Tuesday, January 8, 2008

I'm a Registered Democrat


Ok, pick your jaw off the floor, 'cause here comes another one.

I'm a Democrat because of Hillary Clinton.

Doesn't make sense?

My utter loathing for Hillary Clinton out weighs my love for the fiscally responsible Mitt Romney.

My vote in the primary for Obama is more valuable than my vote in the primary for Mitt.

The husband couldn't do it, he felt he was lying if he registered as a Democrat. I wanted to register as an independent- but Utah has a closed primary, and we all know Mitt is going to get the Republican win here anyhow. Even if he didn't- I hate Hillary more than I love Mitt.

So, I'm a registered democrat.

31 comments:

Michael said...

If you love Romney, wouldn't you then want to vote for Hillary? National polls have voters currently favoring Clinton by just over 4 points in a Romney vs. Clinton national election while they've got Obama up by more than 12 points in a Romney v. Obama election.

So, Clinton seems catchable by Romney- Obama doesn't.

Salt H2O said...

I would, IF we knew Mitt had the republican nomination- which we don't know.

Still, just the chance that she could be with in reach of the white house, I really must do everything legally in my power to stop it.

The other issue at hand is I STRONGLY dislike two of the Republican front runners- McCain and Huckabee. My personal hell would be a Huckabee Hillary race.

cropstar said...

You're brilliant. And hilarious. As is your husband.
Also... I LOVE that you introduced yourself the other night! It totally made my day. I only wish we could have chatted longer. And, I consider it totally socially acceptable (at least in my own mind, which isn't always the mind of society at large).
Anway- Go Mitt!

Michael said...

A Huckabee Clinton race would indeed be undesirable- My biggest reason for not wanting Hillary to win my party's nomination is that I think she's the least electable of the front runners by far. There are other problems I would have with a Hillary Clinton presidency, but I think I'd prefer most of her policy decisions over most of the republican alternatives. I'd certainly prefer her to Giuliani.

I'm uncomfortable with Romney's and Huckabee's move to the right on immigration. Not because I think it seems potentially insincere from both of them, but because it is completely infeasible. Neither have a comprehensive Plan or strategy to counter McCain's or Giuliani's but both are critical. I think that Giuliani has by far the most reasoned approach on this issue. Unfortunately most of the democrats just have their head in the sand because there is no benefit to them to tackle the issue in their primary. The status quo obviously isn't working- but there isn't really a universally acceptable or even popular option among the democrat base.

Honestly, I'd be much more favorable towards the Romney of 94 or of 02, or even 06. Romney was always more conservative than he is given credit for, but he was also not knee jerk and reasoned in his conservativism. It seems that in the primary acknowledging that a lot of issues are more complex and that both sides have merit makes one not a conservative. I don't see how Romney or Huckabee can really move back to a moderate stance previously held on many issues (including foreign policy and immigration for both of them, economic issues for Huckabee and Social issues for Romney) after moving so hard right. Without that moderate stance I don't know how effective they can really be at winning the general election. (though granted, the moderate stance on immigration isn't really popular- it bothers both sides of the debate in acknowledging real problems and issues with either side. Just picking one extremist but unworkable position seems to be the only popular option with immigration which is really a shame.)

Steve said...

Brilliant, but people have been doing this for years in closed primaries, which make them less valid than open ones, IMHO. :)

I actually have to support you with this too since I don't want Hillary to win, only b/c I feel she is the least likely to win of the front runners, even though she is the most qualified.

Barowdwngs said...

Well that makes perfect sense to me. We need more pseudo-democratic republicans to make the committed cross-over. More feet on the ground and all that business.

I figure the more we blur the lines between the two parties and break down the "us against them" mentality the better. Then my mom won't call me a bleeding heart liberal every time she catches me listening to NPR.

In fact why don't we do this, the party that has the most votes gets to be president and the party that's second up gets to be vice president. Then we could have a Romney / Obama presidency. Hooray! And then we'd make Ron Paul the secretary of education cuz he's fun to listen to (props to ol' Paul).

But seriously, does anyone really believe squatty angry hobbit McCain, even though he seems to be a good guy and has lots of experience, can win over slick, young, good looking, pro-change Obama?

