It took me over a week to find a scanner with a bed large enough to scan my over-sized ballot. But on Sunday evening, I launched it into the electronic electoral stream.
The scanner search gave me time to consider how I was going to vote for president. The Nevada ballot gave me five options.
- Virgil Goode, Independent American Party of Nevada
- Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party
- Barack Obama, Democrat Party
- Mitt Romey, Republican Party
- NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES
I put "NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES" in the same category as my sentimental favorite -- the Libertarian Party. Voting for either would simply be a bit of peevishness.
There are only two real contenders. The nominees of the major parties. And that is where the real action is.
Several days ago, I called this election "critical." Kim of Boston, a frequent commenter on these pages, demurred. He identified three truly critical issues (dramatic global military pullback, entitlement reform, and tax reform -- to create a sustainable fiscal path), and pointed out that neither candidate will do any of the three.
I agree with Kim that those are three of the country's most critical issues. And it is true that neither candidate has been very forthcoming on how he will address them.
But there is more than a dime's worth of difference between them. To cadge a phrase from the 1968 George Wallace.
Starting with their political philosophy of the role of government in American life.
From four years of experience, we know that Barack Obama instinctively sees every social issue as political and potentially the responsibility of the federal government. Some people mistakenly refer to him as a socialist. He is not.
He does not advocate the public ownership of the means of production -- with the exception of the wrong-headed taxpayer bailout of General Motors. (Where the tax money of single mothers without benefits were used to protect the pensions of auto workers -- an important special interest group to the president. After all, single mothers do not have money to donate to campaigns.)
His views are more accurately labeled as corporatist. The means of production remain in private hands, but the government determines the policies the producers must follow. Of course, it is also a system where the government attempts to pick economic winners.
And does it very badly. After twelve years of Bush-Obama economic policies, I am ready for a change.
Mitt Romney is not a libertarian. But he appears to be serious about addressing the nation's pending fiscal car wreck.
There is little that the federal government can do to right the economy. But much can be done to make matters worse.
The Bush-Obama tack of relying on Keynesian economics was doomed to fail. Until the federal government's fiscal situation improves, no one in the market is going to believe there is a stable economy in America's future.
That it why is was gutsy for Romney to add Paul Ryan to the ticket. Ryan is willing to talk as an adult with the American people. If we do not take steps now to address our blossoming entitlements deficit, everything else the federal government does will be for naught.
And Romney has proven himself to be a capable leader as the American people have come to know him better. The president is the head of the executive department. He needs to be competent. We have already seen the results of amateurism with our last two presidents.
Is he the perfect candidate? Hardly. His call for increased military spending is wrong headed. It is time to let the Europeans pay for their own defense of their economic pipeline.
But, he is the best candidate.
So, I have voted.
Having done my part as a citizen, I can sit back and wait for the results (and not trouble these pages with more politics -- for a bit). As it turns out, I will be doing my sitting in The States.
Note -- The very nice people at the Washoe County Clerk's office just sent me an email that my ballot was received and accepted. An amazingly efficient process. Other than the step about finding a scanner.
72 comments:
My Cambridge Online Dictionary defines socialism a little more broadly than you do. It simply says that socialism is the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in a country's money.
Your definition of socialism actually comes closer to being communism.
I do think Barry is a socialist at heart and, thank God, he will soon be shown the door.
Ok...let me see if I've got this straight. The republicans had control from 2000 till 2008 and how did that go?!? Now you want to put them in charge again?!?! I guess a lot of voters have a short memory.
I'm disapointed with Felipe's and your choice, but I will defend your right to make it.
You both have time to reconsider, pls use common sense as you do.
The US has been operating as a semi-socialist state for a long time. The age of capitalism is dead. It no longer works. We lasting change in health reform, gun law reform, and education, in my opinion.. Neither candidate seems to have the strength of character to stand up for these issues in a meaningful way where lasting change will result. However, I can't withhold my vote and stick my head in the sand. Obama proved incapable and dithering in his attempts to govern. As Calypso pointed out, an amateur. Or was it Klein? Romney has my support, but I feel like his only strong conviction is that he should be president. Everything else seems open to compromise.
"It is time to let the Europeans pay their own defense of their economic pipeline" and I would add Japan and China to that gang of freeriders. The idea of the US being the world's policeman makes me sputter. I voted for O but held my nose. We'll see how this all works out-it will be interesting.
I supported Obama and relied on his promise for change. He didn't come through for me and the US is in a mess. I do believe his socialistic tendencies and policies leave lots to be desired.
I, too, voted for Mitt Romney and think he can, and will, do a much better job of getting the economy back in order.
A Liberal, a Conservative and a Moderate walked into a bar.
The bartender said,"Oh, hello Mitt!"_____________________________________________________I too am disappointed in your vote. I know you are quite a reader but I have to wonder where you got your information on these candidates.
I have lived on one side or the other of the US border for my whole life, and I have been enormously affected by everything that the country does. And I have no say in the way the leaders are elected. So, I'll have my say here... if you don't mind.
I agree with Fransico. The 8 Republican years saw much of what I hold dear go completely by the board, particularly with regards to education and immigration. Add to that the military escalation and the disastrous handling of the national image after 9-11...Plus, I seem to remember that Mr. Bush entered the White House with surplus reserves and he sure didn't go out that way.
President Obama inherited the mess. How could he have been expected to clean it up in 4 years? The Republicans had 8 to destroy the economy - don't the Democrats enjoy the same time on the field to try and recoup?
You say that Romney and Ryan have proven themselves to be effective leaders... are they going to be spared from lobbyists and the old dinosaur Republicans in both Houses?
Ay-ay-ay... When I read how you ultimately voted, I had to leave the computer for a few minutes... cradle my head in my arms and take deep breaths. If intelligent, informed people such as yourself are being swept into the R - R fold... what is there left to hope for?
But as Francisco also pointed out... this was your call to make... not mine and not his. Nonetheless, I am praying fervently that all American voters still on the fence to trot firmly into the Obama camp... for their own sakes and for ours.
There is no doubt that President Obama's political philosophy favors a far larger government than I feel is healthy for the country. Whatever we call it.
I agree with you that the Republicans did not serve the country well during the 6 years they controlled Congress. They acted like Democrats Lite, and the voters decided to boot them out. Only to have the Democrats indulge in political hubris. And 4 years later, they lost control of the House.
I once believed in the power of government for good. I no longer do. If any reform is going to happen in America it will be at the level of our interactions with one another. With a change in our hearts. The Beatitudes can help us create God's kingdom on earth. But it will never come from the top down.
After World War Two, we picked up the British responsibility for maintaining the security of the West's commercial pipeline -- without any of the control of the old British Empire. For year's the rest of the free world has been putting its defense on the American taxpayer's tab. I agree with you that it is time to keep our credit card in our wallet -- something we should have done for the past twenty years.
I was really impressed at how quickly Nevada responded to my request for a ballot. And how simple it was to vote.
Now, we will see how our respective votes play out.
This has been a very interesting political year in blogdom. Especially with expatriates in Mexico. Four years ago the only buzz was between Hilary and Obama. This year the partisan split is a bit more diverse.
Disappointment is oe of those interesting reactions. I fear that the people who are disappointed in a lot of things I have done in my life are forming a line over there on the right -- the line that stretches off to the horizon.
One of the joys of these blogs is our ability to discuss the most basic of human issues ans still respect one another. That is the very essence of a civil society. It is also a good exercise in realize Aristotle (or the developers of modern Aristotelian thought) was wrong. It is possible for good people to start with the same First Principle and arrive at different conclusions.
I continue to be a supporter of our President, I mailed my vote in yesterday and sent my final contribution of the election season to his re-election campaign yesterday.
While the election is currently too close to call and could go either way, I think President Obama will win it by taking WI, OH and IA, and will win 271 to 290 Electoral College votes.
