The Candidates – Who I’d Vote For and Who I Wouldn’t

Here's my characterization of each legitimate candidate and what I'd do if he were nominated:

(in alphabetical order

Rudy Giuliani – hands down the best candidate for defending against terrorism, but I worry about many of his other positions, especially illegal immigration. I'd vote for him, but only if he's running against a Democrat.

Mike Huckabee – An ideological turncoat who can't be trusted, unless you consider that he was "compassionate when he was fat, but came to his senses once he could focus on other matters. I'd never vote for him.

Duncan Hunter – absolutely the best choice – which is why he has no chance. He literally supports just about everything conservatives stand for, but his low key demeanor and low profile dooms him. Let's hope he's picked for vice president, but being in California, he's more likely to be picking grapes. I'd register in multiple states to vote for him.

John McCain – I'd love him if he wasn't on the wrong side of everything that's important except the war on terror. I'd vote for him if there was a nuclear war and he was the only candidate left.

Ron Paul – A nut, but so was Perot, and I still think he'd have been a good president. So why wouldn't Paul? Because he's much nuttier. In that respect, he'd make a better candy bar than a president. I wouldn't ever consider voting for him.

Mitt Romney – Might be OK, but he's too glib and pretty, qualities he has to overcome while stressing positions and his resolve in attaining and holding them. I worry he won't be tough enough on illegal immigration, but I'd vote for him because somebody has to be president.

Tom Tancredo – Could be a great president, but he's pigeonholed himself, so I'd love to vote for him, but the only way he'll be the nominee is if illegal immigrants kill all the other candidates.

Fred Thompson – He appears disinterested to me, but I do believe he may be the best overall candidate. I'd vote for him, but I worry that his disinterest will lead to taking the path of least resistance and instead of press conferences, he'll be arguing his cases on Law and Order.

On the Democrat side:

Don't make me laugh…

Just kidding, it's no laughing matter.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The Candidates – Who I’d Vote For and Who I Wouldn’t

  1. All the good candidates are probably not electable anyway. Reagan won due to the gas lines and Federal idiocy, we were lucky for once. I've met Ron Paul two or three times since the mid seventies and voted for him in 1988. I am a registered Libertarian.

  2. Urban Lenny says:

    Your complete disqualification of anyone who's not a Republican leads me to believe that you're of the opinion that the last 7 years have been good ones in America, and that Bush is a good President.

  3. TedWest says:

    Thanks, Lenny, for demonstrating what passes for logic, not to mention interest, among liberals.
    But in my never ending effort to find the first rational liberal, I shall elaborate, since no logical thought would indicate you expect that of me, else you would have finished with a question mark.
    The reason I disqualified all Democrats is simply because there are no decent Democrats, and I don't mean to restrict that to just those running for president.
    Now if you had looked around here a bit, you would have come upon a number of posts of mine in which I say that George Bush is not only the worse president ever, he's the worst president there will ever be.
    However, I don't say that for the idiotic reasons liberal Bush-haters do, I say that for real reasons. For example, today it was announced that Bush would be pardoning a good many people, none of whom are the two border guards who shot a dope dealing Mexican in the behind, and who are serving 12 years instead of getting medals. In fact, I was so outraged when I learned this that I actually started a piece titled: Mr. President, You're A Rotten Pig, but I scrapped in because I felt that didn't adequately convey the way I feel about him.
    Finally, your comment leads me to believe that you don't think the last 7 years have been good ones for America, and that Bush is a bad President, and you'd be right on both counts as long as you don't feel the need to elaborate.
    But if you feel the need, by all means, state your case. Just know that comedians are always welcome no matter how well they do, and that serious debaters had better be serious.

  4. TedWest says:

    Dox and Zak,
    I've been impressed with Romney of late, and from the few clips I saw of him today and the clip of Thompson telling the liberal fool moderator that he's not playing her game have, for the first time given me a feeling that there are other candidates as good as, or better than, Giuliani.

  5. I'm not sure that I could vote for Giuliani, Huckabee is out too. I live in Arizona and have never voted for McCain.

  6. Jeff D says:

    For the life of me I can't understand why people like Fred Thompson. I've been more than willing for him to convince me I should vote for him, but I haven't seen a single thing out of him that does. Romney has a business background, which appeals to me. Also, when the worst Giuliani can dig up on you is that you hired a company that hired illegals, you know a candidate is pretty clean.I also have a Mormon friend who went to Romney's temple in Belmont, MA for many years and said he is genuinely a very nice guy, that even though it can seem oversmooth on TV that it's really him.

