Super Tuesday endorsements!

Matt has the blog equivalent of a public service announcement today:

Just a little reminder that if you live in a Super Awesome Incredible Tuesday state you should go vote today. And if you don't live in such a state but do know people who do, you should exhort them to vote. Participation is essential.

I disagree, actually; "participation" as a goal seems silly to me. If people are so uninterested in the election that they have to be exhorted by friends in other states to go to the polls, then my suspicion is that their vote will not be an informed attempt to select the best candidate. A better public service announcement might be: "If you live in a Super Tuesday state, and you don't know or care about the election, hey, have another beer."

But if you are going to vote, and you want my opinion on how you should cast your ballot, the prestigious Megan McArdle endorsements go to:

1) Barack Obama. No surprise here. He's slightly to the left of Hillary on goals, but he's well to the right of her on process. His goal is not more government so that we can all be caught up in some giant, expressive excercise of collectively enforcing our collective will on all the other people standing around us in the collective; his goal is improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion, while rectifying specific outcomes. His economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is brilliant. Plus, he doesn't have Hillary Clinton's deep administrative ties, which means two good things: less capture by the bureaucracy, and arguably less ability to get things done. And frankly, I'm creeped out by the notion of a presidential succession that goes Bush . . . Clinton . . . Bush . . . Clinton.

2) Mitt Romney. I'm still deeply weirded out by the dog on the roof thing . . . but not as weirded out as I am by McCain-Feingold. Romney's instincts strike me as more libertarian. McCain is still way too captive to the military model--he seems not so much against elitism and authoritarianism, as convinced that the wrong people are running things. Romney's economic advisor is not only a highly-regarded Harvard professor of economics, but also a first-class blogger, suggesting a certain openness to the future. Plus Romney lacks McCain's charisma, which means that when he has bad ideas, he'll have more limited ability to enact them.

But as I say, no obligation to vote. If you can't muster up much feeling either way, you should probably stay home.

Comments

I agree. Don't exercise that franchise if you'd rather lift a latte. Or a glass of wine. Or a beer.

Posted by Michael Tinkler | February 5, 2008 12:18 PM

I couldn't even if I wanted to, I'm a registered Libertarian so I can't participate in D or R caucuses, and there is no L caucus as far as I know, not that it would matter.

But I probably won't vote anyway unless there are interesting local issues I can get indignant about. My probability of influencing the presidential election is dwarfed by the probability of dying from gangrene after getting a paper cut on my ballot.

Posted by Noah Yetter | February 5, 2008 12:25 PM

This is the first decent argument for Romney that I've seen. Not quite good enough so that I'd give up writing in Fred if I lived in a primary state, but still good. I don't think a military background is itself a negative, but I've known enough pilots (and I'm one myself, in a small way) to count that against McCain: there's a reason for the catch phrase, "dumb as a pilot." His personal military experience is as relevant to defense issues as that of a truck driver. Brave? Sure. Tough? Sure. Smart? Well, he must have had good eyesight.

Posted by Alan Gunn | February 5, 2008 12:31 PM

Romney's instincts strike me as more libertarian.

WOW! That's a howler.

Why doesn't the libertarian endorse, you know ... the libertarian?

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 5, 2008 12:40 PM

Woody: Because this post was about the real world, is my guess. In the real world, only McCain and Romney - as far as Republican candidates go - have any hope of becoming President, and thus the choice is between them.

And perhaps because "the libertarian" has an abysmal foreign policy, and is a Metallist?

Well, those are certainly my reasons for not endorsing "the libertarian".

Posted by Sigivald | February 5, 2008 12:57 PM

Personally, I'm casting my vote for none other than .... that's right, you guessed it, Frank Stallone.

Posted by Peter | February 5, 2008 1:05 PM

If you lean philosophically toward Ron Paul, but vote for another GOP candidate because he could win the nomination, then you are throwing your vote away. The only way to increase respect for libertarian voters in the GOP is to build the highest possible vote totals for Ron Paul. His campaign isn't really about 2008, it is about the kind of America we will see in 20 or 30 years.

Posted by creech | February 5, 2008 1:05 PM

I think you may be the only voter in the country who accepts Hillary's argument about her experience giving her superior ability to get things done, and takes it as an argument in Obama's favor.

Posted by Dr. Manhattan | February 5, 2008 1:11 PM

I only encourage people to vote if they're going to vote for the right person. Otherwise I tell them that voting is a waste of time.

