The Hines-endorsed Republican candidate

[hradzka]

I figure I'll do a few political posts from time to time this election year, just so all my lefty buddies in these parts know what the righties are thinking.

At the moment, there's considerable unhappiness with the candidates left. Mitt Romney has an accomplished resume and knows how to sort out problems, but he will literally say *anything* to get elected and conservatives don't trust him. Santorum has a consistent ideology, with which I strongly disagree; even people more socially conservative than I am dislike the fact that he has no compunctions about using gov power to compel his ends, rather than leave folks alone. Ron Paul, who's rumored to be suborning Romney delegates to vote for him on their *second* ballot, has ridiculous foreign policy ideas and has no compunctions against sidling up to lunacy if the lunatics'll give him money. And Gingrich, while The Smartest Guy in the Race, is unfortunately a narcissist.

Lots of folks are grumbling about a brokered convention. But who would step forward? Discontented righties have discussed it, and we think we've got a winner. Here, folks, is my chosen candidate for 2012.



Call me crazy, but I think this guy has a real crossover appeal.

Comments

[nicki]

My condolences? Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him? :P

IMO the Republican party is a victim of ideologues. Reality won't survive the level of ideology required by the current Republican party so you are either going to get stuck with lying realists or really really extreme big-government conservatives and neither of those is going to be particularly comfortable to anyone who isn't a really really extreme conservative or a liar.

(I had a whole thing on why the current Republican party is also having increasing trouble with women voters, but it's your journal so I'm not going to subject you to my rant on that topic)

[hradzka]

This is a pretty common lefty perspective, but it gets the Republican party completely wrong. There are a bunch of different stripes of ideologues in the Republican party, and they are in a similar boat to the ones in the Democratic camp: they feel like they're not being sufficiently listened to. The social cons and evangelicals like Rick Santorum, but the libertarian Republicans *hate* him beyond all belief.

Curiously, I'd thought the most electable Republican in the race was Perry. This is mostly because I agreed with the folks who wanted to run Perry's jobs record in campaign commercials, over and over and over. And what happened? Perry ran a famously ideological commercial (oh noes, gays in our military and no prayer in our schools), and he *flamed out.* Nobody voted for him.

(Of course, it didn't help that he had major back surgery and decided to go on with the campaign rather than wait to recover. Oxycontin's a hell of a drug; I figure a lot of Perry's flops and flubs, including that famous YouTube video of him slurring incoherently, can be chalked up the fact that he was *high as balls.*)

[nicki]

I have to admit that I don't generally consider the liberterian side of things because there hasn't been a legitimately serious libertarian candidate in a very long time (several decades? nearly a century? Ever (depending on your viewpoint?) and the Republican party I've spend the most time around is the Rick Santorum end (all those Colorado votes for Santorum? A significant number of them belonged to my semi-immediate family members.)

I would have guessed that Perry would have done well, but, yeah, his public appearances were not impressive. I do like the number of debates this year though. I think it gives a more much reality-based view of the candidates than usual commercials and gladhanding.

[hradzka]

I think this is a little like not considering the hard-left side of things because Dennis Kucinich never gets anywhere. Most of the Repubs I know are more on the libertarian side, and that strain has some surprising strengths in mainstream conservative thought. This is roughly where I'd put myself, but I find myself surprised to be considering more socially conservative angles as I get older.

I really wish the Gingrich-v-Cain debate model between just two candidates had caught on. Also, I wish Republicans would hold a debate with moderators who would ask about things that conservatives want to actually know about, rather than wasting time on gotcha questions, but there's a reason we're called the Stupid Party.

[cofax7]

::cackles::

It is somewhat reassuring that even a meteor of death is preferable to Rick “I get to say what you do with your private parts” Santorum…

[hradzka]

It was SMOD or Medically Induced Coma, and she didn't seem like an active enough candidate for me. I want a DOER.

[jadey]

So is the Canada Party even an option? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrhA0sEkuaM Maybe in 2016, if we survive that long.

[hradzka]

We can compromise! I would totally vote for a president who promised to facilitate emigration to Canada for all the folks who keep threatening to go.

[jadey]

Excellent! We need to strengthen our population presence in the Arctic region anyway. I'm sure they'll settle in nicely.

[foursweatervests]

I was going to vote for him, because I love his consistency across the issues. But my one problem is: camera appeal. He just hasn't got it! Always zooming across the screen, never pausing for a decent photo op. I barely know what the guy looks like. How do I know some other SMOD isn't going to take his place and claim to be the SMOD we all love and cherish, and then turn right around and not do the job we voted the real SMOD into? It's so confusing, when you're voting for a candidate you'll never see in person (at least until the time of your untimely death).

[hradzka]

Look, I know where you're coming from. But consider the last four years: we have had the most glamorous, photogenic President and First Family since JFK. What has it gotten us? An unemployment stat that only goes up when people give up on even trying to be part of the work force. Taxpayer dollars going to crony capitalism. Pricey new entitlements when we can't afford the ones we'd already had. SMOD says, enough of that. He's making a clean break from our failed celebrity politics. He doesn't have camera presence, because he doesn't need it. SMOD isn't about charisma. He's about *results.* Obama gets his photos reblogged on tumblr. SMOD will *destroy* tumblr, and everything else on the planet. *That* is the kind of president we need in this day and age.

My only concern is that SMOD is currently untested. He's kind of a one-shot deal. But I've looked at his numbers and done a little back-of-the-envelope figuring, and let me tell you, *I am impressed.* Even if he goes to pieces in the endgame, the conversion of that much mass into energy spells global firestorm. I hear SMOD's people are focus-grouping that possibility even now, and I can tell you that at least in the forums I frequent, there's a lot of enthusiasm for what they're calling the "E equals Em Cee Square Deal."

[foursweatervests]

What's your response to the rumors that SMOD doesn't actually stand for Sweet Meteor of Death, but instead, Small Meteor of (minor) Disasters? I don't claim to know much about politics, but I do know that if he's not who he claims to be, this could ruin his entire platform. Not to mention acronym. SMO(M)D? It sounds like someone's mother S'mored them. And that, my friend, spells campaign death. Not literally, of course, but...you catch my drift.

[hradzka]

I say Mitt Romney's oppo team has been doing great work, DAMN THEIR EYES.

[foursweatervests]

They are hard workers, indeed.