone up."Middle class tax break"? NOW YOU'RE RICH IF YOU MAKE over $120,000. Gee, it's half in a week. How long before it's down to $30K?
News Alert to people stupid enough to think they'll be getting anything "free": The aim is to have the elite (Pelosi, Obama, Kerry) with the power and the rest poor and dependent. Did you really think stealing from other people's money would work. You are the other people.
ETHNIC CLEANSING
youtube.com/watch?v=xmO4-gd8oAU >Democrat
youtube.com/watch?v=3tWLhwU5fYY >Barack Obama and Raila Odinga part 2 The Video that could cost Obama the election (ODINGA ADMITS THEY ARE COUSINS)
BTW, just like Obama, Cousin Odinga sold out Kenya to Shira law. Do you think there might be a reason the Nation of Islam, and American haters support Obama?
The "Golden Goose" was killed by the Democrats in a deliberate plan to hurt the economy for the sake of an election. You are allowing the country to be destroyed because you thought you would get other people's money and all you're getting is the loss of your freedom. I'm not shocked that you would sell out your country but I am shocked at how cheap you could be bought.
I'm voting against Obama because I have children.
Mickey at November 3, 2008 4:52 PM
So you voted for someone who disgusts you. You must be very proud.
slick at November 3, 2008 4:56 PM
"My preferred presidential candidate, one who mirrors my fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism, and is adequate for the office, has yet to run during my years as a voter."
Dunno. I thought Harry Brown was pretty decent on all of that. Harry seemed to me to represent libertarianism pretty well - he may not have agreed with you on everything but seemed open to doing so if you could prove your position did more to further human liberty.
I've voted straight LP in every election that I've actually voted in since 1984. I have trouble believing that Barr has had a Damascene conversion to true libertarianism (though come to think of it that's the only kind he could have). I won't be voting for him, but I certainly respect your opinion and wish I could share it this time.
RVS at November 3, 2008 5:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602525">comment from slickSo you voted for someone who disgusts you. You must be very proud.
Do you people not read? You and the troll whose comment just got unpublished.
They all disgust me.
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2008 5:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602527">comment from Toad"For those of you in "swing states" who voted Barr, I hope you enjoy President Obama's large statism you have foisted upon us."
Um, I live in California which is not a swing state.
"Could it be that Amy Alkon just dislike everyone?"
I would've voted for Newt Gingrich in a hot second. And not because I agree with all his views; in fact, I disagree with many of them. But, I find him to be qualified to be president, especially to deal with terrorism. I can't say that about a single one of the other boobs running for president or VP. The fact that many of you seem to be sanguine about McCain as a candidate says you don't know much about McCain.
For those of you who are gung ho for McCain for any other reason than the fact that he is not Obama, read reason editor Matt Welch's book, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick.
Finally, to the courageous troll from a Memphis IP, calling himself "Edward," who posted a really nasty remark about me, please send a photo of yourself and your real first and last name. If you're going to attack me, please at least snap on some balls and do it like a man instead of like a gutless anono-weenie.
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2008 5:58 PM
I'm confused. Because you're libertarian, you voted for someone with an L after his name even though he doesn't hold libertarian beliefs. But you revile someone, Palin, who governs the most culturally/politically libertarian state in the union and who has real accomplishments that are more libertarian in nature than anyone else running can match (nor does she seem to impose her personal or social beliefs on anyone through legislation).
In 1992, Andre Marrou, whose claim to fame was that he served as a big-L Libertarian state senator in Alaska, ran for president on the LP ticket. Did you vote for him because of the L after his name, and if so, did you believe he was qualified to serve as president?
A vote sends only one kind of signal. The person receiving it takes it as approval of whatever they were doing before. I'm sorry to hear that you have sent a signal with your vote that will not, I believe, have the intended effect.
Eve M. at November 3, 2008 6:36 PM
A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama. Way to go. Now you can feel pure, and when our nation accelerates down the ol' socialist sluice, you can pat yourself on the back about how YOU were not the one responsible...'cause you voted for Barr.
Pathetic.
S. Everett at November 3, 2008 6:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602544">comment from S. EverettA vote for Barr is a vote for Obama.
Does it escape any of you that I live in California, which is not exactly a swing state. Note that nobody is spending the last days of the campaign here, and for good reason.
