The “protest voters” on the Republican side need to properly consider the far-reaching effects of what it is they say they are going to do (or not do) and what they would be unleashing upon the nation. I will call the “I’m still votin’ for Mitt!” folks, the “I’m stayin’ home” folks and the “No Way Anti McCain-iacs” what I think they are.. “Perots”, or for those of you with an historical bend, “Modern Mugwumps.”
Lets start with Perot. For those who may not remember, a warty little homunculus from Texas named H. Ross Perot ushered in eight years of Democratic hedonism that was only kept in check by a Republican House and Senate. That Republican Congress forced the avowed Arkansas liberal to the center. Left on his own, there is no doubt that that period would have at best mirrored the “Cancerous Carter” malaise. What wasn’t held in check by the right was enough of a planetary embarrassment that I would have assumed that the conservatives might have had a longer memory and would be repulsed by any possibility of another Democratic encore.The megalomaniacal Perot, who was motivated by the sound of his own cartoonish voice, four billion of his own dollars and an ego the size of Texas, was responsible for seating Bill Clinton. In 1992, he garnered 19.5 million votes, nearly 19% of the total votes cast. In 1996, when he relied on individual donations to fuel his run, he managed 8% of the popular vote but the die had already been cast for the Clinton machine in 1992. The original Mugwumps in the 1880’s were Republican “activists” who supported then Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland in 1884. Their votes, their “protest votes” in a close election that year gave the Presidency to a Democrat. The Mugwumps main concern was the perceived political corruption surrounding “political patronage”. The infighting became so intense that the Republican Party literally split into two groups consisting of the “Half Breeds” and the “Stalwarts.” The Mugwumps were upset over the “spoils system” within politics but they were also concerned over “immigrants” and their rise to power seemingly picking up where the “Know Nothings” of the 1850’s left off.
As was then with a “protest” vote for Cleveland, a “protest vote” for Mitt in November is a vote for the Democrats. A “stay at home” non-vote in November is a vote for the Democrats. Conservatives may find this hard to believe, but the candidate with the most “actual” votes will WIN. There are no tabulations done for “wishful thinking” votes.
There is no doubt that from the purely conservative viewpoint, there are and were more palatable candidates available from within the Republican Party than John McCain. (I suppose the same thing could have been said in 2000 with W.) You may count me among the legions of disappointed conservatives. That said, I would not think that the election of ANY Democrat is a palatable alternative or option.
Other than Tancredo, none of the palpably conservative potential candidates answered the bell when it came time to throw their hat into the ring. Representative Tancredo’s conservative provenance is beyond debate and it is not hard to see that he had a more conservative resume than even the neuvo conservative poster child, Mitt Romney. If this was all about conservatism and conservative candidates, why weren’t the conservatives firmly behind Tancredo’s bid from the get go being that he announced his candidacy on January 16, 2007 while Romney chimed in on February 13, 2007?
Everyone knew that 2008 was coming. There should have been a ground swell around one of the definitively conservative potential candidates. That didn’t happen or those potential candidates did not want the job. The process began and the outcome, barring a total collapse or another “breathtaking” expose from the “al-Qaeda House Organ”/ the New York Times, is all but assured. The “Mini Me”, “I wish I was Ross” comical candidacy of Arkansas’ Huckabee is there to pick up any “Protest McCain Primary Temper Tantrum” votes. He is simply the only “alternative” candidate left standing for purely egomaniacal reasons.
The proper pressure should now be applied to Senator McCain in order to assist him with the realization of what it is that HE WILL LOSE if he doesn’t “make nice” with the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Trying to apply that same pressure to Obama AFTER HE WINS because of your childish conniptions will get you the back of his hand that you so richly deserve.
Today’s “Progressive Pied Piper”, Senator Obama, or if you would like to have fun with an historical play on words, “Senator SAY Nothing”, already has a Democratic House and Senate awaiting him that can only be periodically been held in check by a moderately Republican President.
In the early nineties, the modern day answer to Charles Foster Kane placed the Clintons, the elected one and the unelected one, in the White House. By the way, in January of 2008, Perot came out for McCain. Make of that what you will.
In the election of 1884, the Mugwumps ushered in Democratic candidate Cleveland. Please keep in mind that the Democrats of yesteryear were the Republicans of today and that the old Republicans are todays Democrats, only considerably worse. The Mugwumps were the forefathers of the conservative movement.
The analogy lies within the parameters of todays “dangerous” Democrats and those (Republicans?) who wish to all but guarantee their victory in November. I think all of us know exactly what Mugwump (or would he be the Sandbagger?) Perot delivered to us in 1992 and as a result, 1996 as well. There is a reason that BHO/JFK is so intentionally vague about his “plans” for America. We should not need a roadmap to understand what it is that today’s “cookie cutter Democrat” brings to the political table. They have been generous enough over the last sixty years or so to sprinkle their Socialism and share their cultural pollution with anyone who has been kind enough to place them into elected office. Even if Senator Obama never says another word, those who have preceded him serve as the Democratic Rosetta Stone.
When all of this winds down, would you rather have someone as President that you agree with 60% of the time or someone you will NEVER agree with? By the way and as a final reminder: that person that you NEVER agree with, will have the House and the Senate as well as the liberal courts and all three of those entities will be in agreement with him ALL OF THE TIME.
If you go “Perot”, you are not entitled to complain about the results that you will ultimately be responsible for.