Perot gave us two terms of Clinton. McCain himself gave us Obama. And then Romney.
It seems weak GOP candidates reliably produce Leftwing CICs by virtue of the split on the Right. The effect would no doubt repeat itself for as long as it’s tried.
I appreciate your point of view, and it’s a tempting proposition, but a difficult one believing it would yield to Obama.
Something of a conundrum.
Obama wears the scarier mask, but the end results of Obama OR Romney are seeing our rights and freedoms trampled under amoral government tyranny. Whether or not Obama or Romney wins is not the point; one of them is going to win and many of us understand that those who demand we "choose" one or the other are along the lines of those who insist there's a profound difference between Coke and Pepsi that surely any wise consumer should be mindful of in "choosing."
Kneejerk reaction, after decades of thinking Republican = friend, Democrat = enemy, is to shrink back and say, "Why, you can't say that! They're totally different!" But I am sad to say, that is mistaken in 2012. Witness those otherwise moral folks willing to vote FOR a politician who has been responsible, for one example, for forcing adoption agencies to relinquish the innocents in their care to homosexual couples, as Romney has, because that is somehow "better" than voting for Obama. They are in essence arguing that there's a big difference between Coke and Pepsi.
We cannot vote against either Obama or Romney because in elections, you cannot vote "against" -- you can only vote FOR.
I will vote FOR making whichever guy wins as weak as possible, and I will do that by voting third party, my vote FOR weakening the mandate of the victor by splitting the vote into a plurality. Indeed, it is the only way I can in good conscience to God and America, vote in 2012. That it may or may not work is a Hail Mary Pass, but from where I'm sitting, it's the only option, and as it happens, the best one due to the unusual circumstances of extreme low regard for Obama among those who supported him four years ago.
Please ponder seriously the real world consequences of a Romney landslide, and ask yourself: Which has a better chance of preserving liberty -- an embattled, humiliated Obama against an empowered Republican/conserative Congress, or a "popular mandate" landslide progressive Romney supported by moderate Republicans, the GOP-E, and Democrats against Republicans who are conservative?
You are thinking in terms of ABO. I am thinking in terms of doing whatever it takes to prevent a Romney landslide, because ABOers' votes "against" Obama wouldn't mean a damned thing -- they would only be votes FOR Romney, and that referendum "against" Obama would very quickly morph into a popular-demand mandate FOR Romney's progressivism. What you vote FOR is the ONLY thing that counts.