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2008 7:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602546">comment from Amy AlkonA vote for McCain in California is a wasted vote:
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/california.html
Also, if anyone out there doesn't think I'll let the Libertarian party know how I feel -- as, I think, will many who feel as I do -- well, it must be your first time here.
I'm still particularly amazed by the guy who called himself Edward, who posted some of the ugliest stuff I've had on my blog since I was attacked by the "progressives." Anono-weenie-style, just like the lefties. Edward, do you say stuff like that to women in the grocery store, or do you feel especially powerful when you can post anonymously on the Internet?
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2008 7:06 PM
Amy,
Just want to get on your good side here. I agree with your decision. I have done this kind of thing in the past in various places I have lived, where the state was not some kind of important toss-up (Utah). My first vote outing was in 1988, and I was probably one of 14 people in Utah to vote Dukakis - I think it was youthful idealism for "change", and maybe because Olympia Dukakis is a good actress? Can't say. I was active duty in the Army at that time, and almost immediately embarrassed by my vote. I have never mentioned it in any public forum before.
In 1992 I liked the cut of Perot's jib - a successful businessman, and not from DC, and big friendly ears. 1996 and 2000 were big L years for me as well (Go Harry Browne!). 9/11 changed my view on being Libertarian, and in 2004 I voted for Bush 43, which I'm mostly still OK with, but every now and then I have bouts of nausea over thanks to things like NCLB or the bailout. I also lived in Washington State at the time, and knew that my vote mattered. To any of you in swing states, I recommend voting for McCain rather than the big L Barr (not alone on this, check out places like Volokh, RedState, etc. for others advocating same). If you plan on voting Obama, you should take a day off and go shopping until all the stores close. Then come home and watch election returns.
Bottom line, to all you folks claiming Amy is ushering in the Horsemen of the Obamalypse because she voted for the "execrable" (does that include the smell?) Bob Barr in CA - it didn't make any difference in the big picture. Suppose she voted for McCain? Would it have made a difference? You gotta stand for something sometime, and this is as good a time as any. She is simply standing athwart history, yelling "Stop!"
Any of you who have read Amy for any amount of time know that she is not a mindless Obamaton, unlike the other ilk who live around her and create creepy videos of singing Marxist children. So behave yourselves!
Ferdinand Chetler at November 3, 2008 7:50 PM
Well, an announced Libertarian is usually someone that has mislabeled themselves from Objectivist. Of course, there are tons and tons of religious loonies like Ron Paul and Bob Barr hiding out in the Libertarian party. Not to mention that one of the heads of the CATO institute is Rupert Murdoch -it doesn't get any more neo-con than him.
Ayn Rand SPECIFICALLY warned that Libertarians were con-artists that had ripped off her philosophy as a guise for their own separate agendas. What are those agendas? Bill Maher is a socialist, who is a Libertarian. Rand warned about the Libertarian umbrella that spreads over religious zealots, anarchists, and hippies.
Jason Sieckmann at November 3, 2008 7:54 PM
You know, Amy, a vote for Bob Barr is effectively a vote for Obama. That's fine, if that was your intention, but don't think that it isn't.
Because of the way our political system works (electoral college, winner-take-all), third parties will never be successful; a successful party is by definition one of the two major parties. The way that libertarians can change things is to work within one of the two major parties. This is what happened in the 1980s, when libertarian principles had great influence over the Republican Party. However, in 1992 libertarians took their ball and went home, to their own party. The result is four elections with a very small number of votes for a Libertarian candidate, and little or no libertarian influence on the GOP.
Contrast this with the Green/Socialist/Progressive influence on the Democrat Party. The progressives, as exemplified by the 'netroots' have realized that the only way to obtain power is to work within the system, and so they have and quite successfully as shown by their efforts and results against Liebermann and Hillary.
Politics is the art of the possible... not the perfect. There are only two candidates with a chance to win: Obama and McCain. If you are voting for a third party candidate as a protest against a major party candidate, then you are effectively voting for the other major party candidate. As a libertarian, do you really want to elect Obama in order to show your disgust with McCain? If so, you're cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
John at November 3, 2008 8:04 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602557">comment from Ferdinand ChetlerTo any of you in swing states, I recommend voting for McCain rather than the big L Barr
Thanks, Ferdinand...you get it.
As for the rest of you, is it that you're incapable of reading what I posted, or are just mad and I make as good a target as any?
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2008 8:06 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602558">comment from JohnYou know, Amy, a vote for Bob Barr is effectively a vote for Obama.
