If the 2012 presidential race is between Obama and Romney...

[Byblos]

I can respect Santorum's decision. I am disappointed, but that's the nature of politics. It isn't something I'll spend too much time worrying over, since I'm not looking for a savior. I found that in 1987 in my kitchen in Savannah, Georgia.

With that said, I can't vote for Romney. I'll either vote for the Constitution Party candidate or stay home (I'm certainly not voting for Obama). I told more than a few people in the Republican Party I wouldn't vote for the Republican if Romney was the nominee. Best of luck to him (and Obama). They'll have to win without my support.

Out of curiosity, why would you not vote for Romney Jac? Can you say more on that?

[Jac3510]

Out of curiosity, why would you not vote for Romney Jac? Can you say more on that?

Because I have what is apparently a different view than most people (so I've been told) on the purpose of voting. The assumption seems to me that the most important thing is to beat the other party. Typically that's cast in doomsday language--"if Obama is reelected, this country will never be the same. We have to rally behind the nominee and defeat Obama!"

While I get the dangers of Obamacare and the dangers of Obama appointing one or two more libs to the SCOTUS, doomsday language doesn't impress me. The real doomsday for the USA won't come after four more years of Obama. It will come if the American people as a whole don't jettison liberalism and the quasi-socialism embraced by both parties.

For me, the goal is not to keep Obama out of office, because replacing one neo-liberal with another doesn't change anything. Romney is just a neo-liberal. Further, he's a liar. You don't have any idea what he believes or what he will say or do in two or four years. You don't, because Romney doesn't. He's a pragmatist. He'll do what he thinks "works." He's not guided by principle.

For me, the goal is to vote for someone who can govern. That's not Romney. His Massachusetts tenure proves that. And to vote for him is to confirm to the Republican Establishment that they can take my vote for granted--I'll vote for them so long as they aren't Democrats. Well, sorry, not being Democrat isn't a good enough reason to vote for you. They need to learn that when they push moderate Republicans, they lose. Why? Because moderate policies are losers, both in the short term and especially the long term.

Bottom line: I can't vote for Romney because a vote for Romney is a signal to the Republicans to ignore me and keep forcing down my throat a candidate who "represents me" and who doesn't care one bit about what I do. It happened with McCain. It happened with Bush (we just ignored it, because he called himself and evangelical and then we tend to support our presidents during wars). That's the reason Bush Sr was put on the Reagan ticket, and it's the reason we got Bush Senior (and why he lost). It happened with Dole. It'll happen again with Romney. They're either going to learn to nominate conservatives because they are conservative, or they're going to keep talking conservative language to appease us long enough to us to accept the moderates they really want, because they are moderates (read: neo-liberals).

So my vote is off the table. I called and told them during the campaign. I told more than a few strategists. I got told repeatedly I'd come home to vote against Obama. I didn't in '04. I won't now. And if that means Obama wins again, don't blame me. Blame the Romney supporters who insisted I give up my convictions and demanded I accept their guy. They insisted on nominating someone I have said for six years I can't vote for. So fine. They get their wish. They nominated a guy I can't support. If he loses, and they say it's because people like me didn't get out and vote, maybe they need to consider the politics of insisting we hold our nose and vote for someone we don't trust.

[RickD]

Out of curiosity, why would you not vote for Romney Jac? Can you say more on that?

Because I have what is apparently a different view than most people (so I've been told) on the purpose of voting. The assumption seems to me that the most important thing is to beat the other party. Typically that's cast in doomsday language--"if Obama is reelected, this country will never be the same. We have to rally behind the nominee and defeat Obama!"

While I get the dangers of Obamacare and the dangers of Obama appointing one or two more libs to the SCOTUS, doomsday language doesn't impress me. The real doomsday for the USA won't come after four more years of Obama. It will come if the American people as a whole don't jettison liberalism and the quasi-socialism embraced by both parties.

For me, the goal is not to keep Obama out of office, because replacing one neo-liberal with another doesn't change anything. Romney is just a neo-liberal. Further, he's a liar. You don't have any idea what he believes or what he will say or do in two or four years. You don't, because Romney doesn't. He's a pragmatist. He'll do what he thinks "works." He's not guided by principle.

For me, the goal is to vote for someone who can govern. That's not Romney. His Massachusetts tenure proves that. And to vote for him is to confirm to the Republican Establishment that they can take my vote for granted--I'll vote for them so long as they aren't Democrats. Well, sorry, not being Democrat isn't a good enough reason to vote for you. They need to learn that when they push moderate Republicans, they lose. Why? Because moderate policies are losers, both in the short term and especially the long term.