Thanks, I'll take my answer off the air.

PS - I dig your blog. Keep it up.

ThomCarter said...

This is a very smart strategy. It could come back and bite you in the bottom if you ever want to run for office, but a smart move none the less.

Sherpa said...

Yeah, this has been going on for years. I know you're not the only one "switching over" because of Sen. Clinton.

I agree by and large with Mike. Personally, I think Clinton is going to be a lot easier for Republicans to beat than Obama will be at this point, but hey, it's your vote.

NSLYCC said...

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!!

So you got all registered and weren't struck by lightening or anything?

:)

(If it does come down to Clinton and Huckabee, who would you vote for?)

Kyle said...

This is my first post to my sister’s blog. I am the arrogant brother who can’t spell.
I have inspired the blogs “my brother never reads my blog”,
“Sunday school class candy economics”,
“baby without presents from her favorite aunt”,
“Pandora”, and
“Eldridge Cleaver” (I did a report on him for my 9th grade history class).

This is my rank of possible presidential candidates.
1. Mitt Romney
2. Rudy Guliani
3. John McCain
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Barrack Obama
6. Mike Huckabee

#1 Mitt’s record sucks when it comes to on social issues but social issues are stupid. Homosexuals will eventually be able to have civil unions of some sort. Abortion will always be legal. And second amendment rights will never go away. Who cares if Mitt changed his mind on these issues? The social issues are only braught up to help the ignorant people feel politically involved. The questions of Gay marriage and embryo farming are relatively new, and material enough to make anyone change their mind on an issue. Mitt is at the top of the list for one reason—he knows what he is doing with the US economy and how to minimize bureaucracy.

#2-3 No real conviction

#4 vs. #3 Hillary vs. Barrack. Kory, I have held similar feelings about Hillary Clinton for the last 12 years. There was nothing that drove me crazier politically than the Clinton family, until I watched the last Democratic debates. I did a 180 on Hillary. Of all the democratic candidates she is the only one who has done anything with her life. When asked, “What is the most substantial contribution you have made to the US?” both Edwards and Obama cited legislation that was completely immaterial (regardless of your political affiliation). A greatest accomplishments question is fundamental to qualify as president. Barrack seems much better suited as a motivational speaker. Swap the record of Obama with Clinton and Clinton would not have a chance, but because Obama is a male and has charisma half the country is falling in love with him. I don’t love Hillary, but at least she has actual accomplishments and knows international policy. She is not worthy of Anti- blog from you. However Huckabee is.

Huckabee is the slimiest of the pack. He started a whisper campaign against Romney with his interview with the NYT claiming, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" He knew exactly what he was doing. And by the looks of the competition, Huckabee was the one behind the false holiday mailings claiming to be from the Romney family. His campaign was caught push polling. Not to mention none of his policy decisions have been conservative as governor. He raised taxes and increased spending. He comes after Hillary and Obama simply because I think he is and idiot.

I am tired of typing and I am going to call you tonight to talk about this.

Salt H2O said...

You know, I typically try to stay off the computer when I’m tired- tonight reminded me why, I can barely put together a competent sentence. It’s so refreshing to read your comments. I’m sick of political pundits acting like psychics trying to predict the future, and I have few friends IRL that follow politics.

Michael- As far as I’m informed, Mitt’s stance on immigration is ‘enforce the current laws’ which doesn’t seem extreme. As to his stance on social policies, I agree with my brother’s statement in that social policies really should be a non-issue.

Steve- My choice isn’t by any means original- however it may get me uninvited to thanksgiving dinner (seriously, we had a democrat to thanksgiving dinner 3 years ago and they still make jokes about him) I’m going to ask you what I’ve been asking Hillary supporters for the past year: What makes Hillary Clinton the most qualified candidate? What has Hillary actually accomplished?

Barowdawgs- I balance my NPR listening with a dose of Sean Hannity. You know, in the 1800's that's how they chose the president and vice president- maybe we should go back to that. I’m with you on McCain. Thank you for the compliment- glad to have you on the blog.

Thomcarter- I’ll never run for office, I like my life being personal. Besides, I don't think I'll ever have that kind of cash flow.

Sherpa- You’re right, Clinton is the easier target for Republicans. It's hard to combat charm.