I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.
J'HABITE EN CALIFORNIE.
I could continue in other languages if that helps you comprehend why what you posted above is not correct. Swahili? Urdu? Please, take your pick.
Oh yeah, once again:
CALIFORNIA IS NOT A SWING STATE!
And now, the French:
Californie n'est pas un état du swing!
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2008 8:09 PM
Amy -
Reagan took California. What makes you so certain that Obama's recent gaffes about "spreading the wealth around", and the latest one that the SF Chronicle just decided to release after sitting on it since February about Obama being cool with the price of energy going through the roof as a result of his "carbon" policies?
You think the people of California are going to vote for higher energy prices?
Like I said, if Obama takes your state by one vote, I'm holding you responsible.
The whole push for ideological purity is what ended the Republican Revolution in the 90s. Of course, it's also what pushed Joe Lieberman out of the Democrat party.
brian at November 3, 2008 8:22 PM
Amy, I love and admire every inch of you, even if you're the most clueless cunt in California when it comes to Sarah Palin.
So there. I'm not anonymous, and I'd be glad to say that to your face if we were a few thousand miles closer together:)
The only thing that's keeping me from falling into a black pit of despair at the imminence of Obamalot is a faint ray of hope that Mac and Sarah might just pull it off. Then we'll have 4 years to find out if Jim Treacher and I are right about her, and you're wrong.
Martin Beranek at November 3, 2008 8:43 PM
Oops, I was slightly wrong above. Andre Marrou was an Alaskan state rep (not a state senator).
Eve M. at November 3, 2008 8:47 PM
The only reason Regan got california is beacuse californians considered him one of their own
lujlp at November 3, 2008 9:35 PM
A vote for Barr is effectively a vote for Obama.
I really don't understand the logic of this. Would John or Brian or someone please explain it? You seem to be saying that a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama because it isn't a vote for McCain. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to say that a vote for Barr is a vote for McCain because it isn't a vote for Obama?
Rex Little at November 3, 2008 10:05 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602583">comment from Martin BeranekTreacher wrote me an e-mail that ended "Goodbye," and will apparently no longer come here, because he got all insulted when I posted the comment about how too many people are "team players" in their vote, which he took personally, fourth-grader-style, instead of simply pointing out why I was wrong in his case.
I'm still waiting for somebody to do more than the junior high school thing of thrashing around and saying she's more qualified, or pointing me to Elaine Lafferty's mere opinion on the matter. Treacher, likewise, just posted these several-word comments that suggested I was wrong.
I think she's sharp, and had no interest in anything beyond her city or state. Her comments and ability to speak reflect that. Also, how come religious conservatives, who think a woman's place is in the home, are cool with a woman who has a litter of children being Vice-President -- or governor. I'm sure not cool with it. I think, if you have children, you have an obligation to stay home with them and focus on them.
Anyway, I respect you for posting in your own name.
Amy Alkon at November 3, 2008 11:24 PM
Sarah Palin's Libertarian Credentials:
1) Was endorsed by the Libertarian Party of Alaska during her 2006 race for the Governorship. Has always enjoyed good relations with the party, and gone out of her way to acknowledge their support.
2) Is the strongest national supporter of drilling in ANWR, econazis be damned.
3) One of 3 governors (the others were from New Hampshire and Washington State) to issue a proclamation in support of Jurors' Rights Day, the Fully Informed Jury Association, and the principle of juror nullification (the right of jurors to refuse to enforce unjust laws).
4) Opposed the Real ID Act.
5) Vetoed $ 500 million of capital spending projects, supported putting about $ 7 billion of surplus revenue into state savings.
6) Vetoed a bill denying health insurance and other employee benefits to same-sex couples, said she could never sign an unconstitutional bill.
7) Lifetime NRA member, signed an amicus brief in support of the Second Amendment right of individual Americans to bear arms, for the Washington DC vs Heller case.
Yes I know that doesn't answer the "but is she qualified?" arguement, and I'm not biting your head off for voting for Barr. Just pointing out that she has the best libertarian credentials of any of the 4 mainstream candidates, and that she stacks up well against Barr in this regard.
Martin at November 4, 2008 12:10 AM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think I'm going to vote for Nader -- either that or I'll write someone in. (Hell, maybe I'll write myself in. I'm pretty convinced I can do a better job than Bush, anyway.)
