Thursday, January 03, 2008

Thompson Wins Iowa!

Well, sorta. Huckabee got 34% (so far), Romney 25%, and Thompson + McCain + Paul + Giuliani 41%. Now if all the fine folks currently supporting that batch of candidates would throw in the Thompson, I think we'd get a mighty fine president. He's leading that pack, and nobody really wants McCain, so how about we take one for the team and vote Thompson?


Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

I won the Texas Lottery last Wednesday. Well, sorta. I would have won it if only I'd had the other five numbers right.

But tell me why, given a choice between a Baptist minister and a TV actor who both want to be president, I should choose one actor over the other.

1/04/2008 9:38 AM  
Blogger carnaby said...

The actor actually has experience in foreign affairs and national security. He's an actor after the fact, and untrained at that. Huckabee is coming across to me as a dick. I like his views on gun-rights, but that's about as far as it goes. He does seem to be too much of a big-government type, and not a true conservative. I'm echoing Kim du Toit on this.

1/04/2008 10:34 AM  
Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

I could name a small-government guy who says that he actually wants to restore the Constitution, but nah! What would be the point?

My primary issue is illegal immigration. If we don't halt the invasion, our country will soon be indistinguishable from Mexico. Both Thompson and Huckabee are talking tough on illegal immigration at the moment, though I'm not sure of either's sincerity. Neither has said anything about abolishing birthright citizenship for children of illegals born in this country. I could name a small-government guy who says that he wants to abolsh birthright citizenship, but nah! What would be the point?

For a history of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, read this.

1/04/2008 11:57 AM  
Blogger carnaby said...

Exactly, he won't win. There is some small point in talking about him, but he won't win, so you have to pick the next best or least worst candidate. Sad but true.

1/04/2008 12:24 PM  
Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

It's still early. The Texas primary isn't till March 5, a whole month after Super Tuesday. It'll be interesting to see who's still on the ballot then. The best available candidate then might be Huckabee.

Got any specific evidence that Huckabee is a big government, nanny state type? I only ask because we might be stuck with him.

Judging by the issues page on Huckabee's web site, he seems preferable to any Democrat. His "Fair Tax" scheme does seem a little goofy. I don't see how he's going to send out monthly rebates without a system at least complex and annoying as the one we have now, and I fear that we'll have both a sales tax and an income tax if the 16th Amendment isn't repealed. Other than that, I don't see anything that I'd associate with the phrase nanny state.

1/04/2008 2:01 PM  
Blogger carnaby said...

Hmmm, his policy page looks pretty good, except for the abortion thing. While I loath the practice, I think it should still be legal. Being born to a mother who doesn't love you seems worse than dying an emotionally painless death.

I am against late-term abortion, of course. That practice is over the top and morally indefensible.

1/04/2008 4:03 PM  
Anonymous Libertarian Girl said...

I'd take Thompson over the rest of them any day, except Ron Paul. Thompson just seems less harmful than the others. Ron Paul has beat him in a few states, though, (with a lot less name recognition) and has tons more money for Super Tuesday advertising.

Huckabee is the definition of a nanny stater. He's said before that there should be a national smoking ban and that businesses should be involved in helping their employees get healthy (which would, if enacted, of course mean that people who were not healthy would have a harder time finding jobs!) He's big on telling kids what to eat in schools so that they're not obese, which is fine for a local mayor or someone, but the president? Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson releasing documents on what people should have their children eat in, let's say, New Jersey?

1/21/2008 10:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Testing ...

<< Home