Chip McLean
Electing Pepé Le Pew
By Chip McLean
Election Day is upon us and once again we are faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils. With rare exceptions, presidential elections are restricted to "name brand" party candidates — the "two party system." Of course there are other candidates who appear on various state ballots representing this alternative party or another, but from a practical point of view their general viability is non-existent.
The last major exception was Ross Perot in 1992 when he carried nearly 19% of the popular vote, which while not enough to carry any states' electoral votes, his siphoning of mainly Republican votes for George H. W. Bush certainly created the dynamic that elected Bill Clinton to his first term.
There will be no such exception this year, meaning that once again the only possible electable choices are "Brand D" or "Brand R." Other than choosing between Obama or Romney, the alternatives are to vote for a third party candidate with zero chance of influencing the outcome or to stay home. In principle I am not opposed to voting third party and in fact have done so on more than one occasion. The dilemma is that I find Obama so thoroughly reprehensible that pretty much anything would be preferable — be it pond scum, moldy food...or even Mitt Romney.
Do I believe that Romney will be a staunch supporter of constitutional government? That he will actually reduce the size of government or its scope? That he will repeal Obamacare? That he will secure our borders and oppose amnesty? Rhetorical questions — yes — but the obvious answer to all of them is no. The plain simple fact is that Mitt Romney is not a "conservative" nor has he demonstrated any consistency in espousing constitutional principles. He talks like a "conservative" when it is politically expedient, but turns into a warm, fuzzy moderate when he's not reaching out to the base.
Like the reverse side of John Kerry's infamous 2004 Iraq war flip-flop, Romney came out in favor of repealing Obamacare, but then came out in favor of keeping elements of this government takeover of one-sixth of our nation's GDP. It isn't of course the only time that good 'ol Mitt has flip-flopped and it certainly won't be the last. He is what he is — an establishment "big R" Republican.
What about our involvement in the Middle East and elsewhere? Will Romney keep us out of war unless it is explicitly to defend our nation? Will he get a declaration of war from Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution? Or will he continue down the same path of pre-emptive strikes and unending warfare that we have seen now for years?
Obama himself has been an abysmal failure at everything, including foreign policy. U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan have been ignored by the MSM since Obama took office, but they have risen dramatically during Obama's reign. He has continued George W. Bush's policy of bringing "democracy" to the Middle East. The "Arab Spring" has seen radicals take control of Egypt, Libya and elsewhere. Nature abhors a vacuum it is said, and by enabling the overthrow of Libya and Egypt the jihadists have certainly proven the point.
The really burning issue now for Obama is Benghazi-gate. The administration's failure to protect the embassy despite the intel they had, resulted in the deaths of four people. Even more egregious is the fact they lied through their teeth about the cause. For a week they kept spinning fiction claiming the attack was the result a youtube video when it was clear it was a premeditated terrorist attack. Team Obama lied in order to protect themselves from political fallout during the final weeks of the campaign. It appears to have backfired and the coverup could well be their undoing.
On the economy, Obama's record has been an unmitigated disaster. His profligate spending along with his anti-capitalist policies have crushed small businesses resulting in record unemployment over a 42 consecutive month period. Government has grown so rapidly under Obama that it is off the charts. If the founders could see what is happening they would not just be spinning in their graves, they would be rising up again to win independence from yet another "king."
But that is the problem — most of today's politicians are ignorant of our founder's blueprints, or simply choose to ignore them. Obama is the first U.S. president that actually hates our constitution and our guiding principles. He would rather replace our republic with something that fits in with his Alinskyite philosophy.
Mitt Romney at least understands business and what drives the economy and job creation. He isn't much of a choice, but he most certainly beats a closet communist.
The lesser of two evils...
With all due respect to the cartoon character, it's time to hold our noses and vote for Pepé Le Pew.
© Chip McLean
October 29, 2012
Election Day is upon us and once again we are faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils. With rare exceptions, presidential elections are restricted to "name brand" party candidates — the "two party system." Of course there are other candidates who appear on various state ballots representing this alternative party or another, but from a practical point of view their general viability is non-existent.
The last major exception was Ross Perot in 1992 when he carried nearly 19% of the popular vote, which while not enough to carry any states' electoral votes, his siphoning of mainly Republican votes for George H. W. Bush certainly created the dynamic that elected Bill Clinton to his first term.
There will be no such exception this year, meaning that once again the only possible electable choices are "Brand D" or "Brand R." Other than choosing between Obama or Romney, the alternatives are to vote for a third party candidate with zero chance of influencing the outcome or to stay home. In principle I am not opposed to voting third party and in fact have done so on more than one occasion. The dilemma is that I find Obama so thoroughly reprehensible that pretty much anything would be preferable — be it pond scum, moldy food...or even Mitt Romney.
Do I believe that Romney will be a staunch supporter of constitutional government? That he will actually reduce the size of government or its scope? That he will repeal Obamacare? That he will secure our borders and oppose amnesty? Rhetorical questions — yes — but the obvious answer to all of them is no. The plain simple fact is that Mitt Romney is not a "conservative" nor has he demonstrated any consistency in espousing constitutional principles. He talks like a "conservative" when it is politically expedient, but turns into a warm, fuzzy moderate when he's not reaching out to the base.
Like the reverse side of John Kerry's infamous 2004 Iraq war flip-flop, Romney came out in favor of repealing Obamacare, but then came out in favor of keeping elements of this government takeover of one-sixth of our nation's GDP. It isn't of course the only time that good 'ol Mitt has flip-flopped and it certainly won't be the last. He is what he is — an establishment "big R" Republican.
What about our involvement in the Middle East and elsewhere? Will Romney keep us out of war unless it is explicitly to defend our nation? Will he get a declaration of war from Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution? Or will he continue down the same path of pre-emptive strikes and unending warfare that we have seen now for years?
Obama himself has been an abysmal failure at everything, including foreign policy. U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan have been ignored by the MSM since Obama took office, but they have risen dramatically during Obama's reign. He has continued George W. Bush's policy of bringing "democracy" to the Middle East. The "Arab Spring" has seen radicals take control of Egypt, Libya and elsewhere. Nature abhors a vacuum it is said, and by enabling the overthrow of Libya and Egypt the jihadists have certainly proven the point.
The really burning issue now for Obama is Benghazi-gate. The administration's failure to protect the embassy despite the intel they had, resulted in the deaths of four people. Even more egregious is the fact they lied through their teeth about the cause. For a week they kept spinning fiction claiming the attack was the result a youtube video when it was clear it was a premeditated terrorist attack. Team Obama lied in order to protect themselves from political fallout during the final weeks of the campaign. It appears to have backfired and the coverup could well be their undoing.
On the economy, Obama's record has been an unmitigated disaster. His profligate spending along with his anti-capitalist policies have crushed small businesses resulting in record unemployment over a 42 consecutive month period. Government has grown so rapidly under Obama that it is off the charts. If the founders could see what is happening they would not just be spinning in their graves, they would be rising up again to win independence from yet another "king."
But that is the problem — most of today's politicians are ignorant of our founder's blueprints, or simply choose to ignore them. Obama is the first U.S. president that actually hates our constitution and our guiding principles. He would rather replace our republic with something that fits in with his Alinskyite philosophy.
Mitt Romney at least understands business and what drives the economy and job creation. He isn't much of a choice, but he most certainly beats a closet communist.
The lesser of two evils...
With all due respect to the cartoon character, it's time to hold our noses and vote for Pepé Le Pew.
© Chip McLean
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