I am not fond of the thought that Romney might get to select a couple of Supreme Court justices.
I join you in wondering about intelligent, informed people being swept into the R/R fold. Thank you for being so eloquent and fair-minded.
Thank you Steve for your courage to express your decisionon voting and how you came to make that decision.
I do not pray that God will allow one or the other candidate to win. After all, God holds the reins of the Universe in His hands. Instead, I pray that God will have mercy on us and put into office the one that will fulfill God's will for our country.
I suspect that both candidates wish the same thing.
Ron -- I didn't mention it, but the Supreme Court appointees are a major reason for me to vote for Romney. And that may be worth a post of its own -- in the distant future. Having made my decision, I am ready to move on to far more interesting topics. Like whether I should install an air conditioner in my bedroom.
This is another of those mirrors that is double-sided. People of both political persuasions use exactly the same rhetoric. The fact that intelligent, well-read people disagree is merely a function of politics. I would be more shocked if suddenly all intelligent people agreed on anything.
The Koch brothers, money and greed. That's all I'm saying.
I think we have been having the same conversation for almost 40 years. But it is nice that we are consistent.
I am always amused by people who write about politics, politicians and the such who always criticize the ability or inability of the party in power.
I tend to discount anyone's opinions and remarks unless they have had the experience of actually running a business , making payroll, hiring and firing and more.
Politicians that have never made anything, fixed anything or created anything but law or writings in my book have no knowledge as proven by the current president especially when he said that "you didn't build it" or whatever that comment was, where he believes that one person cannot do anything by themselves.....kinda proves my theory. I would venture to say that the office of president should have the criteria that someone actually had or ran a successful business.
I see so many politicians running things that haven't the slightest concept of what it takes....but they seem to make the rules for everyone else.
I hope Romney wins , not because he's Republican, but because it's someone with a different outlook on who and what make America grand.....
but that's my opinion.....
I don't agree with your analysis, of course. Particularly your call on Keynesian economic policy. Americans don't want to go down the road Greece et al took. That road is austerity, and that's the direction Romney and Ryan are vaguely proposing to wander off in. I've yet to be pointed in the direction of an example where that really ever worked. The US has a growing economy at the moment. That may not last long if the GOP get into the White House. I also want to ask you which Romney you voted for? But then, I'm being a bit facetious :)
But I'll take up one issue. The option of 'None of these candidates'. That's a really important option to have, and one I wished was available in the British election. I abstained from voting in 2010. Not because of apathy, which is how my 'vote' was regarded via the turn out count. I genuinely could not bring myself to vote for any of the three main parties. But I would have liked the None' option, to make known my displeasure and dissatisfaction at the candidates on offer. And to have that recorded.
It's going to be a close election, by the looks of it. One hopes that whoever wins will do well, because we all have an interest in the US doing well.
Obama seems to be the bookies clear choice though, at least here in the UK - Romney is a distinct outside bet at 2-1. Whether Brit bookies count for much, I don't know. Less bias, probably less informed too.
And all opinions are welcome in these parts.
I was once a big advocate of the "None of the Above" option on ballots. But, like many ideas, it never quite lived up to its potential. Even if "None of the Above" gets the most votes, the candidate with the next number of votes is elected. In smaller states, clear candidates have used that attitude, though, to win write-in campaigns. Even a United States senate race in Alaska.
With few exceptions, Americans, as populist as they style themselves to be, have never quite taken to third parties or protest votes. That may be because both major parties are such big tents. And you know they are big tents because of all the clowns inside.
I always wish the winner well in these contests because it is still my country.
First of all, your idea of socialism is the American idea, a far cry from what is socialism in Europe and let's face it, that is the real thing. Simply put, let the more fortunate ones kick in a little more to help the less fortunate. A very unrepublican stance.
You have no children, so you do not have to worry about Roe versus Wade.
You are older, you do not have to worry about global warming, and can ignore it.
You are well to do (vast majority of people can not take the risk to forfeit $80,000 as mentioned in a previous post, so you love the promised lowering of taxes.
