Betsy Speicher

2008 Presidential Poll for September 2008

2008 Presidential Poll for September 2008   52 votes

  1. 1. If the 2008 Presidential Election were being held today, who would you vote for or support?

    • Bob Barr (L)
      1
    • John McCain (R)
      13
    • Ralph Nader (G)
      0
    • Barack Obama (D)
      1
    • Another candidate
      1
    • Would not vote
      7
  2. 2. Who would you NEVER vote for or support?

    • Bob Barr (L)
      12
    • John McCain (R)
      2
    • Ralph Nader (G)
      21
    • Barack Obama (D)
      17
  3. 3. Who do you think will win?

    • Bob Barr (L)
      0
    • John McCain (R)
      15
    • Ralph Nader (G)
      0
    • Barack Obama (D)
      8
    • Another candidate
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

13 posts in this topic

This topic will remain pinned and open for voting and comments until the end of September 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the conventions are over, and the race is right back where it was before it all started (tied according to the latest Rasmussen poll). Obama's still leading the Intrade predictions (57% chance of winning vs 41%), though it has narrowed a bit recently (since the Palin announcement). With slightly over 8 weeks to go, it promises to be a wild ride.

I'll still guess at this point that the advantage is Obama's. McCain has solidified his base, though Obama still has the advantage of the momentum that will give the Democrats solid majorities in Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My position is unchanged: McCain is terrible, but Obama is so much worse that in my opinion voting for McCain is not only justified, but necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My position is unchanged: McCain is terrible, but Obama is so much worse that in my opinion voting for McCain is not only justified, but necessary.

My position is still that both of these men are so evil that I cannot vote for either one.

McCain is a living advertisement against himself; he doesn't seem to be able to open his mouth without making an anti-capitalist remark. When I watched the Olympics, there were McCain ads in which he boasted about attacking the oil companies. (And then later on, not to be outdone, his running mate Palin bragged about "taking on" the oil companies in Alaska.)

Obama might be a second-handed chameleon like Peter Keating who just wants everybody to like him. Or, given his terrorist friends, he might be a dangerous leftist; I cannot tell which. I do see the danger of fundamentalist Christianity represented by the Republicans (all the more so given the popularity of Huckabee even after his remarks about the need to change the Constitution to make it in accord with Christianity; and given the complete failure of the only strong secular candidate they had, Giuliani), but the New Left has gotten so badly anti-Amreican that I do not see the Democrats as a rational alternative.

Both men are environmentalists; both will probably impose energy rationing. Both believe strongly that we should all sacrifice more.

McCain (and even more so Palin) would work to put more anti-abortion conservatives on the Supreme Court. Given that the justices most likely to retire next are liberals, a Republican presidency would end up making the Supreme Court majority anti-abortion, as well as favoring the gradual tearing down of church-state separation. (I hope the Democrats in the Senate can do something to prevent the Court from falling under control of religious conservatives.)

I can't tell which of these men would take the biggest step along the path to fascism. Obama might want to go further than McCain on some things, but the Republicans in Congress would probably oppose Obama vigorously, whereas I fear they'd give McCain whatever he wanted - I can't see many of the Republicans doing much to effectively stop a President of their own party.

There are all sorts of concretes one could focus on to attempt to prove that one of these candidates is worse than the other and so must be opposed; none of what I have read here or on other Objectivist venues has convinced me that either one is worth voting for. There is a limit to what kind of "lesser evil" I will vote for; both of these men crossed that limit long ago.

Whichever one wins will be one of the worst presidents in our history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will hold my nose and vote for McCain. But, living in California, it won't make a difference. When I first heard Obama I thought he might be tolerable. But, I now believe he could be as bad as FDR and I hope he loses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to vote, until I discovered this today:

Objectivist Party

Now there's finally someone I can vote for without feeling like I'm simply furthering our march toward enslavement under a totalitarian Socialist regime, even if it is merely a tiny, "third" party without any hope of winning the election.

Perhaps you could add this candidate to the list in the monthly poll, Betsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't going to vote, until I discovered this today:

Objectivist Party

Now there's finally someone I can vote for without feeling like I'm simply furthering our march toward enslavement under a totalitarian Socialist regime, even if it is merely a tiny, "third" party without any hope of winning the election.

Perhaps you could add this candidate to the list in the monthly poll, Betsy.

Funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't going to vote, until I discovered this today:

Objectivist Party

I punched up that URL and to my surprise the promote of this -Objectivist- party is quoting Theodore Roosevelt??????. Teddy R. was one of the leading Statists, imperialists and proto-socialists of our time. Quoting T.R. seems a bit strange to me.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As bad as Harding or even Carter? Or Andrew Johnson?

ruveyn

I think we already have Carter II in office.

Anyway, now that the GOP congress is starting to act more like the GOP again and less like the political wing of the evangelical Christian religion, I'm beginning to think the best solution might be the "Clinton Combo" of an Obama presidency combined with a Republican congress. It isn't likely in 2008, but 2010 is a real possibility if Obama wins, which I currently expect him to.

McCain has shown himself to be too reckless and prone to desperation moves. He's become "me, too" to everything Obama says or does, from "change" (Palin), the bailout ("suspending" his campaign to attempt, unsuccessfully to broker a deal), and even FDIC insurance (both support raising FDIC limits). I can't tell if he has any principles whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't going to vote, until I discovered this today:

Objectivist Party

Now there's finally someone I can vote for without feeling like I'm simply furthering our march toward enslavement under a totalitarian Socialist regime, even if it is merely a tiny, "third" party without any hope of winning the election.

Perhaps you could add this candidate to the list in the monthly poll, Betsy.

I don't think so. The "Objectivist Party" has less than 1000 members worldwide and is on the ballot in only two states.

It's presidential candidate, Tom Stevens, is currently also a Libertarian Party official. While he claims to "promote Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism," here are his actual thoughts on a political issue from a discussion of "The Platform of the Objectivist Party -- What should it include?" on FaceBook here:

I recently raised the issue of what our Objectivist Party Platform should include. Alexander Macris wrote me the following note, which I think is as good a place to start as any:

That's a great question. My own sense is that Objectivist politics are contractarian in nature: What social contract would rational men put in place in a context where the trade principle (i.e. not a lifeboat situation, no conflicts of interest between rational men) applies?

I think if one took the approach of beginning with respect for individual rights (rights necessary for rational men to live rationally) and then balancing any conflicting rights in an economically sound, rational & efficient manner, that would develop into the social contract and then in turn one would use the ideal social contract to define the platform, i.e. our plan for getting there.

So for instance we know from (I believe it was) Capitalism that Rand believed in intellectual property rights, whereas many hard libertarians do not. IP rights are a great area where we have a conflict between an apparent right to property and an apparent right to free speech. If I recall correctly, Rand resolved it effectively with an economic argument that IP rights would occur in an Objectivist society because to not protect them would be inefficient and irrational.

But it's a long step from there to practice.

As to Tom Stevens and his party's principles, this is what he had to say here:

I would like us to develop a simple statement of

principles upon which all new objectivist members

would agree.

The type of Statement of Principles I am thinking

about would come in the following form. The

below example is not meant as a proposal. Just

an example of the format I am recommending.

"The Objectivist Party is committed to applying

reason and rationality to solve the political

issues that confront us; we believe honor and

integrity are essential to fair trade; we believe

in individual rights and that such rights are

best guaranteed by a government that respects

them; we believe in purposefulness and to

helping people realize their potential."

Please take a shot at writing your own Statement

of Priniciples for the Party. I encourage

everyone to write a comprehensive statement

based upon your understanding of objectivism.

Then we will take the best elements of all of

them to write a first draft for such a statement.

I look forward to your contribution.

I will not list Tom Stevens separately, but anyone who would like to vote for him can select "Another Candidate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I punched up that URL and to my surprise the promote of this -Objectivist- party is quoting Theodore Roosevelt??????. Teddy R. was one of the leading Statists, imperialists and proto-socialists of our time. Quoting T.R. seems a bit strange to me.

Not only that, but I suspect that the particular Roosevelt quote selected is an attempt to stave off criticism of the party from other Objectivists by setting out an "at least we're doing something" position. Leaving off the libertarian overtones, the acceptance of the invalid idea "social contract," and other philosophical problems in the party's statements, it's long been argued (by Dr. Peikoff and others) that it's not time yet for an Objectivist political party. If they get noticed at all, they're gonna get slammed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Binswanger's written that there should never be an Objectivist party; what would be appropriate would be a *Capitalist* party, since that would correctly name the political philosophy involved. Clowns like the Libertarians mentioned here only do their little part to undermine Objectivism by association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.