Election 2012

Who's Getting The American Conservative's Votes?

Rounding up a magazine's ballots.


Vote carefully.

Reason isn't the only media outlet that posts its writers' voting plans each election. There is also Slate, which has not yet revealed whether its staff's support for Obama this year will be unanimous or merely overwhelming, and there is The American Conservative, which posted its roundup today. By my count, the TAC writers are casting four clear-cut votes for Barack Obama and four for Mitt Romney. One writer is backing Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, and between four and six are supporting Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. (Two of the Johnson supporters say they might write in Ron Paul instead, and one of those Johnson/Paul undecideds says he'll back Obama if the race in his state is tight.) Three are undecided, with two of those three leaning toward Romney and one not stating a preference. One man is writing in Rand Paul. Seven are not voting in the presidential race, though one of those seven says he'd back Goode if he were on the ballot in his state. And a few just don't say how they're voting. One of the last group, William Lind, suggests that we should greet Election Day with a prayer: "We beseech Thee, O Lord, once again to grant us a Godly monarch."

The oddest decision comes from the immigration restrictionist Peter Brimelow, who explains that the most important issue to him is immigration, notes regretfully that there are no restrictionist candidates on the ballot where he lives, and ends up endorsing Gary Johnson, who wants more immigration, on the grounds that he at least likes Johnson's foreign policy. Brimelow is balanced by Marian Kester Coombs, who spends her entry explaining that the Democrats and Republicans are a two-headed beast and "Only the Libertarians see clearly how to escape the death spiral," then says she'll vote for Romney anyway. (The most anti-libertarian entry comes from Stephen Tippins, who believes that there are always "two reasons to vote for the Republican presidential candidate," of which the first "is simply that any viable third party candidate is usually a libertarian.")

The case for Romney, I guess. Or Obama. Whichever.

Jeremy Beer, who makes a sarcastic case for Romney, writes what may be the most entertaining passage of the survey: "If you're pro-life, Catholic, and of a conservative disposition, isn't it obvious that the Mormon/Randian ticket is the only choice? I mean, the only pragmatic choice? This is politics, people! It's all about compromise and getting your hands dirty. And I, for one, refuse to compromise my pro-life beliefs and dirty my hands by refusing to compromise my pro-life beliefs and dirty my hands. Even if that dirt is really blood." I also appreciated Johnson supporter Scott Galupo's closing remark: "In the end, I'm the kind of voter—Republican-leaner in a critical battleground state—whose support Romney needs. Whatever happens Nov. 6, I will derive satisfaction from the infinitesimal harm I will cause to his campaign."

NEXT: Navy Sending Carriers to New Jersey Post-Storm

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Look at Tulpa’s cute little pigtails.

    1. A girl I knew a while back liked her pigtails to be pulled during sex. Is that weird?

      1. No, it’s common.

        1. You must be one kinky mother.

          1. Meh, as long as it doesn’t hurt or feel weird to me, I’ll do what I can to help my partner along. I’ve just found, in my travels, that most women enjoy a little tension in the hair at the right times.

            1. I’ve found that that’s almost entirely confined to women who wear their hair in a single, long ponytail, or have pigtails. Coincidence? I THINK NOT.

              1. Not my experience. Most women like at least some lite dominance from time to time.

                1. That was in response to RPA.

          2. Wife likes to her neck to be gently squeezed and I like to be nibbled on the neck. However, before we got hitched, sobered up, stopped doing blow, shit would get real.

            1. likes to her neck

      2. She kept her pigtails in for that very reason. Girls who don’t like that don’t have pigtails.

        1. Yeah, pretty much.

          1. Hey, I know a woman with pigtails who thinks that sort of thing during sex is offensive and inappropriate.

            She’s a Jezebel-esque feminist, but she’s also pretty attractive, so I keep my mouth shut so I can stare at her boobs without being yelled at.

            1. In that case, she’s keeping the pigtails as a taunt to let you know that she is in control.

              1. Or she’s flirting with me subtly, and when I finally bed her, she’ll turn out to be the kinkiest gal ever.

            2. so I keep my mouth shut so I can stare MALE GAZE!1!11!!!!!!11!! at her boobs without being yelled at.


