Posted on 06/02/2012 8:58:03 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Some lies are easier to spot than others. “Of course I’ll respect you in the morning.” “The check is in the mail.” “A vote for anybody but Romney is a vote for Obama.”
The people who repeat this last lie are undeniably sincere. They don’t recognize that they’re merely repeating a manipulative platitude, calculated to keep voters within the ideological boundaries of a thoroughly corrupt two party system. The falsehood being parroted sounds almost exactly like it did four years ago except, in 2008, the name “McCain” was used in place of “Romney.”
Once again the GOP faithful are being admonished to fall in line behind a political “choice” that was made for them many months ago. The individuals who made this decision included power brokers and policymakers representing both major parties. When the efforts of party leaders combine with their cronies in the media, corporations and influential moneyed interests, the outcome tends to favors them no matter who wins.
This was what author Carroll Quiqley referred to in his book “Tragedy and Hope” when he wrote: “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
The fact that the likely GOP nominee and the current president share virtually identical stances on foreign policy, the welfare state, and monetary policy should be a strong clue that whichever candidate the voters elect this November, no actual change will occur.
Both candidates demonstrate disdain for the rule of law by their ongoing support of extra-judicial detentions and killings in the name of national security. Neither Romney nor Obama advocates a return to limited government and greater respect for the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. The interests of those who back them are hardly the interests of the American people.
So is it any surprise that the political ruling class keeps telling us that those candidates whose principles reflect greater freedom, constitutionally limited government, and responsible fiscal, monetary and foreign policies are “unelectable?” There seem to be just enough gullible voters each election cycle willing to take these official pronouncements at face value.
If there’s a lesson to be learned here, it’s that most coverage of the presidential election seems intended to distract the people from understanding the real issues.
Thankfully, an increasing number of voters are refusing to accept the false dilemma they’re being offered. These are the citizens who have taken the time to educate themselves politically, economically, spiritually, and philosophically. They recognize that the fraudulent two party system offers no real choice. They understand that the only vote for Obama will be one that comes from a person actually casting their ballot for Obama.
These are the voters who know that any political leader who supports gun bans, socialized medicine and the denial of due process when imprisoning or murdering individuals is unworthy of their vote. Whether that candidate’s name is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is irrelevant. People who are in the habit of basing their decisions upon principle rather than pragmatism are more difficult to deceive.
Columnist Vin Suprynowizc once asked his readers to imagine that they were citizens of the Weimar Republic in the 1930s. He asked them how they would want to address their grandchildren as they approached the end of their lives. Would they prefer to tell their families “They told us that our only choice was between the Nazis and the Communists. So I had to choose the lesser of the two evils”? Or would they rather say, “I refused to support either the fascists or the Bolsheviks. Because of this, I was shouted down, marginalized and abused for refusing to acquiesce, but I stayed true to my conscience and to my principles”?
The future of our nation doesn’t hinge upon the outcome of this single presidential election. But it has a great deal to do with the long-term character and principles of the voters who will participate in this and future elections. If they can be deceived every election cycle into selling out for an illusory short-term political gain, we will all lose in the long run.
But if enough voters remain true to their core principles and refuse to be swayed from them, there is hope that the greater struggle for liberty and good government can be won
You are correct that the two-party system is not found in the Constitution.
Does not change the fact that, perhaps unfortunately, it exists.
With the exception of the pre-Civil War period when the Whig Party fell apart, in every election where a third party played a significant role its primary effect was to elect the group the third party’s supporters most opposed.
Romney is so much better than Obama. This whole discussion is crazy.
Do the words, Supreme Court Justices, mean anything to you?
Anyone Most Likely To DEFEAT Obama
At this juncture once Primaries have passed, all the other arguments against Romney are both moot and counterproductive to ridding us of the socialist plague looking for a second shot to complete both fleecing us of our treasury and what's left of our freedom.
But if enough voters remain true to their core principles and refuse to be swayed from them, there is hope that the greater struggle for liberty and good government can be won
Agreed. No votes for socialists.
Actually, it’s no longer “ABO” — it’s “NBR”. Nobody But Romney.
Kinda puts a different spin on the rhetoric, doesn’t it?
“We have, for better and worse, a two-party system. A vote for a third party is wasted.”
I would disagree in this regard...
We have a multi-party system inside each of the two parties.
On the R side, we have everything from the John Birch Society to the Libertarians.
