The Drama Of The American Voter

I wonder every now and then what I would do if I were in the fortunate position of having a US passport and were entitled to vote for the elections in 2012.

The answer that I would vote for Romney doesn’t come automatic to me, and whilst I might in such a case  end up voting for him I am not persuaded  I should do it, let alone I should as a Catholic feel a duty to do so.

I see Romney as the product of a rather hysterical – if extremely democratic, and beautiful to watch – system by which a candidate is selected thinking of what his adversaries will say of his private life and personal circumstances rather than considering what his agenda as a President will be.

Therefore, the choice for many seemed to be not only – or not really – between Gingrich’s robust Catholicism and Romney’s anodyne and flip-flopping attitude, but – all things considered – whether it would be preferable to have your candidate smeared because of his infidelities, or because of his religious ideas and professional past.   As a result, we find ourselves with a – undoubtedly, bright and capable as a businessman – candidate who doesn’t drink coffee or alcohol – but is allowed to eat coffee ice cream, apparently ; I give up… – , doesn’t watch TV, believes that Jesus visited the United States and a lot of very strange things with that, and is a flip-flopper like very few at this level before him.

But hey, everyone knows no one is going to nail him with some past fling, so he must be fine.

Now, I am surely not the only one who thinks Romney may be professionally capable, but is also a non-coffee-drinking moral vacuum changing his political convictions according to the advantage they can give him. I think he is consciously flattening his positions on Obama’s ones as long as he thinks he can do so without losing the Republican vote altogether. The reasoning seems to be: “Dear Republican voter, however my positions may stink to you, you will end up voting for me because Obama stinks just a bit more”.

I am not sure we should follow him on this reasoning.

Whilst the comparison between the candidates at hand is a fully legitimate one and I would not criticise the one who decided to vote, obtorto collo, for Romney, I think that there is another legitimate comparison: the one between the candidates these mentality produces, and the ones who would be produced if the “lesser evil” voting behaviour were to be abandoned.

A vote for Romney makes it absolutely impossible to have decent Republican candidates. Not now, not ever. If the principle is accepted that between two candidates one votes for the one who is less bad – Romney is undoubtedly less bad – this means the choice will always be between the liberal candidate and a candidate who is just a bit less bad, namely: merely enough to make him distinguishable. This candidate will then only have to near the liberal candidate as much as he can without being burned to be sure of the votes of all those who choose the “lesser evil”. If it works in 2012, there’s no reason why it should not be tried in 2020 (assuming Romney doesn’t die of excessive consumption of coffee ice cream in the meantime) and beyond.

The choice to skip the vote in 2012 – in the sense of not voting for any of the two – is, on the other hand, a signal sent to the Republicans – both the establishment, and the pavid crowds voting in primaries and caucuses – that if they go on this way they will never ever have a Republican president, because RINOs will not get the Republican vote. Not now, not ever. 

A Romney victory would ensure us another eight year of absolute pain, as in 2016 the choice will be between an established flip-flopper like Romney and another liberal madman like, probably, Hillary.  If Romney is told to take a hike, perhaps the Republican masses will start to understand that the McCains and Romneys of the world just do not win elections, and in order to win they need a real Republican or can avoid wasting the time.

Mind, it doesn’t have to be a Santorum; Bush was certainly not considered a hardliner in the US (though he always was in Europe; funny people, the Europeans…) , but he won two gubernatorial elections in Texas followed by two Presidential elections, and I dare to say Kerry and Gore were less extreme in many things than Obama is, and therefore the winning of mainstream votes more difficult. In a word, it worked. Compare with 2012, where Perry got out of the race for forgetting a couple of names and having some small blunder in front of the press. If this is the way the Americans select their candidates, it’s no surprise they must now choose between a liberal madman and a flip-flopping Mormon.