Nslycc- In Huck V. Hillary- We're packing our bags and moving to Singapore. Seriously. At least when Hillary attacks her opponents she does it outright. Huckabee is more slimey about it. She fights like a man while Huckabee fights like a snake. If a gun was to my head- Rodham would get my vote.

Kyle- Thank you for finally posting a comment! Maybe now you'll take the next step and blog@ You get credit for the entire soapbox, as you are the one who told me to blog.While you have inspired many posts-Dexter Harvey gets the props inspiring my Eldridge Cleaver blog (I’m pretty sure that’s one of the only things Dexter’s inspired)

I completely agree- Voting on social issues is stupid- and Mike Huckabee is only a conservative because of social issues.

What makes Hillary so darn qualified? What has she accomplished? I don’t think she’s any more qualified than Obama aside from that she already knows how she’d like to decorate the white house.

Steve said...

I don't understand why voting on social issues, which account for over half of what most people stand for, is "stupid" . So if there were a candidate that was pro-choice, pro-civil unions, for marijuana legalization, pro NAMBLA, etc., AND was for a balanced budget, cutting back on 'hand-outs'/welfare, cutting taxes, etc., YOU would vote for them?!?!? If you answer yes to this, then you are either a Democrat or even a Libertarian, not a Republican. Maybe not in the traditional sense of the GOP, but at least in today's real world.
Social issues can affect the quality of life for certain segments of the population more so than economic standards. For instance, I'd much rather pay MORE taxes than see certain civil liberties taken away. Thus, I'll almost always vote Democrat. To write-off social issues is naive and very dangerous. Not trying to be explosive, but take social issues out of Hitler's platform and according to those standards he is a 'good candidate'. Aside from that extreme, then how do ANY of the current Republicans differ by anything other than religious upbringing. All have accomplished impressive things, have the same general view of economic policies, and have the same foreign policy plans. Thus something has to be talked about to differentiate them, yet there is this big outcry about talking about Romney being Mormon.

As for Clinton's accomplishments, I think your brother said it best. And comparing public vs private sector experience always sounds nice, but it has been my personal experience from my time IN govt, that whenever someone from the private sector enters govt work, they face a huge learning curve of understanding how it works. In a company, you just rule like a dictator and the boss' word is final, it doesn't work that way in govt. In Iraq, yes, but not in the US. I don't discredit Romney's and other's fine private sector accomplishments, they are impressive, but they aren't easily transferable.

Sorry, didn't mean to write so much! I'm a comment blabber! ha. And for the record, I greatly enjoy your blog b/c I too don't have many geographically available friends that are willing to constructively discuss politics.

Kyle said...

Kory –you’re right about Eldridge Cleaver.

I am so glad we see eye to eye on social issues. Social issues are what politicians focus on to distract the issues that really matter. Think about it. How boring is it to talk about Social Security or the Alternative Minimum Tax? Yet these are the two biggest bankrupting issues facing the US. No one talks about specific solutions to these problems because the real work of finding a solution and explaining it is boring and 90% of Americans don’t understand the issues surrounding it. But they do know that man on man love is discussing and they don’t want this behavior to become a norm. Coming to that conclusion or an apposing one takes all of two seconds. The ease of coming to these conclusions does not make the issue unimportant. It does make it an easy way to manipulate voters. Though I am anti- homosexual marriage, I realize that eventually this argument will be lost. I cannot find a single logical independent reason why homosexuals should not have these rights. Living in the San Francisco bay area I can think of several reasons why I don’t want this lifestyle to be encouraged but none of it is rooted in reason or logic that I see society accepting. I think the only way to win this battle is for government to stop regulating marriage.

Nevertheless, social issues are put as the highest priority items yet individual presidents have the least ability to change or implement social issues. Social issues are important to politicians because they help define a candidate in terms ignorant people understand. People don’t understand the implications of eliminating the AMT and creating a higher sales tax.

The questions that are important to me are: Can this person create change in there job? What does this person want to change? Presidents can only block certain issues from changing. They really can’t create change major social issues (unless you are considering the Supreme Court justice nomination process). The issues I look for in a presidential candidate take the following priority:

1. Ability to eliminate bureaucracy
2. US Economy
3. International economic/trade policy
4. International relationships
5. Social Issues

As a result Mitt is my top republican and Hillary is my top Democrat.

