The Montana Shooting Sports Association says principled voters should vote for Ron Paul over John McCain or Barack Obama...Glad to see the term getting wider use.
But the MSSA says "pragmatic" voters should choose McCain, because he is not as bad on gun issues as Obama.
The hatred against Dr. Paul from some of these pragmatic voters is still popping up--I just saw him contemptuously described as a "bizarre little man" the other day on one "gun blog." Others continue on the theme that he's a racist, or a "troofer," and one actually resorted to making fun of Paul backers by publishing the photo of a heavyset female supporter and ridiculing her weight.
I guess you can take your lead from that.
I won't write in Paul because he doesn't want it. My preference doesn't matter--it's his choice, not mine.
My advice continues to be: Vote your informed conscience. Because whether we compromise and go lesser of two evils, whether we sit on our hands, whether we go third party, it will affect the results--and we will share in moral responsibility for what follows if our decision helped enable it.
But then again, what do I know? I think it's been pretty well-established that I'm a rigid, "SNBI!"-shouting extremist.
9 comments:
I will not NOT vote. I won’t condemn those who do. But neither will I buy into the idea that we can “send a message” to Washington by such a tactic.
When the Bush and the Repubs screwed their base these last few years, the voters sure sent them a message. But what message did America send, and just as importantly, what message was received?
I believe the message sent to the Republican party was that we’re tired of you acting like democrats. The vehicle for the message was the huge number of conservatives who stayed home on election day, with the inevitable result that the socialist democrats now reign over Washington and the nation in general.
Now what message was received? This is the most important question of all. The Dems and their media lackeys crow loud and long they’ve been given the green light by America to pursue their socialist policies to the fullest. Well who cares what those bastards think or say right? They weren’t the recipients of “the message”. They were merely the beneficiaries of it. But the intended recipients didn’t get it right either. And they STILL don’t get it. Look at the way Palin has excited the electorate out in the fly-over country. It isn’t because she’s a woman, or because she’s an outsider. It’s because she’s the closest thing to a conservative we’ve seen in a long time. Yet the Republican party is still quivering like so much jelly in face of a vociferous assault on Palin.
Instead of embracing their conservative base and making amends for acting like RINOs, they’re still groveling, tail-tucking and trying to out democrat the Democrats. So they didn’t get the message we sent. Now we are gonna pay for this terrible miscommunication.
We failed to get a conservative candidate on the ballot. There’s no turning back the clock with a “do over”. All we can do is take the correct course going forward because there’s no changing the past. There IS learning from the past however. Half of McCain’s policies suck. ALL of Obama’s do! I say we elect John, and hope he dies early. Palin seems to have some conservative tendencies. Is she perfect? No…but if you’re waiting for perfect, you missed it by 2,000 years.
This business of sending a message by not voting just ain’t getting us anywhere. I’ll not be a party to electing that closet raghead and his socialist / Marxist policies. And standing by and allowing that evil charlatan to get elected doesn’t make my precious principles feel any better.
i'd still write in ron paul, regardless of how he feels about it. theoretically, even if he could be elected that way, he could still turn the presidency down. there could be other reasons not to write him in, but just because he says so isn't good enough for me.
in fact, the only reason i might not write him in is that, since it wouldn't be counted, there's basically always someone better to write in who will probably also never be counted: oneself.
after all, he voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban (largely on behalf of his constituents) and i would never allow the government to even define the word abortion, let alone life. so, i'm de facto a better chief executive for myself.
of course, it's also my opinion that voting for someone who might win is kind of a sin.
So, then, vote for me.
Because Barr is a CIA gun grabber, Chuck Baldwin is the only choice out of third parties. He said he would quickly draft a bill getting rid of NFA 34 and GCA 68. He's pretty good on most everything else too. At this point in the game, I just don't see the validity in the lesser of two evils argument. Each regime is worse than the last. Bush shredded the constitution more than Clinton, and said he would sign the the AWB if it got to his desk.
Sorry Kent ... I'm writing in Michael Phelps.
Anyone who spends 5 hours a day in a pool will be too busy to infringe on my rights.
I will not endorse and participate in a system where robbery, enslavement, and the violation of my right to self defense an acceptable outcome. My right to life is not negotiable; my right to life will be defended at all costs.
A Rifleman never skips a vote. He always participates, even if its with a protest vote.
Think of it this way: the colonials were voting in 1774, but it didn't stop April 19th, 1775. They continued to petition the government for redress of their grievances even after it became obvious that such efforts were futile.
You should always cast some vote, even if it is futile. There are benefits to being able to say you worked within the system even though you were not successful. You hold up your end of the democratic bargain, and God will judge appropriately.
Why must we always cast a vote? If it is futile, such as if the system is rigged, wouldn't continuing to participate just lend an air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system?
Post a Comment