The Barbarino in me

Huckabee strikes me as GWB policies with Bill Clinton charisma and temperament. I think I'll pass.

Rod-- Huzzah! That's exactly it. I was initially excited when I first heard of Fred Thompson, hoping that he'd be the different style of Republican entering the race. It has seems to be that he's much the same as the others, just less motivated.

I've become a Huckabee supporter because he seems like the kind of Republican of which I wish there were more... reasonable, disciplined, principled. Ron Paul is the same way, except with the "crazy uncle" vibe that makes him seem a little unpredictable, even in the face of predictability.

I guess it comes down to this: does it seem like Huckabee would make a safe-choice president? To me, yes-- like how Guiliani is not a safe choice, even if he's appealing to some people. I guess Romney supporters think the same way, that he's the safe choice, even if he's not the best choice.

For me, withholding my presidential vote is, for the first time, a realistic possibility. Is that a responsible position?

Yes, it absolutely is. Continuing to align ourselves with the awful options that the Reps and Dems provide us is the worst sort of irresponsibility. Vive la resistance!

I really sympathize, Rod. I'm a lifelong Democrat and crunchy con who has been really, really wanting to vote Republican but can't find a candidate I can stomach. As many Democrats had traditionally been (ala' William Jennings Bryan), I'm strong on "lunchbucket" issues of economic justice for the working and middle class, but also just as strongly conservative on cultural issues. I'm also very pro-environment. There are things about Huckabee that really appeal to me, but his environmental record is pretty sad. So, I'm torn. Do I bolt for the Republican party, hold my nose and vote for a cultural conservative with a mildly populist tilt whose environmental position makes me cringe? Or, do I stay within the Democratic party and work toward the day that a truly populist, culturally conservative, green Democrat has a fighting chance? Either way, the situation looks grim for the '08 election. Frankly, I don't know what I will do when I get to the polling place. Bottom line, the problem is that crunchy cons simply do not fit neatly into the current political landscape. Which probably means that we're doing something right, huh?

Since you've mentioned Ron Paul and the Gold Standard in a post, I have no doubt that a lot of people will want to educate you in the virtues of gold soon enough. Let me start by saying that I agree with this post almost entirely, so we're by and large on the same page with the upcoming primaries.

I have two points to make:
1) When it comes to the Gold Standard, yes, Ron Paul is indeed approaching crank status. I could write for a while on why going back to the Gold Standard would be a disastrous policy at this point in time, and why it wasn't even a great idea at the time, but David Frum (with whom, I should say, I rarely agree) made a nice concise summary in his blog a few weeks back. Since I can't post links, just Google "David Frum Ron Paul Gold Standard" and click on the first link.

2) Saying that Ron Paul is wrong about the Gold Standard is not the same as saying that he's wrong about the Federal Reserve. For reasons that are too long to explain in a comment box, my personal preference would be to replace the Federal Reserve Open Markets Committee with a trained chimpanzee (or if that proves infeasible, a computer program) that does nothing except increase the money supply at a rate of about 3% a year, which occasional corrections for changes in the velocity of consumer spending.

With a few tweaks I could have written this column. Presently, Paul and Huckabee are the two candidates I'm considering. I haven't endorsed a candidate, and I'm closer to the probably won't vote camp. By the time my primary rolls around, the choice will be made, so it isn't like I have to make a choice. Ron Paul would probably be my by-default pick. If he is the nominee, I would probably vote for him. Huckabee is a candidate I'm almost enthusiastic about. I like his economic populism, but more importantly I like that he was willing to make adult choices despite the criticisms of the children at the Club For Growth. On immigration, I'm not really happy that he has thrown us pragmatists under the bus in order to appease folks like yourself. I think if one is going to accept Romney's pro-life conversion, one would be willing to accept Huckabee's restrictionist conversion. Of course you may not accept Romney's conversion, but given the choice between Clinton and Romney on abortion I would have no problem choosing Romeny even though I think he is only attached to the pro-life side for electability reasons.

I realize this drives partisans crazy, but I just can't see much of a difference between presidencies headed by Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, or Clinton. Romney and Clinton would probably be the best managers in the group. As far as actual policy though, I just don't think there would be a whole lot of difference.

