Writing In Ron Paul's Name Would Be a Wasted Vote.

There are a lot of Ron Paul supporters out there who are saying that they will "write in" Ron's name in the general election if he is not the GOP candidate.   I'm going to plead with you not to and here is why.

1. Most ballots are electronically scanned.  The machine counting the votes could care less what you scribbled outside the little circles and you risk invalidating your ballot if the marks confuse the machine.

2. Write in votes are often not counted.  You'll write in a name that nobody will ever tally up anywhere.

3.  Because write-ins aren't counted or are ignored by the volunteer vote counters, your protest vote goes unheard, unseen and is ineffective.

Now, that doesn't mean vote for some status quo, tinker-around-the-edges, will probably keep everything mostly the same nominee if that's who ends up on the ballot.  

Instead, consider voting for whoever wins the Libertarian nomination.  You'll most likely be voting for someone who probably believes 95% or more of what Ron Paul does, the vote totals get reported which allows the two old entrenched parties to see how many people opposed their candidate(s) and it will be easier to tabulate how much better the Republicans could have done with a more libertarian leaning, Ron Paul candidate.

In May, the Libertarian Party will be meeting in Las Vegas for their national convention and nominating their presidential candidate.  Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is probably the front runner to win the nomination, but there are other candidates including, but not limited to, R. Lee Wrights and RJ Harris.

Most Republican Voters: Well Meaning Hypocrites? Santorum, Romney and Ron Paul.

Are most Republican voters well meaning hypocrites or just useful tools? That's a brutally honest question and here is why I ask it. If you ask a Republican, Conservative or a Tea Party person what they believe about government they will most often tell you they believe in some things like the following:

Small government, personal responsibility, low taxes, strong national defense, balanced budget, government that minds its own business

If you get into specifics you may often hear:

Getting government out of doing things not authorized by the Constitution, returning education to the states, reducing regulation, reforming the tax code or cutting tax rates, shrinking spending, reforming entitlements, free markets, state's rights. You may get someone who tosses in social issues like opposing abortion or opposing gay marriage.

Okay. So, if you are for all or most of those things and you do not vote for Ron Paul in your GOP Primary or Caucus that makes you one of two things (A) someone who lies about what direction you want things to take in Washington or (B) a big, giant HYPOCRITE. You pick.

Even if you have concerns about Congressman Paul's foreign policy positions, have you really heard what he has said? Just that, according to our Constitution, the President doesn't decide when we go to war against another country. The Congress decides and then the President has a duty to direct the military to win it and get home - not drag it out for decades. He just says that, unless we are attacked and immediately defending ourselves, that the Congress must make the declaration of war. And, really, who in the world is more afraid of Iran right now than they are the U.S. Congress? Not me. He has said we should talk to and try to resolve differences with countries before we go in and start bombing them, resulting in the deaths of not just combatants, but women, civilians, families.

Oftentimes, the media in combination with the political class and the usual crop of insider talking heads tell us who can or can't win in our elections. Then most people, who don't pay attention to anything but talking points walk in and vote based on who sounds good, looks good or is perceived as the person the media told them can beat the evil bad guy on the other team – who often agrees with the somehow less evil opposition on 93% or more of the policy positions anyway.

This is why NOBODY wants Mitt Romney, but he keeps winning states. He's got nice hair, nice teeth, cleans up well, doesn't have a whiny voice, has had some business success … it's almost like people are voting for the actor to play the President in a movie. If so, Mitt's your guy. I'm not saying he's a bad guy; but, seriously what kind of significant change to the size and scope of government is he talking about? [crickets chirping]

Santorum has come out of nowhere by pandering to religious conservatives and anyone opposed to people with brown skin overseas who also happen to hate the U.S. Government just as much as, well, most Conservatives. And those same religious conservatives will still tell you they want most of those economic policy points mentioned above. Do those voters understand how that comes across? It comes across like this, “I want someone who will bomb foreigners and who hates gay people more than I want the economy fixed, less government intrusion in our lives, lower taxes, balanced budgets, educated children, free markets, competitive health care pricing and a dollar that isn't plummeting in value. Yep, I'll forgo all of those things so long as the bozo we elect hates Muslims and gay folk.”