In conclusion, I fully understand those who decide to vote Romney after all. But as Romney is perfectly fine with sodomy, was clearly pro-choice until the day before yesterday and would clearly try to keep as much of Obamacare as he can do without openly quarrelling with his Congressmen and Senators, I wonder whether those who vote for him do not in the end simply vote a pale version of Obama, with some improvement thrown in when it was truly necessary (say: his pro-life stance), and probably reneged as soon as he is elected and starts to think about the 2016 campaign (there is videos around of his former pro-“choice” days; scary stuff, and no mistake).

Basically, trying to save the candidate in 2012 automatically locks one in with the worst possible candidate for 2016 and 2020; a candidate who, when President, would systematically try to please the Democrats at every turn, knowing that the obedient Republican sheep vote for him in any way and the only thing he has to do is to attract 10%-15% of the Democratic vote, and Robert is your father’s brother…

No easy decision at all, anyway.


Posted on September 30, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Actually… first of all need to make sure of whom you are getting your news feed from. Here in the states and maybe your side of the ocean……the major press is bowing at the alter of Obama and NEVER releases ANYTHING negative that happens with him. It is so bent to the left (PROGRESSIVE/COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST) that everything they have that comes out blasts ANY Republican candidate and upholds like Golden gods on alabaster thrones the candidates that gives them their leftist communist views. Most people who have any brains here know that and this is one reason people have dropped like flies from watching CBS/NBC/ABC and MSNBC. They now tune into FOX NEWS or just give up watching anything at all from disgust! Those that do tune in come from their camp!

    Take the time to read the platforms of the Democrats and Republicans. IT IS AS CLEAR AS DAY…..
    DEMOCRATS: are for GAY MARRIAGE/ABORTION SERVICES/Euthanasia/DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, loose borders, grow a bigger government and give out more free stuff and support and protect Islam.
    REPUBLICANS: Uphold life from conception to natural death, are for TRADITIONAL marriage, for protecting our borders, and want to reduce what Government gives out free to people and less control of a person’s life so you can actually be FREE to MAKE MONEY!

    Obama has done such a horrible job as President that unless the other side had someone running who was a Neo-Natzi, I would vote for just about ANYONE to get Obama out of office! One of the FIRST THINGS he did when he became President was to push abortion from jthe shores of the USA to a world wide agenda with OUR MONEY! Mr Obama’s opinion of an aborted baby is that if it survives kill it (He voted for this while is had his big 2 year career as senator of Illinois). He is also the one who is instrumental in releasing the demons of Gay (SODOMITE) Marriage and also for closing down catholic adoption agencies who will not adopt out to Sodomites! He has not even balanced ONE BUDGET in 4 years which is a LAW here that the President is suppose to follow! NOW we find out that when our Embassy was Attacked by TERRORISTS not people just rioting, HE KNEW IT and he WENT TO BED so he could then travel to LAS VEGAS for more FUNDRAISING!!!

    When I think “let’s see….a man who has just about bankrupted us, spread the killing of innocent children, embraced and promoted gay marriage, has not followed the laws of the land, has turned our Space Program into a Muslim Appeasement agency, has snubbed his nose at Israel while strongly embracing all the Islamic and Communist Governments and costs the USA over a BILLION dollars a year to support he and his wife’s habits!” to a man who I may not agree with his religion but “does not get drunk, has been with the same wife and raised 5 boys who are with their wives and who does not philander around, who is a quiet humble person, a SUCCESSFUL Businessman, who gives 30% of his earnings to his church and to charities, and who has turned around the dying state of Massachusetts as well as turned around and saved the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City……..WOW!!! HARD CHOICE!!!

    OH!!!! I forgot the part where OBAMA is ATTACKING The Catholic Faith! Well….make that the Christian Faith! That is why there are tons of businesses and churches and EWTN going to Court to fight the HHS Mandate! Why would I EVER VOTE for the ENEMY of the CHURCH???

