Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Newt in 2012? Who’s Kidding Whom?

Newt in 2012? Who’s Kidding Whom?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Newt beats Romney in South Carolina. The Republican race for a nominee just gets funnier and funnier. I’ll ask a simple question: Can anyone tell me why they would actually vote for the lizard-like Newt Gingrich?

I’ll make it a little more difficult. Tea Party reactionaries (who are losing steam daily), and those who just simply hate the Democratic party are excluded. Give me an honest reason why anyone would think the Newtster would be someone for whom to actually vote. As is so often the case in politics, I hear people say they are not voting for someone, but against the competition. How about we try something truly radical, like voting for a candidate we truly believe in?

How many times have we heard someone say, “I voted (blank) because he was the best of the bad choices?” I certainly remember those words being uttered by a lot of people back in 1988, when the Democratic candidate was the moronic Dukakis, against someone whom nobody really liked: the then sitting VP George Bush.

So let’s tear up the usual excuses and talk straight. I’m voting for Obama because even though I agree he has been basically a do-nothing president, he hasn’t done anything that actually angered me either.

Tell me why you would vote for Newt? I think Romney lost SC because he refused to release his tax records. And I think once he does, some noise will be made, and it will all pass. Eventually I do think he will be the Republican nominee. But again, I ask: who, and why, would anyone vote for Newt Gingrich? It’s a simple question, but one I bet nobody will be able to answer without saying that they hate the Dems, and if Gingrich is the only choice, then that is enough.

Partisanship aside then; how is that good enough for any of us? And why should we accept such nonsense? If the United States is truly the greatest experiment in democracy in history then why would we accept such a state of affairs?

Powered by

About Greg Barbrick

  • jamminsue

    Greg: For this comment,

    “Can anyone tell me why they would actually vote for the lizard-like Newt Gingrich”

    Thank you!

  • Baronius

    Do you mean vote for him over Romney in the primaries or vote for him in the general election over Obama?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I’m just waiting for the BC conservatives to speak up and say who they would vote for BEFORE the Republican nomination is locked up! C’mon, guys, show some cojones, say who you will vote for and why! And let’s try to see some reasoning besides “Because he’s not Obama”….

    P.S. – this is one area, at least, where Dave Nalle deserves some credit, because at least he makes no secret of where he stands.

  • Greg Barbrick

    Glenn —

    I agree

  • Greg Barbrick

    Baronius –

    I mean both.

  • Clavos

    I’m writing myself in.

    But if elected, I will not serve.

    Seriously, I will not vote for anyone currently running — either Republican or Dumbocrat.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Okay – Clavos says he’ll vote for himself (though that might be a cover for voting for the yet-to-be-named-GOP-because-he’s-not-Obama).

    Next? C’mon, guys!

  • Clavos

    (though that might be a cover for voting for the yet-to-be-named-GOP-because-he’s-not-Obama).

    So now you’re implying I’m a liar.

    Along with many others, I have nothing but contempt for you and your lack of manners, Glenn.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I said, “might”. May or may not be. That’s NOT ‘implying’, that’s stating a FACT that you may or may not be completely serious about it.

  • Igor

    I’d vote for Romney in the primary, but not in the general election. I think the republican party has failed to provide a good candidate.

    Incidentally, Newt said he is NOT a lobbyist, which is technically true. But when he left congress in ’98 he told his handlers that he would not register as a lobbyist, but still wanted to mine his contacts. So they invented a sort of stealth lobbyist called a “person of interest” who may be called upon by a committee but may not initiate solicitation of business (that would be regulated lobbying).

    And so it is: Newt’s friends on committees initiate business with a person of interest, who is presumed to be an independent expert, but is, of course, Newt lobbying for his cohorts.

    And Newt never has to register as a lobbyist.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    “I’m voting for Obama because even though I agree he has been basically a do-nothing president, he hasn’t done anything that actually angered me either.”

    In theory, a do-nothing president isn’t actually all that bad a thing.

    George Washington, for example, who’s generally considered to be one of your greatest chief executives, considered his role to be basically one of presenting his fledgling nation in as positive a light as possible, and spent most of his time deliberately distancing himself from any temptation to bugger about with things.

    The notion of the President of the United States as some sort of general purpose superhero, problem-solver and world-saver is of fairly recent vintage.

