Fuzzy Rant: Voting Your Arrogance and Pretending It’s Your “Principles”

Okay, I’ve been holding in this rant for a while, but I just can’t do so any longer.  It’s been coming for some time, with Adrienne’s recent post feeding the fire.  But the last straw was some idiot Paulbot (redundant, I know) who keeps tweeting me inane crap about how establishment GOP are trying to “bully” her vote, so she’s going to vote for someone named Gary Johnson. You remember that guy who was in the GOP primary debates posing as Ron Paul lite?  No? You don’t remember? Don’t worry, he is not memorable.  Nor is he ever going to be president (neither will Ron Paul, of course).  But hey! The “principled” people will vote for him anyway!

The supreme sense of their own importance makes the “principled” ones infuriating.  [–let me interrupt this rant to note that I don’t mean all Ron Paul supporters and certainly not all libertarians, just the fringe ones who turn off the rest of us with their looniness] Like most self-centered people, they care only about themselves, their principles, their useless, pointless, self-indulgent “stand.”  It’s ignorant, sure, but I’ve come to believe that it’s mostly arrogance.  How else do you explain people who see the devastation that 0 has wrought in four years and think it’s better to have him win another destructive four years than to vote for Mitt Romney, the only person who has a chance of defeating him?  How else do you explain someone whose principles dictate that they collude in the destruction of our republic so that they can strut around declaring that they didn’t “sell out”?  What will they be strutting amongst?  The wreckage of America.  A totalitarian nightmare that they’d rather see our countrymen and women endure than vote for someone who isn’t pitch perfect, lockstep in line with their view of our republic (a view, I should note, that I do not share . . . nor do the majority of American non-leftists as evidenced by Mitt Romney’s nomination.  But they know best, these Paulbots).


But, but, but whine and whinge and moan the Paulbots, 0 is just like George W. Bush. Just. Like. Him.  Really, we swear!  Bush spent big (he did); he expanded government unacceptably (he did), he got us into wars we probably shouldn’t have been in (he did). So seeeee!??!! Just exactly the exact same sameness.

Uh huh.

Two things are incredibly wrong with this childish thinking: one, Bush was a big-spender, possibly a progressive, but he didn’t hate America or Americans.  Two, Bush didn’t get away with it, not really.  By the end of his term his approval was at 25%; Americans didn’t approve of his big spending, nanny state, police state crap.  We’d had enough.  (This is essentially why I contend that had McCain been elected, the TEA Party would still have emerged. McCain, like Bush, is a big-spending, big-government nightmare. But like Bush, he’s not in the same Marxist league as 0.).  These arrogant “principle” voters for Johnson (whom they didn’t go to until Ron Paul completely failed, so how principled are they, I mean really?) think casting their vote for Johnson, or abstaining from voting, will change . . . well, actually, I’m not sure what the hell they think they’ll change by doing that. I’d have to have a significantly more inflated sense of my own importance to even begin to comprehend it.

The only way to change the Bush-type “compassionate conservative” / RINO / regressive crap is to vote them all out of office; we don’t do that by handing 0 another term in which he can potentially destroy both our economy and our Republic.  We do that, slowly, over time, with passionate dedication to correcting our own wrongs (if we supported Bush, as I did) or by steering our nation back on course with our votes, our vigilance, and our voice.  We do it by recognizing that we won’t always–may never–have the “perfect” choice, but the better of two will be evident, and that’s the one we want, even as a place-holder for a more acceptable constitutional conservative in the next election cycle.

We certainly don’t do it by stomping our feet, sticking out our pouty pouty lips, and demanding a return to American liberty and values NOW! We didn’t get here overnight, and we’re certainly not going to get out of here overnight.  But don’t try to tell that to a “principle” voter.  They just don’t get it.  I’m still not sure how a vote for what’s-his-name, er, Johnson, is a return to our core values, but whatever.  I gave up trying to reason with self-important, self-inflated, self-centered leftists long ago, and Paulbots are far too similar to leftists for me: trying to reason with a Paulbot is rather like trying to reason with a leftist.  In fact, it’s exactly like that, right down to their obsession with “following the money.”

Would I have preferred a different candidate?  Of course.  (Though, to be perfectly honest, I’m not unhappy with the Romney nomination.  Not anymore.  But that’s a different post for a different day.)  But we don’t have a different candidate; we have this one.  So it’s either Romney or 0.  Period.  It’s not rocket science.  It’s not an insolvable puzzle. It’s not even a particularly difficult choice . . . unless you are so arrogant, so unprincipled (yes! unprincipled) that you think voting on your “principles” justifies your role in America’s downfall (and make no mistake, surviving four more years of this radical, antiAmerican, unAmerican, pro-Islamofascist Marxist nightmare may well be more than even our great nation can manage).

