The Shotgun Blog
« U.S. election special: Western Standard contributors tell us who they would vote for if they could | Main | Time to act Ontario »
Monday, November 03, 2008
U.S. election special: Friends of the Western Standard tell us who they would vote for if they could
We asked both our contributors as well as a few Western Standard friends (libertarians and conservatives) who they would vote for in the U.S. presidential election if they could, and why.
Here's the breakdown of WS contribs.
And here is how our friends would vote:
Colby Cosh: John McCain
Ezra Levant: John McCain
Lorne Gunter: John McCain
Rob Breakenridge: John McCain
Glenn Fox: Wouldn't vote/Bob Barr
Kathy Shaidle: John McCain
Stefan Molyneux: Wouldn't vote
Martin Masse: Wouldn't vote
Dennis Young: Bob Barr
Paul McKeever: None of the above
Joseph C. Ben-Ami: John McCain
Tally:
John McCain: 6
Wouldn't vote: 3
Bob Barr: 1
None of the above: 1
Barack Obama: 0
(UPDATED with Joseph C. Ben-Ami's submission)
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 3, 2008 in U.S. politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535d41a8d970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference U.S. election special: Friends of the Western Standard tell us who they would vote for if they could:
Comments
Whoa.... McCain... 5??? Obama 0?
John McCain: 5
Wouldn't vote: 3
Bob Barr: 1
None of the above: 1
Barack Obama: 0
My opinion of Canada is now one step above my feeling for child molesters.
Sheesh.
Posted by: yeah | 2008-11-03 1:48:24 AM
My opinion of Canada is now one step above my feeling for child molesters.
Sheesh.
Posted by: yeah | 3-Nov-08 1:48:24 AM
Fond of child molesters are ya?
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-03 6:05:23 AM
Wow. What exciting and unexpected news. Always full of surprises, aren't you, Jaws? : )
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-11-03 6:41:22 AM
I'm surprised to see the shutout on Obama, actually. I know more than a few small-government types looking to throw the GOP to the sidelines for a few years to think about what they've done by casting votes in swing states for Obama.
Posted by: Janet | 2008-11-03 6:46:34 AM
Shorter Western Standarders: "Well, sure, John McCain is a gibbering, senile, crazed hypocrite, racist and flip-flopper without an ounce of principle and horrific anger management issues who once called his wife a "c**t" in public and whose idea of a solution to everything is to start dropping bombs, and his running mate is a screeching, Bible-whomping, uneducated, illiterate, trailer trash whackjob. But the other guy's, you know, black. Kind of a no-brainer there, wouldn't you say?"
It's always convenient when you can reduce complex issues to their fundamental essence, don't you think?
Posted by: CC | 2008-11-03 7:54:55 AM
My chief concerns with Obama are exactly the reasons most people are voting for him. Tops on the list is his charisma. Many people are voting for him based on his charisma alone. The last time Canadians did that, we wound up with...Trudeau. The last time Americans did that, they wound up with...Clinton. I trust on this I need say no more.
Second is his voting record. From what I've read, he is as far Left of the Electorate as it is possible to get. Clinton at least had a Republican congress to act as a foil; as a result, several radical policies, notably universal health care, were never enacted. (It later turned out that most of the radical policies were really his wife's.) Obama will have a sympathetic Congress and Senate who are all exceedingly bitter about being shut out for the last fourteen years. This is a potentially explosive mix that is the last thing America needs in these uncertain economic times. The New Deal II could well bankrupt America.
Third is Obama's lack of experience. While by all accounts a well-educated and personable man, Obama, like Hillary, has not even served two full terms as a United States Senator (although he did serve in the Illinois State Senate from 1997).
All that said, I can't work up much enthusiasm for McCain either. I think this is what happens when the Presidential candidates are Senators instead of governors.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-03 8:01:33 AM
Shane takes logic outside and clubs it senseless thusly:
"My chief concerns with Obama are exactly the reasons most people are voting for him. Tops on the list is his charisma. Many people are voting for him based on his charisma alone. The last time Canadians did that, we wound up with...Trudeau."