  7. TedWest says:

    Jeff,
    I liked Fred Thompson before he got in the race because I felt he'd be a tough conservative. But his performances have been lackluster – up until yesterday when one simple comment might just jump start his campaign.
    But to answer your query, Thompson is the only conservative who has a straight track record. All the others have had to change course and/or make excuses for past actions. Thompson is, I think, capable of being another Reagan, and I hope he starts to play that role.
    Romney is the next best, he's been too slick. If he can show that he can be tough, he'd be a good choice. Except that today, he was one who sided with the man-made warming nonsense – and Thompson didn't.
    So I'm surprised I'm saying this, but at this time, Thompson is the only real conservative and he's my guy*.
    Zak,
    I wouldn't vote for Paul, and he has no chance, but I actually wouldn't mind seeing him become President. he's wrong on the war, but circumstances have a way of changing perspectives, and I think he'd be OK.
    *Subject to change without notice

  8. Thompson is OK and the only tough conservative with a chance.

  9. Urban Lenny says:

    well Ted, i guess my supposition was based on not really understanding how continuing with another republican in the WH would change anything but the most minor details.im gathering that one of your main problems with Bush is immigration. Whereas mine are also his counterproductive and reckless foreign policy, his disregard of the Constitution (specifically the 4th and 6th Amendments), his complete unwillingness to compromise with the democrats who also represent Americans (and whom the majority of Americans agree with on most policies), and his disregard for science in favor of religious and corporate ideology.Now if you dont think those ARE problems, then i guess we can just leave it there.oh– and Thompson has ZERO chance. most lackluster campaign performance i've ever seen.

  10. TedWest says:

    See, Lenny, I advised you not to elaborate because I knew it would inevitably lead to insane and indefensible assertions. And if you were to continue, it would get loonier yet.
    The only semi-lucid thing you said there was about the majority of Americans agreeing with Democrats. They don't, but your sort of polling is good enough for you. For example, when Americans say they disapprove of the war, they aren't agreeing with the dum-dem position. They don't approve because we aren't (weren't) winning, and that was Bush's fault. And when he made adjustments, approval went up. If America really agreed with liberals, not only would we be in grave danger, but (one would think) Congress would have a higher approval rating.
    As for Thompson, time will tell, but your comment reminded me of a frothing-at-the-mouth liberal from 2003 who spent a lot of time berating me in some very strong terms and telling me that he'd be back to finish the job when Bush was turned out in 2004 – as he knew for certain he would be.
    Well, when he didn't return after the election, I wrote him (as the head of the forum, I had access to his email address in addition to private message), and literally begged him to return. Do you know, that bum wouldn't even give me the courtesy of a reply?
    OK, so despite my telling you that you needed to be serious if you wanted to debate something here, you reached into the liberal loony-tunes litany and we both know that's as deep as you can get, so I've been courteous long enough. If you have anything else to say, it had better be your "A" game, or you'll get nothing but insults from here on out.

  11. Jeff D says:

    I'm in Vegas so I missed Thompson the other night. I saw an article the other day that described him, very offhandedly, as "lazy." It kind of struck me that this might be the case. Or at the least, he does not appear anywhere near as willing to get out there and press the flesh as McCain, Romney, Huckabee, etc.

  12. Indiana says:

    Freds not lazy. Fred has always had a rocky relationship with the media so often his campaigning goes under the radar and doesnt get the attention some of the other candidates get. Also you dont hear as much about his pressing the flesh as others because he isnt concentrating on a few high profile select areas like other candidates. Fred has been criss crossing this country from one end to the other. We see the other candidates often talking to voters on the news, meanwhile Fred is often talking WITH voters instead of TO them and often while standing amongst them. Freds been called lazy since long before this election was even thought about, its a comment that has often been used by his opposition since he first got into politics but instead of describing his actions, it more describes his ability to not get rattled or agitated easily and his laid back way of talking. I personally havent decided who i will vote for yet, but like many of the others i also dont feel Fred is running the campaign i thought he would but its still early and i dont believe we've seen all Fred has to offer yet or at least i hope not.

  13. TedWest says:

    "Freds not lazy"
    Yeah, I can see why you might think that!

