Why the military likes Ron Paul

Ron Paul is anti-war because he knows what war is like:



    Santorum           Obama                      Paul                Romney        Gingrich

Virtual buckeye to Aaron Alghawi via Blue Republican.

Newt Gingrich for smaller government? His record says otherwise

Newt Gingrich

The Opinion Blog from the Myrtle Beach (SC) Sun-News cites chapter and verse about Newt Gingrich's voting record and activities since leaving the House of Representatives. His social conservative positions are fairly sound, if social conservatives are willing to accept his serial marriages; but he certainly is no libertarian. Among his questionable decisions:

[H]e has partnered with Hillary Clinton to advocate health-care IT legislation, with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan to promote President Barack Obama's education reforms, and with Nancy Pelosi in an ad stressing the importance of taking action on climate change . Gingrich angered Republicans by criticizing Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare.

The writer, Braden Goyette, also notes that Mr. Gingrich pressed President Clinton to balance the budget, but agreed to do so (in part) by increasing tax revenues. He also notes that last year, Mr. Gingrich's consulting firm accepted between $1.6 and $1.8 million for his consulting services to Freddie Mac, in an effort to help the firm more effectively market to political conservatives.

Like most neoconservatives, Mr. Gingrich has supported an aggressive foreign policy, and, if sources like this one are to be believed (and I am not vouching for them), a domestic police state as well. Among Mr. Gingrich's positions cited were a large increase in federal education spending, support for curtailing First and Fourth Amendment rights to fight terrorism, Singapore-style drug testing for Americans, support for the Fairness Doctrine in communications policy, and the USA PATRIOT Act. The same source says that he wants to revise the Geneva Convention to exempt terrorists from its prisoner of war protections. And many more items.

All the loose talk about Mr. Gingrich's marriages obscures one essential fact. He is, at best, an unreliable advocate for liberty in America. He is inconsistent in his positions on fiscal responsibility. He is not the man we need in 2012 to reverse President Obama's policies -- if indeed, he has any desire to do so.

Update 1/24: Here is a concurring opinion from The Daily Caller, which shows why the Tea Party, in particular, should avoid Mr. Gingrich.

Mitt Romney for smaller government? His record says otherwise

Mitt Romney

Carla Howell is Executive Director of the national Libertarian Party. She also happens to know a thing or two about Mitt Romney, having opposed him for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. In her weekly message to Libertarians, Ms. Howell lays out the case against Mr. Romney:

• He ran in 2002 as a "no new taxes" governor; but even during the campaign, he proposed three new taxes (on vehicles, on campaign donations, and on building construction). Ms. Howell's comment: "They didn't get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten."
• He raised taxes each of the four years he was Governor by calling them "fees." He also enabled collection of an Internet sales tax, approved legislation to allow local governments to raise business property taxes, and approved a new tax penalty that raised income taxes on both individuals and small businesses.
• In 2008, Mr. Romney boasted that he was the first candidate to sign a "taxpayer protection pledge." Ms. Howell's comment:

So he’ll call his tax increases “government fees” or “closing loopholes” or “penalties” or something else. But if Romney is president, the IRS will collect this money from you, your family, your friends, and millions of Americans just like you.

• So, okay, how about spending?  

The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.
When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.) 

• As Governor, Mr. Romney claimed that his hands were tied by the Democrat legislature. But each of the four years he served as Governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing a $1 billion increase. Before the legislature had said anything.
• Then there is "RomneyCare," said to be the model for Obamacare. Who was the biggest fan of RomneyCare? Ted Kennedy. He and Mitt Romney had an alliance going to get this bill passed. And, participation is mandatory. Those who refuse face stiff fines and income tax penalties.

Carla Howell knows what she is talking about, so when Mitt Romney, supported by a compliant media, tries to pull the wool over your eyes, or those of someone you know, you have some facts. Any other Republican Presidential candidate would be more fiscally conservative than Mitt Romney.

It's about the OATH, stupid!

As we all know, journalists like to create controversy in the oddest places. One of the questions that arose in last Saturday's debate was "Is marital fidelity important in a President?" The other candidates took potshots at Newt Gingrich.Here are the highlights of last Saturday's ABC News/Yahoo! Republican debate, which includes his answer to this question. 

Ron Paul gave the correct answer, which is that obeying an oath is a sign of character. Dr. Paul said that while marital vows are important, the oath that really matters is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has consistently worked to do just that over 30 years. That should speak volumes about his character, and about what he would do as President.

