We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Obama winning would be a disaster.
Romney winning wouldn't be horrible, but hardly means good times are ahead.
There's also the possibility, however slim, that a third party candidate becomes viable. Who? No idea.
But if Romney only polls 25% among Republicans, and Obama drops below 40% (which would astound me) among the general population, that leaves roughly 50% of the population which doesn't like either candidate.
There aren't many third party candidates who I believe make sense. But there could be one, and we just may not know it yet.
If you're talking about the Grumpy Old Man, I heard an interview with him on CNBC and he is absolutely denying that he will make a third party independent run. I'm paraphrasing but he said he is not somebody who says never, but he was positive that he would not be making that run.
What I find interesting is that the whole brokered party convention concept is starting to gain some significant traction. No names being mentioned yet other than the usual Palin speculation which would be a disaster but fortunately that doesn't look at if it will happen.
With respect to a third party or independent run, the last time a viable candidate ran was Ross Perot who picked up a solid 30% of the vote. That was when public dissatisfaction with respect to government and congress was at 39%. The President's and government's unfavorable rating is close to 80% at this time. So it may be a good time for an independent run - the question is who is it going to be.
Obama still controls enough electoral college votes to win.
A vote for Mitt, Newt, Herman and the like is just a vote for Obama. They have the same world outlook and will continue to enslave Americans through more bail outs, more wars and more trimming of our wallets.
As I mentioned to Dr Mercury a few nights ago, Paul is the only outstanding option available to Republicans right now.
In my work I travel and that allows me to talk with people of all persuasions. In general they are irritated with both our foreign and domestic policies. I am amazed at how many supporters Paul has who broach the subject with me. I am amazed at how many of those who I speak with -- young, old and in between -- who grudgingly say that they are looking hard at Paul because they think he is the only Republican who hasn't sold out and who would really follow through on what he says.
Obama is an evil ruler and Molon Labe drove the nail with his post. I personally don't think that Obama will be voted out unless American preachers start preaching the Bible again and American men start praying and going to church.
"And I suspect a lot of Republicans feel the same."
Fixed that for you.
As I said to a Paul supporter the other day, "Convince Paul to switch his foreign policy with Bachmann's or Perry's and you've got yourself a deal." That would, in theory, also take care of his "9/11 was our fault" meme. Domestically, he's top-shelf, blue ribbon material all the way. But I'd rather Obama win the election than have Iranian terrorists nuke New York City and Washington, D.C.
But, but, but Doc don't ya get it, they wouldn't nuke us if we disengaged because it is our very engagement and nothing else that is making them so angry and irrational. You're just another hippie war monger.
Tom, you and Dr Mercury should take the time to talk with some truckers at a truck stop near where you live. They don't think Paul is anti-semitic at all.
Why do you support those candidates who want to continue perpetual war? Do you really think that America lacks the ability to reach out and touch when it is necessary? Do you really think that America has to keep thousands of young men overseas for years at a time to keep a lid on terrorism?
Why does Paul have so many supporters in the military?
Why do you hold the position that Paul is anti-semitic?
I will vote for Paul for the following reasons:
1. Integrity--he doesn't change what he believes in, and he doesn't sell out for campaign contributions
2. Domestic policy--he is the only one who will balance the budget and rein in the federal government.
3. Foreign policy--we are long past the time that we should be the cops of the world. He's right--we should defend the borders and leave the rest of the world to take care of itself. And, by the way, I think Israel would do just fine under a Paul regime -- they are quite capable of defending themselves. Maybe they'd even do better without the US constantly trying to hold them back.
Unfortunately for all the Paul fans, most republicans think he is a nutcase. I was willing to give him a chance, but everytime he gets more than 10 seconds of air time, old uncle crazy comes out. Paul as the nominee would give Obama a landslide, a huge landslide.
All day and not one poster will back up their statements that Paul is anti-semitic.
Interesting don't you think?
Toad and Phil, the individuals I share coffee with while on the road will say that they think Paul is strange but he is the only candidate they will support. I find their quandary interesting. For the most part, these people are complete strangers just stating what is on their mind.