    I don't know if Thompson is lazy, but he clearly lacks desire. I don't blame him for that though, since I wouldn't have much enthusiasm for governing the riffraff myself. Yet someone has to, and Fred probably feels (as I would if I weren't so lazy) it's either govern the riffraff or be governed by them.
    So he might make a great president, since I doubt he'd be overly compassionate.

  14. Just make me Dictator and I will clean up Washington DC. šŸ˜‰

  15. Indiana says:

    Laziness aside, im not sure if he lacks desire or if he is using some kind of strategy. Looking at his past record in politics and in business he's well known for appearing non-threatening then the next thing you know he's basically destroyed his adversaries while no one was looking. Does he know what he's doing or has he lost his edge? I dont know, only time will tell and we still have a lot of time for things to change.

  16. Jeff D says:

    If you'll point out a time to me during the Presidential campaign when his adversaries won't be looking, I'm all ears. He's not in the Senate. He's running for President and he needs to show people that he actually cares about winning. IMO he has not done that yet.

  17. Indiana says:

    You missed the point and took it to literally, not looking meaning they dont get what he's doing, and what they dont get they cant counter. As for showing people, I wouldnt disregard grassroots efforts especially in certain states, its propelled more then a few candidates that were lagging behind to the top contenders come voting time.

  18. TedWest says:

    After reading what Mitt pulled on Meet The Press today, I'm going with Thompson… and if Fred can't do it, I'm back with Rudy. Romney would now be my third choice among those who could actually get the nomination.
    Thompson may be lackluster, but he's been true to his past, he doesn't seem to pander and I think he'd be tough on terror and on illegal immigrantion. And I believe he'd be suitably arrogant toward the rest of the world. That's all I need in a President.

  19. Urban Lenny says:

    Dismissing things i say as "loony" "indefensible" "insane" is such a cop out man– no where do you address anything of substance. Pretty pathetic style from someone who tells others to "bring their A game". I dont know about you, but i deal in facts– and the facts support everything i wrote in my previous comment. YOu know, facts like: instances of terrorism have gone up exponentially since the Iraq invasion, or: American citizens actually HAVE been detained indefinitely without charges and counsel by the government… you know, FACTS.Also, I believe i (wrongly?) refrained from any name calling or personal attacks on you. I guess that's what you get from us "liberal loony tunes" people. if what i said is so indefensible, than you should have NO problem telling me how:- invading a secular stalinist dictatorship has made us safer from the threat of fundamentalist islamic terrorism; – data-mining the nation's telecom networks does not constitute a violation against unwarranted search and seizure, and;- detaining US citizens indefinitely without charges and access to counsel does not violate the 6th Amendment.why dont you start with that. only please cite some actual facts, if you can find them. Until then i'll just assume that you'd prefer to be– like your desired presidential candidate– "suitably arrogant", rather than pragmatic and constructive.

  20. TedWest says:

    Sorry Lenny, I don't engage in debate with loons, and most especially loons with bad grammar.
    You first have to demonstrate an ability to discern what is rational and what is not, what is logical and what is not, and what is real and what is fantasy, and I can't do that for you. There are plenty of people though who would try to answer you, and if it's any consolation, I think they are foolish too, even if they aren't in your category.

  21. Urban Lenny says:

    of course! bad grammar!

  22. May you and yours have a Very Merry Christmas!

  23. TedWest says:

    Thanks very much and the same to you, Zak. I consider you one of my highlights of 2007.
    And Merry Christmas to everyone else whether you like me or not. And if you do, Happy New Year, too!

  24. Ted: National Review magazine has endorsed Mitt Romney for President. While I'm still undecided and as yet have not reregistered as a Republican their endorsement holds weight in my mind.
    http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAwNzEyMzE=

  25. TedWest says:

    Zak,
    It might mean something to me too, do you know if they endorsed George Bush?

  26. This election makes me very uncomfortable. Government at every level has become shrill, vindictive and greedy. The public is brainwashed and or too ignorant to understand what is at stake. We need another revolution but considering the present situation regarding our nation's political organization and the ignorance of the voters I don't think that we will get one.

  27. TedWest says:

    There's a column I found very interesting today. Mark Steyn is usually considerably more optimistic about America than I am, but I feel that's because he has far more knowledge and experience about world affairs than I. nevertheless, he may be deluding himself in the sense that America may only be better than the rest or slower on the decline, and in either case, that may not bode well at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s