October 27, 2008
The Hold the Mayo Vote
I had a lengthy post written regarding my voting decision. In fact I wrote it twice in part because I didn't like the way the first one was written - it had not flow. But also because it was written on my PDA and I couldn't sync it to my laptop.
It was a detailed defense of a decision to not vote. It dealt with the fact that my decision would be counted among the vast apathetic masses that never participate. But that decision came down to the fact that whichever candidate I voted against, that decision would be counted as support for the other. That was a sanction I did not wish to grant to either of them. Whatever damage the eventual winner would inevitably do to the nation - I did not wish to have it done in my name.
This decision also acknowledged the fact that Connecticut will be nowhere near a battleground state. The One will carry Connecticut.
This decision was based on what I have come to see as a vast underestimation of the full potential disaster of an Obama presidency. The more I learn - and with the media cloak around him it has been difficult - the more I have questioned my earlier judgment that in this election there is no viable lesser of two evils choice.
It was this clip of a radio interview from 2001 that really sealed the deal:
I am not enthusiastic about casting a vote for the man responsible for the BCRA assault on the First Amendment. I am not enthusiastic about casting a vote for a man who attacks "Wall Street Greed" as the source of our economic difficulties instead of the government that set up the regulatory market structure in which they worked to maximize their profits. I am not enthusiastic about casting a vote for a man who wants to provide a path to citizenship for people who are in this country in violation of the law. I am not enthusiastic about casting a vote for a man who has joined the Church of Global Warming.
But I will cast a vote for John McCain. That is at least how it will be officially counted. For me it is vote against The One.
It is a vote against "redistributionist change." It is a vote against nationalized health care. It is a vote against weakening the American Military. It is a vote against an unquestioningly "multilateralist foreign policy. It is a vote against Socialism.
Back in July when the nominees had been determined "presumptively," a reader called me on an earlier statement I had made:
I didn't really have much of an answer at the time:
Now I have an answer. And I still find it unsatisfying.
It was a detailed defense of a decision to not vote. It dealt with the fact that my decision would be counted among the vast apathetic masses that never participate. But that decision came down to the fact that whichever candidate I voted against, that decision would be counted as support for the other. That was a sanction I did not wish to grant to either of them. Whatever damage the eventual winner would inevitably do to the nation - I did not wish to have it done in my name.
This decision also acknowledged the fact that Connecticut will be nowhere near a battleground state. The One will carry Connecticut.
This decision was based on what I have come to see as a vast underestimation of the full potential disaster of an Obama presidency. The more I learn - and with the media cloak around him it has been difficult - the more I have questioned my earlier judgment that in this election there is no viable lesser of two evils choice.
It was this clip of a radio interview from 2001 that really sealed the deal:
I am not enthusiastic about casting a vote for the man responsible for the BCRA assault on the First Amendment. I am not enthusiastic about casting a vote for a man who attacks "Wall Street Greed" as the source of our economic difficulties instead of the government that set up the regulatory market structure in which they worked to maximize their profits. I am not enthusiastic about casting a vote for a man who wants to provide a path to citizenship for people who are in this country in violation of the law. I am not enthusiastic about casting a vote for a man who has joined the Church of Global Warming.
But I will cast a vote for John McCain. That is at least how it will be officially counted. For me it is vote against The One.
It is a vote against "redistributionist change." It is a vote against nationalized health care. It is a vote against weakening the American Military. It is a vote against an unquestioningly "multilateralist foreign policy. It is a vote against Socialism.
Back in July when the nominees had been determined "presumptively," a reader called me on an earlier statement I had made:
"If John McCain or Mike Huckabee are the GOP nominee for President they will only get my vote if it cast against Mrs. Clinton."
I didn't really have much of an answer at the time:
My opinion right now is that each would be equally horrible as president and each would do lasting damage to individual liberty in this country. Which is a thought without comfort since one of them will be president.
The only answer I can give to Curious is that I don't know. I hope Curious doesn't find that answer as unsatisfying as I do.
The only answer I can give to Curious is that I don't know. I hope Curious doesn't find that answer as unsatisfying as I do.
Now I have an answer. And I still find it unsatisfying.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 09:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
24kb generated in 0.0837 seconds; 38 queries returned 174 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