              1. I’m a vile oppressor, aren’t I? Well, what the hell did you expect? This monocle ain’t just for show, you know.

            3. Yeah, I’ve known Jezebel-esque feminists who said the same thing, but changed their minds in bed. Ditto with spanking. I’m not talking about anything crazy or painful. I’m also not trying to be misogynistic. If they felt conflicted after, I just explained that they should enjoy themselves and not worry about what others might think since no one else needs to know. It’s not like I was controlling or abusive in any way.

              Suddenly this feels to revealing. These posts are totally going to kill my mayoral run (in 20 yrs).

      3. Re: Res Publica Americana,

        A girl I knew a while back liked her pigtails to be pulled during sex. Is that weird?

        If the pigtails are those of her beard, then I would say it is unusual…

        1. Look, Warty has some unusual proclivities, but the Left will defend to the death his right to push the sexual envelope.

          If he wants a cigarette afterwards though, he may end up in the gulag.

          1. I hear he prefers bath salts after a good, hard screw.

            1. No, no, no. Bath salts are the foreplay, sort of his Viagra. After he has successfully copulated (typically with Epi, but I have it on good authority that he thinks of dunphy while doing the deed), he has himself a cigarette dipped in sherm.

              1. Is it a cigarette flavored with the blood of toiling Asian child slaves?

                1. Oh, is that the “blood-diamond” flavor I’ve heard about? I didn’t know it was meant literally.

                  1. Camel was really pushing out some innovative tobacco flavors before the FDA decided that any element of flavoring in a cigarette was a ploy to get five year old lighting up.

                  2. Your confusion is understandable, considering how hard that particular flavor is to obtain. It’s only available in Mulatto’s sex slave-staffed, golden mansion in the mountains of Tibet.

    2. Shove it up your ass. Most of the campaign I’ve been supporting the side that looked like it was going to lose.

      1. That second sentence was gibberish.

      2. So libertarians should not vote for Romney so he can beat Obama…but libertarians should vote for Romney cuz he is going to loose by a smaller margin then Johnson…


  2. Fascinating in a way.

    For all the bullshit that progressives spew about conservatives lacking nuance and being nothing but obedient little lackeys, the progressives will almost unanimously support Obama (even if they do so tepidly), while these conservatives seem to be supporting a variety of candidates with chasms between them.

    1. That’s impossible. Romney’s conspiring to rig the election1111!!

    2. It is a cold shower of reality.

      Romney is no conservative despite what MSM would have us believe.

    3. The American Conservative is not a mainstream conservative magazine by any stretch. I’m sure you would get a much more partisan result from National Review or The Weekly Standard.

  3. one of those Johnson/Paul undecideds says he’ll back Obama if the race in his state is tight.

    Thereby displaying his subtle sophistication in matters political.

  4. of which the first “is simply that any viable third party candidate is usually a libertarian.”

    “Millions for tribute, not one cent for defense!”

  5. By my count, the TAC writers are casting four clear-cut votes for Barack Obama

    Cancel my subscription!

    Oh, wait . . . .

    1. What exactly is their definition of “Conservative”?

      1. A different type of liberal?

  6. Two of the Johnson supporters say they might write in Ron Paul instead

    So instead of making votes that get counted, they’ll vote in a way that never gets counted or reported. Talk about wasting your vote. They might as well not vote at that point. I mean, I get not voting, but writing in a candidate that won’t be counted instead of helping a candidate that you like seems futile and irrational. This is why Libertarian candidates don’t get anywhere.

    1. Clearly, you lack the sophistication to adequately grasp advanced paultard cognition.

      1. Yes, how dare they waste their vote on Ron Paul when they could waste their vote on Gary Johnson!

        1. Yes, and how dare they waste their vote on Gary Johnson when they could waste their vote on Mitt Romney!

    2. The one exception is writing in “Lizard People”.

      I still wonder exactly how Minnesota rules on those. Damn it, Lizard People deserve to be the senate.

      Also, that is my default write-in vote now.

      1. Also, that is my default write-in vote now.

        So your continued existence means that:

        1. Your write-in vote isn’t counted.

        2. Lizard People don’t exists.

        3. You are a Lizard Person.

        4. Some combination of the above.

        1. It’s obviously 2. and 3. I’m glad we’ve finally established robc doesn’t exist.

      2. I still wonder exactly how Minnesota rules on those. Damn it, Lizard People deserve to be the senate.

        Obviously they’re votes for Obama.

    3. It’s cute to see Johnson supporters reveal their true colors, as the “vote your conscience” veil drops to the floor. If you’re pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, and/or anti-open-borders, apparently you’re not allowed to vote your conscience.

