Hail To The Chief
Note: I've moved my blog to my own web site - the new address is:
www.nonaverage.net/insomanywords/
Comments can only be left at the new location.
----------------------------------------------------
This November, America will elect a new president. And most voters will go to the polls and cast their vote for eitherJohn McCain or Barack Obama. And on the evening of November 4th, the major news networks (and CBS) will be competing to be the first network to declare one of these men the winner. Most Americans will vote for one of these men. But some voters will vote for someone else. Some will cast their vote for Ron Paul. Some will vote for Ralph Nader. Some will vote for the Green Party candidate, whoever that is. Some will even cast their vote for a candidate even more unknown than the Green Party candidate. Now I want to make this clear before I proceed - I understand the concept of standing by one's principles. I understand wanting to make a political statement. I understand being angry at the current political process. I understand the desire to boot out entrenched career politicians and get fresh blood into Congress. I understand the frustration with leaders who exempt themselves from the very laws and taxes that they impose on their constituency. I feel strongly about these and other political issues in the United States. But come November, there is one reality that we all should face: only John McCain or Barack Obama will be elected president. Barring some unexpected event, only those two men have the chance to be elected president this year, and only one of these two will be sworn-in next January. Ron Paul will not be elected - that is a political and mathematical certainty and reality in the current makeup of candidates. He will not be elected president, and neither will Ralph Nader. It is not possible for either of these men, or anyone except McCain and Obama, to be elected president this November. That is reality. And all of the political idealism and electorate dissatisfaction and heart-felt revolutionism you can muster up will not change that reality. And this has nothing to do with the kind of people Paul/Nader/whoever are - it's not about whether or not they are the best candidate for the job. It's not even about whether McCain or Obama are the best men for the job. It's about the reality that only McCain and Obama - only these two guy - will receive enough votes to possibly be elected president. The way things stand now, no one else will come close. No one else has a chance.
Yes, it's probably true that if everyone who didn't vote in 2004 suddenly went out and voted for Mr. Paul, he would win, and that is a great testimony to what could be accomplished if people would stand together on an issue. But that is not going to happen - many of those non-voters who have stayed home year after year will again stay at home, and the election will be decided by the usual percentage of the U.S. population that does vote. But if you are usually in that voting populace and you don't vote for either McCain or Obama, your vote could be ineffective. I'm not talking about wasting your vote - I think that term is a poor way to describe people who cannot in good conscience vote for the major political party candidates. The way I see it, if you take the time to vote, it's not a waste. But I believe that you can vote ineffectively, and voting in this November's presidential election for anyone besides McCain or Obama would make your vote ineffective because you would be voting for someone who is guaranteed to lose. You can either vote for McCain or Obama, or you can vote against one of them by voting for the other, but voting for anyone else besides these two will not get anyone else elected, and it just might do harm to the candidate that could best represent you.
If you want Mr. Paul to be president because you oppose an increase in government programs and taxes and you feel that this is what Mr. Obama would bring, yet you feel that you cannot vote for Mr. McCain, your vote in November for Mr. Paul would take a vote away from Mr. McCain, and could allow Mr. Obama to receive more votes than Mr. McCain. By voting for Mr. Paul, you could help elect Mr. Obama.
Or perhaps you are sick of corporate greed and the self-serving big business executives who don't pay taxes and who contribute to world environmental problems, and you feel that Mr. McCain would enable these people to continue in their destructive ways. And you think that Mr. Obama is just another part of the whole political system that is corrupt and will not do enough to curb these excesses, so you vote for Mr. Nader or perhaps the Green Party candidate. But your vote for Nader might keep Mr. Obama from getting the votes he needs to overcome Mr. McCain - by voting for Nader, you could help elect McCain.
Are you tired of 8 years of a Republican administration? Neither Ralph Nader or the Green Party candidate, or any other third-party liberal candidate, will collect enough votes to overcome McCain. Your best chance to stop McCain is to vote for Obama. Or do you think that liberal politics is what's ruining our government? OK, maybe John McCain isn't conservative enough for you. But he's certainly more conservative than Obama, and he's the only other candidate that has a chance of beating Obama and preventing a liberal-Democrat administration.
In this election season, there were many people who used their votes in their states' primaries to make political statements and take stands on principles. But now the time to make a political statements based on your principles has passed... it's time to choose between two men. Perhaps you need to look at this as picking the lesser of two evils, but however you look at it, there are only two viable choices. So, in the end, are you going to drop your vote into the "Guaranteed to Lose" category? Or are you going to make a vote that could help define the political landscape of the United States for the next four years?
Your choice.
www.nonaverage.net/insomanywords/
Comments can only be left at the new location.
----------------------------------------------------
This November, America will elect a new president. And most voters will go to the polls and cast their vote for either
Yes, it's probably true that if everyone who didn't vote in 2004 suddenly went out and voted for Mr. Paul, he would win, and that is a great testimony to what could be accomplished if people would stand together on an issue. But that is not going to happen - many of those non-voters who have stayed home year after year will again stay at home, and the election will be decided by the usual percentage of the U.S. population that does vote. But if you are usually in that voting populace and you don't vote for either McCain or Obama, your vote could be ineffective. I'm not talking about wasting your vote - I think that term is a poor way to describe people who cannot in good conscience vote for the major political party candidates. The way I see it, if you take the time to vote, it's not a waste. But I believe that you can vote ineffectively, and voting in this November's presidential election for anyone besides McCain or Obama would make your vote ineffective because you would be voting for someone who is guaranteed to lose. You can either vote for McCain or Obama, or you can vote against one of them by voting for the other, but voting for anyone else besides these two will not get anyone else elected, and it just might do harm to the candidate that could best represent you.
If you want Mr. Paul to be president because you oppose an increase in government programs and taxes and you feel that this is what Mr. Obama would bring, yet you feel that you cannot vote for Mr. McCain, your vote in November for Mr. Paul would take a vote away from Mr. McCain, and could allow Mr. Obama to receive more votes than Mr. McCain. By voting for Mr. Paul, you could help elect Mr. Obama.
Or perhaps you are sick of corporate greed and the self-serving big business executives who don't pay taxes and who contribute to world environmental problems, and you feel that Mr. McCain would enable these people to continue in their destructive ways. And you think that Mr. Obama is just another part of the whole political system that is corrupt and will not do enough to curb these excesses, so you vote for Mr. Nader or perhaps the Green Party candidate. But your vote for Nader might keep Mr. Obama from getting the votes he needs to overcome Mr. McCain - by voting for Nader, you could help elect McCain.
Are you tired of 8 years of a Republican administration? Neither Ralph Nader or the Green Party candidate, or any other third-party liberal candidate, will collect enough votes to overcome McCain. Your best chance to stop McCain is to vote for Obama. Or do you think that liberal politics is what's ruining our government? OK, maybe John McCain isn't conservative enough for you. But he's certainly more conservative than Obama, and he's the only other candidate that has a chance of beating Obama and preventing a liberal-Democrat administration.
In this election season, there were many people who used their votes in their states' primaries to make political statements and take stands on principles. But now the time to make a political statements based on your principles has passed... it's time to choose between two men. Perhaps you need to look at this as picking the lesser of two evils, but however you look at it, there are only two viable choices. So, in the end, are you going to drop your vote into the "Guaranteed to Lose" category? Or are you going to make a vote that could help define the political landscape of the United States for the next four years?
Your choice.
posted by Ruben at
9:03 AM
<< Home