Why You Shouldn’t Vote

Look, I’m not going to lie to you – your vote matters. But let’s be honest, there are Republicans on the ballot who aren’t very conservative. Most of them don’t agree with me on everything and surely don’t agree with you on everything. In fact, many of them are downright awful.

So if you find yourself in a state where the Senate race is close, and you don’t like some of the things the Republican candidate stands for – just stay home.

A message must be sent: We conservatives could not beat all the people we don’t like in the primary, so we’re not going to vote.

That’ll show the establishment. That’ll show the country. That’ll show the future.

So if you’re a conservative in Colorado, don’t vote for Cory Gardner. If you’re in Iowa, show that Joni Ernst what’s what! Live in North Carolina? Who does that Thom Tillis think he is, anyway? From Kentucky? Let Mitch McConnell know who’s boss! Georgia? David Perdue? I don’t think so. Kansas? Teach that Pat Roberts a lesson! Live in New Hampshire? Scott Brown – yuck, am I right?

Just because tea party and conservative candidates couldn’t win a majority in primary challenges doesn’t mean they aren’t the majority. It was dirty tricks and the establishment that screwed you … everyone knows that. So show the establishment you won’t take not getting your way anymore.

Honestly, what’s the point of voting for a candidate who agrees with you a majority of the time? Don’t vote. Let someone who you agree with on nothing win, and then next time – in six years – that person comes up for reelection, maybe the Republican Party will come to its senses and let you get your way.

I mean, what would be better for the country – Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader? Obviously Harry Reid. Mitch McConnell is a squish on a few things, wouldn’t run blocker for President Obama and wouldn’t be a rubberstamp for any Supreme Court nominee, or any court, for that matter. Where’s the lesson for the establishment for that?

Sure, I know, the country will have a court system packed with activist judges, and the president will use his magic pen and phone to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and who knows what else, but principle will be maintained. That’s a moral victory, right? Those count for something in politics, right? They have to count for something…

Of course, they count for nothing. Yet that nothing is what many millions of Americans, including many of you (judging by comments on other columns in which I’ve dealt with this topic), are prepared to vote for by stubbornly refusing to vote for a candidate who isn’t “your candidate.”

Sorry, your candidate lost, and your remaining choice sucks. I get it, I’ve been there. But so what! Get over yourself. Everyone who voted in the primary and your choice lost. It happens. It’s part of life. So you’re just going to quit?

If you want to right the ship of state, how did you think that would work? Your one chosen candidate would somehow undo half a century of constitutional disregard in 20 minutes? Of course not. It’s all going to be incremental. Nothing this big turns on a dime. But before it can get any better it has to stop getting worse.

Harry Reid remaining majority leader in the Senate means things continue to get worse. Barack Obama packing the courts with like-minded judges means things will continue to get worse.

There will come a point of no return, where we will tip over that ledge from which there is no coming back. If you stay home, or you cast a “message” vote for some third party nothing-burger, that’s what you’re voting for. That’s what you’ll get, and that’s the country you’ll be leaving for your kids to inherit.

A vote for anyone other than the Republican, no matter who that Republican is, is a vote for Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

You want to purge the party? Do it from a position of strength. I’m all for a battle royale for the soul of the Republican Party, but not until AFTER the Democrats are vanquished.

Tuesday, go vote. Vote for the Republicans. Send a message that you are not a moody, unreliable person who will take your ball and go home if you don’t get your way, but that you accept your party’s primary decision. It’s a decision you don’t like. It’s a decision you’ll fight in the next primary if necessary. But for the good of the country, you’ll live in “now” and work for the future.

Anything else is a vote for progressives, and anyone who does that is no conservative.

During the campaign for the governorship in 2002, Romney proposed a plan that he said would balance the Massachusetts budget without raising taxes.[2] He campaigned that he would be able to save $1 billion (out of a $23 billion budget) by reducing waste, fraud, and mismanagement in the state government,[5] and he railed against the large tax increase that the legislature were negotiating in an attempt to close a looming $2 billion budget deficit.[6] He promised that if elected he would repeal that tax increase within four years without cutting core government services.

