The Case for Crusading (and Debate Inclusion)

The website of presidential candidate Gov Gary Johnson, his supporters (which includes myself), and the back pages of many news sources, are up in a flutter over Johnson’s exclusion in the upcoming debate hosted by CNN (along with the New Hampshire Union Leader and WMUR-TV).  As you might have guessed, the utterance “mother fuckers” (two words because that adds even more punctuation) came unbidden to my lips when I first saw it hit Twitter (via Gary Johnson and no one else).  It sucks, but it’s done.

For a good article on this, the Atlantic got it right.

This reminds me of some of my more vehement comments over on Mike’s America, where the highlighted candidates were mainly establishment types, personified most futilely by the manufactured RINO, Mitt “the clit” “the piece of shit” “the pierced monkey tit” Romney.  The argument was between candidates that represented clear conservative values versus the one most likely to win.  I don’t think I really need to get into which side I’m on in this one, considering my top 3 candidates are Gary Johnson (least likely to win), Ron Paul (popular, but despised by the establishment), and Herman Cain (most likely but still second tier).

Speaking of the establishment, THIS is the real problem with the GOP.  Now I expect some inbreeding, pushing candidates that the party has molded for decades, and picking “safe” candidates that don’t show a tendency to shun the party orthodoxy and stir some shit.  But this isn’t some race for a safe GOP congressional district where a safe candidate can be expected to play along and vote the party line and occasionally show a hint of independence in exchange for a favor.  This is for the effective leader of the party, someone who has to embody the direction the party needs to go.  It also needs a leader, not a default.  That’s how we got utterly fucked with the McCain nightmare.

While there may be candidates that may appear to be wastes of time in debates because “they have no chance,” the secondary purpose of these candidates is to give the party clear choices, not just a “next Reagan” beauty contest.  And that means having candidates who will challenge the orthodoxy of perpetual war and deployment, question the sanity of the failed war on drugs, examine how much freedom we’ve given up for the “security” of TSA screenings and the Patriot Act, challenge the mistakes made by the party in the past (especially the spending orgy of the Bush/Obama years), and make actual bold steps (rather than whiny resolutions) to force action in an undeclared and unapproved war (Libya).

This means letting in fringe candidates who will probably not win, and championing causes that may be lost.  For if we wait until this time next year to question and challenge the establishment candidates, all we’ll end up with is the same shit we had last time. Four years of Che Obama.


About patrickmspeaks

Father, tech-head, political sage, and the Illustrious One of (little) 3x2 fame, I have been blogging for a few years now, and want to stretch in new directions, discover new things, and redefine redefining just for the fun of it. Nonetheless, having produced a pointless paragraph about me, I'll stop before something bursts.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Case for Crusading (and Debate Inclusion)

  1. Toad734 says:

    Che Obama?? Is that supposed to be a joke…I don’t think he could be more centrist. Aside from health care, what has Obama really done different than Bush…Ok, Bush sucked but still.

    And would you really vote for Ron Paul? You realize his stance would be get out of and never look back on all our wars for oil and Empire…Conservatives don’t generally like to talk about fiscal responsibility when it comes to our Empire.

    • Yeah, Che Obama is a cheap shot. I thought it was funny. As for him being a centrist, that’s only if you look at the center from the extreme left. I’m on the other extreme.

      And yes, if you haven’t been following my evolution of reasoning, I do have some concerns on the fact that we’re staying way too long in large conflicts and doing too much nation building. Still, Paul is still a little extreme for me on that count. What pushed me onto the Paul train was the domestic issues, primarily that of big government “conservatives.” A perfect example of that would be the continuity of overspending we’ve seen in the Bush/Obama years (which is where you see centrist in the Obamaverse).

Comments are closed.