SERIOUSLY?

This is why thousands of people who are paying attention show up at a Ron Paul event but only a couple or few hundred show up a Romney or Santorum event. The politically aware, voting record checking, history understanding folks who are sick of being sold a bill of goods every 4 years and not seeing the results are overrun at the voting booth. Younger people are looking at their future prosperity being spent, taxed and regulated away and they want that stopped. Like now.

Let's just compare Santorum and Ron Paul. Mostly because I completely don't understand the support for Santorum other than people allowing themselves to be fooled because he's religious and therefore must not have actually violated his oath of office by making so many unconstitutional votes. Or, maybe, he's religious and therefore must have a deep understanding the economy and monetary policy? [blank stare]

Eliminate Federal Departments:

Santorum – 0 (actually voted to DOUBLE the Department of Education with NCLB)
Ron Paul – 5
    (note: Rick Perry wanted to cut 3 departments, but couldn't remember which ones)

Cut the budget/spending :

Santorum - reduces budget growth but doesn't really cut anything.
Ron Paul – proposes, with specifics, cutting $1 trillion cut the first year

Favoritism/Cronyism/Economic Distortion:

Santorum - wants special tax rates for manufacturing .
    (So many things wrong with this it would have to be a separate article)
Ron Paul - reduce taxes for everyone, no favoritism , take as little as possible from the people.

Regulation:

Santorum - Talks a little bit about tinkering, but doesn't come across aggressive in this area.
Ron Paul - Eliminate Dept. of Education (restoring control to the states), Dept. of Energy (President Carter started this department also – it's a massive failure 16,000 employees and tens of billions a year in budget later), Dept. of Commerce . No enforcement of unconstitutional regulations . Regulations must be enacted by Congress, not unelected bureaucrats.

Taxes:

Santorum - Roughly maintain the same level of theft. Believes the government has a first right of claim to the fruits of your labor – what you receive when you trade the precious moments of your life, which are yours to trade, in exchange for income.
Ron Paul – Reduce Federal Taxes as much as possible. Long-term goal of eliminating the income tax completely.

Who Can Win :

Santorum - NO CHANCE to beat Obama. ZERO. Most recent poll currently shows him losing to Obama.
Ron Paul - Shown recently in same poll as beating Obama by 7 percent nationally. Widely ignored by the media,this was the highest ranking among the GOP candidates. Ron can pull in Democrats like Reagan did, the anti-war crowd, independents, Libertarians and lots of 1st time voters. TONS of people that will reject Santorum or Romney will vote Libertarian, will write-in Ron Paul (a wasted effort – most of those aren't counted – you should vote Libertarian instead so that your protest vote actually gets tallied) or just plain will stay home.

Monetary Policy:

Santorum – Comes across as having absolutely no interest in his area. Doesn't understand it.
Ron Paul - Reduction in government spending and deficits will make dollar stable. Wants to allow Constitutionally based gold/silver backed currency - return to commodity back dollar and get the Fed, which has had a big hand in creating market bubbles that eventually pop, out of meddling I nthe economy.

Even if you're getting snookered by Santorum's religious rhetoric - and I'm not saying he's not a good Christian/Catholic guy - but, he still voted to give money to Planned Parenthood. He excuses it by saying, “Oh, well, it was buried in with a bunch of other spending.” (that probably should have been voted against) and then he tried to make it okay by creating another big government program (Title 20) related to Federal funding for abstinence education. Huh? Fiscal conservative my left foot. And, if you're a small government conservative why in the world would you want the Federal government forcing anyone's religious opinions on everyone else or passing laws to restrict or regulate your religious rituals anyway?

So, Republicans can vote for someone who walks the talk and really means it OR they can vote for just another tinker around the edges, big government, same as it always is do-nothing political opportunist.

This may be harsh, but it's reality. At what point do people get tired of being disappointed by the lack of progress every 4 years? I want to ask every Republican, "Like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown – are you going to take another kick at the ball or wise the hell up this time?" Wake up! Quit being lemmings, liars or worse … hypocrites.  Don't tell the world all about how much you want small government and then vote completely against getting it.

Vote to fix the country or get out of the way of those that will.