So just who is the Ross Perot in this race that’s going to get any amount of meaningful votes?
Also, let’s see what happens when we all follow your ‘noble’ logic:
We all make our personal stands. We vote for or even write in our perfect candidate (AND LET’S NOT WAIT! LET’S DO IT THIS ELECTION) for every possible position. For a fact, do you know what we’d have in 2013? NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN ELECTED! Every single Republican running has something in their past that some voter could consider of the ‘devil’. (I wanted Herman Cain, then Newt. You don’t think I could’ve used your logic to eliminate them as men I could vote for based on things in their past?)So not one single Republican would get enough votes to beat their democratic opponent. Great!/S. We’d be left with 100% democrats, most of them actually Marxists or worse. But let’s do it. That’ll show’em,huh?
But most are more sensible than that. Don't look now, but your hysteria is showing.
I can hardly make it any clearer than this: for me, the object is to register the presidential vote for anybody BUT Obama and anybody BUT Romney, even though -- actually BECAUSE -- one of them is pretty much guaranteed to win. I hope and pray sensible people vote third party for the express purpose of making it so that, when the dust clears, the amoral authoritarian statist president we end up with will have to face a nation where conservatives are stronger than ever in Congress and where two out of every three voting Americans voted AGAINST him.
It would be easier to reach that goal if there WAS a Perot in this race, and there may be one yet. But "the Ross Perot in this race" isn't really necessary. All that is necessary is for conservatives and Republicans to heed their better jugment, listen to their gut, and avoid Romney like the plague. You must think pretty lowly of all the "conservative Young Bloods" we are hoping to see increase so powerfully in Congress, if you think they couldn't be a serious obstacle to Obama if he got re-elected. You act as if with Obama, "resistence is useless." If you have so little faith in the new conservatives the Tea Partiers are working to get elected to Congress, don't you figure they'd roll over even quicker to liberal Romney, since he's the defacto leader of the Republican party? How on earth do you rationalize that they would fight Romney at all, if you think they wouldn't be able to check Obama?
Voting to weaken the victor's mandate is the only way we can give all those conservatives we voted for down-ticket the chance to see a weak, defensive statist president whom they can DOMINATE.
Your false mantra is to claim that refusing to vote for Romney "helps" Obama. Here's the truth: whether you mean to or not, voting FOR Romney is helping liberal statism. There's only one way to avoid doing that -- vote for SOMEBODY ELSE and let the chips fall where they may. Our Founders designed a pretty good system for voters. LET IT DO ITS WORK.
It's like this: ABO is founded in fear and touched with hysteria. Fear and hysteria lead to bad moves and mistakes, and have pretty much since Adam. That is a HUGE WARNING SIGN that ABO is bad strategy.
Also, let’s see what happens when we all follow your ‘noble’ logic:
We all make our personal stands. We vote for or even write in our perfect candidate (AND LET’S NOT WAIT! LET’S DO IT THIS ELECTION) for every possible position. For a fact, do you know what we’d have in 2013? NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN ELECTED! Every single Republican running has something in their past that some voter could consider of the ‘devil’. (I wanted Herman Cain, then Newt. You don’t think I could’ve used your logic to eliminate them as men I could vote for based on things in their past?)So not one single Republican would get enough votes to beat their democratic opponent. Great!/S. We’d be left with 100% democrats, most of them actually Marxists or worse. But let’s do it. That’ll show’em,huh?
Excellent post and I agree completely. If their preferred candidate didn't get the nomination, they will vote for him anyway, even if their wasted vote means that Obama wins. The others are of the ABR (Anyone But Romney) mindset. They would rather see Obama win than Romney, so they plan to vote for someone with no chance of winning. To me, it's the worst kind of selfishness to deliberately allow Obama to win by wasting a vote. It's like the folks who voted for Ross Perot and allowed Klintoon to win. Thanks for nothing.
If Mitt Romney selects Sarah Palin as his running mate, I'll bet some of these folks with unassailable moral fiber will suddenly start singing a different tune. And on the topic of abortion, I wonder if anyone has seen this page:
Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.
Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that "I fully understand" and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.
Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.
Maybe I'm missing an important detail, but that sounds fairly clear to me. He says he is pro-life and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. Which makes sense - the feds have no business making any rulings about abortion.