Posted by Christina | February 5, 2008 1:12 PM

I think you may be the only voter in the country who accepts Hillary's argument about her experience giving her superior ability to get things done, and takes it as an argument in Obama's favor.

Wrong.

Robert De Niro made the same point yesterday.

Posted by Christina | February 5, 2008 1:15 PM

There's a libertarian running? I didn't notice! I mean, there's a squirrely little nativist pro-lifer who kinda looks like a libertarian if you squint hard enough, but I thought most reasonable people agreed to ignore him when he got caught calling black people animals

Posted by Jack | February 5, 2008 1:15 PM

"And perhaps because "the libertarian" has an abysmal foreign policy, and is a Metallist?"

is a Metallist..doesn't fit with RP's position.

He has mentioned the attributes of a Gold Standard, but he's calling, explicitly, for allowing competing currencies.

If anyone needs some healthy competition, it would be the FedRes and their Notes..

Posted by MEH | February 5, 2008 1:17 PM

Good to see the beltway libertarian bots are still going at it. Yes people, it's so much more important that Ron Paul let his name go out on newsletters 20 years ago that included some racially insensitive remarks, than..oh I don't know..our current foreign and domestic policy bleeding billions from our slowing-down economy..or maybe the increasing scope of federal government in our lives, both socially and economically. Yeah, that's how you play the "real world" game.

Your vote is mathematically insignificant. So the only rational reason to vote is to vote for the person who best matches your view of politics. To vote as if it's a popularity contest ends up with the people we have now.

Posted by Frank N Stein | February 5, 2008 1:42 PM

Oh, and people - try to keep in mind that the position up for election is President of the United States, not Emperor. There's little worry your Federal Reserve will disappear and you'll have to deal with sound money in your lifetime. But it's a matter of moving in the right direction (back to obeying the Constitution) rather than joining hands with the Europe in their slide down socialism's fun ride.

Posted by Frank N Stein | February 5, 2008 1:48 PM

"...not as weirded out as I am by McCain-Feingold."

Obama supported McCain-Feingold, didn't he? It was a bad bill, but a bad bill that Obama was for too.

At least McCain is a free-trader. Whatever influence Professor Goolsbee has had on him, he evidently hasn't been able to persuade Obama that free trade is good for the country and that protectionism is destrucitve--not only economically, but also diplomatically.

I don't see how any libertarian could support a protectionist like Obama.

Posted by rwe | February 5, 2008 1:54 PM

And perhaps because "the libertarian" has an abysmal foreign policy

Oh, come on. "The US should have stayed out of WWI" is an excellent foreign policy.

I think you may be the only voter in the country who accepts Hillary's argument about her experience giving her superior ability to get things done, and takes it as an argument in Obama's favor.

I'm another one.

Posted by Rob Lyman | February 5, 2008 1:56 PM

“As some of you probably heard at the debate the other night, Senator Clinton called Nafta a mistake,” Mr. Obama said. “I was pleased to hear her say that because, as more than 10,000 jobless Iowans know, that’s exactly what Nafta has been.”-NY Times Political Blog, 11/18/07

Obama the protectionist...

"I'm a student of history. Every time the United States has become protectionist and listened to the siren song that you're hearing partially on this stage tonight, we've paid a very heavy price. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Acts in the 1930s were direct contributors to World War II. It sounds like a lot of fun to bash China and others, but free trade has been the engine of our economy. Free trade should be the continuing principle that guides this nation's economy.-John McCain, Michigan Debate, 10/9/07

vs. McCain the free-trader. Yeah, let's vote for Obama.

Posted by rwe | February 5, 2008 2:14 PM

The is the first election I'm having trouble figuruing out who to vote against... I am inclined to go for Romney as the least damaging potential President. McCain has shown that he supports some really bad ideas and is ideological and stubborn enough to keep after them even if everyone tells him to just stop.

I agree about Obama over Hillary for the same reason... she's a corrupt and ruthless megalomaniac with a very skilled politician for a husband. The two of them could probably do a lot of damage in four years. Obama, not so much.

I agree with Ron Paul on some stuff, but I think he'd make a terrible President. I'd rather he be an advisor or Cabinet member. Or stay in the House and keep doing what he does.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | February 5, 2008 2:15 PM

I think it's actually a good thing to get people motivated to vote. People tend to frame their beliefs based on their actions, so instead of trying to get them to think about issues to foster their involvement, it probably work out better if people began participating, and then changed their perception of themselves as "apathetic" to "concerned".

