If the presidential election were held tomorrow, I would vote for Ralph Wiggum (I-Springfield) . I do not expect him to win, and if he does win, I do not know how the Supreme Court would rule on the constitutionality of an animated character holding elected office.
But practicality does not change the primary reason for the vote: None Of The Above is not a choice on my ballot.
I consider myself a little “l” Libertarian. I believe in personal responsibility and minimal government interference in personal lives. That said, there are some positions where personal character takes precedence over agreeing with my policy views. I want a president who I believe has good instincts for deciding the issues that haven't yet appeared.
'Change' has become a popular word during the campaign so far. All the mainstream candidates seem to agree that change is good.
Despite the attraction of fiscal conservatism, the social nanny-statism of the Republican candidates is too much to take. While crying out for change, they seem to be racing to capture the evangelical vote to the exclusion of all others and in co-opting whatever goodwill President Bush has left by ratifying his most egregious mistakes.
Change appears to be nothing but a word about reprinting the letterhead to reflect a new regime, not a change in policy or direction.
The Democratic candidates talk about change too. I have no doubt there would be change, at least in rhetoric, under a democratic administration. The two frontrunners as reported in national polls - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - have conspicuous gaps in their careers as far as actually attempting to implement change. One notable example in my opinion is the issue involving the military's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy regarding homosexual service members. Both candidates claim to oppose the policy, yet neither has introduced legislation to repeal the policy in the Senate.
By voting for Mr. Wiggum, I know what I'm voting for. A caricature whose personality has been molded and crafted by groups over the years based on ratings and consumer feedback. A fictional entity with no pretense toward free will or independent decision-making ability. I'm voting for a cardboard cutout and if he wins I'll get a cardboard cutout for president. That might not be much different than what I'd get if I voted for one of the other candidates, but my cardboard cutout will be here by choice, not by pretense and market research.
By voting for Ralph, win or lose, I also get what I want, which is to say loud and clear to the Republican and Democratic parties that enough is enough. This country deserves real leaders who can honestly debate issues, and have worked during their public careers to honestly address issues. The United States does not deserve to have someone as president just because they've avoided being pinned down on the controversial issues of the day. That kind of track record does not lend itself toward honestly confronting controversial issues while in office and cannot earn my support.
Alma from San Diego
January 30, 2008 at 04:28 PM
There's something you say here that made absolute sense to me: "I want a president who I believe has good instincts for deciding the issues that haven't yet appeared." That rings so true for me too. We need someone who's leadership abilities and good instincts dominate any small ego-centered worldview that may have driven them toward a bid for the White House.
Ralph Wiggum is, at the very least, candid and direct in his responses. He just needs a good cabinet around him to guide him through the heady stuff.
Dave
from Oceanside
January 30, 2008 at 09:00 PM
As to chasing the God vote.. er.. the evangelical vote.. it is simple.. it isn't about issues.. it's about an election.. "W" proved that you can win with just the evangelical vote.. so that's what they are doing.
The Republicans know that the intellectuals of the country are overwhelmingly voting democratic.. the republicans must muster the NRA and evangelicals.. scare them enough to vote.. then, with luck, turn their backs on them in office... hmm.. that last bit is just a Democrat's hopeful thinking.
Dave
from Oceanside
January 30, 2008 at 09:05 PM
oh.. and regarding "don't ask.. don't tell".. it they (Obama/Clinton) want to be president they can't make a stand on homosexuality before they are elected.. it'll be hard enough for a woman or a black man (called much worse in many homes) .. hard enough for them to be elected without stirring up the morons that fear homosexuality.. ..hell.. those that fear all sexuality.. I think it's possible to win without the evangelicals.. but not if the evangelical vote thinks the next president will allow gays to.. (shudder) get a piece of paper that proves their relationship.. the horror... what's next? Allowing medical research to actually help people.. ..allowing others to be in charge of their bodies??
Nope.. Obama and Hillary need to stay muddy on the issue and trust that intelligent voters understand.
Chuck
from Escondido, CA
January 30, 2008 at 11:31 PM
But if a sitting senator hasn't given anything but lip service to an issue while in that office, and feels they can't actually act on an issue while running for election, why should any voter believe said senator will step up and actually act on that issue while sitting as president, which is coincidentally the same thing as running for reelection as president? I think an intelligent voter should assume said senator will never act on the issue, and take their campaign rhetoric as just more lip service.
Dave
from Oceanside
January 31, 2008 at 12:39 AM
...because there is a hellofa better chance of him doing it than McCain.
Dave
from Oceanside
January 31, 2008 at 12:46 AM
.. and how much lip service are any republicans giving gay rights?? any?? .. it's neandertal for this even to be an issue.. America is so uptight it isn't even funny... but then again.. you understand that better than most..
If one is gonna chose a candidate on these type of issues, I don't see how one can pick a candidate in a party that wants to pass laws to tell me who I can admit to sleeping with.. er.. who I can admit to not sleeping but sharing my bed in an affectionate manner with...
If that _is_ important to one.. they can't vote republican... That said.. one can assume that nothing will be done either way (a bad assumption with our current court) and use another issue as the touchstone.. economy.. war.. healthcare.. etc..
But if that one were me... lip service is a heckofalot better than homophobia.
petition
July 29, 2008 at 01:19 AM
Ralph Wiggum seems to be a pretty decent guy, not like the last one that was in there, that's for sure.