    That said, if a president promises the earth and doesn’t deliver, he lays himself open to a lot of legitimate criticism.

    (Obama’s Politifact “Promises Kept” score, three-quarters of the way through his term of office, is 162 out of 528, or a little over 30% – a bit wanky on the face of it but which, it might be argued, is actually quite respectable considering the hostile and resistant Congress he’s had to work with most of the time. But that’s for the individual to decide.)

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Glen, re #3 — you ask some conservatives to speak up and say who they would vote for BEFORE the Republican nomination is locked up!

    Dear me, Glen, it’s a difficult choice but I may vote for President Obama because I became convinced by reading my own article that it would be cool. Besides, he has so much to offer.

  • Costello

    I don’t understand what’s appealing about these Repub candidates to party members. Newt is the epitome of a DC Insider but isn’t considered an elist standing next to Romney, who is Kerryesque in his stiffness and how out of touch he is with regular folks, as that ridiculous photo of him doing laundry reveals. Unless there’s some scandal or economy heads south, I don’t see either beating Obama

  • Costello

    I made the mistake of checking out Dan’s article. Unless you want yet another example that humor is tough and many people fail at it, not worth your time

  • Clavos

    Just finished Miller’s amusing article.

    Whatever your day job is, Costello, don’t quit it; you’ll starve to death as a critic.

  • zingzing

    most critics would starve to death, clavos. but the article… well, there’s a reason that right-wing comedy doesn’t do too well… so smug.

  • Arch Conservative

    I voted for Ron Paul in the NH primary.

    I would not vote for Newt in the general because he’s a scumbag, very intelligent but a scumbag nonetheless.

    As for Romney, he is no more out of touch with the average American than out current community organizer in chief. I don’t particularly care for Romney but will vote for him in the general out of spite for Barry Sotero.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Romney is as phony, Arch. For all of Newt’s faults, and there are many, at least he’d shit disturb, and perhaps we’ve reached the kind of impasse in American politics that that’s precisely what the doctor ordered.

    With Romney, you’d just get another lukewarm version of Obama.

    Are you ready for some action, guy?

  • Clavos

    well, there’s a reason that right-wing comedy doesn’t do too well… so smug.

    Humility is a liberal trait — because you have to be.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Too much humility, Clavos, is not quite as bad as too much pride…because men with too much pride get other men killed, and all too often many, many people killed, as can be seen in too many wars.

    It’s best to have a mixture of the two – the Goldilocks thing again – but if I have to have one of the two, I’ll pick humility every time.

  • Zingzing

    you should have a little humility.

    beyond that, however, name me a funny right winger. avoid pundits… and someone who was right wing at the time, not some old curmudgeon who became a right winger in his waning days.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Does P.J. O’Rourke count as a pundit?

  • Zingzing

    Nah, and he is pretty funny. Good way with words. But I want to see some humor from a right winger whose humor doesn’t rest upon the fact that he’s right wing. Just a person who is right wing, but is still funny. I know it’s hard to tell…

    I know this argument’s been had before, but most of the creative people I know of seem to be left to some degree or another. Right wing comedy maybe wouldn’t be all that funny to me… But I don’t see it as all that creative either. And dan’s spiteful bit of sarcasm didn’t seem to go beyond just that. There wasn’t any depth, just ridicule. and he doesn’t seem to understand that the left finds many of the same things he finds funny funny as well. He just thinks we’re stupid. And that’s stupid.

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    Roger, I can’t see Gingrich as someone who would, to use your fun little phrase, shit disturb.

    He is nothing more than an establishment tool, as his record proves, and would be a very backward step for the USA.

    Guys, left wing, right wing? Man, who cares? Just like down on the Animal Farm, I can’t tell the pigs and the humans apart any more.

    Glenn, we’ll let you know should you manifest humility…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    I’m not surprised you can’t tell the left from the right anymore, because it’s obvious you can’t tell pride from humility either.

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    Glenn, correcting your many misapprehensions is practically a full time job.

    Pride is an internal emotion; humility, like beauty, is a quality in the eye of the beholder and not something that one should lay claim to. In the very act of claiming humility, one betrays it.

    If you need any more schooling, you know who to call…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    If you need any more schooling, you know who to call…

    This from someone who thought he was showing the difference between pride and humility….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    @24

    They all are, Chris, they all are. Nor do I entertain any illusion as to the perceived difference between either party. All I said, with Gingrich in the White House things would be more interesting.