Bottom line: I can't vote for Romney because a vote for Romney is a signal to the Republicans to ignore me and keep forcing down my throat a candidate who "represents me" and who doesn't care one bit about what I do. It happened with McCain. It happened with Bush (we just ignored it, because he called himself and evangelical and then we tend to support our presidents during wars). That's the reason Bush Sr was put on the Reagan ticket, and it's the reason we got Bush Senior (and why he lost). It happened with Dole. It'll happen again with Romney. They're either going to learn to nominate conservatives because they are conservative, or they're going to keep talking conservative language to appease us long enough to us to accept the moderates they really want, because they are moderates (read: neo-liberals).

So my vote is off the table. I called and told them during the campaign. I told more than a few strategists. I got told repeatedly I'd come home to vote against Obama. I didn't in '04. I won't now. And if that means Obama wins again, don't blame me. Blame the Romney supporters who insisted I give up my convictions and demanded I accept their guy. They insisted on nominating someone I have said for six years I can't vote for. So fine. They get their wish. They nominated a guy I can't support. If he loses, and they say it's because people like me didn't get out and vote, maybe they need to consider the politics of insisting we hold our nose and vote for someone we don't trust.

Jac, I feel almost exactly the same way as what you have stated here.

[Byblos]

I can almost understand your position Jac (and Rick) but for me the idea of putting Obama back in office so I can stick to an ideal that in all probability will never happen just doesn't sit well with me. The lesser of 2 evils seems to be the only real choice we've had and will always have. And in the absence of a real choice, I will not simply sit on the sideline, I will always choose the lesser of 2 evils.

[Jac3510]

I don't blame you, Byblos. I just disagree is all. I think the reason we always have only the lesser of two evils to choose from is precisely because the bases of the two parties will vote for whoever that party puts forward precisely because that party can't take the base for granted.

I see a vote for Romney as enabling the Republican part to continue embracing policies that are destructive to the nation. It won't work to get them elected and then try to reform them. What do they care? They're already in power, and it's not like you are going to stop voting for them (and thus deny them power) if they don't reform themselves. They have no incentive to change.

Again, I don't blame you for the position you are taking. It's just not one I can embrace.

[Canuckster1127]

B.W.,

Again, you're entitled to you opinion. I too live and work in Washington DC and I've been places, read books and even spoken with players in the process on many occassions, including some that you reference and some that attempt to portray things as you seen them and over time I've come to some of my own conclusions and while I respect you, as I hope you know, I don't always agree with you in this area. Appeals to yourself as authority based on your unique experiences don't really fly with me. I prefer to do my own examination and thinking. I know the difference between what is liberalism, what is socialism and what is communism and I know what differentiates them from one another and the same old tired political rhetoric that turns every election into a choice between Stalin or Atilla the Hun don't really impress me all that much anymore.

[Philip]

I'd say this presidential race likely has NO Christians at the top of the ticket. I believe Obama THINKS he's a Christian, and calls himself one - but I doubt he is one. Romney, little comment needed, he's a Mormon. But we're voting for a political leader, not a spiritual leader. No politician or political party are going to truly solve the deeper problems of America.

But one thing is VERY certain: The next leader better truly understand that our almost unfathomable debt will eventually (maybe much sooner than we think) lead to catastrophic economic consequences. That leader better have a vision and a serious plan to work with congress on a serious, long-term reduction in our debt, work toward a balanced budget, and have a plan that will facilitate this country to beginning to live within our means. Economically/financially, Obama hasn't a clue how business or economics works. His leadership on our debt crisis has been MIA from day ONE! And the next president is going to be making some hugely important selections for the Supreme Court, and judges for courts of appeals and district judges. I shudder to think what Obama picks might get through the Senate. But the debt and budget issues alone make the next presidential pick enormously important. Yes, the President is merely one person, but he does often set the tone, frame the debate, and rally the country via his "bully pulpit."

I don't like the idea of a Mormon president. However, Romney unmistakably understands business and how it works. No doubt, he's not a staunch conservative. But as this race and the last one had moderate Republicans at the top of the ticket, I'm not sure a TRUE conservative can still be elected in America. But the real problem is how our presidential choices are framed! The two parties and the primary system do not favor anyone but hand-picked insiders that have been kowtowing so long to the money men, that by the time they get on the ballot, their souls are virtually bought and paid for. A great Joe-Blow candidate from Nowheresville has next to no chance of every getting on a ballot, much less of being elected. It all takes enormous name recognition, lots of money, and an experienced and savvy organization to run a credible national campaign. I won't even go into the limitations and problems that various media have on political campaigns. So, it's no wonder that fewer quality candidates are stepping forward, nowadays.

