A bold proclamation I know. I think it's right though. At this point, the only Republican I have an affection for is President Bush. So why continue voting for Republicans like John McCain and other tax and spend RINO's? The Libertarian Party will give me 2 opportunities this year. The first is voting for the loser. Since I began voting for president, I have always voted with the winner - Bush 2 times baby!! That will change this year. Bob Barr, the Libertarian presidential nominee, has zero chance of winning. Rush Limbaugh, who is my political conscience, would scold me for being to ideolistic and not pragmatic enough. He and many other conservatives feel that voting for the lesser of the 2 evils is better than voting for your 1st choice and getting a Democrat. I'm ok with that because of the second reason. I will be voting my heart. As the Goldwater bumper sticker said many years ago, "in your heart you know he's right". The last 8 years have been great (with several exceptions) and I could not imagine living the next 8 under a guy I voted for and do not believe in. The Iraq War, Katrina, the 2008 economic downturn, and many other issues have been highly controversial and President Bush has taken a beating for them. Through thick-and-thin I stood by his side defending what I felt were actions grounded in sound principle and logic. With John McCain as the nominee, this will not be the case.
John McCain believes the global warming myth, believes waterboarding is torture, and wants to limit CEO's salaries. He is not a supply-sider by nature or voting record (but says he's reliable now), takes more interest in wooing the elite media than conservatives, and almost became a Democrat (according to multiple sources) after President Bush took office in 2001. Finally, he does not inspire with his positions or his speech. His lifestory is filled with heroics from Vietnam but as I said many times about John Kerry and his service in Vietnam as a qualification for becoming president, who cares. Serving in the military is not a license to be President of the United States.
On the other hand, Bob Barr and the Libertarians stand for limiting government in all forms; economically, on social issues, as it pertains to guns, and speech, property, and the environment. In short, the Libertarian Party is the anti-government-growth party. However, I do disagree with them on some key issues. For one, the Libertarian's platform opposses the Iraq War. Although Barr did support the Iraq War resolution from the House of Reps in 2002, he has since said troops should be brought home ASAP. Obviously I couldn't disagree more. They feel the war was a mistake, a diversion from the real culprit of 9/11, UBL. I say the threat from Saddam was real and the world is better off without him. It's unclear to me how Barr would posture the US on national security issues. The Constitution does give the federal government the responsibilty of protecting the homeland and pressumably America's interests around the world. I don't know how this is interpreted if they oppose interventions such as the Iraq War. In addition, they oppose the PATRIOT Act and Gitmo. The President, who has proven to be the ultimate terror warrior, says they're necessary. Enough said.
These issues that we disagree on are very important and hard to swallow. However, on the broader, general philosophical issues of representative democracy, personal freedoms, and constitutional interpretation, we agree and that's good enough for me. Besides, the only time I would agree 100% with a politician or president would be if I were him.
No comments:
Post a Comment