Kory- To answer your question. Hillary’s record is impressive even if you don’t like her. Don’t let her boobs get in the way of you making objective decisions.

Hillary accomplishments are not much, (especially when you compare them to Mitt’s) but they completely overshadow other democratic candidates.

Her first cause was children, fighting abuse, and chairing the Children's Defense Fund, She had became a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund.

She was recruited to serve on the presidential impeachment inquiry staff for the House of Representative’s Judiciary Committee, investigating the Watergate Scandal.

She chaired the Arkansas Education Standards Committee to improve the testing standards of new teachers, founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and introduced Arkansas Home Instruction for Preschool Youth, a program that trained parents of preschool children in preparedness and literacy.

She served on the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Legal Services board, Children’s Defense Fund board.

She was named one of the 100 most influential attorneys in America by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991.

As a first lady her participated in public policy is unparalleled. She took a central role in the shaping of public policy. Though you might see this as inappropriate, it is certainly much more than decorating the white house. I think a first lady needs to be active in the administration of the president. She did not just sit around and gloat in the power.

During her eight years as first lady, she initiated the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997, increased research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma to the National Institute of Health, as well as assisted in determining the cause of a mysterious illness affecting veterans of the Gulf War. She also initiated and guided the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

What does Obama have other than Oprah? Why does he need Oprah? Because he can’t define himself by accomplishments or on social issues. He needs to define himself by standing next to someone.

In addition you might have more in common that you realize with Hillary. After attending Wellesley in Washington, the president of the College Republicans, Hillary switched to the Democratic Party at the urging of her Professor.

Allie said...

OH Drat!

That NSLYCC comment was me.

I hate it when I forget to log in as myself!

:)

Utah needs more dems Kory, so feel free to make yourself at home.

The upside of being a Utah Dem. is that you get opportunities to be much more involved because there aren't as many of us. The down side is, is that it gets to be very frustrating during elections when "your candidate/issue/whatever" rarely win.

Steve said...

Salty (Kory), can your brother come over more often?!?!?

Well said, Kyle. Although I agree with you to some extent that the Pres.'s hands are tied related to social issues, he can set a tone and rabble rouse, case in point Bush's sudden plan on immigration and his appointments to the Supreme Court, which second hand or not, are HUGE social changing/status quo actions, which have fall out for perhaps generations since they are appointed for life to opinionate their role of the Constitution with social behaviors.

As for economic changes, I agree that this is where the President may have quicker results, ie tax cuts, job programs, etc. However, the REAL economic control is done by the Fed. Reserve, which is quite literally not connected to the White House or any party. They set the monetary policies that effect our economy.

Salt H2O said...

Kyle! Looks like you've figured out how to cut and paste. Now you just need to start a blog so you and Steve can become official blog friends.

Kyle said...

Kory. Ask a cut and paste question about Hillary…get a cut and paste answer…


Steve. Thanks for the complement. I understand your point--- the presidents tone yada yada supreme court… yada yada

Even still most social issues don’t have a chance of changing with out a massive movement by the people. The two major social issues that were past in the last century were abortion rights and the Civil Rights Movement, both required much more than a president’s or supreme courts opinion. Can you believe how many people needed to be involved in the Civil Rights Movement? I don’t think there has ever been a greater ‘duh’ moment in history.

Look at prohibition, a group came to power and was able to pass a law. Society changed it back. Social issues have an unstoppable momentum that every politician wants to latch onto. Steve, don’t let them con you into thinking that hey will make a difference.

My point is low presidential impact social issues are over played, and the high impact economic boring issues are hardly discussed at length. Yes social issues are important, and yes a president does set the tone. However, they will not be changed by a president or a Supreme Court Justice. I don’t care who is president, a NAMBLA rep will never be nominated to the court. Second amendment rights and abortion is here to stay. The social group as a whole determines social issues and solutions. Want to change social issues; start with the ‘man in the mirror’ (thanks Michael). You change social issues by blogging and in social interaction much more effectively than by voting for a president.

As a side note, a guy at my work was worried about Mitt’s record on social issues because he has changed on abortion, gay rights, and gun laws. “I’m just not sure what he will do when he gets into the Whitehouse.”

