Google Custom Search

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Musings After Midnight: NOW What Are You Gonna Do--Romney's Apparent Smooth Sail to the Nomination and Other Abominations

Welcome to another episode of Musings After Midnight. I intend to speak plainly this evening, so get set. (And I will sometimes address myself to an unnamed numbskull who is actually a composite of several people I know, so don't take it personal and don't assume I am talking about most of you, whom I happen to greatly value and respect).

Let's get right down to business, shall we?

I admit that my chops are chapped over the fact that apparently Mitt Romney is going to sail smoothly right to the Republican nomination, now that he swept all of the contests that were held yesterday, and now that Newt Gingrich has recognized that his bid is essentially over.

As for Ron Paul, as much as I prefer him over Romney, I think his chances of securing the nomination are next to nil, despite his well orchestrated campaign of winning delegates state by state.

He won't have enough to win.

So, as one person asked me today, "NOW what are you gonna do? You made it clear from the start that you can't stomach Romney. You warned the GOP about him time and again. But nobody paid attention. So do you sit this one out? Do you write in a candidate? Do you vote third party? What?"

Let me make it clear I have no intention of sitting out an election. EVER! I have voted in every election since I became eligible to vote...the same year that Moses led the children of Israel across the Red Sea. And now, at my age, I am not going to break that streak. I have formed a habit, and habits are harder to break the closer you get to 60.

So, you can rest assured that I WILL vote.

I know that such a thing seems to go right over the heads of hopelessly hammerheaded imbeciles who think that just because I hate Romney and Obama both, that this means that I will sit at home and refuse to vote. After all, that is the only choice I have, right? I mean, loathe the thought that someone could actually consider voting for a Party OTHER THAN the Republicans or Democrats. And heaven help the poor soul who would even as much as briefly entertain the notion that he would write in a candidate's name who isn't on the ballot.

Excuse me while I get this out.

YOU STUPID PINHEADED LAMEBRAINED NUMBSKULL, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT LIMITS VOTES TO  DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS, YOU SORRY ARSED IGNORANT EXCUSE FOR A CITIZEN!

Ahem, citizens have the right to vote FOR WHOEVER THEY WANT.

If I want to vote for the Bull Moose Party, I can.

If I want to write in the name of Jaborangus Armadillus Polygangum, I HAVE THAT RIGHT.

Now, is it always the prudent thing to do to act in such a manner? Well, no, of course not. I doubt that old Jaborangus will get any votes other than mine. That means that my act of writing in his name is a wasted effort, an exercise in complete futility.

But, remember, my dear fellow citizen, you ALWAYS have more than two options when you vote. And don't EVER let ANYBODY tell you otherwise.

Having said that, however, I must address the utility of making such a move.

Is it wise? Is it useful? Does it help? Is it good for the country? Can I live with myself when I do so? Am I being true to conscience?

Here is where the rub comes in. Those questions are not always easy to answer. And sometimes the answers depend on a myriad of factors that make each case different.

I am going to have a VERY hard time pressing Mitt Romney's name on that computer screen in the voting booth. I loathe his record on gun rights, abortion, RomneyCare, immigration, and even taxes and spending. I don't think his proposals go far enough, even in the areas where I can come close to agreeing with him, such as the economy.

And I have often stated that voting for Romney would be a betrayal of my conscience.

So, let's look at other options for consideration, just to follow them through to their logical conclusions.

I am NOT under ANY circumstance voting for Obama. So, that's out.

But, what about a third party or writing in a name?

Frankly, there isn't a third party that I would cast a vote for. I have looked at all of them, and all of them are problematic...every bit as much as the Republicans and Democrats. Every candidate who has ever run on the Libertarian, Constitution, or Reform Party tickets has made statements that to me are every bit as much to be deplored as statements by Romney and Obama.

And some of these Parties have essentially been overtaken by pot heads who strike me as nothing more than rejects from the 60s who claim to be 'libertarian' only so they can work for legalized drug use.

Now, I have a problem with the war on drugs as well, but not for the same reasons as some of these people. I don't want to legalize drugs so I can use without the threat of arrest. I want to decriminalize drugs because I think that prohibition is wrong and doesn't work. There is a vast difference.

I am very uncomfortable around illicit substances. Always have been. I don't like it. I don't like the way people act when they are under the influence of these substances. But that does not mean I think they are criminals or should be in jail.

It also does not mean that I am just hunky dory with their behavior. I am NOT.

So, my support for the repeal of drug laws is NOT based on any ulterior motive of mine regarding 'using.' I do not use. And I think that smart people do not use.

But when I get in some of the groups associated with libertarian oriented people, I feel like I am in a foreign land. I can't relate. So, that makes it very hard for me to vote for a candidate that represents that element.

I know, I know, some of you are going to think I am a complete dork, a 'square,' or too 'straight-laced.' Fine. I don't care. I know who I am and what I am comfortable with. And I don't like to be around people in politics who appear to me to be interested in liberty only for the purpose of being able to fry their brains on whatever substance they wish without facing the possibility of jail time.

