"Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?” - Ronald Reagan It continues to baffle me that so many conservatives are actually talking about voting Third Party in 2012 to "make a statement." I honestly want to shake these people. My response is: well zippity doo da you and your "statement" are going to get this country stuck with four more years of Obama and more "change" that is going to remake this nation into something our founding fathers wouldn't recognize. For the record, I'm talking to conservatives here. You libertarians who might decide to go to Gary Johnson, well, that's your perogative and I guess I can respect it. Conservatives, however, you're shooting this nation in the foot with that kind of vote. Honestly, friends, I'm not trying to pick on anyone here, but do you remember what happened the last time people gave "statement votes" to a third party candidate because the Republican nominee was less than conservative. Do you remember? The Election was Decision 1992. Ross Perot was running against the growing deficits (the like of which we'd now give our right arm for today) and other fiscally conservative messages. At the end of the day, Clinton beat Bush (41) by about 5.5% nationally. Perot, remember, received 18% of the vote. Even if Clinton and Bush split Perot's vote, Bush would've won handily. Instead we got Clinton, and a big push for liberalism for two years, until Newt Gingrich and the GOP were elected in a landslide and forced Clinton to move to the right. Friends, sometimes it's better to elect a George H.W. Bush than to deal with a Clinton. Only one difference: Obama is far worse than Clinton. President Clinton did not care about ideology. If he needed to govern to the right of Warren Harding to be popular he would've done it. The man was a weather vane. Obama on the other hand is a rigid ideologue. If that means voting for Romney, fine. It's better to halt the Obama-Liberalism advance. I expect taht Romney will be, at worst, George H.W. Bush as President. (Actually I think he'll be more like Dwight Eisenhower personally.) Or if you can't have your first choice of the two conservatives, trust me, when you research their plans you'll find that the other guy is a pretty nice consolation prize. (I've endorsed Gingrich, but I would be happy to throw my support behind Santorum.) If you're a Ron Paul supporter, let me ask you this: Even if it means halting the spending in it's tracks, isn't that better than Obama continuing to add to his spending? Friends, we must not allow ourselves the personal toy of a third party "statement vote." I believe America as founded is at stake. Perhaps we won't be able to reverse the flow of the river this election, perhaps we will. but if we can't reverse the flow, at least let's put up a dam. |
Friday, February 24, 2012
Third Party Isn't the Answer
2 comments:
All posts will be reviewed subject to the Rules for Commenting. Any post that does not abide by these rules will not be posted, entirely at the discretion of the blog editor.
Commenters who repeatedly violate these rules will be permanently banned from commenting, and thus none of their comments, regardless of content, will be posted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We can always vote for republicans in congress and a third party in the white house. Im not saying that is the best case, or that I plan on doing that. But I wouldn't fault someone for going third party if they find the republican candidate unacceptable. In 4 years people will tell us that it is the most important election ever! With that attitude every election there will never be an acceptable protest vote. I remember saying that a vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton. In retrospect, maybe a vote for Bush/Dole was more damaging than a vote for Perot. Afterall, that was the most important election ever.
ReplyDeleteMatthew:
ReplyDeleteI understand what you're saying but, with all due respect, I think we're talking about a very different President than Clinton. Clinton was a weather vane. Obama is a rigid idealogue.
Also, I think the Presidency is far more important than Congress. We can push the wrong Congress to do the right thing easier than the same thing with a President.