Consider the choices of 1972. On the one hand we had George McGovern. He was a socialist who promised national healthcare for all Americans and an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. On the other hand, we had Richard Nixon who, during the election months, oversaw the Watergate crimes that eventually brought him down. Would it have been morally reprehensible to refuse to vote for either candidate?
In this election of 2008 we seem to be headed for another choice between bad and worse. Either Clinton or Obama will be a choice for bigger government, higher taxes, and international defeat. McCain is, in my opinion, temperamentally unfit to be president; much as Nixon was. I expect the press to begin hammering him on this once he gets the nomination.
I plan to vote in the Pennsylvania primary in April and I hope we can avoid these bad choices. But if not, I feel no moral obligation to vote for any of the current front-running candidates.
7 comments:
If Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination, wouldn't a protest vote for him, being the only conservative left running, be better than no vote at all?
Hi Jonathan, thanks for your post. Sorry, but I so disagree with Ron Paul's position on foreign policy that he is not an option for me.
I would encourage you to make sure you are making your decision based on what Ron Paul's foreign policy really is, and not on what the media and the other candidates say it is:
"We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security."
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/iraq/
"A defense policy designed to keep Americans safe should start with the idea that we must secure our borders from those who would cross them to do us harm."
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/national-defense/
In one of the debates Ron Paul said that Islamic extremists attacked the US because of our foreign policy. I disagree with his assessment and I think he does not have a good grasp of history or of Islam. I've read enough of his material and listened to him enough that I cannot vote for him.
Ron Paul? Perhaps for Dog Catcher....[sigh] Granted some are attractive to his liberal and libertarian beliefs (as well as some conservative ones, but Paul is not a 'pure' or 'true' conservative), he will not be the Republican candidate for President of the USA.
Having already voted (I live in Florida and we already had our state Presidential Preference Primary) for Mike Huckabee, I have no regrets (past) or obligations (if I were to vote in the future) to vote for whoever is the front-runner. That's the purpose of the primary or caucus-- we need to vote our conscience as to which candidate will best represent our views in a certain political party. Being in Pennsylvania has its benefits in voting at a later time, but historically the front-runner has pretty much locked in the nomination by the time later states like Pennsylvania have their primaries. Although the buzz from the press is that McCain has it pretty much locked up, it's far from the truth that he could still be the nominee since the fat lady hasn't sung yet. Huckabee is the only other (credible) conservative nominee (Ron Paul is not purely or entirely conservative. He shares some positions that liberal Democrats have, particularly with regard to the Iraq War and the war on terrorism) now that Romney isn't actively in the race. We will see if Huckabee stands a chance of frustrating the McCain campaign in the next two weeks.
We'll see what Huckabee is able to do and if he or anyone else is still a factor when the primary in PA is held.
If voting for McCain would insure the Democractic nominee would not be elected, (also, if not voting...) I would say we must choose the lesser of two evils. I would not follow this principle in the primaries, but in the general election, it seems necessary.
However, a I think there may be a more important consideration: Return Congress to the control of principled Republicans (if enough of the can be found--there are several empty seats to be filled). A sufficient majority of Repubs in the congress would stymie a liberal president's efforts of taking our country in the wrong direction.
Post a Comment