Table stakes, or why Palin changes the game - Updated


Everything is now on the table
Back before the 2000 election, people asked how I could possibly support George Bush. I'd reply that while I would probably vote for Bush, but I didn't support him. He was just the least bad alternative. George Bush wasn't my first choice or my ninety-seventh choice, of the major candidates he was just the one likely to do the least amount of damage. We might even get a tax cut.

Who remembers that Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer were in the running for the Republican nomination that year?

And of course we all remember that Al Gore was the Destined Democrat Nominee.

Al Gore, who had already written Earth in the Balance. Al Gore, who in the 1988 Presidential election tried to manipulate the system to lock Jesse Jackson out as a candidate. Al Gore, who as Vice President pushed the "Clipper Chip." Al Gore, who pushed for the Kyoto Protocol, a deeply flawed treaty that would have destroyed the economy of any major power that tried to live under it. Al Gore, who conducted illegal fund raising from the Vice President's office. Al Gore, who in the 2000 election, wanted the courts to force selective recounts in carefully chosen Florida counties.

And Al Gore, who in the aftermath of the 2000 election, proclaimed himself the Grand High Priest of Anthropomorphic Anthropogenic Global Warming and proceeded to try to force his social agenda down the throats of everyone on the planet.

Does this mean that Al Gore did no good during his government service? No. It just means that given a choice between the free market and government nudges, Gore would insist on government control every time.

Does this mean that George Bush would be a great President. No. Without 9-11, Bush 43 would have been a mediocre President largely remembering for trying to fill Ronald Reagan's shoes.

Bush was still the least bad choice among the candidates in 2000. Sort of a lowest common denominator.

Since our system doesn't let us vote NONE OF THE ABOVE and eliminate choices we don't like, we're stuck with questionable choices. And as long as the party politics control who gets to be the candidate, the choices become worse and worse over time.

You know what happened in 2004. John Kerry, the Democrat candidate ran on a war record that he refused to make fully public. Bush won again, not because of his virtue, but because he was perceived marginally less worse than his opponent.

Sort of like asking if you would like your right or left knee broken. Both choices are bad, but which could you make work?

And that brings us to 2008.

I've been wrong when it comes to predicting this election. I thought McCain would wash out. I did not count on the mainstream press giving McCain a boost because he would be the "easy candidate" to defeat. I thought Hillary had the Democrat nomination locked up.

Let there be no misunderstandings. I don't like John McCain. I think he's guilty of treason.

I don't like Barack Obama. I consider him a socialist who will adopt any position to get elected no matter what the consequences. I also think that if the system were rational, he never would have gotten this far. However, his machine did derail the Clinton machine.

I prefer Sarah Palin in part because she is marginally better than either McCain or Obama. Let's revisit one of my earlier entries from well before this election cycle. Since it's me, I get the Technopagan Green.

I'd rather someone be honest with me to begin with and not guilt me into doing something that THEY think is right.

I can deal with someone opposing me because of my politics. I can deal with someone who attacks me because of my religious beliefs. I can deal with open hostility. I know where I stand with people like that.

They hate me or my actions for (insert reason here). Fine, that is their choice. Let's move onto the next bit. I'm willing to live and let live if they are.

But I don't like someone buttering me up because they need my support, only to drop me the first chance they get. I don't need sweet talk to distract me from the knife at my back. I don't need someone promising the world just so they can get a boost up.

<snip>

For people like this, you stop being an enemy only as long as you can deliver something they want. Unless you toe the line, you have no value in their eyes. And since you are not really human, they are not bound by their promises to you. Give them what they want and they will go away for a while. Don't give them anything, and they will try to find a way to take more from you without your consent.

I don't think that Sarah Palin is going to be the answer. I'd be worried if there were ANYONE who was the answer. Looking closer at her record, there's a lot to worry about for a libertarian Pagan who believes in sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. Not to mention the free market. There's something from my email, authenticated by Snopes. I won't post it here (it's bloody long), but I do encourage you to go read it.

So what's the rest of the reason I am voting for Palin?

Because the Republicans are invoking the myth, and there is just enough truth in it to shatter the system. I'm not the only one to think so.

But this latest fight commences on a new and wilder battlefield. The old combatants were old school gentlemen, Eric Sevareid and Walter Cronkite; the new combatants are half-crazy cable anchors, the lower lurkers of the Internet, and the anonymous posters on the comment thread on the radical website.

This new war on new turf is not good, and carries the potential of great harm. Everyone really ought to stop, breathe deep, and think.

I am worried they won't. A friend IM'd the day after Palin's speech, and I told him of an inexplicable sense of foreboding. He surprised me by saying he shared it. "Calling all underworlds reporting for duty!," he wrote. "The bed is about to fly around the room, the puke is about to come out." He meant: this campaign is going to engage unseen powers and forces. He meant: this campaign, this beautiful golden thing with two admirable men at the top and two admirable vice presidential candidates, is going to turn dark.

The author doesn't know how right he is. There hasn't been an "everyone" candidate like this since Harry Truman. Any politico can tell you that the real danger with "everyone" candidates is that well, everyone starts thinking they can run and win. And the system can't hold them ALL back.

I demand liberty. I want the free market. I want government held at bay by KYFHO. And Sarah Palin is a honest-to-gods wedge that is going to rip the case off the system.

It won't be just her issues on the table, it will be all of them. The whole tangled mess will be there for anyone to see. It's inevitable. While the politicos run around propping up that bit, slapping a bit of paint on this bit, and trying to distract you, the collapse moves closer just because of the issues that Palin raises. Gun control. Abortion. Medical care. It's all there.

That is why I am voting for Sarah Palin. Not because I expect her to solve the problems, but because I expect her to expose some of them.

I expect people to get involved in government, if for no other reason than to disable it. I expect the demand for freedom to grow beyond control.

I expect the centralized state to fall.

_____
Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sat - September 6, 2008 at 01:48 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2010 All Rights Reserved