• People Talk and My Ear Bleeds


    from Twitter


    Thursday, February 07, 2008

    Romney's Out. Now What?

    Should I spend my vote voicing my opposition to McCain, or trying to determine his conquerer?
    Super Tuesday is over, and I've learned many things about America's electoral (electing? primary?) process. However, what I would have written will take a back seat for a few days while I come to grips with the newest word on the street -- Mitt Romney suspended his campaign.

    First, what does "suspended" mean? In American politics, when you suspend your campaign, you're technically still in the race, but you aren't actively trying to get new delegates. On the Democratic side of the coin, that means you can decide how to use them -- recruit your own supporters and encourage them to vote one way, etc. On the Republican side, the states decide how to divide the spoils. So for Romney, it's really pretty similar to dropping out.

    Now, what does this mean?

    Well, unlike many voters this year, I placed lots of weight on experience over charisma. Especially executive experience. Why should you lead the only superpower of the modern era if you've never lead anything before? I mean, over the last year I've been the president of my school's American Medical Association (AMA) and Texas Medical Association (TMA) chapter. It's night and day different having to run the organization versus when I was just an officer the year before.

    Based on that, here's how my candidate list stacked up as of yesterday:

    1. Romney -- executive experience as governor, led Olympic games, church as Stake President, led Bain Capital
    2. Huckabee -- governor of Arkansas
    3. Paul -- Physician, years of congressional experience
    4. Clinton -- never an executive, but saw her husband do it. some congressional experience
    5. McCain -- lots of congressional experience
    6. Obama -- some state senate experience and one term in congress.

    With Romney gone, those are pretty thin resumes remaining.

    Now things get fun. I could pontificate about the ramifications of Romney for hours, but I'll sum it up thus: I doubt that Huckabee can cover the ground remaining to catch up to McCain -- especially if some of Romney's delegates could end up in McCain's camp (i.e. all of Massachusetts, Maine, etc.).

    Texas has an open primary. I could vote Republican, but here's my dilemma: I like Paul's premise (I am Libertarian, you know), but have issues with certain points (such as eliminating the Federal Reserve). I like Huckabee's health care plans, but haven't heard anything else of substance from the preacher. On both, a vote from me will have little effect on the end result. I chose long ago not to vote for McCain, due to his stance on Vietnam. Explaining that will have to wait for another day.

    So I could throw my vote to Paul/Huckabee, or I could vote Democratic. What am I faced with??

    1. a woman who seems greasier than a used car salesman, has almost zero executive experience, but is a woman (hey! I could make history with my vote), or
    2. a man who says all the right things, but never anything of substance, has literally zero executive experience, but is black (hey! I could make history with my vote).

    Why should you lead the only superpower of the modern era if you've never lead anything before?
    On a healthcare front (I am in medical school) their plans are almost identical except Clinton wants a mandate to buy insurance and Obama says it's not needed and wrong.

    Should I spend my vote voicing my opposition to McCain, or trying to determine his conquerer (yes, I feel either Democratic candidate will beat McCain in a general election)? My vote cannot be bought (legally), but it can be swayed. Should I vote Republican or Democrat? Paul or Huckabee? Clinton or Obama?

    Right now I'm thinking Democrat; possibly Obama. Give me some advice. McCain schemed with Huckabee to pull West Virginia's 18 delegates from Romney. Where should my vote go?


    Sara said...

    I, too, am really upset that more people didn't realize that Romney WAS the best choice for President--out of ANY candidate. Part of me is still hoping that a miracle will happen and that he'll win the GOP's nomination, but another part of me realizes that I'm basically back where I was in 2004: choosing the lesser of two evils. Of course, I have to say that I feel about Huckabee the way you feel about McCain: I think I would have to move to Canada if he gets to the White House (gag me). Talk about a slime-ball.

    Since you've voiced how you feel about McCain--which would be my suggestion, that leaves you with Clinton, Paul, and Obama. Clinton is a no-go for me. Period. I cannot stand her. Paul is a goof. Sorry, I know you resonate with him, but there's no room for someone who wants to implement extreme ideas in the White House (another strike again Huckabee, as well). So...Obama's left. Obviously, the only choice left by process of elimination.

    Honestly, though, I look at all of these candidates and think, "Is this really the best we can do? These people really are the best we can do suggesting someone to be THE political image of our country?" The answers make me cringe. Perhaps the Second Coming really isn't that far away...

    Triet said...

    I read in January, a couple weeks before Super Tuesday, how Huckabee was playing spoiler for Romney. I thought then that Romney could overcome it, but looking now at a map of the primaries, I see I was wrong.

    Romney clearly held his own in the mid-west, but Huckabee took the bible belt from him. McCain really resonantes with nobody except California, Florida, New York, and some other New England states. Unfortunately, it's those populous states that also are idiots and do winner-take all votes.

    So, instead of an even 500 some-odd delegates a piece for McCain and Romney, you have McCain with 700ish, Romney with 300ish, and Huckabee with 200ish.

    Romney listened to his close supporters, who urged him to get out before he was too bloodied, so he could run again in 4 years if McCain loses like many think he will.

    And after that all TV became black and white again, sugared cereals were taken off the market and replaced with Kix (and only Kix), and all cars were replaced with busses full of people coughing up blood due to active tuberculosis. Oh yes, and the world deflated to become flat, and China stole all our secrets (not just most) and blew us to oblivion with their nukes.

    Happy day.

    xanghe said...

    I really dislike choosing for whom I will vote based on the process of elimination. Too bad I've used it ever since I started voting.

    All of this banter is quite amusing, but I still don't know who I'm going to vote for (intentional grammatical error).

    Now what?

    Triet said...

    Yes, yes. Politics by Process of Elimination. Sounds like my next book. I wonder if I can get an advance...

    CNN actually does a decent job of putting pithy synopses of candidates' stances on a variety of issues on its website. I think I will compare/contrast points on an upcoming post.

    What it comes down to, is what do you hate the WORST. Every candidate is only about 30-40% good. The other 60-70% is pure garbage. So, do I like the 30-40% of Obama better than Clinton, or Paul better than McCain. That's the question. Unfortunately, it's a crappy one.

    xanghe said...

    Great, crappy candidates again. But thank you for the advice, basing my vote on what I hate rather than what I like. I feel even less certain now.

    I will give CNN a try.