But no, you go ahead and vote your arrogance principles.  You know best, after all.  You assert that voting for someone you would not choose–Isn’t Ron Paul your guy?–is better than voting for someone you . . . um, did not choose.

Or something.

Let’s see what’s at stake here:  the Supreme Court, with at least one and up to three appointments likely in the next four years and which is the go-to branch for leftists who can’t get a popular vote on their pet agenda projects (remember: “democracy” is only worth defending for leftists if it reinforces their totalitarian policies); the nation’s economy, but hey! who needs one of those?; global war, a very real possibility in light of 0’s horrific influence on the Middle East, China, Russia, and Europe and his acolytes’ support of the Islamofascist “Arab spring”; but hey! that’s not your problem, right? It’s the big, evil America who’s to blame for terrorism.  In India. In Bali. In Africa.  Uh huh, right; unconstitutional consolidation of power in the executive branch finalized, but gee, that’s going to happen anyway, right? One day. Why not next year?!; more and more people dragged down into poverty and onto welfare and food stamps, but hey! that’s not your problem, right?; the ObamaCareTax, it needs to be repealed and most assuredly won’t be under a second 0 term; the size of government, but hey, bigger is better, right?  Because that’s what your crap vote for Obama Johnson will guarantee; the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments, but hey! Who needs those as long as you can vote your “principles”?

The more of you who vote your “principles” (i.e. yourself), the larger the popular vote gap, the larger, in other words, the “mandate” that 0 and his traitorous horde will claim.  And use to further their destructive agenda.  But hey, who cares about the popular vote, right?  It’s only the electoral college that “matters.”  Right?  Wrong.  Ten kinds of wrong.  Sure, the electoral college decides the election, we all know that.  But the popular vote matters and not just in the history books but in the winner declaring a mandate. Most of us know that 0 won the popular vote by just over 9.5 million votes (in a country of over 300 million people).  And look what they did with that “mandate.”  Imagine what they’ll do with the one to which you are actively contributing by refusing to vote for Mitt Romney.

You are not happy with Romney.  You are not happy with either party.  They’re “just the same,” right?  So instead of bucking up, taking responsibility, and working to change the GOP, to shift it to a more limited government platform by electing constitutional conservatives and libertarians and by staying involved to ensure the party stays the course, you’ll just take your marbles and skip off to vote for that guy, what’s his name again?, who has zero chance of winning.  Genius.

You are not happy that things aren’t exactly as you wish them to be, so you’ll puff up your cheeks, hold your breath, thrash about on the floor in a temper tantrum . . . and ultimately–and make no mistake about this–aid and abet the single most dangerous president this nation has ever known (well, there are other contenders like Woodrow Wilson, but you get my drift).  And you’ll do it on “principle.”  Because, after all, that will make a “statement”; you’ll “let them know” they can’t “bully” you!  Your message will be heard “loud and clear.”

Uh huh, and what delusional, self-important world do you inhabit?

But yes, by all means, vote your “principles.”  After all, if you care more about yourself than your country, what choice do you really have?


30 thoughts on “Fuzzy Rant: Voting Your Arrogance and Pretending It’s Your “Principles”

  1. Whew! Lovely (as usual) Gary Johnson? Really? 99.999% of the people in this country don’t have a clue of who this guy is.

    The up-side is I think there are very few who will be voting their “principles” so they won’t do a lot of damage. People seem to be lining up behind Romney. And, like you, the more I see of him, the more appealing he’s becoming.

  2. Principle me this… Where and what good are your principles going to be if BHO is reelected and succeeds in his efforts to destroy this country… I’m with you Fuzzy, these Paulbots are out of their minds… Do they not see the destruction of our country as being something worth fighting to the death to prevent… I remenber being younger (not young, but younger) and voting for Ross Perot and the disasterous outcome of that decission… The difference was that I don’t think Bill Clinton’s goal unlike Obama’s was to destroy America… I read “Roots of Obama’s Rage” way before seeing “2016”, so it was not a shock to me to find that Obama’s foremost goal is to take this country from its role as world leader to that of demenished world also ran… Leave no doubt, Obama hates this country and has done everything he could to bring it to its knees… His biggest mistake was underestimating the will of the American people and that’s why even the Kool – Aide drinkers are leaving in droves…

    I’ve been following by email since you left Blogspot, just rarely have time to comment… Keep up the good fight…

  3. I’ve had a few run-ins with Ron Paulians. Some of them get real weird, idolizing Paul like the Left idolized Obama four years ago. I remember this one guy wrote about “following the path that the good doctor has shown us.” That line was just thrown in and was completely out of context of the argument that was taking place. Weird.