The wall of silence is cracking

Steve Sack, Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Forbes, a business magazine I have always liked for its independent attitude, has broken the mainstream media's wall of silence against Ron Paul. I saw evidence of that wall of silence this weekend while traveling -- USA Today refused to even mention Ron Paul in its coverage of the foreign policy debates Monday evening. Pollster John Zogby, in an op-ed piece published Nov. 9, thinks that the intensity of support behind Ron Paul makes him a force to be reckoned with:

 I don’t expect Paul to drop out, or for very many of his supporters to abandon him when the process comes down to the two-person race many anticipate between Mitt Romney and Herman Cain or Rick Perry. Instead, I could see Paul gaining support, especially if Cain’s candidacy is blown up by sexual harassment charges.

Mr. Zogby likens Rep. Paul's candidacy to those of Ralph Nader, in that both have been strong rejections of the existing two-party (or one-party with two faces*) system. In his view, Rep. Paul's candidacy will pressure the other hopefuls to cater more to the libertarian wing of the party -- but notes that the reward might not be worth the risk to candidates, such as Mitt Romney, who will be facing a President Obama posing himself as a "centrist" against the "extremist" GOP.
Mr. Zogby concludes:

Paul gets labeled a fringe candidate. But in this era of a closely divided electorate, anyone who commands the allegiance that Paul does from an activist libertarian movement must be accounted for in the political calculus.

I personally do not think a Ron Paul nomination is completely implausible. The media have been feeding on Presidential candidates like piranha in the Amazon, destroying the candidacies of one after the other. I would not rule out the possibility that Rep. Paul might be the last candidate standing come June. With a choice as sharply defined as the one a Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama election would provide, we would know for sure just where the American people want to go.
On a personal note, I know my output has been low this month. I am finishing work on my book (really), and expect to get back up to speed next week.

* As evidenced by their Congressional delegations "failing to agree" on a deficit-reduction package. It's not a failure to agree -- in fact it was the reverse. They agreed to continue business as usual indefinitely.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

There is an old game in political circles that asks how a candidate could credibly answer the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" If the candidate answers by denying that he ever beat his wife, he gets accused of a coverup.

There is a philosophical truth that no one can prove a negative; yet, journalists expect candidates to do this all the time. Case in point: the airwaves are all atwitter with allegations that Herman Cain had engaged in some kind of "sexually suggestive behavior" to at least two female employees when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.

Note the vagueness of the accusations, as reported by Fox News:

The report said the women signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them five-figure financial payouts to leave the association and barred them from discussing their departures. Neither woman was identified.

The report was based on anonymous sources and, in one case, what [the Politico website] said was a review of documentation that described the allegations and the resolution.

Queen Victoria (1837-1901),
the model of propriety

He say, she say. We do not even know for sure that there was any "documentation that described the allegation and the resolution." What we read is what the publication said was a review, etc.

And what is "sexually suggestive behavior"? Some people would consider "sexually suggestive" that a man wear a shirt with more than the collar button unbuttoned. Given the current state of sexual harassment law, "sexually suggestive" is what the most prudish woman in the workplace says it is. Maybe Mr. Cain just winked his eye at her.

I have at present no way of knowing whether the allegations against Herman Cain are valid. I know only two things: (1) They were obviously politically motivated, and (2) They are impossible to disprove, even if Mr. Cain was a virgin* at marriage and has been completely faithful to his wife ever since.

* A man can be a virgin in the sense of definition 4.

The mainstream media are doing their part

Mitt Romney

I have always said that Democratic candidates for President are nominated, but the Republicans are anointed. Clearly, Republican liberal Mitt Romney is the "anointed one," but there is unrest within the ranks. Will the Republicans break the hold of their handlers the way they did in 1980 with Ronald Reagan? We shall see. Those who love freedom can find at least three better alternatives in the field (my opinion: Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain, in that order).

The burning issue

We face many issues in national politics today. Building our economic base to employ our people, resolving our foreign wars, maintaining value in our currency, ensuring access to health care, and ensuring the stability of Social Security and Medicare, are just a few of them. We hear debates between candidates that offer many approaches to these and other issues.

However, all of these discussions boil down to one burning issue. Its resolution will determine how, and how well, the others will be addressed. It is this: Do we have the confidence to govern ourselves?