You are so right to have voted for your man.
But sometimes, sometimes, it would be so wonderful to vote against your interest for the good of the vast majority.
I have kids, believe in science, am well to do. And I will vote for the other guy.
I actually am a socialist at heart, a European one.
Tineke
My general view on voting is to always look for a greater good than my own. The vast majority of my income stream comes from pension related to government. If a portion of those benefits are cut for the fiscal good of the country, I would support that. In fact, I do. I have long supported a strong national defense, but i would gladly put a large chunk of that money on the table and dedicate it to debt reduction.
One of the strengths of American society is its non-governmental civil organization. We are a nation of charitable givers -- where we, as individuals, care about other individuals. There is a good reason most of our ancestors left Europe. The society we have constructed is something to cherish.
My years of working as a volunteer with the Salvation Army has taught me that Americans of all politcal persuasions and income levels are cheerful givers. And that is the strength of America. Not its government.
But that is a topic for anther post.
A/C in the bedroom is a no-brainer.
I suspect this was meant for another post. But I will handle it here.
I agree. Turning it on for a coupe of hours to cool down the bedroom before I slip into bed sounds like a good idea. Of course, by the time I get back from Oregon, I won't need it until next July or so.
Dang, I accidentally clicked on the Like button when I meant to click on the Reply button. Can I take it back?
No matter.
Listen. The Republicans did not cause the financial crisis. It was a joint effort. The Republicans, the Democrats, and the greedy, irresponsible American people all held hands unwittingly and caused it.
And dat's a fact.
Pat Paulsen for President!
It's been done. I met him at the 1968 Republican convention in Miami. (I was covering it for some publication or other) and interviewed him. Funny guy.
This current recession had its roots in governmental regulations dating back ti the 1970s. And, you are correct, both parties and the entire nation drove the convertible right over the cliff. Unfortunately the Bush and Obama administrations followed policies that have prolonged the recession rather than abating it.
So! You have been in the Republican camp for a long time....
I wonder why the ballot had to be so big -- or maybe it was the "senior" version with the 14 pt. type...lol
I agree with your choice and I like your reasoning. Now if enough others just think so too - and vote.
Like the house choice also Steve. Any progress in the negotiations that you can mention without getting into trouble?
Julian
Inever thought about the senior option to explain ts size. And I certainly did not need George III's spectacles to read it.
Until I fly north to get my Salem house on the market, there will be no further negotiations. And, who knows where things will be by then?
I have been reporting on both camps for a long time. It was merely a fluke that I got the drop on Pat Paulsen. We were headed in two different directions, but he was good enough to sit down and give me enough time for a full interview.
Those were the days I would take a portable typewriter on airplanes and write my first draft on the flight back to Portland. That seems like an eternity ago.
But, in answer to your question, my politics have been libertarian as long as I can remember. According to family legend, I was a campaigner at 3.
Not meant for another post. It was in direct response to the last sentence of your above reply to Ron Smith.
At least you are covered if the Washoe County clerk is legally blind. That is a mighty large font you used in your email.
After a few hours on this computer, I start feeling like Jim Backus.
Got it. Mr. Magoo cannot follow his own thread.
Oh! Charlie my boy!
Maybe I got the 'you didn't build it' message wrong, but I don't think so. Fact is, we live in a society, and the success and strengths of that society is the vital foundation upon which an individual can build and prosper. We need sufficient economic freedom to encourage entrepreneurs to go out and innovate, build, create and prosper. We also need a strong society that produces the infrastructure, education et al to enable them to do so, and to reign in the worst excesses of human nature.
Disagree? Go set up a tech firm in Mogadishu and let me know how it works out for you. You'll have little to no governmental interference, zero taxes and a clean slate. A real business paradise.
Capitalism doesn't work without socialism. And vice versa. It's just about finding the balance. Obama has swung too much the wrong way. I suspect, though, that Romney would like to swing even further in the opposite direction.
There's still an awfully big third, and empty, tent though, when it comes to voter turn out.
I have heard the suggestion before that social security should be abandoned in favour of private insurance with the slack made up by charity. I suspect though, that when people need it most, there'll be less of the charitable giving to be found. That's normally how it works.
My understanding of the current economic malaise is that the policy of deregulation started by Reagan, and substantially sped up by Clinton, bear greatest responsibility. Rather than govt regulations that have actually been implemented. Of course, it is possible that the issue is simply more complicated... :)
And I still wait to see a genuinely successful example of an austerity policy. Romney's promoting it anyway. But that'll likely drive up unemployment, government spending and the national debt whilst reducing growth. Has anyone noticed any of those factors in his policy speeches? Probably not. So, we'll probably not see an awful lot of change in many regards if Romney gets in.
I'm sure reform is needed, in many areas. Might I suggest a sensible socialised health system, such as that in Germany? Is there any particular reason that Americans want to pay double for a health system that achieves, by and large, less than Germany's? Or is it just a matter of principle?
A theoretical case can be made for starting over with the social security system (without the Ponzi scheme financing). But it is an academic exercise. Politically, it is the most entrenched of federal programs. And I suspect only a Democrat will be able to reform the system (just as it took Nixon to go to China). Bill Clinton came close -- then flinched.
That may be why so many of us enjoy the uncluttered world of Pacific Mexico. The place reminds me of the American frontier. And it feels good for the soul.
American ballots are littered with minor parties whose candidates for president will receive less than 1% of the vote cast. I have always seen people who do not vote as simply exercise their rghht as a free citizen to say, "I am either content or I just do not care."
Romney is a good honest, moral man. I do believe he will be able to get our economy back on the right track. He has a plan to create jobs and begin the difficult task to decrease our debt. He understands the terrible situation in the Middle East. The cover up in Benghazi insults our intelligence. The truth of why he allowed that situation to occur will be forthcoming. If we have four more years of a president with no clear plan it will be the downfall of America. Obama and his ideology was never vetted and the media protects him. He lives in a bubble. I know many don't agree with me but I think history will reveal the truth.
how about Israel? Are you ready for Israel to pay their own way or are they "special"?
Ron Paul agrees.
finally, a point.
personal pet peeve that the Democrats Abroad in SMA have as a priority issue the expansion of medicare for citizens in foreign lands. Talk about self serving and myopic.
Kim of Boston is a He???
Funny ... just always read the posts with a woman's voice in my head :)
He is a he. I have met him in person. Twice.
That is a perfect example. I can think of nothing more injurious to the Mexican medical system than turning Medicare administrators lose on it.
It is a good point. Israel has a very special place in my heat. Europe can pay for its own defense. The threat to Israel is of a different character. If it is inconsistent, then I am.
We will all know in just two more short weeks.
He does, indeed. Along with a few other libertarians.
However, other than David Friedman, I have not heard of anyone advocating a governmental system similar to Gary's straw man. It is a good point. But it is not one at issue in this election.
I am neither content, and I do care. Which is why I'd like the option. It's important to vote. But not just for the sake of it, or for a lesser evil.
I always assumed he was male, but I must confess I originally though Kim might be Korean! :) He's an astute guy, and I would vote for him. He'd be more a Sensible Leader, than Great or Dear though, I suspect. I hope...!
Meanwhile, the nanny state is encroaching on one of our most fundamental liberties in the UK. Yesterday, a tabloid had emblazoned on it's front page 'Millions of Brits Must Work Forever'. I can only assume that death is being outlawed.
Fear not, we are a surprisingly rebellious lot on this side of the pond, and I have every confidence that we shall wilfully disobey this bureaucratic diktat in our millions....
H.G. Welles must be writing headlines these days.
That sounds like one of those Norman barons -- Lesser of All Evils. An early Plantagenet, I believe.
I have a cousin that had always been "Kim" to all.... until she married a guy named "Kim". Now its Kim and Kimberly... I'm glad guys keep their same name the whole way through!!