Liberty is not about that at all, although allowing people the freedom to fry their brains is a small part of it.

If you want to fry your brain and cause your face to look like a monster because of your meth use, go right ahead. I am not going to stop you. I believe you have the complete freedom to act like a fool in a free society. But that does NOT mean I respect you or think you are someone to be trusted.

I know what is going to happen as a result of these statements. Whenever I do this somebody is going to claim I am falsely portraying Libertarians and being unfair. Fine. Your opinion is yours. Think what you want. But I am simply telling you MY EXPERIENCE and how people come across to ME. Impressions are not necessarily based on fact. Impressions are based on experience and emotional reaction. I am telling you how many within the libertarian movement come across to ME.

If you want me to have a different impression of you, then stop putting candidates out there whose main involvement in the political realm is in the 'cannabis movement.' I mean, really...

And let's get another thing straight as well. Signing mutual defense treaties with allies is NOT a violation of the Constitution, which clearly states it is entirely within the power of the government to enter into such treaties. That means that in many circumstances it is perfectly legal and constitutional to have military bases in other countries, if that is a condition of the signed treaties.

It is also perfectly constitutional for the U.S. military to be the most powerful force in the world. Where does it prohibit it? We HAD to attain military and nuclear superiority. Why? Because the Cold War necessitated it! The Soviet Union was building nuclear weapons and expanding their domain into other countries. Their stated goal was to dominate the world.

To counter such a growing power we HAD to have nukes, the manpower, and the firepower and equipment to stop them. Why did we have to stop them?

Do I really need to tell you people this? Sheesh.

YOU IGNORANT NUMBSKULL, THEIR PRESIDENT TOLD US IN THE 1950s THAT THEY WOULD 'BURY' US!!!

Is that plain enough for you, or do I need to spell it out?

The Soviet Union stated that it would dominate the world and BURY the United States. Now, some of you little wussies out there may think that we should have just rolled over and let them screw us because 'the Constitution does not allow thus and so.' But you are a knucklehead. The Constitution MANDATES the national defense, and WE WERE DIRECTLY THREATENED WITH ANNIHILATION FROM THE SOVIET PRESIDENT NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV!

And do you know what that means, o wise wus?

It means that when the country and its citizens are threatened, the national defense must be strong and powerful enough to succeed in that defense.

Now tell me, imbecile, how in the hell were we going to defend ourselves against a super power like the Soviet Union, which had millions in their army, and tons of nukes, unless we ourselves were more powerful than they?

So the next time you want to wax eloquent about your vast knowledge of the Constitutional provision of the national defense by unleashing your projectile vomit in saying the Constitution never allowed for the U.S. to become a world super power, just stop and tell me how in that tiny, microscopic brain of yours you would defeat an enemy like the Soviet Union unless you became the most powerful military force on earth?!

You see, this is another area where I have little patience with Libertarians.

If you don't show up at a gun fight with a pocket knife, then you SURELY don't show up to fight an enemy that has nukes with fishing boats equipped with muskets. Sheesh. Why am I even taking the time to bother with this? This is, like, Elementary Thought 101.

Back to the subject at hand.

So, if there isn't a Party I am comfortable voting for, that leaves me only two choices left--rethink my intention not to vote for Romney, or write in a candidate.

Frankly, I am angry that these are my choices. I have been warning Republicans for over 3 years against choosing another 'moderate' who lacks solid conservative convictions as the nominee. But they did it again, just like they did with McCain in 2008.

I worked hard to PREVENT us from getting to this point. I did everything in my power to prevent Romney from gaining such traction. But at this point, it appears he is going to be the one, no matter what any of us want.

My first reaction is to walk away and make the GOP pay for its sins by losing the support of conservatives. They screwed us, and they NEED to pay sooner or later.

But I am not sure this is the year to make them pay. Let me explain.

I am thinking out loud here, so none of this is set in cement. I do think that a day of reckoning is long overdue for the GOP. For too long we have allowed them to take conservatives for granted. They have just assumed we would always come through. And because they feel that way, they feel they can do anything they damn well please and not suffer the consequences.

THIS MUST CHANGE.

Republican elites--the ones who have always opposed conservatives such as Reagan, Goldwater, and Buckley--need to be taught a harsh lesson. Screw conservatives and you will get decimated as a Party, completely. Eventually we are going to have to make sure that happens.

But I am not convinced this year is the best time to do it. If we sit this out, or if we turn to a third party, or if we write in a candidate, we may be helping Obama get reelected, and that is the worst thing that could happen for the country.

As I have stated previously, the number one focus in this election is to get rid of Barack Obama. The man is a menace. His supporters are dangerous. His enablers in Congress are traitors. They MUST go. The survival of the country depends on it.

I don't want to do anything to inadvertently help Obama. And no, I am not one of those who believes that voting for someone other than those in the two major parties is a 'wasted vote.' Nonetheless, as we have seen in the past with Ross Perot in 1992, his presence on the ballot gave us Bill Clinton. (I didn't care for George H.W. Bush, either, but he was much better than Clinton).

