Wow, all these votes for that goofy twerp: Ron Paul ???

The idea of Ayn Rand voting for Ron Paul would be insulting, if it weren’t so absurd.

Try as I might, I can't picture Rand voting for an appeassing moron on foreign policy, and wacko-quack utopian on domestic issues.   ROFL, forget it, no freaking way.   Sorry guys, but the Ayn Rand I've come to know, on her worst day, was never capable of a stupidity of such magnitude.

Having said that, I'm fairly positive she wouldn't vote for Giuliani either; there's a car-salesman phoniness to Rudy, which despite his rhetoric, comes through. Of course even a car-salesman would be better than an idiot like Paul, or the hate-filled Hillary -- so Rudy would have an outside chance at Rand's vote.

In all honesty, when I really think about it, my best guess is that she would not bother to vote at all. But my take is that if voting for a President during a time of war, without question, Rand would respond to whoever she believed was the most Roarkian in character. So if Rand was forced to choose, I believe, John McCain, would be her choice. Within the context of American politics as they actually exist today: McCain has the record of being moderate in his domestic positions, while strong on fighting America's enemies.

But most importantly, in the middle of clash of civilizations, a time when the virtue of courage becomes the foremost value, I've little doubt that Rand, being Ayn Rand, -- she would vote for the proven hero.

K

(Edited by Karyn Daniels on 10/22, 9:31am)

McCain-Feingold is the Objectivists boogey-man for being anti-McCain, but its just nonsense. Among Objectivists with a penchant for close association with Christians-Conservatives, McCain Feingold its the ready made "original sin" they never overlook -- while overlooking far worse, and far more ill-intended, in the more ultra-right Republicans. Whatever the case, McCain-Feingold is no worse than Rudy’s gun-control legislation, Romney’s health care legislation, or Thompson’s Christian-Right pandering.  But if you dig beneath the surface, you'll find that its mostly far more mirage than reality.

Politics is a game, and these men play it within the pragmatic guidelines of their constituencies and political ambitions. For example: I don’t believe for a single moment that Rudy ever really believed in the gun-control legislation that he signed, it was just a sop to the liberal majority of his city – Rudy’s “necessary evil”.

With that in mind, when I look at these men, and listen to them speak and watch their faces – I ask myself, who among them is trying to play the game closest to his true heart? The answer I get, at least so far, is: John McCain.  

McCain, the soldier-senator; of all the candidates, I would trust him the most to lead us during war time. Of course this comes with a price, since the more principled the politician, the more determined his efforts to legistlate. But by that same token, he might be the one least likely to compromise or capitulate to our nations enemies. And lastly, it's war time, and for me: war trumps all other issues (another reason I would prefer even the anti-abortion Thompson, to a Hillary).

I don't believe that all these men are total hypocrites and fundamentally immoral, primarily they're just a product of their culture and its dominant philosophical influences. So you have to be willing to step outside of any utopian BS, libertarian claptrap or Objectivists orthdoxy; otherwise you'll drown in a sea of secondary minutia while missing the bigger picture. The only other alternatives I see, is either being stuck with supporting an imbecile like Ron Paul, or some hyper-intellectualized reasoning that leads to voting for Hillary in order to save us from the imaginary dangers of a pending Christian Theocracy.
 

For me, McCain appears to be the most sincere “gamer” of the lot; so for now, I prefer him over Rudy or Fred.

K

(Edited by Karyn Daniels on 10/22, 10:52am)