Anti-Johnson Crowd is Full of Cowards

[imsoauburn 0]

http://www.unitedlib...full-of-cowards

Anti-Johnson Crowd is Full of Cowards

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 1:20pm | posted by Jeremy Kolassa

Not a day goes by when I get a message from a conservative telling me that I must vote for Mitt Romney, not just because a vote for Gary Johnson (or anyone other than Romney or Obama) would be a wasted vote, but that we must vote for the one guy who has a shot of defeating Obama to save our country. That we absolutely cannot vote for anyone other than Romney, because if Obama gets another four years this country will no longer exist. There’s a reason for this.

They’re cowards.

Some examples of the comments I’ve received:

"We are on the preverbial roof of a house while the flood waters are rising. The rescue boat is here to help us off the roof and to drier ground. Are you going to say, no I would rather stay on the roof until a helicopter comes because I like helicopters better?"

And:

"Let me be clear, Romney was not my first, second, third, fourth,or even fifth choice! But I would vote for the town drunk before I voted for Obama. As far as the status quo you say, well I think we have to STOP THE BLEEDING, you may not agree with that approach but the last four years of the wrecking ball smashing away at the economy everyday I believe we need to try a different approach. Such as getting more people back to work so there is more people paying taxes."

The thing is that there is virtually no evidence that Romney is either A) piloting the rescue boat coming to get us, or going to do anything to stop the bleeding. The man is very acutely interesting in expanding our military budget, while doing little to reform our bloated entitlements or actually cutting spending beyond the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—which is a good move, but not enough to save us from the black hole we’re spiraling into.

Because of the utter lack of differences between Romney and Obama, I must ask why people are being so forceful in demanding we vote for Romney. The only conclusion I can come to is that they are cowards. They are not being brave or courageous, as they may think they are. Rather, they are being motivated entirely by fear.

Actually, “motivated” is the wrong word. The proper word is “controlled.” They are being controlled by their fear, consumed by it. Instead of being in control of their own destinies, they are so wracked by fear that they are just reacting to it, being virtual slaves to it.

For what it’s worth, it’s understandable and I sympathize. Obama has been a disaster in the White House. The economic recovery can be best described as “anemic,” or a “noncovery.” He’s also been fairly bad on foreign policy, atrocious on civil liberties (NDAA, anyone?), created the monstrosity known as Obamacare, and at every step has either trampled on the Constitution or made it harder for Americans to actually go back to work. His administration has been a wreck.

But does that mean we should vote for Romney?

I don’t know about you, but watching the debate in Denver last week, it was pretty clear that Romney isn’t much different. First off, the man said that he “loves green energy.” That’s become a watchword for “wasteful corporate subsidies” and a synonym for “Solyndra.” Second, he also said he didn’t want to cut education spending. That’s a huge waste in our government, and while not the #1 thing dragging us down (that’s entitlements and military spending, the former Romney will do jack on and the latter he wants to increase), that is something that can definitely be cut. That he doesn’t want to shows he isn’t serious about fixing our problems and is not the savior conservatives want.

But they gloss over all of these flaws to relentlessly push for Romney, a man just eight months ago they hated with a passion. They gloss over the fact that Romney is really just Obama, only with Caucasian skin and a red tie. They gloss over all his statements where he has proven he isn’t a believer in truly limited government.

Instead of taking a principled stand, they cower in the shadow of Obama. So overcome with fear of this one man they have allowed themselves to be duped into voting for what is essentially his “conservative” surrogate. That is not courage. To vote for a man who represents no change from the status quo, except that he is from the opposite party of the incumbent, is nothing more than abject cowardice.

This has to end. Until we as Americans stand up for literal free markets and a truly free society, will we have no solace. We cannot and must not allow fear to dictate our actions. That’s not the America I grew up in, and it’s certainly not the America I want to leave to my eventual children.

I am not a coward. And that is why I—as a private citizen—will not vote Republican this year.