      1. Voting someone not on the ballot isnt really voting your conscience. That goes beyond that to stupid.

        Now, if that person has registered to be an OFFICIAL right in candidate and their votes will be counted as such, like with Johnson in Michigan, IIRC, then its fine, IMO.

        KY law, for example, doesnt allow write-ins for prez (due to lack of slate of electors, I think) but does for other races. However, for the votes for you to count, you must officially register and pay a small fee in advance to have your write-in votes count.

        If someone hasnt done the latter, I dont see the point in writing them in, it is literally the same as not voting at all (which is okay, but why bother scribbling in a name then).

      2. huh? Not really sure how you arrive at this conclusive analysis.

  7. What exactly is their definition of “Conservative”?

    George Bush, I suspect.

    1. Considering that several of them are voting for GayJay specifically because of his anti-war positions, I’d probably peg a number of them as closer to a Pat Buchanan styled conservative.

      1. Considering that the magazine was founded by Pat Buchanan (along with Scott McConnell and Taki Theodoracopulos), that would make sense.

  8. “@daveweigel: I just early voted in DC. Bruce Majors for Congress, all the way. My presidential choice will be in Slate’s staff roundup.”

    1. Good luck Bruce but ratfucker Weigel isn’t exactly a positive endorsement around here.

  9. You don’t think it is a sign of his redemption? A coming to Jesus moment? What if he endorses Johnson too at Slate?

  10. Wow, that American Conservative article has renewed my faith in America! What a country!

    Is there anywhere else in the world where you can get paid to write about subjects in which you obviously know nothing about?

    For the most part, what a bunch of sanctimonious muddle-headed navel-gazing.

    “Gosh, I’m so smart and pithy and cool, I hate everyone and everything; and it’s all a scam; and everyone lies (except me and people who agree with me); and voting is for rubes; and does my navel look good? no lint?….

    And I’m a conservative, even though I hate every last one of ’em and all they agree with; and I’ll write in Robert LaFollette just to impress the local voting board; you sure there’s no lint in my navel?….

    warmongers to the right of me and the spectre of Dick Cheney to my left; Romney’s monocle cleaner is giving me nightmares!; but I’m really a conservative damn it, shall I impress you with the name of the obscure 17th French novelette I’m reading and you’re sure my navel looks OK?; why have sane political opinions when you can just eye-roll at the mere mention of GW Bush…

    but seriously, how’s my navel?”

  11. Scott McConnell

    I’m voting for Obama without qualm or hesitation. I was never really taken with him, and have not become enthusiastic over the past four years. … Worst of all, Romney is very likely to ignite a war with Iran, home to the largest educated middle class in the Mideast. He has stacked his campaign with neoconservatives and exhibits a startling affinity for the views of Bibi Netanyahu. The real Romney denigrates the culture of Palestinians, either from ignorance of the conditions the occupation imposes on them or from racial or religious malice.

    The tenacity of the neoconservative hold on the GOP continues to amaze: in no American political party since the Progressives of Henry Wallace have the sympathizers of a foreign state played so critical a role. Between neoconservative intellectuals and the Christian Zionists, the GOP is now wedded completely to Israeli perspectives. Romney will bomb Iran to ensure Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, while cheering from the sidelines as Israel completes a full-blown apartheid complex on the West Bank.

    Scott McConnell is a founding editor of The American Conservative.

    The founding editor of “The American Conservative” is voting for Obama because of the nefarious JOOZ!!!!! whereas, Sheldon Richman doesn’t even mention the word ‘Israel’ in his contribution.

    The contributors must be writing in the guise of their Halloween costumes or something.

    1. I’m putting “The Nefarious Jooz” on the list of possible band names, HM.

      1. Duly noted.

        Now we need album names.

        1. The Cave of The Golden Calf
          The Sound of Breaking Glass
          40 More Years and Then Forever
          Razor Face, Razor Neck (live double album)

          1. Sounds fuckin’ metal.

    2. I’m voting for Obama without qualm or hesitation. I was never really taken with him, and have not become enthusiastic over the past four years

      No cognitive dissonance there.

  12. Holy crap it is a like a room full of suicidal monkeys being vented vaporized PCP.

    I imagine the 4 Obama voters huddled in a corner drinking cups of each others urine laced with cyanide with the rest of the room exploding in desperate money violence.

    1. Complete with feces slinging? My kinda party.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.