    Don’t forget what came out from the Pope! The Pope Urgently Calls Catholics to Counter President Obama’s “Radical Secularism” on Freedom of Religion
    And this Bishop: Voting for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are “intrinsically evil and gravely sinful” makes a voter “morally complicit” and places the eternal salvation of his or her soul in “serious jeopardy.” Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki


    • Beautifully said, Elizabeth, but you will not vote only for a Presidential candidate in November, and certainly do not have to vote for Obama.

      Concerning sodomy, I struggle to see any difference between the two candidates: Romney would gladly “evolve” himself if this would help him to get elected. He did the same with abortion, where I also have doubts about his sincerity. And if you think he will dismantle Obamacare once elected, I think you’ll be disappointed. The Republican platform is well-written because it was written by Christians; Romney will go along with whoemever will help him to get elected, and adapt his beliefs to theirs as long as it is convenient.

      Of course, he is the less worse man, but if you ask me he is short of the minimum requirement I would expect from a Republican candidate, and is already the second Republican candidate in a row I cannot warm to and for whom I do not care whether he wins or loses.

      As I have tried to say, what might happen here is that you elect the father-of-five who doesn’t get drunk and end up with a pale Obama, because if the logic is that you vote for him anyway, he’ll get as near to Obama’s positions as he safely can.

      I am obviously not the one who has to suffer the consequences of Obama’s economic incompetence, and can therefore hardly be a her with other people’ wallet. But if you ask me, the only argument in favour of Romney is his superior stance on the economy.

      Give me a philandering Christian who truly defends Christian values, every day of the week. It’s such a pity Perry and Gingrich had to go out of the race for issues that have nothing to do with their ability to be good Presidents.


  2. Well one point I agree on is that I liked Gingrich better and his “philandering” was done BC (Before Catholic) so as I remember when I became Catholic in 2007, when we come into the faith and go to our 1st Holy confession, we have ALL of our sins REMOVED from us! Unfortunately the “world” especially “secular s who monitor ALL Christians as their pastime” do not seem to know about conversion and mercy. He would have been eaten up alive by them and MOST Of us know that Obama’s agenda is so DEADLY to the U.S. we go with the person who we think may have a CHANCE of toppling the Kingdom of Obama! (Did you know he now has his own flag and pledge?)

    As for the HHS Mandate and OBAMACARE – CAN NOT WAIT to have it rescinded! Sure we needed things “fixed” in our healthcare system but for the entire congress to NOT EVEN READ WHAT WAS IN IT before they RUSHED IT THROUGH for a VOTE! I knew then that something smelled like day old fish! Our dear catholic with a small “c” Pelosi was the one who got up and said “We have to vote it IN so we can FIND OUT WHAT IS IN IT!!”
    EGADS… anyone at home upstairs in that woman? Why ANYONE would vote ANYTHING So life changing and engrossing into LAW before they even READ IT!!! The entire BUNCH of them needs the boot!!! Or maybe some spiked high heels???

    A friend sent this to me last night and it just confirms what my husband found out before he died in 2008. He was an Air Force Colonel with ties to classified info…..he was worried back then for our country and he would just be livid now if her were with us still… also confirms what I have been feeling ever since I heard Obama say in an interview that he thought he would be a ONE TERM PRESIDENT…..when I heard that I knew he was too much of a narcissist to really mean it. That is when I realized that he must have a plan to TAKE OVER America sometime either prior to the elections or in a case of a Romney win, prior to the hand-over. See this article and you will realize what we are up against. Pin that with the fact that Hillary is getting ready to sign into law with the UN a order for all of the citizens of the USA to have their guns outlawed. It all makes sense now!

    • Elizabeth,

      the point is whether you (and the American voters) would have been ready to get Newt at risk of getting the Monica, or not. I couldn’t care less what he does in his private life and see it as an issue for his confessor and his wife. Many Republicans thinks differently. Which is why they are now stuck between a flip-flopping six-pound-note Mormon and a raving lunatic.


      P.s. I sometimes think we live in an age where those who have died can call themselves happy not to have to live through the ages of sensitive pro-faggots everywhere. Your husband lived in happier and more Christian times, and we are those who are left and wait for our battle to end, and who knows what we will have to witness before that day comes… . I hope this can be of some consolation for your loss.


