Nah, me neither.
Rod Dreher was refreshingly honest about it all yesterday:
I like the line about ghosts who keep performing the same rituals--it's evocative and accurate, I think. But I know there are some GOP die-hards who read this blog who probably disagree strongly, and think that the Republicans are the fine, noble warriors poised to deliver our nation from all threats within and without, while the Democrats are ghoulishly feasting on unborn babies and economic misery.
What do y’all think about the 2012 race? I find it depressing as hell.
I didn’t vote for Obama, and, unsurprisingly, haven’t been pleased with his governance. The two things I hoped for from him — serious Wall Street reform, and a non-Bushian foreign policy — he’s whiffed on. (Then again, if you’re a Democrat who is going to treat foreign policy and financial elites like a Republican, you shouldn’t be surprised when people prefer the real thing.) Like I said, though, I never expected much from Obama, and he’s delivered. Still, he hasn’t been a disaster, and if the economy were in better shape, I could reconcile myself to a second Obama term. But it’s not, and I can’t get the line “Jimmy Carter is alive and well and living in the White House” out of my head.
But the Republicans? Good grief. The ideological recklessness with which the GOP treated the debt ceiling issue made me fearful of what they would do if they captured the White House again. Plus, I had foolishly hoped that the loss to Obama would compel the GOP to take a hard look at its ideology in light of conservative first principles, and make some changes. Instead, they seem to have doubled down on Bushism. It’s hard for me to see what significant differences there are between Bush’s policies and those proposed by the leading GOP candidates, Romney and Perry. Sure, they may well make the usual Tea Party arguments about how Bush was a big-spending fool (and he was), but they’re not going to make any significant moves against popular programs. And they certainly aren’t going to raise taxes, not even on billionaires, who can well afford it — not even if raising taxes in a limited way is a prudential move for the stability of the economy. [...]
I see both parties, and think of them as ghosts who keep performing the same rituals, because they don’t know what else to do. The WaPo was out with a poll today showing that people are sick and tired of Congress, and have little faith in the president’s leadership. Well, yeah! But where are the alternatives? Ron Paul is an alternative. I’m not really a Paul-ite, but at least he’s saying things outside of the Republican Party playbook. But he can’t break through. Most Americans seem to be in the same time warp as our leaders.
In the middle between dq3 (doomed quixotic third-party) voters like myself and the GOP die-hards are a lot of troubled Catholic voters. Hating abortion and Obama's stance on it, fearful of our decaying culture's increased pace of rot, worried about terrorism yet not wishing us to wage such indiscriminate foreign wars, concerned about the economy and perhaps personally impacted by the massive loss of jobs we've seen, these voters do hope to vote for a Republican as a means of getting Obama and the Democrats out of power.
But that brings me to this question: is there a Republican appearing in the debate tonight whom you, the troubled Catholic voter, would absolutely not vote for if he or she were the nominee? We can take it for granted that I, the dq3 voter mad about Republican betrayals on gay marriage and other issues, won't vote for any of the present candidates, and that the GOP die-hards would vote for Ronald McDonald if he were to win the nomination--but you are neither a dq3 nor a die-hard. So, is there any candidate appearing in tonight's debate for whom you would absolutely not vote? Who is it, and why would you choose not to vote for him/her?
Let's keep the comment box civil. Lively, but civil. :)