 

Those who have that confidence favor local solutions, personal responsibility, defense at home, and entrepreneurship. They share Thomas Jefferson's vision of a nation of farmers and artisans, living perhaps more modestly, but in harmonious and spiritually satisfying relationships with God and their neighbors. They want to enjoy the wealth that they have created through their own efforts. They want charity to come from the heart as they cheerfully give of their bounty. Jeffersonians seek impartial justice. They seek the highest expression of human creativity and service.  They are willing to accept the risks of financial insecurity in exchange for the blessings of liberty.

Those who lack that confidence favor top-down solutions, collectivism, empire-building and corporate investment. They share Alexander Hamilton's vision of a wealthy and powerful nation that builds on the sacrifices of its people.  They find that religion and tradition hinder progress. Their notion of charity is doling out money from the government as it confiscates the work of others. Hamiltonians seek a perversion of justice that favors their friends. They seek productivity and a strong bottom line above everything else, and condition the people to accept the loss of liberty in the name of personal security.

This burning issue has been with us since 1787. In the early years of the Republic, the clash between the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian visions provided a creative tension that helped build the nation. When Andrew Jackson shut down the Bank of the United States, the Jeffersonians prevailed, but only for a generation. Abraham Lincoln's crusade to "save the Union" supposedly resolved the issue for all time, as the Hamiltonians gained, and continue to hold, the upper hand.

Today, we see where Hamiltonian corporatism has taken us. The federal government has nearly destroyed the initiative of the people and the states to solve their own problems. It has confiscated the wealth of its people in taxes and destroyed the desire to create new business opportunities. American manufacturing has become a faint memory of the past, as its jobs and money have been exported to other lands. The Hamiltonians have built a "nanny state" that has even turned many of our adults into spoiled children living as its dependents; instead of the productive, contributing people God meant us to be. It has brought us to economic ruin. The near future is likely to bring poverty for the majority, hyperinflation, slavery to the state, mass frustration, and revolution.

The differences between Democrat and Republican, "conservative" and "liberal" are no longer relevant. Both Republicans and Democrats are Hamiltonians. The Jeffersonians have been relegated to minor parties, Tea Parties, media obscurity; and being informed by their self-appointed betters that they and their Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, are "wingnuts" unworthy of being reported in the media, let alone enjoying a place at the table.

The Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian visions are utterly incompatible. Those who would harmonize the two positions might as well try to make a compromise between good and evil. The only people who benefit from a powerful national government are bankers, the military-industrial and medical-insurance complexes, and the politicians they can buy in Washington. The rest of us not only suffer financially, we suffer from the wasteful loss of lives in wars that have nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with greed.

Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Every election in the last sixty years has replayed the same struggle. Yet, regardless of which party has been in power, the result has been the same: more power and more money to Washington, less freedom and less opportunity for us. We keep hoping against hope that things will be better after the next election. We should have learned by now that elections alone cannot fix a corrupt system.

Can we cure our own insanity? Right now, we can work with our state legislators to defend our interest through nullification and secession, but this opportunity will not last long. We can assert the self-confidence to rule ourselves and to cultivate the virtues we need to maintain a free society. Or we can settle for the tyrant who promises security, even after he begins to jail and murder us by the tens of thousands. Do not say it cannot happen here. We are human. We have known for thousands of years that our actions will eventually bring predictable consequences. The laws of human behavior do not respect "American exceptionalism."

This is the burning issue: do we have the confidence to rule ourselves? Its resolution will determine how, and how well, the others will be addressed.

Rick Perry is NOT a secessionist

Let's get the record straight. Rick Perry is not a secessionist. That he is even associated with Texas secessionism is more the result of careless speaking, bad reporting, and the desire of the neoconservatives to see him out of the Presidential race.

What really happened (supported by news reports at the time) was that he was speaking to a Tea Party in Austin April 15, 2009, when someone in the crowd yelled "Secede!" He answered the remark this way, as reported at the time by the Houston Chronicle:

Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that,” Perry said. “My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that.”

He suggested, in a thickly veiled way, that he could imagine a situation in which secession might become necessary, but he never supported the notion.

To one who does support secession from his state, Gov. Perry's remark sounded like an attempt to laugh the idea off.

Anyway, it is self-contradictory and politically suicidal for a U.S. Presidential candidate to favor the right of secession.

