The 2008 presidential election is now less than 19 months away. As far as I’m concerned, that means now is the time to start planning how to destroy it.
You had me at Hello.
Here's the gist: Sanjaya Malakar managed to stay on American Idol for nine long weeks, not because he was talented, but because Howard Stern and votefortheworst.com endorsed him.
More than just a passing fad, I believe Sanjaya’s unlikely success means something. A hundred years from now, I predict historians will credit him as the reason a little known Republican congressman from Texas became our next U.S. president.
Ron Paul, he's already my favorite Republican for being so madcap and zany, but here is where Morris and I part ways:
I don’t want to discuss whether Ron Paul is what’s “best” for America. I do believe it, but I’m not going to say it, since that’s the kind of thing a Hillary Clinton supporter would say. Instead, I want to focus on this idea of voting “for the worst.” There isn’t a doubt in my mind that Ron Paul would be the establishment’s worst nightmare.
Ron Paul would be (and already is!) the Republicans worst nightmare.
DailyKos had the right idea, encouraging its readers to vote for Ron Paul after the Fox debate, but that doesn't go far enough: Register as a Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.
Imagine the droves of "Support the Troops" nutjobs who wouldn't even bother to vote if they only had a choice between anti-war candidates.
Let's face it. It doesn't matter who gets the Democratic nomination. Even if the Ice Princess herself gets it, her reign of terror will be a cakewalk compared to the last six years.
However, if Romney or Giuliani or McCain (or Fred Thompson) gets the nomination, the Republicans could hack voting machines or lose absentee ballots to steal yet another election. With Ron Paul, they wouldn't even bother.
2 comments:
Leonard this is a fucking ingenius plan... I've followed votefortheworst fairly extensively (while never actually watching the show) but they were able to sway the voting quite effectively. The question is whether or not an internet phenomenon would sway a much larger scale vote. I watched the republican debate (partly just because I'm sado-masochistic like that) and I turned it off after guliani went ape-shit on paul to the crowd's delight for presuming that we "brought 9/11 on ourselves" even the moderator went off on him. Then Romney said something about hate for the west being built in to Islam, and I subsequently threw up a little in my mouth and turned on "Children of Men" -- how morbidly fucking fitting my friend to watch a doomsday scenario movie and the republican debate (where they spent 20 minutes discussing the specifics of a hypothetical terrorist attack and who would be ok using torture in guantanamo) back to back. Anywho, one thing to clarify -- I think Paul is the neo-cons worst nightmare, bc in theory republicans are the "fiscally responsible ones" of course its all semantics, but yeah here's to ron paul for fucking standing up for any sort of logical thought in the midst of such a cluterfuck of conservative base cheerleading. K, I'm done. Going to register republican right now. Cuz honestly, I don't care if its barack or hilary. I just don't want another fucking neo-con.
Your post helped inspire me to write this:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/21/235526/683
Post a Comment