Obama has made me sick since early in the primaries. McCain lost me when he chose Palin. Barr creeps me out, for all the reasons you all mention, and then some. Cynthia McKinney is a kook. So yeah, Nader's a weird old crank-pot, but, well, I don't have a choice I like.
I live in New York, so my vote is essentially meaningless. However, I've always taken voting pretty seriously nonetheless until now. I've never felt this hopeless and angry about an election. The two party system must go -- at least insofar as it involves the two parties we've got now.
Gail at November 4, 2008 12:40 AM
I didn't say it, but I'll answer.
The answer is yes. If McCain wins.
When you have n choices to pick from, but only two of them have a chance of winning* then a vote for any of the other n - 2 candidates is effectively a vote for whomever wins.
And if you happen to be cool with the cuy that ends up winning, then it's all good. If not, then you've gone and shot yourself in the foot.
Which is why even though I can't stand any of the candidates, I'll vote for McCain. He will do the least damage to me, my family, and my customers of the two possible winners.
*(all pie in the sky of "if everyone voted their principles" be damned, because in this election if that happened nobody but the socialists would vote)
brian at November 4, 2008 4:56 AM
If you have children you have an obligation to stay home with them? How convenient for the non-reproducers. I sincerely hope Barr doesn't have kids, or you are quite the hypocrite. For that matter, I hope you've never voted for a parent. Or gone to a dr who had kids. Or been waited on at a restaurant by a parent.
Yes, Amy, I know you want all parents at home, so that nonparents can run the world as you see fit. Unfortunately for you, you all benefit society not much at all, while parents are doing the absolutely essential work of continuing the species. You can argue overpopulation all you want, someone still has to have kids.
Treacher may be on to something. You've just gone off the deep end. Oh, and who is a team player? Given that you admittedly voted for someone you hate and don't agree with, just to stay on the libertarian team you like?
I've read your justifications for your vote. You hate the guy, but *hope* the party reads your mind that you don't like him even though you voted for him, and will run someone completely different next time. Right? It's just stupid. I've thought you many things before, but not stupid. It's a shame.
momof3 at November 4, 2008 5:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602641">comment from MartinYes I know that doesn't answer the "but is she qualified?" arguement,
I'm hoping somebody will. Instead of posting "You just go ahead and keep thinking that!"-type comments and then announcing they're out of here when I don't buy on the strength of those remarks.
Amy Alkon at November 4, 2008 5:44 AM
Amy, you were answered quite thoroughly by the "Palins claim to Libertarianism" post. Do you need it express-mailed? Would that help?
What are Barr's qualifications again?
momof3 at November 4, 2008 5:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602648">comment from momof3For some reason, you seem compelled to act like an utter bitch to me, and I'd like it to stop. Perhaps you feel some heady little rush of power at being nasty like you are. The thing is, your problems with me seem to stem from an inability or an unwillingness to read what I write in my blog items.
I explain above that I didn't vote for Barr because I like him or think he's qualified. I made it quite plain that I don't like him at all, and only voted for him because, in California, a state that will go strongly Obama, I have the luxury of voting for somebody other than McCain, who I loathe, just not as much as I loathe the damage I think Obama will do to our country.
Sarah Palin's libertarianesque leanings to not make her qualified to be Vice-President. McCain's choice of her speaks poorly for him. I was going to vote for McCain until he picked Palin. I wanted to like her -- and I like her persona very much -- but I can't get behind her as a qualified candidate for president, despite Jim Treacher's protests here along the lines of "you just keep saying she isn't qualified." Yeah, that sure persuaded me. And believe me, I want to be persuaded, I want to want to vote for somebody in this election. Like so many express here, that isn't the case. Many, many people aren't voting for McCain because they think he's a great or even adequate candidate, just because he's not Obama.
Amy Alkon at November 4, 2008 6:03 AM
Amy wrote:
Do you people not read? You and the troll whose comment just got unpublished.
They all disgust me.
If its a given that they all disgust you, then it's probably best to have voted for the least disgusting or the one who least causes you to hurl.While Mccain and Palin may cause you to want to hurl, I can't imagine, if you are a conservative or even libertarian, that Obama taking control with a majority in the house and senate to push through his legislation will make you happier.
You had a choice of Mccain and Obama.Barr can't win and is a throwaway vote. Voting for Barr is simply taking a vote away from mccain, and thus is in effect a vote for Obama. So in effect you are voting against your self interest.