When states begin exiting from the Union, Washington will do everything it can to resist; but it may not have the support and the resources Lincoln had to quash it.

My impression of Gov. Perry is that he is trying to walk a tightrope between the paleoconservative and neoconservative wings of the Republican Party. If I were a betting man, I would wager that he is going to fall off.

Update Sept. 26: Brent Budowsky at The Hill submits a concurring opinion, observing that the race for the Republican Presidential nomination is not, and never has been, a "two man race." Rather, it is like "the Wild West."

Republican Presidential candidates talk about "dismantling Washington".

CNN had its Republican Presidential debate, and according to the Huffington Post, that grande dame of leftist bloggery, the contest was between Texas Gov. Rick Perry and "the field." As Howard Fineman reports it:

The man who made the federal government's role the center of the campaign is also the man who was the center of attention in the debate: Rick Perry.

He has his story about the 10th Amendment and he is sticking to it. An all-but-forgotten part of the Bill of Rights until recently, it has become the organizing principle of the GOP race this year. When Perry mentioned the federal government during the debate, he used the word "they." It was "they" -- the feds -- who were disregarding their duty to protect the border with Mexico.

Think about it: the federal government is "they."

Is that the way most Americans regard it?

Well, yes, as a matter of fact. Unless of course you are part of the establishment that considers the federal government as "we".

It will be up to President Obama not only to make the case for his own re-election, but for the role of the federal government itself.

It has been a long time -- since the 1920s -- that anyone has really had to do that. Perry threw down the challenge.

And while you're at it, Mr. Fineman, you might take a look at the economic success of the 1920s, and its relationship to a small federal government in that period. And don't throw at me the crash of 1929 until you have examined the role of fiscal and monetary policy at the time.

And, one more thing. Why did you completely ignore Ron Paul -- the candidate who is the most serious about reducing the role of the federal government? Fear, perhaps, or are you falling for the groupthink that he is a wacko fringe candidate? Just asking...

My dream ticket

I still believe that trying to elect a President and Congress that will reverse the trend toward bigger government is an exercise in futility; but at the same time, it is unchristian to completely lose hope. So with that attitude, I propose the dream ticket for the Republican and Libertarian Parties:

Ron Paul and Karen Kwiatkowski

Rep. Ron Paul

Ron Paul does not need much introduction. He is the gadfly Congressman who opposes the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya; is a stickler for the feds obeying the Constitution, and wants the Federal Reserve Bank to be audited. No better man can be found for reversing the destructive trend we are facing in America.

But you may be thinking, Karen who?  Karen U. Kwiatkowski (SourceWatch biography, Wikipedia biography*) is a retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force. She is very knowledgeable about military matters and understands strategic issues. With this background and experience, she can reassure fearful Americans that demilitarization will not leave us as vulnerable to the terrorists and Chinese as they might think. Her knowledge is not limited to military matters. She can speak articulately to the needs of families and education (and why they are not the business of the federal government!). She is a regular contributor to the libertarian website LewRockwell.com, and has appeared twice in The Ohio Republic (via LewRockwell, of course). At the same time, she is relatively young (50), energetic, and provides a nice counterpoint to Ron Paul's sometimes dry, academic style. And I have no doubt that, if it became necessary, that she would make an effective President in her own right. She is also a registered Libertarian and a candidate for Congress in Virginia's Sixth District.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.)

I do not propose Ms. Kwiatkowski because she is a woman, but let's face it, we need a woman as President or Vice President. We need someone to counteract the excessive hubris that pervades the District of Coercion. Those who are impressed with Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin need to think about their weaknesses, as well as their strengths.

Pairing the wise, grandfatherly Ron Paul with the vigorous Karen Kwiatkowski is a winning strategy for regaining our freedom in 2012.

* Minor correction to the biographies. The article that got her started politically was in the Akron Beacon Journal.

Communists endorse President Obama for re-election

If I had just made this statement, true as it is, I would have opened myself up to charges of McCarthyism. But here it is, from the Sam Webb at the Communist Party USA's People's World itself:

Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren't identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. And despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people's agenda.

If, on the other hand, the Republicans had been victorious in 2008 the character of class and democratic struggles would have unfolded very differently. Our movement would have been on the defensive from Day One, the Democrats would be running for cover, and the Republicans would have an unfettered hand in their efforts to liquidate the welfare state, roll back the rights revolution of the 1930s and 1960s, and crush the people's movement - labor in the first place.

