Fast Running Blog

Feel free to explain the reasons you voted for your candidate in a follow-up post.

Although I would have preferred Romney to McCain as the Republican candidate, I still voted for McCain becauswe a) he is the best choice to me when it comes to foreign policy, b) hopefully he will be smart enough to surround himself with people who know more about the economy than he does, c) I would prefer the judges he would select to those Obama would select, d) Obama's views on the economy (particularly the socialistic views) scare me - I think we are going to see a worse economic collapse if Obama starts to try to implement some of his plans, e) Obama's voting record in the senate is the *most* liberal of all the democratic senators, f) Obama is pro-abortion rights, g) McCain is in favor of cutting spending in Washington, while Obama's solution is to increase taxes.  There may be other reasons, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. 

James - note the wording of the question - if your vote decided the elections single-handedly. In other words,  if you like somebody else better, the argument "he cannot win" is not valid. If you vote for him, he wins by definition.

I'm voting for Baldwin. While I certainly don't agree with 100% of his platform, I agree with enough of the things that are important to me.

Some bullets from his flier that resound with my values (yes, you should vote with your values, and not out of fear)

*Stop the undeclared wars which are daily costing American lives and billions of tax dollars
*End America's dependence on foreign oil
*Stop reckless spending, including foreign aid, and take care of America's domestic needs
*End debt financing of the federal government (Baldwin was against the $700billion bailout)
*Get rid of the Federal income tax, and restore a tariff-based revenue system
*Protect the right to life of the innocent unborn and the elderly
*Restore a debt-free, interest-free money system

Other key platform points I disagree with or don't care about, but I figure 75% isn't bad.

http://baldwin08.com/files/2008%20NATIONAL%20CAMPAIGN%20FLYER%20INDISE.pdf

To be honest, I think Obama is a good man, with virtuous goals. I just disagee with much of his core philosophies on how to accomplish those goals. I like aspects of McCain as well, but am afraid we'll just get another Bush out of him. And obviously I want someone who is fiscally conservative, and neither of these guys fit that bill.

I believe that Obama is the one who will actually gather people with expertise and diverse opinions and listen to them and then make informed decisions rather than just "going with his gut" as Bush has done time and time again and as I believe McCain is likely to do. I think that McCain's choice of Palin shows poor decision making.

I think that McCain has run a campaign of hatred and divisiveness. I believe that Obama has the skills and temperament to unite this country.

I honestly don't wont to vote for anyone. I think we need to prepare ourselves for whatever drama Obama is going to bring. Most likely our brain washed nation is going to vote him in and it could get ugly. Don't think I want him because I sure don't... 

Clyde:

Go out and vote for whoever represents your values best. It beats staying home. Speaking from the perspective of someone who has experienced an attempt of getting my right to vote taken away with tanks, I would say the right to own a gun nowadays  is not as important as the right to vote. Use it. Believe in the power of one.

Regarding Obama:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html

While the blog is definitely anti-Obama biased, I believe it does a thorough job presenting the facts. He did vote for letting an infant that survived an abortion be left to die.

McCain: cheated on his crippled wife, left her to marry a mistress. Conducted a bitter negative campaign. Disqualified.

Chuck Baldwin - maybe a bit extreme, idealistic, out of touch with reality, and has no chance of winning, but at least he has solid values, and he's got a lot of things right. So this time I'll vote for him.

 

I'm not ashamed to say I voted for Obama. As for the whole abortion issue. It should be a woman's right to choose. If you overturn Roe v. Wade you essentially say "Hey if you are a woman and you are raped and you happen to conceive a child, you are forced to carry that reminder of that horrific event the full 9 months. Sorry!" Um, I think not! Thankfully it looks like Barack will ROCK the VOTE and we don't have to worry about McCain in office. A lot of Chuck Baldwin's platform appeals to me, minus the abortion issue. There is no clause there that says what would happen in that case. Anyone who would force a woman that had been raped and become pregnant to carry the baby full term is messed up! Plus, with the world becoming overcrowded and with so many young people being so selfish and self-centered, maybe its not a bad thing if they do not get pregnant in the first place.