It seems to me that Rod is in danger of throwing good money after bad in demanding that his candidate have "the right stand" on the war. No fervor like a convert, or a former supporter of the Iraq war, I guess. Why on earth should that be a litmus test for those running for the nomination of the President's party, when

a) the surge is clearly paying real dividends? Meaning that even if you have come to believe in your heart of hearts that the sunk costs of the war, in terms of blood, treasure, and spirit--were unacceptable and mistaken, the marginal costs of winning it now by going the last mile can and should be viewed by a different calculus.

b) all the leading Democrat contenders have admitted in one way or another that even if they win, there will be an American military presence in Mesopotamia until 2013 at the earliest (in other words, their entire first term)? Meaning that this is the reversal of what the Democrats had to learn in years past--just as they couldn't out-republican the Republicans on "defense", there is nothing to be gained politically by trying to being more peacenik than the most dovish of the Democrats--first, nobody would believe that candidate, and second, you'd squander the advantage you have in that part of the electorate that believes a GOP commander-in-chief would employ those forces (that we all must now acknowledge will be in Iraq for years) with less PC restraint than a Democrat. And please don't suggest Ron Paul isolationism as a third-way foreign policy--as if that would ever be adopted in a United States that hasn't devolved to anything better than a Bronze Age economy.

Rod, if you want a presidential candidate that will beat his breast and talk about how we've lost in Iraq and have to pull out yesterday, form a committee to elect Harry Reid. Not even Obama will talk that way now.

@ Franklin Evans:

Withholding your vote is, with due respect, the worst thing you can do. ... The real message would be contained in the presence of a none of the above (NOTA) count.

Why doesn't withholding a vote - or perhaps writing in Wendell Berry - count as choosing "None of the above"? If significant numbers of even politically interested Americans chose not to vote for either of the two major parties, it would send a sign that they're failing to do what they ought to do, and open up the possibility of real change. So long as we continue blindly aligning ourselves with the Reps and Dems, that kind of possibility will never be realized.

John, I really do mean this respectfully, but where have you been the last 30 years? General elections have around a 50% turnout of eligible voters, primaries around 25%. One-half to three-quarters of the electorate are already withholding their votes, and it has absolutely no effect on the parties or the elected officials. They are being ignored. The parties can't give a damn about them, because they hold power without them.

Writing in a vote is problematic. Many jurisdictions require a write-in candidate to be registered prior to the election. If the name is not a registered one, the write-in is no different from not voting at all.

Please forgive my cynicism. I've been personally involved in several campaigns and elections (all local/municipal). I have a very thin layer of silence over a deep well of contempt for most of my fellow, franchised citizens. Blog topics like this one bring the well out rather easily. :-\

I intend to vote for Paul in the primary in NY. SImply the GOP has to come back to it's ideals. May be if Paul gets a big block of delegates, he will be able to slap some sense into this bunch. Why do we need a Department of Education, Energy or HEW? Why do we need thousands of troops in Korea, japan or Europe? Why is the wall not built? Whya re we lietrally shipping billions in aid overseas when we have a budget deficit? Why are we still allowing insane trade policies that go agaisnt the interests of our country? Why are entitlements and spending expanding? Whya re we not drilling and exploring alternatives? The Big Picture on these fundamental things is being ignored.

I could vote for Guiliani, Thompson or Mccain( Hunter and Tancredo
are good guys, but they're not getting it). While in the press seem revolted by Giuliani's "sanctuary mansion" on Romney, it cuts to the heart of the issue. If you're going to employ anyone, closing your eyes to the illegals they employ is in fact supporting illegals. Again, I've met and done business with Giuliani. He is not a nice, cuddly figure. he's given to fits of rage and blind to a fault when it comes to loyalty. Nonetheless, on the big things, he's mostly right.And there's something to be said for an Italian guy from Brooklyn calling some people on the carpet for debacles.

Huckabee is a mix of W.Bush and Carter;sanctimony crossed witrh arrogance and good inenteions equals a debacle. We don't need government programs for hangnail relief. Heck, can we go back to having Congress in session as little as possible?

Olgenious Romney simply makes me ill. Were he the nominee, I could not vote for him, period.And as with a Muslim or Scientologist, anyone that could hold beliefs like Mormonims is simply too silly to be taken seriously. And that's not even discussing not drinking beer or coffee.

I especially disliked Huckabee’s playing the “children” card against Romney on immigration. This is a play straight out of the Dem’s playbook: demagogue on the children, it gives license to any government program!

I disliked McCain’s really nasty tone directed at Paul.