As for the wisdom of a third party, we have always advocated the formation of an independent people's party at the core of which are the working class and labor, racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight, etc. It is essential for any deep-going social change. But its realization depends on more than our desire, more than our political-ideological attitude. Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion.

Moreover, to separate ourselves at this moment from these forces would be contrary to our strategic policy of building maximum unity against right-wing extremism now and in next year's elections.

Remember this when the President changes tactics and tries to look like a moderate.

Rasmussen Reports: President Obama has a 1 point lead over Ron Paul

According to a Rasmussen Report poll released on Tuesday, Ron Paul is running only one point behind President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 matchup (39%-38% of likely voters). However, the same source states that among likely Republican voters, Dr. Paul is favored by only 9%, behind Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Michelle Bachmann. Dr. Paul enjoys a ten-point lead among independent voters.

This suggests that the Republican primary will be a bigger hurdle for Dr. Paul than the election itself.

I cite these figures as a strong indicator that the libertarian message is beginning to reach the American people. However, I am not confident that, if Ron Paul be elected, that he would be able to effect significant change, because I cannot envision a Congress that would cooperate with him.

In my opinion, independence would be much easier and more effective as a means for restoring liberty in Ohio than to turn around the Leviathan in Washington.

However, both ideas are non-starters until we can persuade the Republican loyalists and neoconservatives that militarism is against our national interest.

President-elect Barack Obama

For many Americans, the election of a President is a deeply emotional experience. This is understandable. For those who are candidates and political activists, a campaign consumes everything: physically, mentally, and emotionally -- perhaps more than any other human activity, except combat.

For African-Americans, Sen. Obama's victory was a sign that racism in America, while not quite dead, is no longer a threat to their legitimate opportunities and aspirations. Yes, a person of color can be elected President. Those of us who have not had the experience of being black cannot appreciate its meaning. One black friend said that the pillows that night were wet with his and his wife's tears of joy.

For many Republicans, the election was a sobering reminder that "success is never final." Some, finding their work now in vain, need to remember the other half of that quotation from Winston Churchill: "Failure is never fatal". Neoconservatism is dead, and rightly so. The Republican Party will have to go back to the drawing board, and determine what conservatism means today. It would do well to consider its paleoconservative roots in limited government, balanced budget, strong national defense (and no more), states' rights (relative to the Federal Government), and freedom both economic and social.

Many observers have become overwrought. Liberal euphoria has made the image of Sen. Obama as a "messiah" stick in the minds of many. Conservative despair looks to the onset of socialism, if not Communism in the United States of America.

Let the truth bring assurance to both camps. Barack Obama is human, like the rest of us. Being human, he is subject to the temptations of great power. The test of his Presidency will lie in his ability to harness the power he has toward ends that will make America a better nation; and in his ability to prevent himself and others from abusing that power. For every President, except the current one, the Presidency has changed the man. The candidate filled with ideals is sobered by the realities and responsibilities of actually holding the office. I have no reason to believe that President Obama will be any different.*

I do not expect the messianic age to come, nor do I expect the spectre of Stalinism to rise over the United States -- at least not right away. Once the honeymoon is over -- and it ends sooner or later for all Presidents -- I anticipate that there will be very little real change. We will still be moving toward consolidation of the Empire, as we have at least since 1913, the rights and liberties of the people will still remain in danger while the President and the Congress (especially with both Houses controlled by the same party) remain in session.

History may well recall that, from a policy standpoint, the significance of an Obama Presidency may prove to be nothing more than that of replacing red covers with blue ones on the deck chairs of the Titanic. If the ship does sink, keep in mind that those of us who preach secession will be there with the lifeboats.

In the meantime, pray for the best.

* The reason President Bush is the exception lay in a combination of his lack of intellect and his unwillingness to entertain difference of opinion.

Questions for voters on Tuesday

This will be my last post before Tuesday's election. Before you vote for President, ask yourself some questions:

- To the McCain/Palin supporters: What does "Country First" mean? Are you blindly upholding a flag, or the principles that made it great?

- To the Obama/Biden supporters: What kind of change do we really need? To just say you are anti-Bush or want a fairer distribution of wealth still leaves open a whole host of undesirable options.