Posted by Aaron | February 5, 2008 2:33 PM

"I'm creeped out by the notion of a presidential succession that goes Bush . . . Clinton . . . Bush . . . Clinton"

I suppose that Hillary could get her name changed back to Rodham before inauguration. There, all better.

Posted by raf | February 5, 2008 3:14 PM

I think the concept of the knowledgeable voter is a myth. Democracy is a crap shoot, even when it's only political junkies voting. Discouraging the uninformed from voting grossly overrates the importance of reading the newspaper and uttering to oneself and one's friends about the issues of the day. So I say, let everyone vote, and let no one pretend that their understanding of policy eats more than a infinitesimal fraction of their ignorance away.

Posted by gerontion | February 5, 2008 3:33 PM

MM wrote: And frankly, I'm creeped out by the notion of a presidential succession that goes Bush . . . Clinton . . . Bush . . . Clinton.

That's wierd, but not yet creepy. Creepy would be when Jeb runs at the end of Hillary's term, and then by the time he's done, Chelsea should be both old enough and have made enough friends in high finance to arrange for her own campaign.

Posted by anony-mouse | February 5, 2008 3:51 PM

Sen. McCain:

Fights wasteful government spending, even if it means he has to stand up against his own party.

Views immigrants as real people and not enemies of the state.

Knows our military. Get serious or get out. McCain is the best choice for the get serious crowd.

Opposes waterboarding. Unlike some other candidates, he knows what torture is.

Will speak out against corruption in congress.

Supports free trade.

Supports a balanced budget. Every now and then an adult has to come along and say it's time to pay the bills. McCain is that adult.

Will fight for what he thinks is right and will say what's on his mind.

Posted by Nelson | February 5, 2008 4:10 PM

I forgot one thing. The overall best reason to vote for John McCain is he's the only politician with enough cojones to oppose farm subsidies.

Posted by Nelson | February 5, 2008 4:18 PM

Our caucus isn’t until another three hours and I’ve explained my reasons for supporting Mitt Romney on my blog (click on my name to go to the piece). In picking Romney I looked at things like the fact he’s the only candidate with any experience in the private sector (and a rather exceptional record of success at fixing messed up situations), he’s one of only two candidates to hold an executive office, his experience in working with an opposition party that has far greater control of the legislative branch, and that he has made economic issues, particularly health care and entitlement reform the focus of his campaign and those will almost certainly be the key this fall.

I can’t say I respect Megan’s choice in support Barack Obama because she likes one of his economic advisors. As RWE pointed out, it doesn’t seem to have affected Obama’s protectionist leanings on trade and by Megan’s own admission; he’s on Clinton’s left on other issues. Why you’d vote for someone because of who they picked as an economic advisor when they’ve demonstrated that they won’t follow their advice strikes me as rather odd.

Posted by Thorley Winston | February 5, 2008 5:14 PM

More transparency = More capture.

why do you fall for this nonsensical blather?

Posted by Chris | February 5, 2008 5:17 PM

Sen. McCain:

Views illegal immigrants as practically citizens!

Views legal immigrants as fools who think they actually have to follow the rules!

Sees free speech as a threat to democracy!

Shirks his duty to advise and consent to judicial nominations!

Knows better than those pesky citizens and voters what they really want!

Admits he doesn't understand the economy!

I don't know that I like Romney much better, after all, he actually implemented a state run health care system...

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | February 5, 2008 5:57 PM

Well said, Mlle. McArdle!

The fewer peasants who vote, the fewer serfs trying to take my money away from me w/ the assistance of corrupt megalomaniac politicians.

Why don't all you little people just stay away from the polls, & stop trying to get out of work so you can go vote?

Posted by Malignant Bouffant | February 5, 2008 6:33 PM

M. Bouffant wrote: [insert poor imitation of an SNL sketch, mated against nature with one of the Marx Brothers]

Megan McArdle has an excuse; she gets paid for this. What's your motivation?

Posted by anony-mouse | February 5, 2008 6:58 PM

Tom Tancredo heartily endorsed Mitt as he was certain of their shared hatred of immigrants - guess that makes him a true libertarian.

Posted by Sri | February 5, 2008 10:36 PM