    Come to think of it, I’m rooting for Obama if only to provide us with further proof as to the inefficacy of our political system and the failure of liberal democracies. But we may as well need another setback because we haven’t reach yet the rock bottom; and that’s where Gingrich comes in.

  • Clavos

    Glenn, If you have any humility at all (I have yet to see any), it’s as false as a nine dollar bill.

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    Glenn, I did, the fact that you don’t get it proves my point. Thanks for that at least.

    Roger, I struggle to see Gingrich as interesting, unless you count living fossils as such!

    I was talking with my wife earlier about how there are so many laws regulating truth in advertising and other areas, laws passed by politicians. We both thought it very strange that there are apparently no laws about truth in politics!

  • Cannonshop

    #30 because politics has been a matter of opinions, Chris. Esp. American/US politics, which more resembles Football fans, than rationed discourse. (not Football itself, that’s got fairly strict rules, the FANS, those guys that riot, paint their faces, and act like assholes in the stands…)

    Igor made one of my old points, though…

    He’s going to vote Romney in the primaries and Obama in the General-this is how McCain got the nod last time, and Dole in ’96. It MAY be why we keep getting the worst possible candidates in the General on both sides, and serves as a pretty good argument for closed polling on Primary elections (that is, only registered members can choose who represents a party in the General), or a return to Caucus as the main selector instead of Primaries (think on the money it would save states-not having to pay for polling prior to the ACTUAL election!).

  • Legare

    You guys are all acting like the Three Stooges the way you beat up on each other. Or should I say the GOP Primary candidates?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Exactly what do you base your claim on in the last paragraph of #31? Do you have any evidence thereof other than You Just Know It?

    To be sure, I agree with you that we should have closed polling on primary elections – remember Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”, where he tried to get his Republican listeners to go in and vote for Hillary because she was losing to Obama?

    Do you see that, Clavos? Republicans DO try to do it (unless you think that Rush has no influence on telling dittoheads what to do), but that begs the question: since there’s zero – repeat, zero – evidence of Democrats and liberals doing it, then there’s only two possibilities:

    1 – Either we Democrats do it and are so much smarter and sneakier and so well-organized about doing it that we never get caught doing it even though it’s on a nationwide scale as you claim, or

    2 – We aren’t doing it.

    So which is it, Clavos? Are we smarter/sneakier/better-organized? Or are we simply not doing it?

  • Clavos

    Um, Glenn,

    Your #33 should be addressed to Cannonshop.

  • Cannonshop

    #34 lol, I got him all wound up.

    #33 Somehow, because hte people he doesn’t like openly endorsed doing it, he’s good with the system that allows it-so that he can Kvetch about them DOING it. (oh, and claim his side doesn’t because no comedians or radio blowhards on their side were involved…)

    Glenn, let me explain it to you in simple terms: I don’t CARE who’s “Doing it” or “Not Doing It”, I care that it’s being done, and that it needs to stop. The most obvious means to stop it, is to freeze out those NOT vested in either party from the other party’s primary,

    Period.

    There are a number of ways that can be done-only allowing one vote in the primary might be one way, or the state stop spending money running a general-access election and just requiring the Parties to send their chosen candidates selected by whatever internal mechanisms they use-without State Interference (or more importantly, state money and state workers’ time). It would be rather difficult for a Republican to back Clinton in the primary, and McCain in the General that way-just as it would be rather difficult for a Democrat to back Romney in the Primary, then vote Obama in the General.

    See? Perfectly fair-the two big parties get to choose THEIR OWN CANDIDATES. Teh rest can then decide if EITHER of them is worth the powder to blow them to hell, or pick a third option.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos – thanks.

    Cannonshop –

    No, do NOT make the ethically-lazy excuse of “you don’t care who’s doing it”. Blame the ones who DO do it, and do NOT blame the ones who don’t do it.

  • Cannonshop

    #36 Glenn, it’s not ethically lazy when there’s an obvious cheat built into the system, to demand that cheat be removed.

