Vox Popoli
Verbatim Post
Verbatim Post
Ross Douthat considers Ron Paul's surge in Iowa and is inspired to accomplish the rarely seen double-sellout on principle:
The problem is that too many Republicans listen to this sort of nonsensical analysis, all of which is intended to accomplish precisely one purpose: convince conservatives to vote against their own principles. Once they have done that, it doesn't matter who wins; the Bank Party has already won.
There are actually only two distinct candidates in the 2012 election. There is Ron Paul, who represents the U.S. Constitution, and there is Newt Romney O'Bama, who represents the Bank Party. The unprincipled pragmatists always like to claim, in defiance of both mathematics and logic, that a vote for Not-X is a vote for X, and yet, whereas the more salient and material fact of the matter is that a vote for X, Y, or Z is a vote for the set of {X,Y,Z}. There is no substantive difference between Romney, Gingrich, and Obama on any of the major issues presently facing the nation.
I don't believe Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination for president. But then, I didn't believe Tim Tebow could lead the Broncos to the top of the AFC West either. Roll Ron roll!
Even as the national party prepares to choose between the former speaker and the former Massachusetts governor, Iowa Republicans may end up choosing between Gingrich and Representative Ron Paul. In every post-Thanksgiving poll but one, Paul has been neck and neck for second place in Iowa. In most of them, he has lagged well behind the soaring speaker, coming in just below 20 percent while Gingrich hovers around 30. But a new Iowa survey, from Public Policy Polling, shows Gingrich leading Paul by just a single point, 22 percent to 21....It's a stunning achievement. In order to prevent Barack Obama from winning a second term, Republicans must sacrifice principle to pragmatism and nominate the self-styled progressive Republican, Mitt Romney. But in order to prevent Mitt Romney from being nominated as the Republican candidate for president, Tea Party Republicans must sacrifice principle to pragmatism and vote for the Medicare Part D-supporting, Freddie Mac-advising, Nancy Pelosi-snuggling Washington insider, Newt Gingrich.
Iowa Tea Partiers face a choice. If the town hall crashers and Washington Mall marchers of 2009 settle on a Medicare Part D-supporting, Freddie Mac-advising, Nancy Pelosi-snuggling Washington insider as their not-Romney standard bearer in 2012, then every liberal who ever sneered at the Tea Party will get to say “I told you so.” If Paul wins the caucuses, on the other hand, the movement will keep its honor – but also deliver the Republican nomination gift-wrapped to Mitt Romney.
The problem is that too many Republicans listen to this sort of nonsensical analysis, all of which is intended to accomplish precisely one purpose: convince conservatives to vote against their own principles. Once they have done that, it doesn't matter who wins; the Bank Party has already won.
There are actually only two distinct candidates in the 2012 election. There is Ron Paul, who represents the U.S. Constitution, and there is Newt Romney O'Bama, who represents the Bank Party. The unprincipled pragmatists always like to claim, in defiance of both mathematics and logic, that a vote for Not-X is a vote for X, and yet, whereas the more salient and material fact of the matter is that a vote for X, Y, or Z is a vote for the set of {X,Y,Z}. There is no substantive difference between Romney, Gingrich, and Obama on any of the major issues presently facing the nation.
I don't believe Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination for president. But then, I didn't believe Tim Tebow could lead the Broncos to the top of the AFC West either. Roll Ron roll!
Roll Ron roll!
ReplyDeleteOn the L&P site I made a post in response to this same subject titled "Who Owns You". It addressed the two party system and no third party candidate can win so in servitude to the party we all too often vote for the lessor of two evils just so the other guy does not win. All the talking "conservative" heads are spouting the same and even some of the most "conservative" are saying it has to be Romney because Gingrich can't win against Obama and Romney can carry the independent and "conservative" democrat vote. As Mike Church often says, "Conservative??? Just tell me what you are trying to conserve and I can tell if you are a conservative of the small r republic.
My response to the earlier post below...
I lived in that matrix reality for far too long resigning myself to vote for the lessor of two evils just because I thought that was my only option. Last time I held my nose and voted for McCain because in my mind he would be "Better" than Obama.
In the words of Martin Luther King: "In the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
My Epiphany came upon me:
Where is the wisdom in voting for the lessor of two evils? If both candidates will take you down the road to Hell then why is it better to vote for the one whose path is longer. You still end up in Hell. As I have stated before I am free at last. No more voting for the lessor of two evils. The two party system of one party mind has not and does not serve the people
:)!!
ReplyDelete