Unless of course you are looking forward to 4 years of uninhibited liberalism run amock. In which case, good show.
jr565 at November 4, 2008 7:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602670">comment from jr565Voting for Barr is simply taking a vote away from mccain, and thus is in effect a vote for Obama
Again, I live in California, which is solidly Obama. Is there some language I should say this in which will communicate it to all the people who seem incapable of comprehending it.
And don't kid yourself that the Republicans are fiscal conservatives. They just hand out your money to a different set of people.
Amy Alkon at November 4, 2008 7:30 AM
I guess hanging out here has rubbed the bitchiness into me, you sure are the queen of it. That's one reason people read you. It can be refreshing in the land of PC.
There are many, in fact most, of your readers disagreeing with you lately. You aren't even holding true to your own beliefs. You have, quite simply, gone a little loco this election. I don't agree with all things Mccain, or even all things Palin. I did not, however, vote for a candidate I loathe. I'm glad you took advantage of your luxury to do so. I find it odd, and at odds with other views you espouse.
And you just won't acknowledge anything anyone writes about Palin's qualifications. You just keep asking for them, no matter how often people post them. It's annoying, especially coming from you. I'm not sure what qualifications you want, other than already having been President, which is the only way to get more executive experience than she has. Senators don't run anything. They may work on foreign policy, but it's not their specialty. It's sure not Biden's, even though you like to say it is. In fact, getting as much lobbyist money as possible through pork spending seems to be the only thing they specialize in.
momof3 at November 4, 2008 7:54 AM
"I wish for a Republican president and a Democratic Congress, or a Democratic President and a Republican Congress."
Excellent reasoning. And yet, knowing the odds for a democratic congress, you made a choice that ensures neither of your above wishes. Just so you can keep your high opinion of yourself. Brilliant!
Stand in the corner and hold YOUR breath until THEY turn blue? They won't turn blue. You will.
curmudgeon at November 4, 2008 1:04 PM
"I guess hanging out here has rubbed the bitchiness into me, you sure are the queen of it"
That's not true.
Any woman who has a sense of humour about being called a clueless cunt is not a bitch.
(I'd love to watch a rabid feminist try and parse that sentence:)
Martin at November 4, 2008 1:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/02/i_voted_against.html#comment-1602765">comment from MartinAny woman who has a sense of humour about being called a clueless cunt is not a bitch.
I rather like the alliteration.
And thanks. I actually find it hilarious how apoplectic some women get about that word.
Amy Alkon at November 4, 2008 2:44 PM
I'm not absent; I just prefer not to spend half an hour in line and perhaps encounter problems with the voting machines
Plus, you don't have to tuck if you go the mail-in route.
Hoo-Zat at November 4, 2008 2:45 PM
I'm not absent; I just prefer not to spend half an hour in line and perhaps encounter problems with the voting machines
One of the things I love about Oregon, is that nobody has to spend time in lines unless they want to (or procrastinate) and the machines aren't a problem either. We got our ballots weeks ago and momma mailed hers in two days later. I mulled for a while, over whether to just abstain on the presidential race or write someone in - but dropped mine in a ballot box a couple days ago, having abstained. I figured that Big Bird/Grover Monster was just a little too silly, even for me.
DuWayne at November 5, 2008 9:28 PM
Wow, as a non-American who thought I might be inclined to support Libertarianism, this thread has been a real eye-opener. The fact that Americans have freely elected a supposed Black-Arab,Radical Muslim, Nazi, Communist in preference to Libertarian canidantes suggests that the tag of "Libertarian=Loser" may have an element of truth. Perhaps Libertarian policies are simply too detached from the realities of most peoples lives to ever be any more than a cranky fringe, or distracting amusment?
Glen hughes at November 5, 2008 11:48 PM
I'm confused. Amy's vote is her own, and no one should judge her or criticize it. She was gracious enough to share it with you, which is just one of many things that are great about our process--she didn't have to.
I hope that everyone here understands our electoral process. It's not by popular vote, so a vote in California does not hold as much weight as a vote in Virginia. That's the truth, so I don't understand what the big deal is. She made a choice, and whether you agree or not, it's not really your business. If you want to talk about the merits of it, then she clearly invites that. If you just want to sputter, "But it's a vote for Obama!" then just stop. It wasn't.
Brenda at November 6, 2008 6:46 AM
Leave a comment