Darned right, Shane -- I mean, someone who's articulate, literate and well-educated. Christ, isn't THAT a recipe for disaster?
"The last time Americans did that, they wound up with...Clinton. I trust on this I need say no more."
Yeah, the national American nightmare that was Bill Clinton:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Boy, you sure don't want a repeat of THAT horrific stretch of American history, do you, Shane?
I'm sorry ... I seem to have wandered into the holding room for all the special-ed kids. I'll find my own way out, sorry for the interruption.
Posted by: CC | 2008-11-03 8:10:21 AM
Cynic,
"It's always convenient when you can reduce complex issues to their fundamental essence, don't you think?"
I haven't gone through all the detailed responses yet, but I would hope those who said they were going to vote for McCain over Obama stated some reason for doing so. Did you have a look at some of those responses before generating your more concise version of them?
But yes, I'm sure each and every person who chose (or would choose) someone over Obama is a racist. Good job at reducing the complexity.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-03 8:53:04 AM
Well lets look at Ezra Levant's reasons... hmm... he says McCain is "very flawed....ideologically incoherent"
What an endorsement. Oh wait!
"John McCain is right about the big thing: World War IV. He scares America's (and thus the Western world's) enemies, and that in itself will make the West safer."
So McCain being erratic, impulsive, unthinking and belligerent is a good thing because it will scare the rest of the world into a kind of cowed servile deference? Why would that be, under warmongering Bush and Cheney, we've had more terrorism than ever.
And what is Levant's problem with Obama? He's a Marxist. A Marxist? Are you #@%$&! kidding me? Anyone ignorant enough to think Obama is a Marxist should not be let anywhere near a newspaper or magazine column. I defy Levant to give a few examples of marxism in Obama's policies. And they have to be things that aren't the same as policies of McCain, or Roosevelt, or Eisenhower etc etc
Posted by: CZ (not that Cynic guy) | 2008-11-03 10:46:17 AM
Ezra Levant on Barack Obama:
"Domestically, he's a Marxist. He's a suave Marxist, but a Marxist nonetheless, with the most left-wing record in the U.S. Senate."
McCain's commitment to free trade -- and Obama's nutty domestic agenda -- make a McCain vote worth considering.
I'll still vote for Barr though.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-03 3:21:20 PM
Paul McKeever: None of the above
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 3, 2008
Paul McKeever wouldn't vote and leads a party that doesn't field any candidates.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-03 4:01:37 PM
“From the standpoint of Canada's self-interest, this U.S. election seems like the clearest-cut of my own political lifetime. Support for free trade is where the two major candidates are furthest apart. McCain truly deserves the epithet ‘unwavering’ on the issue, while Obama has been backed into a corner by protectionist workers in high-leverage Rust Belt states. Practically speaking, an Obama victory is going to mean an immediate hit to our GDP. So I'd vote for McCain, especially since the Libertarians are running kind of a half-baked libertarian this time out.” – Colby Cosh
An excellent analysis by Colby Cosh.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-03 4:27:36 PM
"My chief concerns with Obama are exactly the reasons most people are voting for him. Tops on the list is his charisma. Many people are voting for him based on his charisma alone. The last time Canadians did that, we wound up with...Trudeau. The last time Americans did that, they wound up with...Clinton. I trust on this I need say no more."
Actually, the last time Canadians voted for charisma, we ended up with Chretien, and the last time Americans voted for charisma they ended up with Bush. Wait no, my mistake.. Bush was elected for his sparkling intellect, right?