On the whole abortion/sex issue. I find it funny that people kind of gloss over the fact that ever since its creation Catholics in the U.S> have been some of the biggest users as a population of birth control.. and most see nothing wrong with this. (All the while the Vatican takes a firm stance against any kind of birth control) Hmm...

Oh and as for Obama's "lack of experience", if it's something I've seen, the longer you are in "the system" the more you are corrupted by it. It's time for change. The time is now. And it's time for someone willing to represent ME! :-D
/me sits back and waits for the conservative pies to fly! haha

Chuck Baldwin.  Same reasons as Paul.

Go Chuck Go! There is hope for you...at least on this blog...

Won't cast vote on web site (I'm not american). But I can see you sort of have the same problem I had a couple of years ago with our presidential elections: I could no decide which was least worst!

I'm very conservative, so I will vote for McCain--although I am not enamored of him.  I agree with Obama on very few issues.  I am not very familiar with Chuck Baldwin.  I am mad at both candidates for supporting this ridiculous bailout.  This election, for me, is about choosing the lesser of the two evils.

April:

I was in your exact same situation a couple of days ago. Then I decided to see if there was a better choice than McCain, and studied several other candidates. Prior to that time I had not even heard of Chuck Baldwin just like you. This goes to show how hard it is for a non-major party candidate to get any publicity. But hopefully with the appearance of blogs and people spending more time on the computer and less in front of TV that is going to change, and I must admit I feel excited to contribute my small share to that change.

Interestingly enough, 4 people with a marathon win on their resume have cast their votes for Chuck in this poll. I'd love to see something like this:

Marathon Winners for Chuck!

I voted two weeks ago by absentee ballot (for Obama), and I was not familiar with any of the other candidates in Sasha's poll. It's not that I like Obama so much, but he seems a better choice compared with McCain and especially, Palin. Palin just plain scares me, I think she really hurt McCain's campaign. Obama looks like he has enough brains to at least pick a good team of advisers in areas he has no experience in, and listen to them. He seems like a thoughtful guy, and not a rash and erratic desicion maker like McCain. Regarding negative campaigning they both engage in - it's politics, and sadly, I didn't expect any different. And as for our nation being brain washed, as Clyde noted, I think the nation demonstrated its degree of brain washing 4 years ago, when majority elected Bush for the second term. I'm also interested to see the results of the real election compared to the polls. It may be a lot closer - how many people do not want to go on record being racist, but would vote differently behind the curtain of an election booth?

I just broke the tie!  My vote does count!  Actually that is what I try to instill in my gov classes everyday (I don't care who they vote for, or what their ideas are, just as long as they study up on the issues and find someone to represent them). 
Obama - to socialistic, but America already is socialist in SO many ways
McCain - 4 more years of Bush!  NO!
give me: fiscally conservative, willing to see all sides of the issues, not worried about re-election, pro-America, strong values similar to mine - give JAMES K. POLK!  (okay maybe not, but that might be as close as some one has been).

Barack's going to ROCK THE VOTE TOMORROW :)! Woot! Go boy go! McCain will be at home by 4 oclock getting ready for bed. :)

STOP THE DRAMA, Vote Obama! :-D  Already cast my ballot this morning @ 7:30 am ! woot! Here is a link that everyone should watch.. my bros did an Obama Rap on youtube!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BztlwOmhGOY

Good luck to all on todays election!

May the best man win (and God help us while he is president).

FYI everyone on the poll but Chuck Baldwin was on NY Ballot. Wonder why? Not enough signatures or something?

I voted for Baldwin.  Same basic reasons as Paul. I think we need to get back to Constitutional principles before we can make any real progress.  Can't stand the two main ones but oh well.  Obama scares the h-e-double toothpicks out of me, McCain is just another Bush, and I'm not about to vote for Nader or any of the other platforms.   Oh well...there's always next time.  I guess I'll have to make do with Obama.