[Jac3510]

But as this race and the last one had moderate Republicans at the top of the ticket, I'm not sure a TRUE conservative can still be elected in America.

I would submit that is due, in large part, to the fact that conservatives are willing to vote for moderates (e.g., Romney) just to beat out-and-out liberals (e.g, Obama). So if you are a moderate, establishment Republican, why would you bother trying to nominate a conservative? You'd tear them down and push the moderate. After all, you prefer him, and you know that those conservatives will get behind your candidate anyway.

So I blame conservatives for Romney's victory. And for McCain's. And for Dole's. And for Bush 41's. And for Ford's in '76. You want a conservative to win? Stop telling the Republican Party you'll vote for their moderates. Make them come crawling to you. Don't you go crawling to them.

[Canuckster1127]

All or nothing politics usual end up leaving its proponents with nothing.

[Philip]

No doubt that mature and reasonable politics involves compromise - anyone that is married should realize this. Get a small group in a room and you''ll likely see a variety of opinions on common issues. We in the U.S. live in a democracy, NO one is going to get everything they desire. HOWEVER, there are certain things and areas in which no compromise is the right stance. I'd say a stance against abortion would be an example of such. And there are many other issues in which there are common goals, and yet intense debate over how to achieve them. But to those who say to themselves, "I don't like the choices in front of me, so I'm going to go home in protest" - that shows an unwillingness to exercise input into the world AS IT EXISTS.

Often, being an idealist just isn't realistic (duh!). Waiting on the perfect - or even just somewhat good choices - before voting is to also disengage from the world around us. Usually, things that need correcting and which eventually become much more desirable, happen only by increments of excruciatingly slow progress. But the same is in reverse: Politically, our choices in leadership and the issue stances of candidates will become ever-more discouraging and bleak, as we individually disengage due to our current disgust. That's a cop-out. And when we see those around the world without a vote or voice at ALL, and yet WE refuse to vote - I just don't think that is what God would have us do. In the U.S., our political choices are often far less than desirable. But, nonetheless, there USUALLY are considerable differences of opinion in key areas, in most races. Given no good choices and thus voting for the "lesser of two evils" is in reality addressing the world as it truly exists. You can vote for those "perfect" candidates in your fantasies and dreams - but they don't exist in THIS world - never have.

[RickD]

And when we see those around the world without a vote or voice at ALL, and yet WE refuse to vote - I just don't think that is what God would have us do.

philip, I can certainly understand your feeling this way. And anyone else that chooses to vote the lesser of two evils, as long as that's what they feel led to do. But on the other hand, I can't in good conscience, vote for Romney or Obama.

You can vote for those "perfect" candidates in your fantasies and dreams - but they don't exist in THIS world - never have.

I'm certainly not looking for a perfect person, because there is no such thing. But, I just can't vote for either of these candidates. Another person could in good conscience, probably justify voting for either.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I can't in good conscience, vote for Romney or Obama.

I can understand that. Don't you guys have a third option? And if not, why not just spoil your ballot? Every person who doesn't vote sends the message that elections are not important. For a nation that considers itself the ''Leader of the Free World'', not voting is a very bad idea.

FL

[RickD]

I can understand that. Don't you guys have a third option?

Yes, we can move to Canada.

Or, write in another candidate. But, that's pretty much the same as not voting, because it's just a wasted vote.

Every person who doesn't vote sends the message that elections are not important.

That's certainly one way to look at it. But, when one is so frustrated with the candidates to choose from...

For a nation that considers itself the ''Leader of the Free World'', not voting is a very bad idea.

But FL, don't you know we have the freedom to "not vote"?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Yes, we can move to Canada.

Or, write in another candidate. But, that's pretty much the same as not voting, because it's just a wasted vote.

Move to Canada? That's scraping the bottom of the barrel! If you can write in somebody, I would do that. It isn't a wasted vote, it is a protest vote. A wasted vote is a vote unused.

But FL, don't you know we have the freedom to "not vote"?

I seriously doubt politicians see it that way. It just comes across as political apathy, and that is how your voter turnouts of 30% are reported here: an apathetic electorate. A little more apathy and you guys will be ripe for totalitarianism!

FL

[RickD]

RickD wrote:Yes, we can move to Canada.

Or, write in another candidate. But, that's pretty much the same as not voting, because it's just a wasted vote.



Move to Canada? That's scraping the bottom of the barrel! If you can write in somebody, I would do that. It isn't a wasted vote, it is a protest vote. A wasted vote is a vote unused

Moving to Canada can't be that bad...as long as it's not Quebec, eh?

It just comes across as political apathy, and that is how your voter turnouts of 30% are reported here: an apathetic electorate.

I don't think it's apathy, as much as people just don't care.