    It’s intellectually lazy to assume that once an exploit is exposed, it isn’t going to be used. ‘scalled human nature, Glenn. Politicians and Parties have about the ethical standard of your average sociopathic con-man, I can point you to two hundered years of U.S. history that demonstrates what you get when you deliberately permit vote-rigging, and write laws that can’t be enforced.

    as for Democrats “Not doing it” I don’t buy that and you know it. I was HERE for 2004, Glenn. Saw plenty of evidence of it, and saw how the system was rigged to protect it.

    The feds didn’t investigate not because of a lack of evidence, but because the Attorney General who’d just “won” (under questionable circumstances) the election didn’t want to call them in and disrupt things. There’s PLENTY of corruption going around, you’re making shit up if you think your side is clean on that.

    (It doesn’t help matters that the state-level challenge in court was handled by a moron, either-asking for the court to apply penalties specifically forbidden in the law is always a sign of idiot, or idiot who wants to lose.)

    Furthermore, Glenn, the Urge to Revenge is pretty common-removing opportunities for it is a good idea. all it takes to trigger it, is for enough shallow thinking idiots believing that they’ve been wronged, and all of a sudden all kinds of bad behaviour becomes just-fine-thank-you in reply, resulting in a “War” mindset where any move that can be made, WILL BE.

    It makes civil discourse kind of impossible, Glenn, when you view one or both sides (and one or both sides view the other) as being not merely wrong, but EVIL.

    all kinds of things become socially and ethically acceptable to people, when they see their opponents as dehumanized monsters. On a certain level, I really don’t expect you to understand that-but other readers probably will.

  • Greg Barbrick

    Damn Christopher, I wish I had thought of your Animal Farm reference myself.

    It is as dead-on as this election gets.

  • Greg Barbrick

    And just to go back to the “hopeless” candidates idea – let us back up all the way to 1976. Did Ford ever have a chance against anyone after pardoning Nixon?

    Did Carter really have a prayer against Reagan (October surprise or not?) Did Mondale have a prayer against Reagan in ’84?

    I think we all remember how Dukakis lost. Some might claim credit for the Willie Horton ad – but I am convinced it was that monumentally idiotic photo of him in a tank that did him in.

    Bill Clinton is the only President in my lifetime who actually spoke to me. His playing sax on Arsenio’s show was certainly a good move, but there was so much more to it than that. He offered a real change from the “old guy” bs that he actually got the young people (under 30 – myself included) actually excited for the first time probably in their lives about Presidential politics.

    Dole was a joke – we all know that. I thought W. was too – until (as has been put by many others), Al Gore brought a knife to a gunfight.

    I have previously called Obama something of a “do-nothing” president. And I honestly think that enough time has passed that he can no longer blame Bush for the state of the nation.

    The Repub establishment simply will not allow Newt to be the candidate – which leaves Romney. And if elected, he will probably pursue the more or less “establishment” route Obama has.

    I think Obama will take him, but at this point, I’m not even sure it makes any difference. One thing I can almost guarantee, is that my life will not change significantly no matter which one wins.

    And that my friends, is why I this whole damn thing has me so pissed off.

  • Greg Barbrick

    You know Christopher Rose, your Animal Farm reference was so brilliant, it reminded me of one of the most striking books I ever read as a teen.

    1984 – published in 1948 with the date clearly chosen as just a number. But what the hell is our lives in 2012 but constant surveillance?

    Just an addendum to what I thought was a the very best comment this thread has had.

  • Greg Barbrick

    Who am I kidding, even though many of us were “assigned” Animal Farm, and 1984 in our teen years – George Orwell’s classics are possibly even more relevant today than they were when they were originally published.

    Both are beyond insightful. And just read 1984 again, and walk around town – I’m not saying the guy was some sort of Nostradamus, but look at what we have already accepted as “just a part of life.”

    It is pretty amazing.

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    It’s actually even worse than it seems in the USA these days.

    In addition to the excessive number of security forces there are many secret informers; these include bank staff, who are required to report “suspicious” transactions and have been set quotas and penalties for not making their quotas; and lawyers and accountants, who are required to report both suspicious activity and even things like consulting them about setting up offshore bank accounts or companies.

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    As to the Republican candidates, those who see Romney as less slimy than Gingrich, may be interested to learn of this story about his late father in law.

    Edward Davies, originally from Wales and father of Mitt Romney’s wife Ann, was both an atheist and strongly anti-religion in general.