A good way to think about it. I didn't vote for Obama, but will wish him well and pray for him. He will have a lot of hard decisions to make. If Obama ends up being a "good president", that will only mean good things for our country, and who doesn't want that? But another important reminder is that the president (whoever he/she is) will NOT solve all our problems and turn things around for us if we are in the dumps. That is our own job. We as individuals have the power to help ourselves, and we have the freedom (and responsibility) to help others worse off than ourselves. If Obama does not encompass your values, consider donating time and/or money to a non-profit that DOES encompass your values.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Paul - great thoughts. Many of us on the blog donate quite a bit of time and money to a non-profit that represents our values very well - our church.

Interesting to read this thread nearly three years later.  So, given the chance, would any of you change your vote if you could go back?  What do you think about the candidates that are officially in the mix so far for the 2012 elections?  If the 2012 election were held today, who would you vote for?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/pChzOaIeyxY

Only one answer for me.

http://nation.foxnews.com/rosanne-barr/2011/08/04/roseanne-barr-running-president

Only answer for me.  ;)

I think a Paul/Barr ticket would really be the bees knees.

Fun facts about Ron Paul  ;D

1. Favors closing all U.S. military bases overseas.That way the Somali pirates can control the world's sea lanes!
2. Opposed measures to end the genocide in Darfur - only member of congress to do so.
3. Wants to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.
4. Would not have ordered the raid that killed Bin Laden.
5. Would eliminate the federal departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
6. Only member of congress to vote against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa, Rosa Parks, and Charles M. Schultz. That's right, he hates Snoopy!
7. Favors the legalization of prostitution calling it a "victimless crime".
8. Opposes the federal Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.Calls them violations of private property rights.
9. Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I guess that's whay you don't see many black Ron Paul supporters.
10. Views the establishment of national parks as a violation of state's rights. Say goodby to Yellowstone! Man, wouldn't some pricy condos look great ringing Old Faitful?

But he would keep taxes low!

 ;D yup to all- sounds great!

Rob, I do not agree in entirety concerning Ron Paul, However to be fair he did say that he WAS IN FAVOR of repealing Jim Crow laws.  And though it was rather extreme for him to state that he opposed the Civil Rights act, he also explained that his reasoning for thus was that it violated private property rights and it put too much power in the hands of the federal government concerning hiring practices and commerce etc.  I could also explain the logic and reasoning behind all of the other things you have listed but I don't have time right now.  Bottom line is this;  NO MORE EXPANSION OF BIG GOVERNMENT! WE CAN NOT AFFORD IT PERIOD..

Agreed. 

And I second Steve's comment.  The sensational-sounding position without the reasoning behind it is only half the story, and when taken at face value doesn't necessarily paint a good picture of what his philosophy really is.  The same is probably true for most candidates to one degree or another, regardless of their position on the political spectrum.  He makes some compelling arguments for those positions, most of which I agree with.  This is why it is important to take a minute to get educated about the candidates outside of the sound bites you get on the nightly news, no matter who you end up voting for.  It's an eye opening experience to actually talk to a candidate or public servant in person, if possible, before making a concrete decision.

One thing I respect about Ron Paul is that there is no double-talk about him, and that's a rare thing for a Congressman of any party.  He votes as one would predict him to, and does so based on principle rather than what he stands to gain or lose politically.  I happen to agree with the lion's share of his principles, so between that and his consistency he's got my vote by a mile over anyone else so far. 

I get what you guys are saying. These are very uncertain times and the world is more and more complicated all the time. People like Ron Paul who provide a clear, consistent, simple message can be very appealing.

If you look back over American history you can find lots of people like Ron Paul that emerge during crisis times. They attract a small group of fervent supporters and they are great at bringing attention to important questions - but they never attract majorities or get elected president.

And, yes, Ron Paul does always vote on principle. Unfortunately, many of those principles are flawed in my opinion. He speaks a lot about the Constitution and constitutional principles, but I think he has many basic misunderstandings about that document.

I would still have voted for Chuck Baldwin because there was nobody else to vote for with clean record. McCain had adultery on his, Obama supported abortion. This time around the Republican field looks better. It is very likely that I will vote Republican rather than independent. If Democracts got rid of promoting immorality and indolence, I would be happy voting for a Democrat. I do firmly believe in helping the poor, but I also believe in teaching the poor to help themselves with some common sense involved.