    Fortunately, I think that Adrienne’s right, and that the numbers are so insignificant it will make no difference. I think you’ll see a rise in principle votes in places like California, Illinois and New York– places guaranteed to go to Obama, and where frustrated people on the Right are trying to send a message to the local GOP. It won’t make any difference in the election.

  4. Fuzzy, can you forward this rant to Bungalow Bill and Left Coast Rebel? They need an infusion of common sense. Have standards, of course. But at least get Obama out of office, then we can go about holding our own guys’ feet to the fire.

  5. Pingback: Not Voting For Romney? | I'm a Man! I'm 41!

  6. Excellent post. The so-called Paulbots remind me of the so-called Christians, who claim they will not vote for a Mormon, but have no problem voting for Obama, who is a black theology Marxist. Franklin was right: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    • Yeah, I don’t get the not voting on the grounds of Romney’s Mormonism thing at all. Particularly, as you note that our current president is one of three things: a black liberation Marxist Christian, a Muslim, or an atheist (and not the good kind, the sneering, holier-than-thou kind).

      I’ll take the Mormon any day, thank you very much.

  7. I follow thee blogs of a number of libertarians. They are as a whole bright, intelligent and inyeresting people.. I agree with them on many points. The problem,as i see it is that political idealogs can be just as infuriating as some religious ideologs. They see themselves as so much smarter than everyone else. They are incapable of admitting that they could be even the littlest bit wrong in their assesments of our polital situation. One told me the other day that he never supported paul because Paul is a Republican and if there were no Libertarian candidate he would vote for four more years of Obama before he would vote for possibly eight years of Romney. Trying to reason with these people is as hopeless as trying to reason with a left-wing radical.

    • I don’t read as many libertarian blogs as I used to; they seem stuck on “following the money” and (as pointed out by Yukio above) following the teachings of “the good doctor” (or whatever equally creepy crap they say). Now, if the blogger isn’t a Paulbot, I do still read them, but that over-the-top stuff gets old. Fast.

  8. So, we’re supposed to change the party by creating a mandate for the candidate that we dislike?

    The sad thing is, you weren’t going for irony.

    • As opposed to creating one for the incumbent you already know is a disaster in every conceivable way? Um, yes. In fact, it’s ten times more desirable to do so. President Romney will not ignore and trample the Constitution with countless executive orders and his agencies shuffling money to ACORN and more police state power to the ATF (just to name two recent obominations), overturn laws passed by Congress (amnesty), decide which laws he likes and will defend and which he doesn’t, President Romney will not appoint a known communist to the Supreme Court, and on and on. . . . And on. You’re suggesting, just as I state in my post, that sticking to your principles (i.e. voting for Johnson or writing in Ron Paul or simply abstaining from voting) is more important than your country (which is in clear and present danger at the moment by a radical anti-American totalitarian collectivist). That you, in other words, are more important than America. I simply beg to differ.

      As Opus notes, above, President Romney will be more malleable than the Ideologue in Chief (you may not like it, but Romney does “flip flop” and go with what people want, not rigidly adhere to a lethal ideology), and he’ll listen to the people (something 0 thought himself above). If hundreds of thousands of TEA Party people show up in DC, you can bet Romney will listen.

      Further, this isn’t even about–or only about–the presidency. With more (in 2010) and more (in 2012) constitutional conservatives being sent to DC (with more to follow in future elections; we’ve only had ONE so far, after all, no miracle cures available, I’m afraid), Congress will become more conservative with regards to limited government and fiscal issues; what it sends to the president to sign will reflect that, reflect what we want (even, dare I say it, demand).

      If you’re still stuck on principles, though, nothing I can say will change that. I can live with it, agreeing to disagree is healthy. 😉

      • “President Romney will not ignore and trample the Constitution with countless executive orders and his agencies shuffling money to ACORN and more police state power to the ATF (just to name two recent obominations), overturn laws passed by Congress (amnesty), decide which laws he likes and will defend and which he doesn’t, President Romney will not appoint a known communist to the Supreme Court, and on and on. . . . And on.”

        There is no President Romney. There is only a Teapublican-controlled Congress faux-wondering how Obama is spending all of the money while they claim themselves to be “Constitutionalists” or more hilariously, “budget hawks.”