    At the time of his death, he was the only remaining member of the Davies family, who were from a Protestant Congregationalist background, not to have converted to Romney’s Mormons or, as they prefer to be called these days, the Church of Latter Day Saints.

    In 1993, 14 months after his death, Mitt Romney and the LDS posthumously baptised Mr Edwards into their church, a common and controversial practice of this group, which has even baptised Nazi Holocaust victims to boost their membership.

    Appalled readers can verify this for themselves by referring to Gawker’s Yes, the Romneys Converted Mitt’s Dead Atheist Father-in-Law to Mormonism or Business Insider’s CONFIRMED: Romney Family Had Ann Romney’s Atheist Father Posthumously Baptized Into The Mormon Church.

  • Greg Barbrick

    Christopher,

    I am not going to ask you where you live. I will state that I myself live in the Seattle area.

    Yes the survelance frightens me. And yes, in the end the only person that said anything at all relevant to me about the world we live in was George Orwell, which he flipped to 1984.

    Out of 40+ comments, yours is the only one that really had anything to say to me.

    And Christopher, I thank you for that.

  • Greg Barbrick

    These people can bitch all they want about the procedures.

    I just don’t really buy it anymore, and I really, really wanted to just 3 years ago

    I would be called a “nut” for stating the obvious – but the U.S. is an oligarchy.

  • Greg Barbrick

    Yeah, well I’ll end it on this fun note.

    William (Bill) Clinton should have been elected to a third term. He didn’t suffer from Alz’ disease which Nancy obviously hid.

    As a political – I know this is pointless. But I would like to hear if (my guy) Obama, Romnry (or the lizard) — animal, I need to ask the question.

    On January 1, 2013 – do you honestly will change at all?

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    Hi Greg,

    Currently I divide my time between England and Spain but hope to relocate to Central or South America before too long.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    Glenn, it’s not ethically lazy when there’s an obvious cheat built into the system, to demand that cheat be removed.

    Yes, you’re being ethically lazy because you’re blaming the ‘system’ for crimes that were committed when – if the laws were followed – there would have been no crimes! That’s like blaming bank robberies on the laws against bank robberies!

    And when it comes to the attorney general, are you referring to the attorneys general who were fired by the Bush administration because they would not proceed with voting fraud cases because of insufficient evidence? Did you happen to notice that the only ones who were not fired were the ones who did not proceed with the trumped-up charges brought by the Bush administration…and IIRC none of the cases nationwide brought a conviction? NONE!

    What it was about, Cannonshop, is the Bush administration’s attempt to violate a longstanding Justice Dept. tradition to not initiate election fraud investigations against candidates just before an election. The tradition is there because if the news media gets notified that candidate ‘A’ is being investigated for something just before an election, it doesn’t matter if the investigation is real or bogus – it’s going to cost the candidate lots of votes.

    And that’s what the Bush administration did – they directed attorneys general in many states to investigate this or that candidate in the months just before the election. Nine attorneys general refused because of lack of evidence…and they were all fired. The rest of the investigations went nowhere…but the simple fact the investigations were held cost the candidates votes.

    THAT, Cannonshop, was the real fraud, the real crime – not by the candidates, but by the Bush administration to skew the elections.

    So STOP trying to blame Democrats for what the Republicans do – that’s a FALSE equivalency, because there’s zero evidence that we’ve committed election fraud…yet we have a wealth of evidence – evidence! – of voter suppression by the Republicans.

  • Igor

    Cannon is either lazy or intentionally lying:

    31-Cannonshop

    Igor made one of my old points, though…

    He’s going to vote Romney in the primaries and Obama in the General-

    Not at all. What I actually said is:

    10-Igor

    I’d vote for Romney in the primary, but not in the general election. I think the republican party has failed to provide a good candidate.

    I’m not voting for anyone in the primary. And I still think that the republicans haven’t provided a suitable candidate.

    Please stop misrepresenting me.

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    The tank? I thought Dukakis sealed his fate with his tone-deaf response in the debate on whether he would want the death penalty for a guy who murdered his wife.

  • Greg Barbrick

    I had actually forgotten about that show of idiocy. I just remembered (25 years later) that stupid photo.

    You are quite correct. How does anyone not answer a question like that without the strongest possible response?

  • Greg Barbrick

    Good lord – isn’t there someone assigned to pull out idiotically drunken comments (such as a couple of mine last night)?