To which I responded, “What are you worried he is going to start ‘ethnic cleansing?’”

f*bomb. said...

WAAHAHAHHAHAAAA!
Welcome to the Dark Side, where everything is relative and morality is something we use cheerleaders for in sports.

Kyle said...

Steve. Sorry I missed your Fed comment.


The fed is merely the trumpet section of the symphony of the economy. The US consumer provides the sheet music.

In the next two to three years the housing market is going to get so ugly it will gag maggot on a gut wagon. The bulk of the adjustable rate mortgages have not been reset, and in late 2008 (when they will be adjusted) the consumer will start feeling the pain. I don’t care what the Fed Rate will be; the Collateralized Debt Obligations (‘CDO’ the securities your home mortgage are packaged into) will not be issued without a significant amount of risk being priced in over the risk free rate. Imagine going from a 6% rate to 10-11% floating rate on your home. Sure you can refinance and get into a five year ARM for steal at 8%, and if you don’t mind walking around with one kidney you might be able to keep your home for a year longer. The US consumer will not be able to take this hit.

The fed can’t control the market price on risk. If we had a stronger dollar we might be able to spend our way out of this problem, but we don’t. The trillion dollar question is always ‘what is the price of risk?’ The last five years the buyers and issuers of these CDO’s clearly miss priced risk and in the next 3 years they will see just how far they missed the mark.

So what will the president you are voting for do about this? Are they suggesting a bailout to us home owners? This will cause only more problems down the road as risk will never be priced into the market. Will the president implement policy to make sure this situation cannot happen in the future?

The fed in several respects caused this problem. The president will have much more influence on fixing it and passing legislation so it does not happen again.


Do I write to much for a blog post?

Salt H2O said...

You write the perfect amount for a blog post- but a little much for blog comment. Which is why you should start posting- to your blog!

You've got things to say my brother, and I'm sure at least 4 my 6 readers would like to read it. Start a blog.

Launchpad said...

That Kyle guy is a freakin genius!

Faith and Chad & the boys said...

Oh, I soooo agree, bring on the apocalypse if in the end we have a Huckabee / Clinton race. I really may lose all faith in the system.

Kimberly McEvoy said...

I miss blogging for a few weeks and now your a democrat!

Leave it to Kory to concoct a plan like this. I would just burn democrats houses and pay more republicans to vote.

Vanilla Vice said...

When switching parties to vote strategically, you're supposed to vote for the unelectable candidate - Michael was right - you SHOULD be voting for Hillary! That way she'll lose. In Texas a town of Republicans switched en mass to Democrat during the primaries and picked the most unelectable candidate so the Democrats were forced with a total loser they wouldn't even vote for. Brilliant. The Republican won.

Salt H2O said...

After reading all comments, I think I have to re-think everything.

Allie said...

Maybe you should read the current post over at aliberalmormon. Something about unethical practices and two wrongs don't make a right...

Although, I admit to registering as a republican once so I could vote against the guy I didn't like, only to have the other guy be even worse (Rob Bishop).

Salt H2O said...

Allie-

Morally, I don't think I could cast a vote for Hillary, unless I decided I really did like her. If she got into office, I'd never forgive myself.

Rob said...

Why not? Give specifics. The old GOP Kansas play book is to "Demonize the Spouse". When Bill had his moment of weakness nobody would have blamed Hillary for leaving, but she didn't. The Clinton's are still a family. Doesn't that show character?

She is a strong woman who works hard, just like you Kory. You don't see Democrats doing the same to Laura. With all the misinformation out there one might be reminded of Einsteins quote, "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."

Salt H2O said...

Rob,

I don't think Hillary stayed with Bill because of 'family', she stayed with Bill because he is her ticket to the white house. Hillary Rodham wouldn't have had a shot.

My issues with Hillary have nothing to do with her womanhood as it has a lot to do with Adam Smith. I'm an economist and so statements like these scare me.

Rob, I'm sure someday you and I will have a long discussion about economic policy and growth.

Rob said...

How do you know that Kory? How can anyone make that assumption?

Rob said...

BTW, A vote for Obama is a great vote. And, I think your strategy is right on.