        The fact is, you can’t find a dime Obama has spent that the Teapublican Congress didn’t sign off on, so don’t give me the battered woman speech vouching that the abuser will change with just one more chance. Why doesn’t this change? Because simplistic, feckless voters such as yourself enjoy being pushed around with promises that someday maybe the party will throw you a bone. The only thing you have to give to the process is your vote, and you’re signaling that you’re okay with the GOP openly marginizing conservatives to nominate a leftist. “As long as it’s a Republican leftist,” right?

        Leftist? What else would you call someone with Romeny’s judicial nominations in Massachussetts? You know, the ones that legalized gay marriage and enforced Romney’s decree to provide abortions to minors against parental consent?

        Yeah, what kind of judicial nominations would a Romney presidency bring? Certainly nothing to the right of what Obama has done. At all.

        So why change? A Republican leftist is still a leftist.

        • Congress long ago gave up too much power to the Executive Branch, we know that. In fact, there have been several bills proposed (most recently HR3121) to correct that. It will not be corrected with the current composition of Congress, nor with the current president.

          We know that there are progressive republicans–we call them either “establishment” or RINOs (and while Bush was in office, “compassionate conservatives”). And we are working to vote them out of office. And yes, that does mean that until we can clean house (and Senate, heh), there will be some still there. Of course. Again, they didn’t get there in one election, and they won’t be voted out in one election (and we’ve only had one, the 2010 midterm election, and it was a MIDTERM). I’ve explained, clearly, why I think Romney is the better option in November, if you disagree, by all means vote for Obama or Johnson or not at all. That’s your right.

          It seems that rather than attempting to affect change, you just like to complain. That’s fine. My page is not, however, the place to do it.

          • I understand speaking of reality in your echo chamber makes you uncomfortable, which is why you prefer to represent your namecalling screed as a piece of logical argumentation. Nonetheless, if you want to “affect change,” condoning the Republican Party’s hard shift to the left by voting for more of it doesn’t seem to be the clear path to that.

            I’ll just note that Obama’s spending spree went into hyperdrive when the Teapublicans took control of the purse strings.

            But they’ll stop making your argument look desperate and pathetic if’n yous just gives ’em one more chance.


            • We are not condoning the GOP’s hard shift left, we are correcting it. It’s really not that difficult to grasp, but perhaps you do understand what I’m saying, and that’s why you sink into personal attacks.

              And that, Mr. Beamish, crosses the line. You can certainly disagree, but ad hominem attacks are not welcome here. Therefore, neither are you any longer.

  9. My principles follow the “Buckley rule,” for the most part: Support the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate running.

    It’s pretty friggin sad that that most conservative electable candidate between Romney and Obama just so happens to BE Obama.

    • If you honestly believe that RomneyCare is “just like” the 0CareTax, you are completely clueless. I did not like RomneyCare when I lived in Mass (as I’ve repeatedly blogged), and I don’t like it now. It has a mandate, and that’s what I opposed. It did not, however, establish death panels, take over the student loan industry, establish scores of federal bureaucracies, give the MA taxing authority access to our bank accounts (as the IRS now has), nor another 2000+ pages of liberty-stealing rules, regulations, etc.

      And, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. Not now. If 0 wins reelection we will never get rid of the 0CareTax, but if Romney wins, he will be pressured to sign the repeal bill that lands on his desk (IF we keep the House and gain the Senate). To me, there is no contest and no question about the better person for whom to cast my vote. It will be #RomneyRyan2012. Period.

      But you keep screeching and walking a fine line in terms of personal attacks. You haven’t crossed it yet, but as an FYI, I do not permit ad hominem attacks on my pages, so do not continue along that particular path unless you’d like to be blocked (I can accommodate that with the click of a button). Stick to the issues, and if you want to know what I think without making silly, childish accusations, read my blog or simply ask.

      • Now Fuzzy we all know that you’re a closet Socialist, so why don’t you just come out and admit it? Okay? Come on… Pretty please. ; )

        I’m also really enjoying the slightly veiled accusation that you’re a Romneybot. Heh.

      • I might take Romney a touch more seriously if he claimed he was going to repeal national Romneycare, but then he goes too far and says he’ll not only repeal national Romneycare, he’ll replace it with some other socialist endeavor. AND restore $700+ Billion to Medicare.

        With all the Tea Party Caucus approved deficit spending under Obama, you’ve got a Presidential candidate screaming to undo one of Obama’s only spending cuts (Medicare).

        This is not a conservative political party.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s