I do think that we would do well if we got rid of the Department of Education in its current form, and instead took measures to encourage and enable parents to teach their children. Schooling affects where the child will end up maybe 10%. The rest comes from the home. The two drivers of success in a career are aptitude and work ethic. Both are learned best at home by working together with mom and dad.

I would be interested to see a new comment for this next election, although the field isn't exactly set in stone yet. What are people's opinions? Especially those who may have voted for Pres. Obama. Has been been what you expected? Any ideas heading forward with another year to go?

Sasha, those are all interesting points. But what about the majority of American children who grow up in single parent households with a mom who works a full time job? What about the tens of millions of children who have educationally deficient parents who aren't even close to being capable of providing anything beyond the most basic education?

I'm pretty sure we are going to need a public education for those kids. Unless you are willing to claim that society has no responsibility towards them and no vested interest in educating them.

And I would add - social skills.  One of the most important elements of a well-rounded education that prepares the majority (there are some careers where these skills are needed less or not at all) for a successful life and career.

Some more food for thought in a few great articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-anderson/i-voted-for-obama-now-im-_b_944097.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html

Rob:

This reminds me of an experience I had consulting for one business when I worked at Percona. One of our consultants suggested a very reasonable change in the server server setting which was implemented. They came back with complaint that a query that used to take 40 minutes now took 6 hours. I looked at the query and it was obvious that with a couple of trivial changes it would run much faster. The changes were implemented and it ran in 10 seconds.

The server setting change was like the Department of Education. Getting rid of it made things worse, you could argue, but in the end it took the performance to a different plane because it made what was inherently broken intolerable and we addressed it.

Something like this is actually a common experience. We have low expectations and depend on things that are fundamentally broken. This is  because we lack the faith to move forward and get it done right.

I believe public education is necessary in some form, but not in the form it exists today. It is, in essence, tax-payer funded babysitting. It is a soft cushion that temporarily mitigates the hard hit from the deeper problems - broken families, and unwillingness and/or inability of the parents to be in charge of teaching their children.

It should be a tool for the parents to enable them to teach the children instead. There is a way to make it work. It will require a paradigm shift coupled with some ingenuity. For example, we currently "help" struggling families by giving them free handouts. What if we did something creative? If the parents do not know enough teach the children, teach the parents along with the children. If the parents know how to teach, but do not have the time, set up a system of incentives so that employers will give the parents the time to teach the children.
Be creative, think out of the box, and you get much better results.

I usually stay as far away from politics and sociology as possible, but since my wife is currently going back to school for her teaching degree I felt the urge to jump in here.

I think it is a bit shallow minded and arrogant to think that a child can have a full well rounded education only from the parents, such a system only limits the child to the knowledge and experiences of the individual parent.   I agree that it is the parents responsibility to teach a child fundamentals and core values, if the parent happens to have a particular talent that they are able to extend to the child all the better. 

The last time I checked, my tax dollars go to a lot more than baby sitting services. The facilities, the library system, the huge collaborate of technologies, and pool of knowledge from our educators is priceless.

I am having a hard time understanding why someone with such strong ties to the church would feel this way about public education.  I respect the church and every month in-trust them to make the most of 10% of my income, with this commitment I realize that I receive facilities to congregate and teach my children, provide manuals that standardize on the teachings, and all of the other blessings, and benefits of being a member of the church. 
My wife is the primary president of arguably one of the largest primaries in the entire church (200 children)  I have had the opportunity to teach my fair share of primary lessons and I tell you, that doesn’t even qualify as “glorified” baby sitting.  My only point is that, sure there are flaws in every system, sure it is probably mostly due to the inadequacies of the people, if we could write a script that could force every person to think and act in accordance with the best practice of our society everything would work much better, but I’m sure no one, even within the church where the teachings are documented to absolute specifics would say this is possible.  There is always room for interpretation and human error.

And just for clarification for anyone outside of Utah, when I say “the church” it’s not Catholic.

Oh!  I don’t know who I’d vote for yet