Here are some more questions:
1. Which candidate will best protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?
2. Which candidate will best promote economic opportunity for all Americans?
3. Which candidate will best protect our Constitutional rights, especially those of free speech and press, and of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures?
4. Which candidate will be most likely to reduce the Federal deficit?
5. Which candidate is more likely to let you make your own decisions in life, and allow you to spend your own money as you see fit?
6. Which candidate best understands that real security lies in national defense, and not interventions in foreign countries?
7. Which candidate will best protect the Consitution and sovereignty of the United States from the "North American Union" and from delegating powers to international organizations?

If you were tempted to answer "none of the above" to four or more of the preceding questions; or if your answers were split 4-3; please consider Ohio independence as a viable solution to the broken system of government we now face.

The next President will be neither Messiah nor Antichrist. He will be a man, subject to the temptations of great power, and therefore tempted to abuse it to achieve his ends more efficiently. Think carefully, dear voter. What should those ends be, and what are you willing to do when he tries to abuse that power?

A timely reminder for Democrats and Republicans

"It is essential to note that an electoral mandate does not give a president of a democratic state a blank check to do whatever he and his party desire but merely authorizes them to implement their campaign commitments within the bounds of the government's powers in the Constitution and its explicit and implicit principles."

Unfortunately, that quotation did not come from an American newspaper. It came from the Taiwan Times*, which then quotes their Constitution as holding that "the sovereignty of the ROC [Republic of China, formal name for Taiwan] shall reside in the whole body of citizens."

When we put too much hope or trust in a Presidential candidate, we risk giving up part of the sovereignty that rests in America, as in Taiwan, with the States and with the people.

* This is in the context of allegations that the president is attempting to negotiate away Taiwan's sovereignty in secret negotiations with the People's Republic of China -- something we will probably need to think about in the context of the "North American Union".

Why I didn't vote for President

You can stop your mailing and calling to me now. My absentee ballot is in the mail. I wonder what impact early voting will have on the various campaigns -- especially how much money and effort will be wasted in the late days of the campaign, because the people they contact will have already voted.


Here is my comment to "Open Thread: Why Vote for Your Candidate?" in Have Coffee Will Write: on the Presidential election (revised to reflect the decision made):

The decision on whether to vote for a Presidential candidate has been a dilemma for me. On the one hand, it feels wrong to leave the spot blank — if you don’t vote for a particular office, you lose your right to complain about the person who gets elected. On the other hand, I am a secessionist, and it makes little sense to vote for the one office that is dedicated to holding together the Union.

The secessionist got the upper hand.

I would point out that Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain have voted the same way on 25 major issues, and on another list of 31 issues, voted the same way 44% of the time; which suggests that George Wallace was right when he said “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference” between the two major parties. Some people would consider my choice to be a wasted vote — but we won’t have better choices until we have the courage to vote for them, and voting for the “lesser of two evils” is still voting for an evil (at least in one’s own mind).

An inconvenient truth

Ohio's voter registration scandal cuts both ways. I agreed with the Democrats about the conduct of the 2004 election; but now Democrats who are jubilant about the U.S. Supreme Court decision on voter registration need to remember that the U.S. Appeals Court decision that was overturned still found their Secretary of State in violation of Federal law.

Then we have this: “Well, I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we’ve got Democrats in charge of the machines.”- Barack Obama (Columbus Dispatch, Sept. 4).

I hope Bob Fitrakis* is taking notes.

* Outspoken critic of the 2004 general election in Ohio.

For the record

This is the State flag of Ohio, adopted in 1902.

It is not an "Obama flag". We are proud of our State flag, and it is quite neutral politically. Please advise your favorite out-of-state pundits of same.

Some of the comments that led to Michelle Malkin's post would be funny if they weren't so hatefully ignorant.

Virtual buckeye to Mike Tuggle.

Why voting for a major party Presidential candidate doesn't make sense

PeaceChicken's blog at the Ohio Freedom Alliance* gave it a light touch, but it makes perfect sense: On 31 major issues identified by the Washington Post, Senators McCain and Obama agreed an average of 44.7% of the time. She specifies 25 votes where they voted the same, then offers a (black) humorous voting guide.

One of the reasons I promote secession is that there really is no hope that the American people can take back their government. The kleptocracy has controlling interest in both parties, and will ensure that only candidates acceptable to it are nominated or elected.

If you don't want to go along with them, then either leave the President slot blank (which is the only view a secessionist can justify), or vote for the third-party candidate that most closely matches your views.

* See my comment on the Ohio Freedom Alliance.