  3. Mundabor,
    as I said before, I would probably vote for Romney with a heavy heart, reasoning almost exactly as you do. But with one important difference: I do not believe the theory that a Romney loss would contribute to a strong conservative candidate in 2016. Let’s look at the recent history of presidential elections. After Reagan, Republicans lost to Clinton in 1992 and 1996 by considerable margins. (Six points in 1992 and eight points in 1996.) They went on to lose the popular vote in 2000 (Bush won only 48% of the vote) with Bush getting Florida because of a strong Nader performance. Bush won narrowly (by three points, just barely topping 50%) in 2004 on the back of enormous record-breaking base support in Ohio (due to the marriage referendum held on election day) that supplied the decisive electoral votes. In 2008, McCain lost by seven points, even losing safe Republican states such as Indiana and North Carolina.

    Of the last five elections, Republicans have lost the popular vote four times. They nominated Bush I, Dole, Bush II and McCain – at least three moderates and one moderate conservative. In 1992, 1996 and 2008 their losses were by decisive margins.

    Did they at any point start nominating strong conservatives? Why should we assume that another loss, the fifth in six elections (or the fourth if you count 2000 as a victory) would change their strategy?

    Moreover, the Republican base is shrinking while the Democratic base continues to expand steadily. Blacks, 70% of Hispanics, college students, single women, non-religious voters – all these groups are growing; all of them vote Democratic. The white married Christian demographic is collapsing. This has already changed the electoral map: Reagan won New Hampshire with almost 70%; Romney will be lucky if the wins the state at all. Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, California – these states are either safely Democratic or swing states today, because of Hispanics. Texas and Arizona will move into the swing state column in a few years. The same goes, because of other demographic groups, for Georgia and North Carolina. Virginia is already somewhat more Democratic than the nation as a whole.

    There will be no conservative Republican President in 2016 because there will be no majority to elect him anymore. You said during the primaries, that Santorum could not win the election. You were right, of course. He cannot win, because he is a conservative. For the same reason any other candidate running on conservative ideas would have lost. America has now reached the stage of Germany in 1980. The CDU/CSU nominated Strauß (about as conservative as it gets in Germany…) but there was no majority for him, because he was a conservative. Schmidt was unpopular, but people preferred the social-liberal coalition to a conservative government led by Strauß.

    Maybe, Republicans will break their historical pattern and nominate a conservative in 2016 – but he would lose in just the same way a conservative would have lost today. Just more decisively.

    So, for me, the choice is not between (1) Obama now and a conservative in 2016 or (2) Romney now and no conservative at all. The choice is between (1) Obama now and no conservative at all or (2) Romney now and no conservative at all. In this case, I still slightly prefer moderate liberal Romney over socialist liberal Obama.

    • Catocon, my argument starts exactly where your ends.

      After losing so often with RINO candidates, they might well start to say “why would we assume another loss, instead of changing the strategy?”.

      I think the popular vote argument is a typical European overstatement. Americans do not identify democracy with popular vote; Kennedy almost lost the popular vote, but this did not do him any damage, and Bush certainly won very well in 2004 (more distance in popular vote than Clinton vs Dole, I was told) irrespective of total vote percentages. I’d add to this that Republicans have had the smaller popular base for a very long time, and are not expected to win the popular vote with huge margins (again, see W). Also, 47% of the electorate does not pay direct income taxes.

      There is also – at least, I hope so – a new element: the growing dissatisfaction with RINO candidates, certainly stronger now than it was in Dole’s times. They will, God willing, get stronger and force the hand of both the tepid Republican establishment and the primary voters always looking for a safe bet; which isn’t there and cannot be, because if it safe for the moderates he is probably infuriating for the real conservatives.

      In the end, I think at some point the reasoning will have to be “you will never, ever win with a fake Republican”. How long the mainstream Republicans need to understand the lesson is something that should, I think, be left to them anyway, but I do think that Gingrich would have had better chances than Romney against Obama, and that Romney will lose badly ( I was wrong in the past already, though…).

