Smorgasbuffoonery

A friend emailed me asking for my thoughts on the Indiana Presidential Primary. He was somehow under the mistaken impression that there were only two canidates on the ballot. After informing him otherwise and sending him a detailed list of all five major party candidates and my choice of limited government's only friend Ron Paul I received a note saying in effect, "thanks for the data, I'm still torn between Obama and Clinton. I don't want to vote for a loser."

Taking a deep breath and pushing down that glowing rod of uranium-like rage I responded with the following:

Glad I could be of help, but let me try and educate you further.

McColdfish
Many have speculated that if Ron Paul faced off with Obama or Clinton he would win because he actually provides a contrast from what is obviously a common position shared by presumptive winner McCain and whichever Demodrone happens to be nominated. With Ron Paul in the race people might hear about real change rather than simply continue to hear the word thrown around without any specifics.

The Clinton Conundrum
Ron Paul is also further removed from Bush than any of them, particularly Hillary. The Bush and Clinton families vacation together and W takes policy advice from Bill. On the other hand, the Bushes have actively campaigned AGAINST Ron Paul for years, most notably when Shrub was governor of Texas.

The "O" Stands for "Zero"
After reviewing his positions how can anybody honestly believe that Obama is a candidate for change? He wants more of the same, and by more I mean an increase in volume. He pays lip-service to wanting to end the war in Iraq, but he doesn't know how soon this can happen. He says that Iraq was a bad idea but wants to have a repeat in Iran. There isn't a single policy in the last 8 years that he has really opposed (other than the war or when Bush hands out government money to GOP interests rather than Democrat). He simply wants to take the existing leviathan government and amplify it further.

Tweedlecain, Tweedlebama, Tweedleton
Since McCain, Obama and Clinton are all identical what does the vote matter if it's for any of them? It's like choosing your favorite shade of taupe. At least Ron Paul (or even Gravel)challenges the status quo.

Are people better off today than they were eight years ago? How about sixteen years ago? Twenty? We're on the cusp of a depression caused by wild spending and inflationary monetary policy promoted by Bush-Clinton-Bush, aided and abetted by McCain and Obama.

This ain't horse-race betting. It isn't about running the odds and putting your money on the best mare. If the major consideration you make before pulling the lever is which candidate has a better chance of "winning" then you're part of the problem. Stay home and out of the way.

Ideology is more important than electability and what's most ironic in our modern system is that if people changed their focus from the latter to the former electability would FOLLOW ideology rather than the other way around.

The lesser of two (or three) evils is still a sin.

--M.A. Hargett