35 Gut-Wrenching Reasons Why a “No Vote” is a Vote for Barack Obama!

Catch Kevin Radio Show ^ | October 15, 2012 | Kevin Lehmann

[2ndDivisionVet]

Hear, hear.

[INVAR]

This threat again??? Has liberty truly become this shallow?

[montanajoe]

Bullsh*t...

A vote in the Presidential election in 2012 is a vote for a liberal....some (far to few) conservatives don't vote for liberals.

[entropy12]

There are sore losers among republicans. There are some one issue voters. And then there are some juvenile brain level people who will take their toys home if the game does not go their way.

Luckily, the sum total of these unthinking voters is insignificant compared to more realistic and intelligent voters. So I do not worry about these voters. There are plenty of independents who are moving towards Romney/Ryan ticket.

[Nifster]

I agree. But I hope you have your flame retardant suit on because I am sure there are those who are going to go nuts over that.

[mass55th]

Those who choose to sit home on election day will be doing the same thing Obama’s done many times during his political career. They’re voting “Present.”

[Nifster]

hopefully you know the difference between a communist (out and out avowed) and that other guy

[montanajoe]

Just different flavors of the same crap...you vote for a liberal you elect a liberal no matter how many times you say you don't.....

[2ndDivisionVet]

I couldn’t care less.

[Nifster]

Not even close. If you can’t recognize a commie when he tells you he is one and acts accordingly then I feel sorry for you

[Nifster]

good. we need plenty more like you

[2ndDivisionVet]

Please read the whole article instead of just the headline because he makes a lot of good points. I think you’ll agree with many of them.

[Norm Lenhart]

Well Kevin,

It seems like many quasi-conservatives the 2012 election has uncovered, you seem to believe that votes appear in candidate tallies by unicorn magic. This is not the case.

I would once again prove this with simple math, but people who believe that ‘no’ vote for a given candidate increases the vote total of another are simply too stupid to warrant discussion with.

That you have a radio show in which you can spread that mistaken info proves you to be no better than the MSM as you are doing EXACTLY what they do.

Fact: A conservative is not ‘required’ to assist in the further destruction of his ideology and everything that made America what it is to promote the further march of liberalism into the Republican Party. Period. If you personally choose to participate in the further destruction of America by advancing liberalism in either of the two dominant political parties, that is your choice.

If you believe that you are doing the right thing, go for it. Some people believe in unicorns too. Personally, I don’t believe you have the demonstrated the intelligence to discern that as a problem.

[montanajoe]

I do agree with many of the points I don't support Obama. I wont vote for a liberal because he is a Republican.

I understand where you folks in the GOP are coming from, I understand that you think I must support the party nominee but I support Conservatives not Rebublkicans.

I'm not a Republican I'm a Conservative....

[Yosemitest]

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice, but she dropped out.
Bachmann became my first choice,and she dropped out.
Cain was my second choice, but he dropped out.
Now ... Newt was my second choice, but he challenged Rush.
So now ... Rick Santorum, who use to be my third choice, is now my first choice.

But Romney, ... well at least he's not as bad as McCain was.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[tumblindice]

‘Yeah, I know I should vote for Foghorn since Colonel Sanders is killing us and stuffing us in buckets. But I’m a Rhode Island Red, and he’s not.’

Listen to yourself if you won’t listen to us.

[INVAR]

That anyone voting for a staunch Conservative at the top of the ticket by write in or third party and in-full down ticket is declared by the scared-to-death herds to be voting FOR Obama, is beyond absurd.

This election farce has demonstrated how shallow and insignificant liberty truly is to a vast bunch of people insisting everyone march in lockstep out of abject fear.

My vote is sacred and I will exercise my liberty to cast it for whom represents my values, faith and principles. To ridicule or otherwise denounce those who are not marching in lockstep with the demands of the fearful, showcases just how tyrannical they themselves really are in terms of liberty. They would deny it as quickly and ruthlessly as the Marxists based on all the incendiary threats and condescension I’ve read over the last 5 months.

We’re not limited to vote only for a Democrat Socialist or an American-hating Marxist for president.

I refuse to be a slave of the Ruling Class and limited to the box they have shoved us all into.

I’m voting my Conservative and Christian principles and I’m thinking past November.

[donna]

A vote for Mitt is a vote for homosexual Boy Scout Leaders and abortions for the “health” of the mother.

I will never vote for that - and shame on you if you do.

[tallyhoe]

A vote in the Presidential election in 2012 is a vote for a liberal....some (far to few) conservatives don’t vote for liberals.

No the vote difference in 2012 is a Communist or a Conservative! Take your pick!!! Keep the Commie in the Whiter House and Our Country don’t survive or???????

[montanajoe]

Please...the country wont survive? That's ridiculous.
Romney is a conservative? That's ridiculous.

You need to brush up on your logic ....ridiculous arguments don't change folks minds they just make you look ..well...ridiculous.