      But the fact is, if you don’t look for a truly conservative candidate and are not ready to support him when he forgets a couple of names on tv (poor Perry) or has a less than exemplary past (poor Gingrich), you’ll never have one.

      I would personally be happy with a conservative candidate and would not even ask him to remember everything, or to be above reproach. It would be enough if he would be above flip-flopping.


  4. Mundabor,
    “Republicans have had the smaller base for a very long time, and are not expected to win the popular vote with huge margins”.
    Not true. In fact, Republicans are usually thought to have had the larger base in presidential elections until about ten years ago. The last Democrat to win even 50% of the national vote before Obama was Carter (50,1% in 1976) and before him Johnson in 1964. Republicans have accomplished this feat in 1972 (61%), 1980 (51%); 1984 (59%) and 1988 (53%). Just two decades ago Republicans were the party of presidential landslides while Democrats were able to eke out a narrow victory in a very good Democratic year. Now it is exactly reversed. The Republican base has shrunk and continues to shrink. Even in a landslide victory, Republicans cannot get above 52% anymore. The demographic reasons for this decline continue to operate; therefore the decline will continue.

    “Bush certainly won very well in 2004 (more distance in popular vote than Clinton vs Dole, I was told) irrespective of total vote percentages.”
    Not true. Let us look at the raw vote numbers for the two elections in question:
    1996: Clinton: 47,400,125; Dole 39,198,755 –> GAP: about 8,2 million votes.
    2004: Bush 62,040,610; Kerry 59,028,439 –> GAP: about 3 million votes.
    Source: US Election Atlas (no link because my posts tend to get lost in a spam folder whenever I try to post one…)
    Because of increased turnout, both parties’ candidates got more votes in 2004 than in 1996, but the distance was much larger in 1996 both absolutely and relatively.

    “There is also – at least, I hope so – a new element: the growing dissatisfaction with RINO candidates, certainly stronger now than it was in Dole’s times.”
    Yes, the Republican base has become more critical of liberal Republicans over the last few years. At the same time the base shrinks and will not be able to carry a conservative Republican to victory in a presidential election. The increased anti-RINO anger might lead to a conservative presidential candidate in 2016. But the candidate – be it Gingrich, Santorum or anyone else – would lose badly against any serious Democrat. There is no conservative majority anymore (there was in Nixon’s and Reagan’s time. Even a mediocre conservative Republican would have won back then against a liberal Democrat like Mondale)

    “I would personally be happy with a conservative candidate and would not even ask him to remember everything, or to be above reproach.”
    Agreed. Gingrich would have been better than Romney and Perry better than both. But conservative Republicans will not have many opportunities to win an election anymore. The truth is, a country consisting of 15% blacks (voting monolithically against any kind of Republican, whether moderate or conservative), the same number of hispanics, many of them in favor of illegal immigration, millions of welfare recipients, and many more millions of college-indoctrinated “moderate” voters will never elect any kind of social and fiscal conservative. One generation from now, Mitt Romney will be seen as a conservative extremist.

    • We’ll have to disagree, Catocon, but Reagan voters weren’t necessarily republicans, and Democrats have had a bigger base for a long time.
      The landslide doesn’t come from the Republican base, but from the candidate mobilising the masses.

      I stand corrected on Bush and Kerry.

      On the RINO candidates, again the idea is that real conservative candidates are encouraged to run and they win the voting masses for them. Even the Catholic vote is not a monolyth, and the black vote is largely against sodomy. Of course, there’s some work to do, but I think a Gingrich of Perry might have caught the public imagination come election time more than the sleek, pale, insincere Romney will ever do.

      If you ask me, one generation from now Romney will be seen as a flip-flopping loser, exactly as he is seen today. We’ll see how he fares tonight, but it can’t be denied he is not the man to awaken the enthusiasm of real Republicans.


%d bloggers like this: