Super Tuesday Musings

I went to vote last night, but found the caucuses completely overrun with people. Like a good American I turned around in the face of inconvenience and left (I really did have other things to do). I stood in line for about 10 minutes observing the zealousness of the Ron Paul supporters fascinated by their sheer devotion to a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning. I almost took a button just to please them (Paul came out as my second candidate of choice on the MPR test).


I was also surprised at how many Obama supporters showed up. Apparently they did not understand that it was a Republican caucus which obviously did not have any Democrats on the ticket. Earlier in the day I heard on Air America radio that special interests groups are standing by waiting for people to call in to report voter irregularities. The host said that the Republicans will be up to their “dirty tricks” again making sure democracy doesn’t happen in America. Putting the question of how the Republicans could be meddling with the Democratic caucuses aside, I wondered if any of those that showed up to the Republican caucus called in reporting that Democrats weren’t on the ballot. Nonetheless, it was apparent that the Obama supporters in my neighborhood didn’t know how to vote.


Yesterday James Dobson weighed in on the candidates and pretty much thinks McCain is worse than Hitler. Most of the conservative talk-radio people agree. Listening to them yesterday reveals a psychology that is utterly baffling. One caller said that conservative talk-show host Michael Medved was a Trojan horse liberal because he endorsed McCain. Others think McCain is more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Still others would like to unload both barrels of a twelve gauge at Mike Huckabee for draining votes from Mitt Romney.


I have to say that I get a lot of pleasure out of this, and I’m not sure why. True, I endorse McCain and that has something to do with it, but it is deeper than that (what can I say? I’m anti-torture and pro-victory in Iraq). It makes me happy to hear conservative talk-radio pundits so upset over the will of the people within their own ranks casting off their ineffectual talking-points. Being a “true conservative” isn’t going to win an election in a country that is ecstatic about entering a post-Bush world. No one is riding on Bush’s record in the Republican campaign. Instead, all the pundits are harkening back to the Reagan years saying WWRD? and trying get voters to be nostalgic for the glory days that past 20 years ago. In case anyone isn’t paying attention, a very likable and charismatic African American candidate is lighting up perhaps the most formidable opponent conservatives have imagined in the last 4 years on the simple message of change: Hillary Clinton. What makes anyone think Republicans have a chance in the general election by propping a “true conservative?”


On the Democrat side I’d endorse Clinton. I haven’t met an Obama supporter yet who has made any kind of intellectual case for his candidacy. Symbolic platitudes of change and unity are vacuous. You go Hillary. Don’t worry about your polarizing personality and positions. Hang in there, because according to talk-radio you aren’t nearly as polarizing as McCain.


13 thoughts on “Super Tuesday Musings

  1. While I don’t endorse any candidate (I think I’m what you call an anticrat), I would support Hilary because it mean possibly 28 years of presidential history would unfold like so:


    Jeb Bush in ’16!

  2. Did you realize that Ron Paul actually won the most votes at our caucus location? Tony posted the numbers on our blog. We stuck around to the end. Tony was in there for the actual caucusing (after the vote) while I stayed out in the hall with our kids and our friends’ kids that we were babysitting. Tony is the alternate delegate to the next convention for our precinct. Good times.

  3. That’s because the only Republicans in the ghetto are the old creepy people. I think you could draw a direct corrolation between one’s support for Ron Paul, and the amount of old gasoline cans they have in their garage.

  4. JillBE says:

    good for you chuck…. I want to believe that I don’t take my rights for granted, but I did not caucas. I looked up the location, secretly sweared that this time I would actually go. At 7:00pm I was still at work and realized my fate was again to not participate in a privilege many women fought for. Dangit, I am all talk sometimes! UGh! And sadly today I realized, for the first time, that I may have missed my chance to vote for a woman this year. And that I do want to know that I voted for the first woman President. I hope I get another chance in the fall.

    OK, I feel like I got to vote on your blog, thanks.

  5. Ah yes, we all know the REAL REASON that everyone loves Obama is b/c he’s a good speaker… and after 8 years of “Bush-isms” I’m ready to vote for a candidate who has actually mastered the English language.

    No primaries in TX yet — why are we one of the last States to go? Several of the candidates drop out by the time we get our chance to vote. Not fair!!! (Not that it matters anyway b/c I’m halfway across the world now. Does anyone know how to absentee vote?)

  6. hillary’s national headquarters is five blocks from my apartment. i heard they have run out of money…maybe i should offer my place? i have a nice leather couch and no pets.

  7. (what can I say? I’m anti-torture and pro-victory in Iraq)

    Being anti-torture is the the only sensible stance to take when you’re comparing torture verses no torture. But I don’t think it is a black and white issue.

    Would it be acceptable to torture someone who admits to having buried a child alive but is unwilling to reveal where in order to save the child’s life?

    Would it be acceptable to torture someone who admits to being a terrorist and has knowledge of terrorist plots endangering the lives of innocent people in order to save the lives of those innocent people?

  8. Grube,

    I think such a question is prejudiced by the assumption that you have certain knowledge that there really is a ticking time bomb. If there is, a consequentialist argument follows quite naturally. One person is harmed instead of many–or one guilty person is harmed rather than the innocent. The problem with this is that it is moral evil to do harm to one who is defenseless. Why stop with the terrorist? Why not go after his family? The ends don’t justify the means.

    However, if there is such a case, and torture does occur, and it does yeild good results, we will probably view it the same way we view a man speeding to the hospital endangering other people on the road to get his dying child emergency care. He does what is wrong to do what is good.

    More of my views are hashed out here:

  9. People torture because they fear the consequences of not torturing—in short, they fear death. -Darrell Cole

    Perhaps the situational details can only be hypothetically known and it is only good exercise to wrestle with them, but this sentence bothers me. I don’t fear death, but the hypothetical situation isn’t about me it’s about a buried girl. If the perpetrator is in captivity and he admitted to such a crime I think it is responsible to do what is necessary to save the girl.

    Why stop with him? Because he’s the one who’s guilty.

    I’m no fan of torture. I think it’s terrible. But I can’t say it’s always wrong.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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