To close the deficit, he asked for, and was granted by the state legislature, emergency powers (under the existing Section “9C” authority in state law) to make unilateral cuts in the fiscal year 2003 budget.[13]

Romney’s initial emergency budget proposal for fiscal year 2003 called for $343 million in immediate funding cuts, necessitating layoffs of state employees and cuts in aid to cities and towns for public safety and education.

Romney’s austerity budget for fiscal year 2004, unveiled just weeks later, included even more substantial cuts in state funding for cities and towns.[5] The final budget passed by the legislature (after overriding Romney’s attempt to make still further cuts using line-item vetoes), cut funding for local aid to many communities by as much as 20 percent.

Romney’s budget proposals included savings he anticipated achieving by restructuring the state government. On announcing his 2004 budget proposal, he said that through improving efficiency by reorganizing the state bureaucracy, along with reducing waste and fraud, he would save $2 billion.

In addition to spending cuts, Romney and the legislature relied heavily on fee increases to help balance the budgets throughout Romney’s term, more aggressively pursuing a revenue source that the legislature had already begun to draw upon to close a deep deficit during the year prior to Romney’s election.[33] The state of Massachusetts raised $500 million in new revenue during Romney’s first year in office from fees, more than any other state surveyed

Romney stated that Massachusetts finished fiscal 2004 with a $700 million surplus.[46] Official state figures said that fiscal 2005 finished with a $594.4 million surplus.[3][47] For fiscal 2006, the surplus was $720.9 million according to official figures.[47] The state’s “rainy day fund”, more formally known as the Stabilization Fund, was replenished through government consolidation and reform. At the close of fiscal year 2006, the fund enjoyed a $2.155 billion balance

During the 2002 campaign, Romney had proposed to institute full-day kindergarten in schools that were performing below standards and to introduce merit pay to teachers.

During Romney’s tenure as governor, Massachusetts’ per capita funding for public higher education decreased from $158 to $137, and in national rank, per capita state expenditures changed from 48th to 47th

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to same-sex marriage.[104] “Call me old fashioned, but I don’t support gay marriage nor do I support civil union,” said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples.

Romney strongly opposed same-sex marriage during his governorship.

In December 2004, Romney announced plans to file a death penalty bill in early 2005. The bill, filed April 28, 2005, sought to reinstate the death penalty in cases that include terrorism, the assassination of law enforcement officials and multiple killings

In February 2005, Romney filed legislation to increase benefits for Massachusetts National Guard members.

“Well sparky, it should be no issue for you to show from Mitt’s record his conservative bonifides that make him more conservative than Hillary! since she’s a Clinton...wife of the guy YOU already admitted was a more conservative guy than Mitt a couple posts above.

So lets see it. If you can’t, then I guess we can all see how hollow your words really are.”

LOL. Sure thing Normy. Read it and weep...
Romney vetoed a bill in 2004 that would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain in-state tuition rates at state colleges if they graduated from a Massachusetts high school after attending it for at least three years and signed an affidavit affirming that they intended to seek citizenship. Romney argued that the bill would cost the state government $15 million and that Massachusetts should not reward illegal immigration.

Are you serious? Really? Did you not crosscheck that with the results? I mean come on. You honestly posted his ‘opposition to gay marraige when his most famous quote is about bing a better friend to the gays than Ted Kennedy.

you posted all this fiscal responsibility crap when he ran the state into the ground financially. You post “Raised 500 mil in “Revenue” and thats a 500 mill TAX INCREASE!.

You posted layoffs without mentioning WHO got laid off!

The state STILL has not economically recovered from his Sub 40% popularity economically!

You post about him campaigning on not cutting govt then he made cuts contrary to his promises that led to economic effects felt today. And you call THAT conservative? Have you SEEN the mess he made of that state?

Good GOD man. RESEARCH your crap before cut and pasting it from Mitt.com next time!

Read it and weep...

Especially after hearing Romney more recently passionately defend homosexual would-be "parents" seeking to adopt children, saying he believed that two homosexuals who "loved" each other should be able to do so --

What he really means, Kozak ol buddy, is that government force should be used to prevent adoption agencies from saying, "Hell no we're not going to let you adopt one of these kids!" Romney believes in using government to prevent agencies from doing that. Look at his record and read/hear his words.

You, Kozak and others who would vote for Romney "against" Hillary, this is what you would be voting FOR.

If that doesn't make you weep, nothing will.

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.