Posted by: LogicallySpeaking | 2008-11-03 5:03:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Here's a typical Obama supporter. Did she make it past grade four?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-03 6:03:51 PM
In the US election, I'm promoting my favorite Republicans, like Tom McClintock in California's fourth district, or BJ Lawson in North Carolina's 4th District. They are Ron Paul libertarians who don't compromise. Ron Paul for Congressman in Texas of course. For President, I'd vote for Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin, two Ron Paul influenced libertarians, of the Libertarian or Constitutional Party. In Montana and Louisiana I'd vote Ron Paul for President. My next preference would be for Barack Obama, because he is a reasonable and thoughtful man who is not prone to sudden outbursts or decisions made on a whim, even though he certainly is a statist. John McCain and Sarah Palin are two completely inadequate persons for the job of President even tho McCain's rhetoric on the role of government is my own preference, but these two Republicans are simply all the wrong elements of Republicanism; sleazy, Bible-thumping, petty, vindictive, desperate, grasping, no plan, racist, fear-mongering. Then there is the Republican record on spending and debt and war and empire, and it necessitates the cleaning out of statist Republicans in favor of the ascendancy of the Ron Paul brand of liberty Republicans.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-11-03 7:40:54 PM
Marc,
Wouldn't you vote for Ron Paul in California where he's also on the ballot?
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-11-03 8:21:43 PM
Ron Paul is a certified write-in candidate in California. I'd still recommend Bob Barr though.
Drug law reform is more likely to happen under Obama than McCain. Iraq is more likely to be turned over to Iraqis sooner under Obama. McCain still adheres to the grotesque lie that Iraq needed to be invaded and occupied. He still believes "victory" can be produced from this aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-11-03 9:00:26 PM
CC wrote: “1. Shane takes logic outside and clubs it senseless thusly…”
1. This, from a man whose entire post is one long exercise in petulant venting? Why, oh why are today’s Leftists trapped in their adolescent years?
2. Trudeau may have been a gifted speaker, but he was a failure as a politician, a firebrand from the Quiet Revolution and a bald-faced communist who racked up an enormous national debt and turned the country into a political pizza. The only reason he reigned as long as he did was because he faced a weak and divided opposition and because women especially went ga-ga over his charisma.
3. The best that can be said of Clinton is that he did not screw up that badly, at least not until he lied under oath and nearly face impeachment. Of course, he might have gone a lot farther had he faced a more sympathetic Congress. Of course, it’s easy to not screw up, if you never do anything. Clinton took the Canadian route, kept his head down (along with his pants), and swept the troubles under the carpet for his successor to deal with. He never faced a September 11, a Hurricane Katrina, or any of the other disasters Bush led the country through.
4. I am not intimidated by snooty arrogance and studied insults, whether from Trudeau or from you. Most often they’re a mask for something else, usually a lack of confidence or an attempt to prevent people from looking too closely. You buff your exterior to a mirror shine, but scratch the surface and you find only a hollow shell. An emotional juvenile with delusions of adequacy. Well, not more than 100-150 million of those. Toodles.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-03 9:41:05 PM
Logically speaking wrote: "Actually, the last time Canadians voted for charisma, we ended up with Chretien, and the last time Americans voted for charisma they ended up with Bush. Wait no, my mistake.. Bush was elected for his sparkling intellect, right?"
Chretien was perhaps the crookedest politician since Maurice Duplessis, and frankly isn't that charismatic; he's a risen street fighter. (Ask that protester he throttled how warm and fuzzy he is.) Bush exudes a certain down-to-earth approachability but is not a people magnet like Clinton and Obama. And frankly, Bush was the best candidate in both the 2000 and the 2004 election. Al Gore is better suited to making movies and raking in scads of money on environmental scams, and John Kerry was basically a kept man. The candidates this time round are similarly bereft of substance. People have set such high expectations of Obama that he has nowhere to go but down once he takes the oath. The things people expect from him are beyond the power of anyone but a god.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-03 9:48:05 PM
There is one heck of a dog and pony show happening there, eh! I think the ratings are beating American Idol, or what? You know whom I wish were running down there, since we are on our fantasy/dream tickets Steve McQueen and Thompson S Hunter.