I'm not particularly wild about Obama, but I think Romney is potentially worse, though he firmly refuses to issue any details at all about how he would manage the office of the President. As such, it's very hard to make a case that he would reduce the deficit. If you look at the things he has spoken about, then you can only conclude that his deficits would be larger since he has been pretty clear that he wants to lower taxes AND spend more. I'm not sure how that lowers the deficit.
The real issue with regard to the deficit is this. Even if Obama got his upper-end tax hikes, the deficit would only go down by one or two hundred billion at best. That would take a $1.5 trillion deficit and turn it into a $1.3 trillion deficit -- still unsustainable. At the end of the day, the U.S. economy does not produce enough income under any reasonable scheme of taxation to support the federal government that we have. If the federal government were to account for Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements the way that corporations are required to account for pensions and other post-retirement benefits, it would be immediately clear to all that the federal government is bankrupt. Period.
And this is not news. In 1996, Laurence Kotlikoff, professor of economics at Boston University, wrote a paper explaining it. Anyone can Google it and read it for themselves if they doubt me. The federal government is broke. And it is broke for the same reasons that various cities are now broke: because they promised more in payments than they could raise in taxes.
So at some point, America will be forced to choose more than one of the following options: raise taxes dramatically; cut the size of the military dramatically; cut social security benefits, either by reducing monthly checks or raising the retirement age; or cut Medicare. There will be no other path. It can either be done sooner, in an orderly manner, or it can be done in the face of an unruly bond market that drives rates on U.S. Treasuries to frightening levels, but it will be done. When is the only question.
In the first debate, Mitt Romney was asked how he would cut the deficit. He said he'd cut funding for NPR and Public Television. This answer reveals that either he is completely ignorant of the facts, or prefers to lie. Given his performance in other situations, his choice of running mate, and his TV ads, and the fact that I believe he's pretty smart, I'd say he prefers to lie. But you could close the entire discretionary side of the federal government (everything except Social Security, Medicare, interest on the debt, and the military) and still be running enormous deficits. NPR and Public Television aren't even a rounding error. As for cutting other things, there just isn't enough "waste, fraud, and abuse" to cut, unless you somehow imagine that such things somehow account for 40% of the budget.
As much as I can't stand him and think he's sadly lacking, I'm going to vote for Obama. While I'm sure he's told a "whopper" or two, the constant outright lies that the Republicans have been trying to pass off are nothing short of stunning in my mind. For a party that wears its so-called "morality" on its sleeve, this is pretty lame. I don't know about others, but I was raised to believe that lying is immoral.
Kim G
Boston, MA
Where my vote won't matter anyhow, due to the ridiculous interposition of the electoral college.
P.S. I would vote for Ron Paul if he were the nominee against Obama. While I don't agree with all of his nutty ideas, he is a refreshing counterweight against the status quo. I also think he is a man of honesty and integrity, a rarity in Washington these days.
He was my guy in the primaries.
If I had some hope that an Obama presidency would take any of the options you just mentioned, I would vote for him. But, from what I had read, I think it is far more likely that a Romney-Ryan presidency presidency will pick one of those options. But we have not even touched on what the art of the possible will be with Congress.
Hmmm, you reaffirm my belief that Oregonians are among the best at talking politics. It is nice to see a comments section that is so civil.
I grew up an Oregonian because my parents were campaigning in Portland for their guy Joe. Portland was a Nixon town at that time but the denizens threw open their doors and invited my parents in talk anyway. They were so impressed by the open political climate they moved there with my sister and myself.
I started out being drug around in the Red Flyer along with campaign literature. I have spent so much time in dusty church basements putting together sample ballots I can't distinguish one election year from another... well, except the year I volunteered for Dukakis, that one I remember very clearly!
Now I am older, tired and a bit more jaded, for the first time in my life I registered republican this year; it has been well over a decade since I've voted democrat. I guess it was time.
Thank you, Steve.
Thank you for being par of that civil world.
Post a Comment