So, I did a little survey again, asking: “Gun to your head, which of these would you select to actually be the US president?” And, once again, the results surprised me a little. Here they are, for the sake of posterity:
Mitt Romney 15 (15%)
Rick Santorum 0 (0%)
Newt Gingrich 0 (0%)
Ron Paul 36 (36%)
“Pull the trigger” 49 (49%)
Total votes: 100
At 100 votes, it almost seems ridiculous to post the percentages, but old habits are hard to break.
I’ll address the last response first, because it’s so monumentally telling. With 49 votes in favor of getting a bullet in the head over selecting any of the Republican presidential nominees, I can conclude that half of the people who visited my site in the last few weeks and voted are drama queens. Not much more to say about that one, except that I know for a fact that few, if any, would actually choose to die before selecting one of these four men to be president. Next time I won’t even give people an out, because it’s obvious that too many were unwilling to actually make a tough choice (which might be America’s biggest problem: we’d rather die than decide).
I’m a little surprised by the Ron Paul win over Romney. Unlike most of the other polls, I did vote in this one, as did my wife, and we chatted briefly about it when I first put the poll up. We both picked Romney over Ron Paul, because Ron Paul is fucking insane and Romney has gubernatorial experience that neither of us find too repugnant.
I’m sure some portion of those who chose Ron Paul actually support him, but I know I don’t have 36 Ron Paul fans who read my blog, so I’m of the opinion that a fair number of normal people chose him, which leads me to believe there’s a lot of pot smokers who frequent my blog who don’t know much about politics or Ron Paul.
Bear in mind that 99% of what Ron Paul says he will do are things he can never do, even if he were president. He can’t decide not to declare war, Congress does that. He can’t decide to end the war on drugs, Congress does that, also. He can’t end the Fed, legalize prostitution, lower government spending, eliminate the minimum wage or Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid… he can’t do most of the things he says he’ll do, because the Constitution (which he supposedly adheres to) does not grant him the power to do so.
The best he could do is end the wars, but even then, his generals will be the ones deciding how fast they leave. In many ways, this would be Paul’s saving grace, since he would be unable to bring to fruition some of his more insane policies, but I’m still confident I would rather not live in a country suffering from the consequences of this man’s presidency.
In short, Ron Paul is a political hack that only naïve frat boys still have a boner for. At this point, if you can’t see through Ron Paul’s bullshit, you should seek treatment for mercury poisoning, because you have some crossed wires upstairs.
This isn’t to say Romney is a good candidate. I wouldn’t vote for him in a real election, I can just look at these four men and make an informed decision that between them, Romney is clearly the most intelligent choice.
I’m kind of shocked Newt Gingrich got no votes. I’m not surprised in the least that Santorum got no support from people who read my blog, but Newt Gingrich would still be a better choice than Ron Paul. In my opinion, only Santorum is comparable in horribleness to Ron Paul.
Gingrich is forward-thinking and has a record of working with Democrats. I’m not sure how he got zero support, and I would be willing to bet he would have gotten some votes if I had asked this earlier in the campaign. I wonder if perhaps his penchant for acting outraged over every little thing lately has resulted in his sharp decline in popularity, but honestly… I can’t fault him for it, because it’s cheap publicity. It shows political savvy and a willingness to fight on against the odds, and I kind of respect that quality in him, even if he is a manipulative douchebag.
Still, I have to give it to Romney. He’s the only one with executive experience, and his moderate record speaks for itself.
While I agree with your choice, I don't agree with your methods. Fortunately I came by this poll too late to vote so I'm free to comment as an objective observer. Whenever you include something like "pull the trigger" in a poll you immediately send the message that you don't take the poll seriously, so why should I? Therefore, your lambasting of those who don't agree with you is out of place.
ReplyDelete"He can’t decide not to declare war, Congress does that."
ReplyDeleteNo but he can veto it. Congress cannot deploy troops, the Commander in Chief does that. All Congress can do is grant 'authorization to use military force', but this does not obligate the President in any way to use it.
You underestimate the usefulness of veto powers, and the breadth of executive power in dismantling the executive branch of Government.
The president can't "veto" a declaration of war, though he can sit there doing nothing... which is likely to lead to him losing all public support and possibly impeachment. The last president to refuse to take military action was James Buchanan, who is all but universally accepted as being one of the worst presidents of all time.
DeleteMilitary action by the USA should be taken only to defend American soil against a direct attack, and to protect American vessels on the high seas.
DeleteMaybe also make an exemption for the rescue of US Citizens held prisoner abroad.
The bottom line is it should be in self-defense only.
I agree, but I don't trust Ron Paul to do even that.
Delete