    Chris, I guess I’m kind of speaking to you. There is no way in hell the GOP establishment will allow Gingrich to be the candidate – I think we all know that.

    It is fun to argue about this stuff months in advance, but honestly – do we not know who the actual nominee will be?

    I say Romney – and he has a valid shot at Obama. The trouble is, (which I myself have just recently realized) is that either candidate will probably make zero difference in my life.

    And since I don’t have pals that are rich – then it will probably not make any quantifiable difference in anyone’s lives I know either.

    This is such an old conversation. Pull religion out and what do you have? Rich vs poor. That’s it gang – like it or buy garbage.

  • Cannonshop

    #48 Glenn, You never disappoint. Unfortunately, this is more to do with my being a pessimist, and therefore immune to disappointment. Thanks for demonstrating my point and taking the frothing poli-fan image right to 11 out of 10.

  • Cannonshop

    Anyway, Glenn, if you REALLY believe in it, that’s fine. You should thank Rush for giving Obama the nomination-by openly urging that joke forward, it galvanized your party behind Candidate Obama to get him elected.

    but back on the “Ethical Laziness”…

    Glass house, Glenn. You’re supporting an administration that signed into Law the NDAA-a police somewhat worse than the SOPA/PIPA bill you opposed, since it allows the government to short-circuit ALL Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus protections, hold American Citizens indefinitely in military custody without trial (or being charged).

    You do so, on the assumption that your man in Washington (DC) is going to be “your” man, and that he is some kind of combination of superman and Jesus.

    i.e. you’re fine with Tyranny, so long as your party is holding the reins, and that’s the difference between us, Glenn…

    I oppose Tyranny REGARDLESS of who’s holding office, what party is in power, or whose ass warms the chair in the Oval Office.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I find it intellectually numbing, my man, to be having these conversations time and again. I don’t know how you manage to do it. What a waste of time.

    Tell you what. When they object to my comments now and then, I’ll let you be my advocate. I just don’t have the patience anymore.

  • Cannonshop

    #55 I manage to do it because while some folks who are very vocal are a bit like talking to walls, there are people reading who’ll use the opportunity to actually THINK about what’s being said, ask questions, and maybe change their minds-or find a reason to at least question what the bigshots with their radio shows and teevee programming have told them.

    What started this whole shitstorm with Contrarian, is my stating that I don’t trust the Primary system…and why, and what I’d fantasize about for a repair of a defect I see in it.

    I say ‘fantasize’ because there is no way in hell the vested interests in government would ever permit it. The GOP would be terrified to discover how small their numbers, minus in-and-out visitors, really are, as would, I suspect, the Democrats, and both would be horrified to learn how many of us have little to no use for either of them. Then again, I’m one of those people who thinks vote-by-mail is idiotic on functional grounds-if you can’t be bothered to get your ass out of bed and down to the polls in person, you probably shouldn’t be voting at all (with a few, vERY few, exceptions-people who’re actually bed-ridden, people who’re out of the country/state on business or deployed servicemembers. Lazy people shouldn’t vote.) That’s just MY view, it’s not the majority view, and it won’t be…Ever.

    I’m fine with that.

    I’m not so good with some other things, but there are enough Glenn Contrarians out there, and Arch Conservatives out there, that my only real option is to look for the immediate, local, least-noxious choices on the ballot, and go with those until I find someone better.

    Funny enough, the one time “Least Noxious” came out of the Primaries a winner (for the GOP) in this state on a statewide office, was the one-time that the primaries were (due to a court ruling) closed-as in, Republicans voted for Republicans, Democrats for Democrats.

    It was the first time in some twenty years that it wasn’t some noodled-brained religious nut, or namby little token running for the GOP, which is funny because it was the one election close enough it took three recalls and untold number of “Found” votes before the at-that-time Attorney General could be named “The winnah”…by a margin of less than a percent.

    Every other year was a total blowout. Makes it obvious that people MUST be crossing party lines during the Primaries, to have that much difference and that close a race only ONCE since the 1980’s.

    The only real change between 2000 and 2004 was a temporary change in Primary structure-one that was overridden by the Legislature the following year.

    After which, the traditional pattern reasserted itself in general elections, which is to say, for hte most part on a statewide ballot, if you’re a Republican, forget it.