Who Would You Vote For If You Had A Gun To Your Head?

It's getting pretty sad if the prospects for President of the United States are so bad that we have to play a game called "Who would you vote for if you had a gun to your head?" I don't need a gun to my head, because there is clearly one candidate that is an easy choice for President. Ron Paul.

Yesterday on the Glenn Beck show, Glenn and his staff played the "gun to your head game". It's too bad that they feel so anxious about their choices for President that they would play such a game.

Several of them chose Rudi Giuliani. There are several Democrat candidates that I would vote for before I voted for him. Some others wanted Mitt Romney. A better choice, but still not the best one. Everyone is talking about the strangeness of the Mormon faith in conjunction with Romney. I rather think it's important to point out the strangeness of Mitt Romney's apologies for the Mormon faith and his backing away from some fundamental issues, such as abortion, homosexuality, and redemption.

I don't need a gun to my head to decide who to vote for for president. The choice is clear. Of all the candidates--Democrat and Republican--Ron Paul is the clear winner.

I talked to a friend last night who repeated the mantra "I would vote for Ron Paul, but I just don't think he had a chance." I repeated to her my counter-mantra, "If everyone who wanted to vote for Ron Paul (but didn't plan to because 'he doesn't have a chance') voted for Ron Paul, he would win.

So, Americans, take the gun away from your head and relax. Voting for president doesn't have to taste like cod liver oil in your mouth. Not if you vote for Ron Paul.

Comments

  1. They used an internet tool on the Glenn Beck show a week or so back to determine which candidate was the best match for your views. Guiliani and Romney fared well then as well.

    I took the test and got a match with Ron Paul at 94.5% With Tancredo (sp!) coming in a distant second. Ironically, a democrat or two actually appeared on my list above Romney - that's got to make you think.

    I think the problem with anyone who claims to be a Republican is that they have been brainwashed into thinking war is a good thing, and that limiting our liberties in defense of our country is the best approach to security.

    Ron Paul's approach of maintaining National Sovereignty, getting our noses out of everyone elses business and eliminating fat from a morbidly obese government is about the only chance this country has to turn itself around, unless we resort to an armed revolution against Washington, which personally I would not want...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree. I think many people who have remained independent or moderately conservative are, this time around, shying away from the ideology (which exists on both sides of course) of the GOP.

    I'm not a huge Ron Paul fan, but I am curious why he hasn't gotten more of a following. He is closer to the traditional "fiscally responsible" Republican than the GOP has had in two decades.

    Seems he would be a shoe-in for that alone, but somehow, he gets very little attention, simply for being against the war (which ironically, a "fiscally responsible" Republican, as Romney keeps claiming he is, would be against the war for the expense vs. results alone).

    Politics can be strange.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The average voter doesn't look strictly at what a candidate says he/she supports. Many dynamics go into a voting choice. Some of those things are in the candidate's control and others are not. Some elements are rational and others are not.

    When I was a stupid high school kid that didn't know much about politics, I can remember being totally disgusted when a news reporter interviewed a little old lady that was coming out of her polling place. When asked for whom she had voted, she said she had voted for Carter. When asked why, she said, "Well, I guess I voted for him because I like peanut butter and he's a peanut farmer." Although I knew little about politics, I remember thinking, "This lady should not be voting."

    But people also look at other characteristics. Can they picture the candidate in the office of the president? Does the candidate appear presidential? What kind of relationship will this person have with the other branches of government? What kind of people will this person appoint? Past elections prove that voters place a very heavy weight on how much executive experience a candidate has. And a very big matter is simply whether voters feel good about the candidate. How does this person make me feel?

    A person can say all of the right things and still be unable to get people to vote for them. A person can have flawless hair, shirt, suit, and grammar, and still simply not convey the right kind of feeling to voters.

    The fact is that most voters consider the whole package and not just what the candidate says about issues. All candidates try to present the best package. The one whose overall package looks best to the most voters will win. It's as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've had some people say to me that Ron Paul doesn't look presidential. Personally, I don't think George Bush SOUNDS presidential, but I've heard that has been said about Thomas Jefferson as well.

    I think Ron Paul IS presidential despite how he may look.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think Ron Paul looks presidential. But I think a lot of Americans will find his lack of elected executive experience to be a drawback. Americans have elected only four presidents that have had no elected or military executive experience and have not served in the U.S. Senate. Two of those were four-way elections that were flukes. One (Taft) was anointed by a popular president (TR). And one (Hoover) had achieved national celebrity status in other endeavors.

    Unfortnately, Paul is too old to go back and get the kind of experience Americans want in a president. He's going to have to make a go of it without this experience. He seems to be generating a fair amount of interest right now. People are starting to notice him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's a very good point. It seems like governors usually have more success in the Presidential Ring. You may have mentioned that on your blog once before, because it sounds familiar.

    Mike Huckabee is my second choice, and I have wondered whether a Huckabee Paul ticket would pack a punch to be reckoned with. Although their differing opinions on the Iraq war would be a sticking point...

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'd be surprised if Ron Paul accepted a VP running position. He seems very much to me like he's ready to be the main attraction. Huckabee leans libertarian on some issues, but he has a few issues on which he seems outright socialistic. It's kind of a strange mix. I don't know how well he and Paul would mix, but politics has made stranger matches.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why would I vote any differently with a gun to my head than without...unless someone pointed a gun at my head and told me to vote for Hillary. In that case, I may choose the bullet.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

How LDS Censorship May Have Led to Less LDS Faithfulness: The Ronald E Poelman Conference Talk of 1984

Changing the Narrative of the LDS Church: 35 Years Later

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs