No...you poison your principles when you vote against your head.

That's been my point all along: by trying to vote emotionally, I actually managed to "poison" my political reality.

You quoted John Galt with my solution: head over heart...every time.

Adlibbed in the sense that it was not in his prepared speech, but added 'on the fly' at the conclusion.

If history is accurate, no one but Reagan knew this was going to be said...and that fits the definition of adlib perfectly!

So you wish you had voted for someone who wasn't your' first choice. That's compromising. In the middle. And you know what's in the middle between right and wrong, right? (A little bit of poison is still poison.)

I wish that I had!

And I am sure that I am not alone....

Agreed.

The Democrats are much better than the Republicans when it comes to "the end justifies the means." They definitely have focus, and a taste for the jugular...!

It is kind of like dealing with terrorists...the GOP needs to learn from the Democrats, and adapt their methods.

I assumed it because you didn't vote for Bush Sr. you voted for Perot.
In a struggle between your head and heart, use your head. (John Galt).

My memory says that Perot either got 12%, or 15% of the total vote...enough to let Clinton win.

You are totally wrong to assume that I didn't want Bush Sr. in office. I was simply more attracted to Ross Perot. If I had used my head, and not my heart, I would have realized that the "big sucking sound" Perot was talking about was going to be the 15% conservative vote that would have sent the Clintons back to Hope (or was it Grope) Arkansas....

Voting for someone you don't want is in your 'best interest'??? You didn't vote for Clinton, so you didn't help him. You voted for Perot. It is not principled to vote for someone for President when you don't want that person to be President. Can you argue that that could be a principled move? A vote for Perot was not a vote for Clinton, it was a vote for Perot. A vote for a person you WANT to be President cannot also be a vote for someone you DON'T want to be President. You can only vote for one person.

Of course that would have been in my best interest. I venture to guess that 99.9% of Perot voters would have preferred to see Bill Clinton finish in third place. We managed to move him from losing, to winning.

Like I pointed out: I inadvertently (read: stupidly) helped Bill Clinton move into the WH.

So you should have voted for someone you didn't believe in then? Voting for the lesser of two evils to keep the bigger evil from getting into office instead of voting for the guy you want to be president is what you SHOULD have done?

Of course it was...I played a part in putting Bill Clinton in power.

I voted emotionally...not intelligently.

That was NOT a 'wasted' vote! I wasted vote is when you vote for someone because they're not as bad as the other guy.

Jeb is a strong proponent of Common Core, Rocky! He's a socialist in a "conservative's" clothing. He might be Florida's 'finest' but that's not saying much. By the way, I heard Marco Rubio talking the other day and he's sounded a bit leftist himself..I wish I had a sound bite, but he was THIS close to saying "the greater good". Like I've said before...the only difference between Hillary and Jeb is that one of them is clean shaven.

There is nothing "evil" about Jeb Bush...he was one of Florida's finest (and conservative) governors.

Hillary does, however, fit the evil definition quite well.

I saw my first 2016 bumper sticker today: "I am ready for Hillary". I sat behind that Prius and marveled how he could drive bent over, with cheeks spread...!

The part of the populace that believes a single person can embody all this probably also believes in Santa Claus.

Agree, any good leader (CEO, POTUS, even an engineering manager) recognizes their limitations, and supplements with other smart people.

No... if it's Jeb or Hillary and one choses not to vote it's called saving yourself 20 minutes. Why vote for Jeb????? Is it principled to vote for evil? I cant even say "the lesser of two evils" in this instance. Either way... evil is evil and I won't vote out of some blinding patriotic duty that would only make me an accomplice. Okay, let me have it rocky.

I agree, but that isn't what gets elected, because for some reason the populace has been told that our Commander-in-Chief is supposed to be the BEST at a whole litany of things: an absurdity. The President is supposed to be:

A consummate orator. Yeah, right. That's what teleprompters, pre-written speeches, and media lackeys are for. That's why Obama has never taken questions from the White House Press Corpse. (pun intended)

A consummate politician. This one's a logical fallacy. You didn't get voted into office to compromise. You ran on a platform of ideas and getting a majority to buy into those ideas. The politicians (see John McCain) who can't differentiate themselves from their opponents universally lose.

A consummate international negotiator. If you're not getting an "Oslo Accords" done during your Presidency, you're just not successful. Nevermind how well these "treaties" actually work out. Please. Leave such to the State Department and the Senate (for Ratification).

A movie star. It only really worked with Reagan. But it's great for hosting fundraisers!

A trial lawyer. Actually, this one is vital if you want to play the system or evade the laws entirely.

A professional golfer. Obama's lowered his game from an average of 100 strokes to just 80. Of course he's been on the links more than any other President in history...

A Teacher. Because that seat in the ivory tower is just so compelling as a reason for people to listen to you.

A Community Organizer. This one is politically necessary because you need to stir up trouble and inflame emotions for your pet cause.

A Police Chief. Because you know he has to have an opinion on every random legal violation that happens... Please. That's what the Justice Department is for.

Commander-in-Chief. Now this one actually is part of the real job description. But Hitler lost WW II for Germany because of his constant intervention. Sound familiar? No. The job of the C-in-C is to lobby Congress about when it is necessary to go to war and that's about it. Leave everything about the prosecution of the war to the Pentagon.

A perfect economist. Actually, of ALL the other jobs, this is the one I wish the President really DID have a sound background in, as it affects EVERYTHING else. What's the #1 predictor in an election year? Hint: it isn't abortion, religion, gay rights, or entitlements... It's the economy, stupid.

For me, I'd much rather have a President who recognized his/her limitations, had a solid foundation of rational ideals, and knew how to effectively use the CABINET (look up how many times Obama has even met with his Cabinet and compare that to the number of times he's met with Valerie Jarrett...) to come up with courses of action. Of course my idea of a Presidential Cabinet has only about 2-3 members of any import...

I didn't think of that.

he's a very interesting free-thinker, yet he likes
to stir things up a bit, from time to time. -- j