Comments on: Monday Morning Poll

By: thorn

thorn — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:06:24 +0000

It’s hilarious that THESE are the people we’re supposed to choose from. In Nov, I’m going to write in a vote for Paul.

To hell with voting for lesser evils this time around - my conscience can’t take it anymore. I’ll not be voting for evil at all - lesser amounts or otherwise.

(My poll vote was Obama, btw).

By: L.Capitan

L.Capitan — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:26:16 +0000

Even with a gun to my head [real or imagined] Ron Paul is my write-in.

For the purposes of this poll [anyone other than R.P.] I would write in either Pat Paulsen, Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck OR the perennial favorite “None of the Above”.
I refuse to chose any of the statist boobs on the list.

Voting for “the worst” candidate makes no sense to me at all.
No Vote would be better than a vote for the worst.
Let the pundits try to figure out how all of that nationwide support vanished overnight …. But we all know they [the media] are in on the scam so they won’t make any connections. Publicly at any rate.

By: bob

bob — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:35:51 +0000

I didn’t vote in this poll for the same reason my presidential chad remained un-hung in 2004–None of the options are qualified.

I see no reason to change my philosophy in 2008.

By: Robert S

Robert S — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:56:01 +0000

With no Fred Thompson option anymore and with Ron Paul’s near zero chances of winning I’m fully embracing the Dominique Francon philosophy and voting for Clinton. That is unless someone can demonstrate there’s a worse candidate. Stick a fork in me, I’m done with hoping for the best, it now time to extol the worst. Besides, the irony of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is too beautiful to pass up.

By: Sydney Carton

Sydney Carton — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:28:36 +0000

Sheesh, Obama is winning among you guys? He’s practically a socialist. Of course the Republicans suck, but the Democrats suck even more.

By: Daddy

Daddy — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:24:39 +0000

None of them believe in individual liberty, I agree with some earlier posts, devided government would keep them all from doing anything too stupid, but so far I’ll hold my nose and vote for the new guy, he can’t be any worse then all the old washington whores running..

By: greenish

greenish — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:37:10 +0000

I had to visualize a gun to my head before I could choose.

By: Alien

Alien — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:58:47 +0000

I had to go with Romney, though Obama was a near second. Romney won because of the aforementioned split-government reason. I have heard talk elsewhere that, as a Democrat, Obama wouldn’t be ‘as effective’ as Hillary since he doesn’t have connections. A plus for Obama as I think a good general rule of thumb is the less the government gets accomplished, the better. But a D Congress plus a D president would all-in-all be a pretty bad combo I think. If I thought it were realistic that the Rs would take back the congress, I would go for Obama in this poll.

By: Against Stupidity

Against Stupidity — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:31:01 +0000

Barack appears to be only slightly less of a socialist than Hillary. A democratic socialist president with a democratic majority in both houses is economically bad news.

At least apposing parties should minimize the damage, but how long will this work before we’re sunk anyway?

By: Matt Moore

Matt Moore — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:27:26 +0000

I gotta go with Romney, he’s the least offensively big government (or, in Giuliana’s case, big law enforcement) of the Republicans. And I have to go for a Republican because if we can’t have a Libertarian, we at least need a split government. Dems in the Congress and Republicans in the White House… maybe they won’t get anything done.

Otherwise, it’s Obama. He’s at least made noise about going against the teacher’s union, and he probably won’t prosecute the drug war as hard as the rest of ‘em.

By: Against Stupidity

Against Stupidity — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:21:53 +0000

What is the lesser of seven evils?

By: Ochressandro

Ochressandro — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:04:27 +0000

I dunno. I can’t vote for any of them, so far.

I’d go for Obama, if the congress was Republican, for all the issues stated so far. Split government is generally the best we can hope for. But with a Democrat controlled both houses, and the Presidency, that’s just… bad. And, having said that, if Paul isn’t a choice, I could vote for Richardson.

Of the Republicans, Romney scares me most for the previously stated reasons. Any Republican acceptable in Massachussetts cannot possibly be economically conservative enough for my tastes. And he’s likely to be bad on my other main issue, guns.

911uiliani was a power mad bastard as Mayor of New York. ‘Nuff said.

Huckabee thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant. Now that I think about it, he might actually be the best choice for president, because of the cesium and water nature of the interactions he’d have with Congress.

McCain wants war forever.

By: Timothy Mayhugh

Timothy Mayhugh — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:57:26 +0000

Where is the “none of the above” option? The simple fact is that they are all politicians. And as we all know the definition of “politician” is: lying arrogant elitist scum. Ron Paul is the ONLY principled person running. The rest are demagogues and worse.

By: Fascist Nation

Fascist Nation — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:43:09 +0000

One I am holding my nose and voting for Paul. Holding my nose, not because I object too strenuously for Paul, but that I stopped voting years ago when I was convinced it was simply endorsing the outcome in a rigged election. But on your survey for the immediate I would pick Rudy Giuliani. He may be a cockroach, but I hope he takes FloriDUH. I want as many of those cocksuckers running against each other as long as possible chasing into the nomination. I want blood on the floor at the convention. And I want to see Ron Paul being coronated with a smoking gun in his hand. Sadly he will have to roll up his sleeves to fix a decimated economy immediately for all of this to happen.

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:06:45 +0000

I’m *not* particularly libertarian, and I can’t see myself voting for anyone on that list. I’ve got the Democratic primary coming up on Super Tuesday, and I’m probably going with a Mickey Mouse write-in.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:55:50 +0000

I think you should have included .45 magnum to the head as a last option. That’s probably what I would choose over these clowns.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:00:52 +0000

I’d take Richardson or Thompson, but since neither are on the list, none of the above.

By: Ruud

Ruud — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:31:22 +0000

Wesley, your Democrat President plus Congress hesitation is the main reason why I am likely to support whoever the Republican Party nominates.

Four years of bickering would be better off than an all-Democrat-all-the-time Washington, especially with the sweet talking Obama at the helm. Pelosi and Reid would be fanning him with olive branches and feeding him grapes bowing to his every desire.

By: Ruud

Ruud — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:23:40 +0000

Being genuine and having conviction is not a reason to vote for Obama. Using that logic, George W. Bush would be running away with this.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:19:58 +0000

Ruud: “Funny that Obama, who has said little to nothing about anything, is running away with this.”

That’s exactly why I’m considering him. If he doesn’t do much, he can’t screw much up. My only hesitation with him is that there will be a Democratic-controlled Congress, so a President who’s also a Democrat might bring a lot of really bad changes. But then I can’t decide who’s the lesser-evil of the Republicans on that poll. Maybe McCain, slightly? Ugh.