Not one of the viable candidates for election to the presidency next year is worthy of the office or deserving of a positive vote.
Each and every one of them is a proponent of big and ever expanding government and thus of further curtailment of individual freedoms, liberties, rights and responsibilities. They all have and are promoting a government solution for any and all real and imagined problems.
On the other hand, it is unlikely that any of the Republicons would do as much damage as the incumbent holder of the office were he to be reelected. You ain't seen nothing like what Obama would do in a second term during which he would be free to act as he wishes without the restraining prospect of having to face the voters again for return to another term in office.
Despite the admirable efforts of the Tea Partiers, they have lost out, defeated by the prevailing political establishment autocrats.
The bottom line is that citizens who believe that the size and scope of government should be cut and confined to the limits prescribed by the Constitution again will be without a candidate for whom to vote. Instead, we again will be forced to seek to defeat the worst candidate by casting our ballots for the one likely to do somewhat less harm.
1 comment:
After Reagan, my vote has been cast for the one who will do the least damage, so I'm used to it. Since the Republican machine does not have anyone in particular this election year to pay homage to for his service to the Republican party, their candidate will be from the bottom of the barrel. I shall support Santorum until the last trumpet blast. The ironic part is that from what I hear and read, Democrats wish we would indeed have a conservative candidate, instead of a RINO - meaning that they would vote for the conservative. As for obama and his Executive Orders, I'm not sure that if he were to win another term that we would ever get rid of him.
Post a Comment