Giuliani’s “sanctuary mansion” ploy against Romney was totally absurd. Hey Rudy: consumers and private citizens are not expected to enforce the law! That’s the job of government executives such as you when you were mayor!

Later, Giuliani and Romney both defended agricultural subsidies. Ugh!

I’m closest to Paul, will probably end up voting for Romney.

UPDATE: Ross says what I've been trying to say, but as usual, with much more clarity. He's interested in Huckabee and Paul, not because he agrees with their policy positions, but because they're pushing the staid party past its worn-out positions and toward some healthy critical thinking.

Ross has got a book coming out that he has to promote, hence he has to portray any momentary poll bump for Huckabee into a Hegelian world-historical shift. Because Huckabee comes closest to what he (Ross) thinks the direction the GOP should take: an American version of a European Christian Democratic Party akin to Germany's CDU or the Gaullists in France, i.e. a party that embraces the huge, centralized welfare state but harnesses it to the cause of advancing petit bourgeois values among the working classes, and calling it policies that reflect Catholic Social Teaching.

O rapturous vision! Except we ain't got the money to pay for it anymore. Neither do the Europeans, but that's another story. The point is that Ross, clever writer that he is, has to filter everything through the thesis he currently has on the shelves at Borders. Similarly, if the presidential election had been held in the first half of 2006 instead of the end of next year, Rod would be grading each candidate on their "crunchy" quotient. Funny how all that has gone down the memory hole now that the book is remaindered. Now this blog in its political dimension is all Iraq, health care and immigration. And by the time Tsunami Tuesday is said and done, and we have two nominees who are both for the status quo on Iraq and immigration, it will be all about health care and middle-class entitlements.

I submit that it's not about party unity, or conservative philosophy (n.b. I apply the same critical logic to the Democrats), or any high-minded abstracts. It's about the party leadership making the bed, and either having an anointed prince to sleep in it, or having a line of princely wannabees queuing up to change the blanket, sheets and/or pillow case.

The primary process is a joke. The general elections are beauty contests. I don't see anyone taking three big steps back to see the whole elephant in the room, or the donkey for that matter.

John, thanks for clarfying your point. It's a valid one, I have no argument with it.

I should disclose my bias: my K-12 years were in a Republican-machine township in a Republican-machine county. I've lived most of my adult life in a Democrat-machine large city (Philadelphia). My vote has always been taken for granted.

My NOTA scenario would, at least for those who desire to vote, send the direct message you describe, in a fashion that could not be ignored. As it is, no matter what the motivation for withholding there may be, we are all lumped into the same category by the powers that be.

Matt, what do you think of my NOTA concept? My objection to MacIntyre (and, by extension, you) is that withholding the vote per se is just not enough. Without an explicit voice via the vote, the only result is candidates being elected anyway with a smaller proportion of the eligible voters. Nothing will change.

"Crankery?!" Really Rod, you've got to do some reading (you too Bill H.). In his advocacy of the gold standard, he is in company with Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, von Mises, and many, many others.

Ask yourself, without the gold standing behind your greenback, what is it worth and why.

I've liked Ron Paul for a long time as a gadfly. I'm less certain about him as a President. And one of his You Tube infomercials (or was it put up by a 529 or something?) struck a really sour note when a Giuliani picture with splash captions about adultery with a cousin was followed by a Romney picture with splash captions about polygamists in his family tree. The Giuliani dig was negative but fair; the Romney dig was unfair and a not-so-subtle reminder that "he's a Mormon, people, a friggin' Mormon!" That turned me off - though perhaps not forever.

Nevada already counts NOTA votes, right?

(Although there was another kind of NOTA vote in the last governor's election in the Casino State, when a porn star ran. In the Republican primary, no less. But it is Lost Wages we're talking about, after all.)

Thanks, Larry. The Nevada elections do indeed have a "none of these candidates" (NOTC) count.

The 2006 stats: http://www.sos.state.nv.us/elections/results/2006StateWideGeneral/ElectionSummary.asp

The 2006 voter turnout stats: http://www.sos.state.nv.us/elections/results/2006StateWideGeneral/VoterTurnout.asp

The turnout stats are fascinating. The state-wide turnout was 59.16%, but if one excludes the turnout for the Clark jurisdiction -- the most populace jurisdiction, with a turnout of 55.97% -- the turnout for the rest of the state was 65.18%.

The NOTC count was not shown for every race. It looks like it was available only for state-wide races. I would like to see an analysis of turnout percentages comparing the counts before and after NOTC was instituted.