Anyways, here is some important revolutionary news in Marc Scott Emery's Activist zine:Great revolutionary stuff, too!! All about the revolution against the American Government, as well. I can see Marc doesn't play chess, because he doesn't understand the theory of indirect threat.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/5301.html
And here too! Is new revolutionary stuff, but alas it is only Canadian news:
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/pol/904987820.html
And tomorrow it will have been a week since this revolutionary news item came out but who would know about that, since some are planning on along holiday down in the staes somewhere, eh?:
http://www.archive.org/details/RadioInterviewoctober28thPotSalesInVancouver
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-11-03 10:52:56 PM
Getting shriller as the moment of truth approaches, eh, Budo?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-04 12:29:03 AM
Hey LogicallySpeaking,
Do you REALLY want to get into a YouTube video fight over who has the stupidest supporters between Obama and McCain? I'd wager that in the end, neither side would be the winner and we'd both just wind up being sick of humanity in general.
Posted by: sinned34 | 2008-11-04 12:43:54 AM
No Shane I am just increasing my customer/revolutionary base. Perhaps you don't understand, but quite a few cops know the herb. I want them to come in open support
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/pol/904987820.html
They are welcome, too! Why would you assume that this was a shrill note? We must see things totally different. have you ever had a look at my science "Do Humans have a political gene?"
Surely looking at the two of us from our words any jury, observer will see that by denigrating a person such as myself on your behalf is not a good thing for society.
This is why all the conflict of the last century, because it has been a tyranny of the right-wing conservatives who are judgmental, controlling and like to fight about everything.
I have prove in law and fact that I am being oppressed, because I caught the big guys breaking the law (and no shane I am not going to explain it to someone of your point of view) AND FOR THAT REASON THEY USE THIS LAW.
Well I'm facken tired of your right-wing aggression and if your ahole law abiding friends try to pick me up for my peaceful intelligent insights, and my favorite benign habits, I will lead a revolution the likes of jerks like you would never be able to imagine.
JUST WATCH ME!
Maybe I will never learn to spell Mr.Opal's name, but by the fack he sure will remember mine!
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-11-04 12:58:48 AM
Excuse me, Budo, but Left-wing liberals have been running the show since at least the 1960s. In that time we've watched the proliferation of drug addiction, the proliferation of illegitimate children (and the attendant social problems), the glorification of the self (at society's expense), the watering down of sentences for even the most brutal crimes, and an entire generation of protest-happy shitpots who burn people in effigy, erect barricades in the streets, trash frankenfood labs, spike trees, break windows, attack police, and in general act like enemy combatants. You yourself talk incessantly of stirring up revolution. WHO likes to fight???
Furthermore, the fact that you have found one whole public official (possibly) breaking the law does not mean you are being oppressed by the same law or even that same official. So you've proven nothing. And you're no revolutionary leader either. One billy club in the belly and you'd scurry whimpering back to your rat-hole, and not come out for two weeks.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-04 7:52:29 AM
P.S. Those who are truly movers and shakers don't usually have to boast; they prefer to let their actions speak for themselves. The louder and more shrilly someone boasts, the less substance their claims are likely to have. Che Guevara you ain't--you're just an "articulate sensual intelligent baritone" who just happens to be a squishy old German with a messiah complex and a ridiculous hat.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-04 7:57:10 AM
I look forward to the complete mental implosion of all the neo-conservative/"libertarians" when they eventually realize that Obama isn't actually going to be implementing a Stalinist dictatorship, and that one of his first orders of business will be to take a more agressive stance against al Qaeda in an actual effective manner instead by, for example, not attacking countries that didn't have anything to do with 9/11... ah why do I bother, its like trying to debate a damp dishcloth. A damp dishcloth that loses control of all bodily functions whenever anyone says the word "socialist".
Posted by: CZ (not that Cynic guy) | 2008-11-05 6:49:34 PM
I am afraid you are only another hate campaigner loooooser mr izra.
Posted by: nikala | 2008-12-25 2:59:39 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.