When a party runs a candidate that is not acceptable to the majority of those across the full spectrum,
the disaffected have strong temptation to support a candidate outside the party that best represents their
interests. To assume that just because someone has an R by there name means they share an equal passion for
every issue, is I think, a false assumption. The party is not monolithic in regards to interests.
THAT is where we are with Romney. He represents weakly, SOME fiscal ideas, weakly, SOME (but not all) social ideas,
and comes with a history of representing the opposite side of most of what many of us are committed to.
It is no surprise that he is not a much-loved candidate. It won’t be a surprise when some significant percentage
of our side goes fishing that day in November...
You are quite correct. I was being overly simplistic.
Our system operates on a coalition basis, just like a parliamentary system.
The only real difference is that in our system we usually put together the coalitions within the parties rather than between the parties.
Hey, easy now. I’ve never posted the ‘GOPe’ moniker until just now. I was merely answering your question. The “bastard” comment was uncalled for. My lineage is well documented, unlike the POTUS....
You’re going to blame your deadlocked confusion over the many better than Romney hopefuls on “this way of thinking”?
Nice projection, bud.
You folks should have foreseen that Obama’s singular abysmality would welcome a worse grade of GOP competitor than usual. And that Sarah declining to run would deprive you of a shoo-in. And done whatever needed to ensure you converged on a satisfactory candidate.
The GOPe out-organized you. They used you against yourselves in your confusion and division.
“Our system operates on a coalition basis, just like a parliamentary system.
“The only real difference is that in our system we usually put together the coalitions within the parties rather than between the parties.
Then we see things pretty much the same.
I would only add that a primary result like this - manipulated by one key dimension of the party (GOPeRINOs) - results in a forced and weak coalition that will go forth with power. It still may win, but many will feel there isn’t enough there to be passionate about and they will not join. It doesn’t represent the totality of the party. They are counting on the hatred of Obama to get those they ignored to the polls. McCain did this (forced to) in choosing Palin. Apparently, RINOmney is planning to choose a non-conservative.
I will be out at the polls, enthusiastically supporting every conservative I see. Non-conservatives will be skipped.
One surely has to ask, why is the Republican controlled Congress, doing nothing, absolutely nothing other than a few TV appearances by Issa, telling us he is getting ready to about, almost issue a contempt citation.
This is the result of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Romney is already pitching his tent noticeably wider with his refusal to condemn Trump, the birther.
I see many noses turned up over the Romney lemon. Fewer of them looking for ways to make lemonade out of it.
We sent a bunch of them to Congress last election. How many of them have not sold their soul to the GOPe? The Top of the ticket matters, and in that race we had only an illusion of a choice.
Illusion, schmillusion! Any of the other hopefuls, even Mr. Incomplete Political Picture himself (Ron Paul), would have fewer faults than Romney. The problem if anything was too MUCH choice. You think there’s passion in this thread? It is but a shadow of the “Tastes great!” “Less filling!” over Santorum and Gingrich, splitting conservatives and leaving them to wither in this divided state.
So are you Romney-supporters going to tell us when it is okay to criticize Romney's liberalism? Why do I have this feeling that many Romney supporters will insist that we have to be "team-players" if Romney gets elected? The sad thing is that Romney's record suggests that he'll adopt most of Obama's agenda but he'll place the Republican seal-of-approval on it. Rather than replacing Obama's abuses look for Romney to institutionalize them. Oh sure, he'll tear off the title page and rip out a page or two for appearances but in the end, Romney will give the liberals the book that they'll like.
The Constitution did not establish parties, the Elite did. Whether you like it or not, we have a Royal Class in this country, so bow down to your bettors, and fact the cr@p sandwich they have served up. They did however serve it with very good bread.
Ask yourself why every candidate and every talking head proclaimed they would support Romney if he was the nominee. What incentive was there for the GOPe to mollify their position, even after the embarrassing defeat of McCain, they just doubled down.
That makes Abe Lincoln's victory all the more stunning, doesn't it?
Sorry to dispell your mistaken notion, but I sure a heck ain’t a Romney supporter. I reluntantly went from Palin to Perry to Newt and voted Newt in our Texas Primary, this week.
Now its time to tell how the cow ate the cabbage and I don’t give a damn what Romney does once elected. At worst he will at least pretend the right things, at best may surprise us. What realistic options do we have???? Yes Siree Bob, it is down to ABO and Romney winds up with the bottle pointing at him!
Anyone now touting 3rd party is all but pulling the trigger on our national suicide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.