Saturday, January 21, 2012


Paul, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum.  Four!  Easy to keep track in your head.

Of those?  Which would I choose.  Gah!  Hard to vote for any of the four.  

Which is worst for second amendment issues?

Worst is Paul, methinks.  He'd eliminate all Federal Laws, which he can't (idiocy), and send it to the states, ignoring the 14th and 2nd Amendments and his duty as president to both.  He's said the Federal Government should take no part in gun laws.  Fine.  That I like.  But he'd also do nothing about what states pass, it not being the Federal government's job, in his eyes, to stick its nose in that either.  A bunch of states would pass draconian anti-gun stuff.  There would be roadblocks on rt 81 between Virginia and Pennsylvania, and lots of out of staters would go to MD jail.  "C'mon vote for Paul, TBolt.  It'll be a fun four years."  No.  No it won't.  I'd campaign for and vote for Obama ahead of Paul.  For this and many other issues.  He's all for people being armed but he'd kill the right in his ineffectual ignorance.  Wish his son was most seasoned and running in his place.

Next worst is Romney.  Mr. Assault Weapons Ban his own self.  A choice between a statist liberal Democrat that hates individual freedom and Obama?  I'll vote lower down the ticket and leave the top blank.

Santorum?  Joke.  Sorry pal, you are forever a sex-act residue.  Plus your primary purpose in life is "Go Team Jesus" and you concentrate on gonadal politics too much.  Smaller gov't, less taxes, controlled borders, punched hippies, fewer regulations... THEN consider the social issues.  I really don't give a hang for what you care oh so deeply about.

Newt?  Talks the best game on the 2nd Amendment, but I know Newt.  When he is good he is very very good and when he is bad he is horrid.  And you never know which Newt you will get, day to day, minute to minute.   

Perry was best on the 2nd Amendment, but bad on everything else aside from being Governor of the largest and most successful state in the Union.  (I don't count california anymore until is creeps back into 'not a basket case' territory.)  And Perry is gone.

Gah.  Where is Fred Thompson when you need him?

But I think Bore Patch is right, even with the MSM in his corner working his campaign Obama could be beaten by Mussolini's corpse, dodge Italian birth certificate and all.  Even that whole "being dead 66 years" thing.  But just because Mussolini's corpse can beat Obama doesn't mean we need to RUN Mussolini's corpse against him.  And yet, the GOP is.  Yay.

My prediction?  Romney takes the Oath in January.  Not happy about it.


Tam said...

"He'd eliminate all Federal Laws, which he can't (idiocy), and send it to the states..."

I don't mean to be harshing on you, but what "Federal Laws" are restraining states from passing draconian antigun legislation, and how would a president unilaterally strike them down? I mean, you castigate Paul for "ineffectual ignorance" a few sentences later, so I'm sure you can clarify just what would happen under a hypothetical President Paul?


New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

Under a hypothetical Pres Paul, well, he can't rescind federal laws, naturally. That's just a applause getter. So what can he do? Well, he could not enforce the laws that are there (which is also attractive in some ways) but also not do a thing about it if Maryland went all "We're gonna ignore the 1st 2nd and 4th Amendments now." RP: "That's nice. Not the Feds job to ride herd on you. Go with God or what have you."

Ok, an exaggeration. But I don't trust Paul to do the enforcement of Constitutional law. There is plenty of good stuff Gunnies and ostensible Libertarians and Conservatives LIKE the Feds enforcing. And we forget those vital things at our peril.

I LIKE it when the Feds strike down some State level violation of the 5th Amendment. To me, that is them doing the actual part of their job they should be doing. Throw Dept of Education money at stuff like that.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

A big problem I have with Paul is that he never thinks beyond that First Stage.

People: "There is serious concerns with how the Federal Reserve does its job."

RP: "We'll switch back to the gold standard"

People: "How? More importantly, and THEN what?"

RP: blink blink "That's it."

People: "What of all the problems a gold standard brings with it?"

RP: blink blink

People: "You haven't thought that far ahead have you?"

Ratus said...

Tbolt two things.

One "...if Maryland went all "We're gonna ignore the 1st 2nd and 4th Amendments now." Umm, how would that be any different from now.

And two, the P&I clause of the 14th Amendment.

Come on Tbolt, let the wookie win.

Tam said...

When has threat of federal enforcement of... well, I'm not sure what law... ever stopped a state from passing a gun law?

There are a ton of reasons to not like The Wookie as prez, but I can't think of a single realistic one on 2A grounds.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

The Gormogons put it better than I can. I was probably channelling that post in this one, though I didn't refer directly to it in composing this one. Heck I couldn't remember who did that post until just now.

And don't get my wrong, if I was making Frankencandidate from the corpses of various GOP hopefuls past and present there would be a lot of Paul in my Monster. It's his quantity of unnacceptables that disqualifies him in my lights.

Crotalus (Don't Tread on Me) said...

I think Romney will win the nomination, and then we'll have another four years of Obama, no matter who wins that one.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Long way to November. I'm not worrying about who shows up for the Ohio Primary for another month. Don't know when Maryland has its Primary, but I'd wait a week prior to voting before I'd start getting agitated. Cuts down on the ulcers, you know.

Of course, I could say something about someone telling a bunch of us up on the NorthCoast here last Labor Day about how great it is when Perry becomes President, but I won't name names.