Tuesday, September 4, 2012

A Vote For Johnson Could Kill America

I would like to take this time and space on my blog to personally thank former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, the current Libertarian Party candidate for President for doing his part to help destroy this nation by ensuring President Barack Obama’s reelection. I don’t say this lightly since my fiscal and social sentiments run more closely to Johnson’s than to any other candidate currently seeking the office of President of the United States of America. Keep that revelation in mind as you continue reading.

The United States of America is currently still a relatively free country and Governor Johnson can run for President if he wants to and those supporting him are still free to pull the lever with his name on it in the voting booth; even though his running doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but his running does guarantee a win for Obama, which means in just four more years he and his supporters will likely no longer be as free as they presently are and Johnson will never be able to run for anything, except the border of Canada for freedom, along with the rest of us. Logistics and history have shown that the independent, Libertarian thinker and undecided voter rarely swing in the direction of the established Republican candidate if there is a nationally known third alternative. Why this is so still is kind of a mystery, but I do have some personal ideas why this tends to be the case. Regardless of the reason, logic (or lack thereof), it appears to be the case nonetheless.

While Governor Johnson will not likely be the “great spoiler” that businessman Ross Perot ended up being for President George H.W. Bush in the 1992 Presidential election, he is primed to be a major factor for those who were leaning heavily for Ron Paul, which is no insignificant number. With an alternative other than Romney or Obama, those Paul voters are more likely to vote for Johnson, or just stay at home. Their votes won't help Johnson even come close, but they could be the few 100,000's of votes necessary to put Romney over the top and beat Obama in what appears to be a very, very tight race.

How is this possible? Because Congressman Ron Paul, to show his real desire to beat Obama, should have released his delegates to Romney, played the politico ballgame like his son Senator Rand Paul did in order to ensure an Obama loss. But, like a spoiler, he didn’t do that. If Obama wins this election the results for America's future will be so horrendous that it absolutely mesmerizes me to think Paul supporters or those independents not thrilled with a perceived mundane Romney could even consider voting for Johnson over Romney. They need to put their petty differences aside and do what is best for this nation's future instead of making a stance for a lost cause, and that better future at this time in history is Mitt Romney, not Barack Obama.

This has come down to life and death for a freedom loving, independent, free market, democratic Republic called the United States of America. Petty squabbling because Paul didn't get the nomination, or didn't get his delegate votes mentioned on the podium at the RNC is ridiculous when weighed against the tragic damage Mr. Obama will do to this nation over the next four years when he has nothing to loose and everything to gain by his zealous socialistic agenda.

Please remember that a vote for Johnson or a vote not cast is a vote for Barack Obama and a nail in the coffin of a free America.

6 comments:

Disperser said...

And yet, the idea of voting against your conscience seems to me as against the very basis for the existence of this country.

It could be argued the "lesser of two evils" approach to voting is in itself heading us down the rabbit hole.

And while people argue the merit of one or the other party, some see little differences between them save for pet interests (that's not interests in pets, but rather interest of specific issues to the exclusion of all else).

I know people who will vote for Obama because of the women's issue (hard to argue against it), and I know others who will vote for Romney because of the gun issue (again, hard to argue against it).

The fact of the matter voters who focus on only one or two issues are already thwarting the whole concept of why we vote.

It is a testament to how successful the parties have been on diverting attention from the fact neither major party have served the country well. They did it by trumpeting niche interests as if they were of national interest, and crucial for the future of the US.

If Obama does get elected, it will not be the end of anything, especially if the Senate swings to Republicans (it might).

In fact, that is the ideal situation for the country . . . split power will force compromise or result in stagnation.

Either is preferable to one or the other party holding both the executive and legislative branch.

Besides, when is a good time to vote against the status quo? Next time? The time after that? For I know one thing . . . no matter who wins, and no matter how small a margin, the winner will claim a mandate. Maybe it's time we remind politicians there is uncertainly in their future.

I don't know yet which way I will vote. Based on what I know about the Republican and Democratic parties and their platforms, it turns my stomach when I contemplate voting for one or the other.

It does so precisely because of some of those niche issues; issues which offer a glimpse as to the professed mindset of the candidates.

The lesser of two evil is a difficult choice when there is so much evil (metaphorically speaking).

Samuel Sloan said...

I understand your sentiments exactly, however, keeping this disasterous President from a second term is voting one's conscience this time around and not a choice between the lesser of two evils. Romney, was never my personal 1st choice, but he is far from evil and certainly far from the ultra-left socialistic policies of a Barack Obama which must be soundly defeated to try and stop this direction away from the principals the country was founded upon. Principals, if practiced as intended, can only bring economic stability, and more harmonious living among its citizens, something not witness in some time now.

Disperser said...

I'll respectfully point out you are being selective about which principles we need to get back to. Certainly I've not heard Romney campaign for the separation of church and state, and I might have missed the part where he proposes to limit the power of the executive branch.

And as far as I can tell, wanting to minimize government involvement is restricted to the business arena.

The best argument I can give for voting for Romney is that we should always vote incumbents out of office.

And make no mistake, I don't want Obama in there. But what do I do if I also don't want Romney in there?

Samuel Sloan said...

Voting incumbents out of office. On that we are both in 100% agreement.

Disperser said...

If Romney wins, I hope you will feel the same way 4 years from now.

Samuel Sloan said...

I'll probably not have to wait 4yrs to feel that way if history is any indicator.