And so, my friends, I am very much in a quandary. Is a vote for Romney a betrayal of my conscience under the present circumstances (the need to get rid of Obama)?

Would writing in a candidate that I know has no chance of being elected help Obama win reelection, and would that not be an even GREATER betrayal of my conscience?

Life can be very complicated. And this one is a doozy.

I really don't have an answer at this point. But writing it out and sharing it has helped clarify for me what, exactly, the issues are in making an informed decision in this matter.

Stay tuned. I may need to do some more 'thinking out loud' as we go along during the campaign season.

7 comments:

PolyKahr said...

Anthony,

I have been having the same sort of debate in my head. Romney has been hitting some of the right notes of late, but I don't trust him. At least the Obama enemy is a known quantity on the other side. Is Romney the enemy in our midst? Hard to say. I may not know what I will do until I get to the voting booth.

Best wishes,

PolyKahr

Welshman said...

Keep thinking it through, my friend, just as I am. I will in all likelihood go over this in my mind hundreds of times before November. But I cannot lose sight on one overriding goal--the absolute necessity of getting rid of Barack Obama. That comes first.

Rev. Paul said...

I share your anguish, sir - and am having the same difficulty deciding what to do. Some have proposed we'd be better off with leaving the current resident in the White House, as long as the GOP takes all of Congress. Possible, but I don't know how likely it is that the Repubs can take the Senate.

O's gotta go; on that point, we can all agree.

Welshman said...

Yep, Obama's got to go. I happen to be one who believes that Republicans have a very good chance--a 60% chance--of taking the Senate. BUT, relying on that is a gamble. We have to rid the government of every vestige of this scourge that descended on Washington in 2008. I will do whatever is most effective in accomplishing that goal, and I'm sure that conscientious patriots such as yourself will do the very same thing.

Peter Shepherd said...

EXCELLENT ARTICLE, except:
Newt, contrary to what the media has told you, has not quit. On the contrary, he has told some close friends and supporters in North Carolina, that he is in it to win it.

Do not believe the media. Including Fox News, which is, indirectly, partially owned by Mitt Romney and a Saudi Prince.

Newt could beat Obama one on one IF he has our support. Romney will NOT be able to beat Obama.

There are other ways Obama can be stopped.

Joe Farah, of WorldNetDaily, outlines one way in is article, "A Surefire way to stop Obama in 2012." http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/surefire-way-to-stop-obama-in-2012/

Welshman said...

Newt has also said it appears Romney is going to get the nomination, and he will support the nominee.

I think Newt is realistic enough to assess his chances, and they are thin. But he is leaving the door open.

I agree with you about one on one with Obama. Newt would decimate him in a debate. No doubt about it.

nickeldoor5 said...

Sarah Or Newt are the only chance this county has.Romney will be as bad as Obama he thinks Obama is a nice family man. right I believe Romney is a globalist.He says he is not a politician but he knew who to go to in gov for 150 billion for the Olympics. He talked about all he did but he didn't say he used tax payers money. Some of Romney friends are still making money from taxpayers dollars from the olympics. So I say shame on him.Romney has paid for were he is at right now. I seen him buy off political pundits. Karl Rove is helping Romney and polls against Sarah Palin. Funny thing same those polls rose higher after Romney was no longer so it was essy to see they were tampered with. Look at all the new republican politicians that won elections that stood with Romney and see how much Romney contributed to them before their election. He did too many things behind the scenes. connected. Seem he can go and come from Bain. His pak lied on Newt he lied saying he couldn't talk to the Pak. When the pak said something about Obama that he was attacked for suddenly he was able to talk to them We need a brokered convention. Rowney has spent three and 1/2 years and he is no further than he was.Romney could not beat Newt in a debate so suddenly there were no more debates. None of the conservatives want Romney.Romney is the rights version of Obama. Who was Obama afraid of the most Sarah. The media was happy with McCain until the election started then they went after Sarah because they are afraid of her the most because they know she would have the people behind her.They tried to say people will come out to see Sarah but would not vote for her.That doesn't even make sense.That came from the Romney camp.Why didn't McCain's people put Palin with any friendly with the conservatives. They allowed Sarah to spent a week long to get an interview never got a copy. They changed the answer on some of Palin's answers. Palin didn't want to do anymore after the first interview but Wallace insisted the interview was great.I can go along with Newt or Sarah but I don't see how I can vote for Romney. Look at Palings first speech. They were meant to win but McCain didn't do anything and would not allow Sarah to do anything. McCain had the ability to ask for Obama's papers since they ask McCain for his. I do not believe Romney has anything to be excited about. They say Romney really doesn't have the delegates.Texas is unbound. There were too many lie coming from the primaries stating Romney was the winning and that was before 3/4 of states had there primaries. He has lied to many times and he drives me crazy when he smacks his lips when talking. Do you remeber when Sarah first mention that she might run on fox one of the commetators said it was not her turn. So do republicans having turns now. You noticed how quickly McCain ran to Romney.He gave up for McCain so now McCain was standing with him.This is wrong