February 4, 2012
Recently I wrote that the only GOP candidate worth voting for is Ron Paul. I concluded that he is the only candidate capable of beating Obama in the general election. I went on to announce that liberty voters would no longer be held hostage by the GOP; if they want our vote, they must earn it. This set off a firestorm LinkedIn debate. The basic argument from the opposition was familiar: we must defeat Obama at all cost. I asked why and no answer was given.
It reminded me of the '08 Obama voter, who simply wanted "change," What kind of change did not matter. "We just want change." Why is Romney better than Obama? "He just is." OK, I disagree. The debate concluded with one "anybody but Obama supporter," demanding I hold my nose and "vote for the lesser of two evils." I thought about that:
In 1980 we were told to hold our nose and pick the most electable candidate: George H.W. Bush. "He isn't great we were told, but he's better than Carter." In 1980 we bucked the system and elected Ronald Reagan. Reagan had many faults, he isn't my favorite President, but he is the best of my life time. It was good to not vote for evil.
In 1988, we were told again to vote for "the least evil candidate who can win." Again, it was George H.W. Bush. He gave us higher taxes, more war, a stagnant economy, a deeper entrenchment in the United Nations, and "the opportunity to forge, for ourselves and for future generations, a New World Order. A world where the rule of law, not the law of jungle governs the conduct of nations." The lesser of two evils sounds pretty damned evil to me.
Of course in '92 we "had" to nominate the incumbent. After all, he was surely the most electable and not as evil as that damned Bill Clinton. Lest anyone be confused about our big government, one party system, President Clinton is like a son to Herbert Walker Bush. Imagine Bush's delight after serving for four years himself, his adopted Arkansan son held the office for eight more years, and then his natural son, George W. Bush got his turn.
In 2000, we once again had to choose the 'most electable, least evil candidate.' We were rewarded for our efforts with: The Prescription Drug act, No Child Left Behind, the so called Patriot act, the bailouts, and of course, lots of debt and more war.
2008: Naturally we learned nothing and nominated the most progressive warmongering candidate possible. "He is electable and 'less evil' than the Democrats," we were told. Nominating John McCain got us Obama. It's probably better that Obama won that election; at least the GOP would try, in some small ways, to obstruct a democrat's agenda. Can you imagine if McCain, a co-author of NDAA, had won? Wow, that's a scary thought. Not only would we have the countless wars Obama gave us, we'd be in war everywhere. Hell, we'd probably attack Canada. I still recall McCain on the senate floor joyously singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
Now we are told,"Just one more time, rally the troops, hold your nose, nominate Romney, and then vote for him." Why? His record, if not identical, is eerily similar to Obama's. Why should we choose one over the other? I don't consider Romney 'less evil' than Obama. They are equally bad. Either way, voting for the lesser of two evils has continuously gave us war, debt, and more war. Voting for the lesser of two evils has proven to be pretty damn evil. Quit voting for evil. Vote for peace, prosperity, and liberty.