[Weagle1787 607]

yep,I'd say that fellow pretty well nailed it.

[AURaptor 1,114]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

Sorry, that's the reality of it all.

Ross Perot, 1992 gave us Bill Clinton.

Same song, different verse.

[Weagle1787 607]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

Sorry, that's the reality of it all.

Ross Perot, 1992 gave us Bill Clinton.

Same song, different verse.

Perot pulled evenly from Clinton and Bush. The threat of an independent candidate coming so close to ending the duopoly also helped usher in the greatest era of bipartisanship in decades, one that benefitted progressives and conservatives alike.

You can repeat your slavish "a vote for ___ is a vote for ___" slogan as often as you like, but it doesn't make it any more true, nor does it do anything to refute the notion that your posture is deeply rooted in blindfolded fear.

[Weegle777 63]

The only problem with Johnson is that no one hardly knows about him. I believe in everything he stands for but if you mention his name to 10 people, 9 will say, "who is that?". I understand what Raptor is saying. Unless Johnson is in debates with the other two, the average American who makes their choice based on watching the debates, what their friends say, what's in the newspapers, on tv ads, and on radio, are going to vote Repub or Demo. Johnson and the Libertarian party have to do a better job of getting in debates and getting themselves before the majority of Americans, because if more knew about the Libertarian party, a huge amount of people from both of the main parties would probably vote Libertarian.

[Grumps 3,393]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

Sorry, that's the reality of it all.

Ross Perot, 1992 gave us Bill Clinton.

Same song, different verse.

Perot pulled evenly from Clinton and Bush. The threat of an independent candidate coming so close to ending the duopoly also helped usher in the greatest era of bipartisanship in decades, one that benefitted progressives and conservatives alike.

You can repeat your slavish "a vote for ___ is a vote for ___" slogan as often as you like, but it doesn't make it any more true, nor does it do anything to refute the notion that your posture is deeply rooted in blindfolded fear.

So are you saying that Johnson will pull votes evenly from Obama and Romney? If so, then I disagree. You saying that the slogan is not true doesn't make it any less true either, does it?

[AUloggerhead 1,958]

Anti-Johnson "crowd?" Is this blogger that delusional to believe there are enough people who actually oppose Johnson to form a legitimate crowd? Pffft! Johnson isn't going to lose spectacturly because voters are against him. Nobody is FOR him! Or, more correctly -- not nearly enough people who count are going to vote for him. Hate to bust your idealistic chops but the truth is Roseanne Barr is going to have the exact same problem in this election. Face facts.

[Auburn85 425]

http://www.denverpos...ut-race-remains

Romney now leads Obama 48 to 47, with a four-point margin of error in the poll that surveyed 614 likely voters by cell phone and home numbers Tuesday and Wednesday. The poll was conducted by SurveyUSA for The Post.

Asked about a matchup that included Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson — who is on the ballot in Colorado — respondents still picked Romney over Obama by a single percentage point, or 46 to 45. Johnson took 2 percent of the vote in The Post poll, and 5 percent of voters say they are still undecided.

http://www.publicpol...n-nevada-1.html

PPP's newest Nevada poll finds Barack Obama's lead in the state falling to 4 points at 51-47. He had led by a 52-43 margin in the middle of last month. That five point decline for Obama is consistent with what we've been seeing in most of our national and state level polling since last week's debate.

Romney's seen a big improvement in his favorability rating. The last time we polled on that in August he was at 46/49 in Nevada and now he's improved a net 7 points to 50/46. The good news for Obama is that his own approval, at 49/48, is slightly better than it was in August as well when he was at 48/49. Romney's climb is more about his own image improving than a decline for Obama.

Romney's big gain over the last month has been with white voters, who he's going from leading 52-45 with to 55-42. He's made gains across the party spectrum, notably increasing his crossover support with Democrats from 10% to 16% and cutting Obama's lead with independents from 15 points down to 7 points.

The main groups fueling Obama's continued lead are Hispanics, who give him a 67-32 advantage, and young voters who favor him 67-33.

When Gary Johnson's included he gets 3% and actually takes mostly from Obama, pulling his lead over Romney down to 48/47. That could be something worth keeping an eye on.

[Weagle1787 607]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

Sorry, that's the reality of it all.

Ross Perot, 1992 gave us Bill Clinton.

Same song, different verse.

Perot pulled evenly from Clinton and Bush. The threat of an independent candidate coming so close to ending the duopoly also helped usher in the greatest era of bipartisanship in decades, one that benefitted progressives and conservatives alike.

You can repeat your slavish "a vote for ___ is a vote for ___" slogan as often as you like, but it doesn't make it any more true, nor does it do anything to refute the notion that your posture is deeply rooted in blindfolded fear.

So are you saying that Johnson will pull votes evenly from Obama and Romney? If so, then I disagree. You saying that the slogan is not true doesn't make it any less true either, does it?

According to the polls, he is pulling evenly from Democrats and Republicans. Don't make me pull up the link, though. Too much bourbon in me at the moment.

[au2004ece 30]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

Sorry, that's the reality of it all.

Ross Perot, 1992 gave us Bill Clinton.

Same song, different verse.

Perot pulled evenly from Clinton and Bush. The threat of an independent candidate coming so close to ending the duopoly also helped usher in the greatest era of bipartisanship in decades, one that benefitted progressives and conservatives alike.

You can repeat your slavish "a vote for ___ is a vote for ___" slogan as often as you like, but it doesn't make it any more true, nor does it do anything to refute the notion that your posture is deeply rooted in blindfolded fear.

Then go get some Obama voters to vote for Johnson.

[Weagle1787 607]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

Sorry, that's the reality of it all.

Ross Perot, 1992 gave us Bill Clinton.

Same song, different verse.

Perot pulled evenly from Clinton and Bush. The threat of an independent candidate coming so close to ending the duopoly also helped usher in the greatest era of bipartisanship in decades, one that benefitted progressives and conservatives alike.

You can repeat your slavish "a vote for ___ is a vote for ___" slogan as often as you like, but it doesn't make it any more true, nor does it do anything to refute the notion that your posture is deeply rooted in blindfolded fear.

Then go get some Obama voters to vote for Johnson.

Go read my previous post. He pulls just as many votes from Democrats as he does Republicans. Still too drunk to go hunt down the poll. Google is your friend.

[AURaptor 1,114]

it's impossible to pull ' equally ' from both left and right, and still be the answer to this nation's problems.

What the hell is the point then, if socialists and capitalists ( opposites of the spectrum , and those who'll vote for either Obama or Romney ) end up not voting for their candidate ?

[Weagle1787 607]

it's impossible to pull ' equally ' from both left and right, and still be the answer to this nation's problems.

What the hell is the point then, if socialists and capitalists ( opposites of the spectrum , and those who'll vote for either Obama or Romney ) end up not voting for their candidate ?

So, when you thought he pulled away nothing but Rebloodlican voters, it's a wasted vote on a candidate who'd be good if only he still had an "R" behind his name, but when he pulls equally from Democrips and Rebloodlicans, suddenly he's crap because the alleged "socialists" can stomach him? Just making it up as you go I suppose.

FYI, a great many "socialist" Democrats identify as Democrats primarily because of the atrocious record the Republicans have on war and civil liberties. Not all of them are collectivists.

[AURaptor 1,114]

i don't buy the claim that Perot pulled equally from both Dem and Repub. Cite, please ?

[Weagle1787 607]

"If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush."

2nd page, 1st paragraph on the bottom half of the page.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm

[AURaptor 1,114]

Thanks for the cite. Still not buying it though.

[Weagle1787 607]

You don't have to. I must say I'm not surprised. You can like or dislike documented facts There are certainly alot of facts I find inconvenient, and wish they weren't so. But to completely disregard them is just pure ignorance.

[AURaptor 1,114]

You don't have to. I must say I'm not surprised. You can like or dislike documented facts There are certainly alot of facts I find inconvenient, and wish they weren't so. But to completely disregard them is just pure ignorance.

Exit polling has shown, time and time again, to be some what unreliable. I serves the interest of the country for the President to be seen as duly elected, and that no 3rd party candidate have a role in putting in someone who only got 43% of the over all vote.

[maxwere 82]

Some don't see it. This two party dialectic is being imposed on us. A vote for a mainstream candidate is a vote for the establishment. Don't be a fool. Mitt Romney is not going to do a damn thing for conservatives.

Secondly, if you live in a red state, vote for GJ. Your vote doesn't matter anyway. The more momentum GJ gets, the more threat to the establishment he is.

[AURaptor 1,114]

Some don't see it. This two party dialectic is being imposed on us. A vote for a mainstream candidate is a vote for the establishment. Don't be a fool. Mitt Romney is not going to do a damn thing for conservatives.

Secondly, if you live in a red state, vote for GJ. Your vote doesn't matter anyway. The more momentum GJ gets, the more threat to the establishment he is.

Did that in 2000, voting for Harry Browne. Did real wonders for the Libertarian party

[Weagle1787 607]

You don't have to. I must say I'm not surprised. You can like or dislike documented facts There are certainly alot of facts I find inconvenient, and wish they weren't so. But to completely disregard them is just pure ignorance.

Exit polling has shown, time and time again, to be some what unreliable. I serves the interest of the country for the President to be seen as duly elected, and that no 3rd party candidate have a role in putting in someone who only got 43% of the over all vote.

So, because it "serves the interests of the nation" in your mind, you choose to ignore the fact that he pulled evenly from both parties? Whether Clinton won by 43% or 52%, Perot's presence did not sway the election in either direction.

It serves the interests of the individual to have his views adequately represented amongst those who want to govern him. The interests of the individual preempt and take precedence over those of the collective. Sure, as a conservative, you agree?

[AURaptor 1,114]

You don't have to. I must say I'm not surprised. You can like or dislike documented facts There are certainly alot of facts I find inconvenient, and wish they weren't so. But to completely disregard them is just pure ignorance.

Exit polling has shown, time and time again, to be some what unreliable. I serves the interest of the country for the President to be seen as duly elected, and that no 3rd party candidate have a role in putting in someone who only got 43% of the over all vote.

So, because it "serves the interests of the nation" in your mind, you choose to ignore the fact that he pulled evenly from both parties? Whether Clinton won by 43% or 52%, Perot's presence did not sway the election in either direction.

It serves the interests of the individual to have his views adequately represented amongst those who want to govern him. The interests of the individual preempt and take precedence over those of the collective. Sure, as a conservative, you agree?

Point of fact, Clinton never , in either election, gained more than 50% of the vote.

[Weagle1787 607]

And he would have won both elections even if Bush 41 and Dole were the only others on the ballot. Clinton/Dole was a route.

[icanthearyou 4,403]

Some don't see it. This two party dialectic is being imposed on us. A vote for a mainstream candidate is a vote for the establishment. Don't be a fool. Mitt Romney is not going to do a damn thing for conservatives.

Secondly, if you live in a red state, vote for GJ. Your vote doesn't matter anyway. The more momentum GJ gets, the more threat to the establishment he is.

Did that in 2000, voting for Harry Browne. Did real wonders for the Libertarian party

If you didn't vote for the winner, your vote was wasted?

[Auburn85 425]

Some don't see it. This two party dialectic is being imposed on us. A vote for a mainstream candidate is a vote for the establishment. Don't be a fool. Mitt Romney is not going to do a damn thing for conservatives.

Secondly, if you live in a red state, vote for GJ. Your vote doesn't matter anyway. The more momentum GJ gets, the more threat to the establishment he is.

Good point. This is my way of thinking this time around.