I had this comment on my blog a little while back when I was speaking about my distaste for Romney - pre-election, and how if I lived in the US, I don't know that I would have been able to bring myself to vote for him, because I honestly did not see how he offered to make much of a difference at all. It began a discussion about voting for someone you don't exactly like, in order to get rid of someone you really don't like. Here is the line that caught my eye. It appeared at the very end of the comment:
""I cannot for the life of me understand the thinking that voting for "the
devil you know" is the best alternative. You're still voting for the
Okay, so that sounds like someone who agrees with me, right? Someone suggesting that voting for the 'devil you know' (Romney in my example), would still be voting for the devil.....
Wrong! This was the first part of the comment:
""Mitt Romney is not my idea of an ideal president either, but again,
America right now has only two choices, and if people really don't like
the incumbent, nad how he's been running America (into the ground), then
they should vote for a change.""
The Devil You Know comment came after a comparison to Dalton McGuinty getting re-elected in Ontario and then getting a bigger chance to run the province further into the ground. Saying basically that people didnt 'like Hudek of the Conservatives, so they voted in McGuinty again, even with his terrible record, because they were at least familiar with him. Well - what if they didn't like Hudek for good reasons? Didn't like his policies, didn't like his character, didn't trust him to do better, etc? What if they didn't want to vote at all and then didn't? I have had other comments on my blog stating that not-voting is the same as voting with the status-quo, or that not-voting would be key to helping Obama win, etc etc
Well what if ROMNEY is 'the devil you know' to many voters? not just Obama? They know of Romney, they saw what he did in his state as Governor, they heard what he had to say in debates, and how he flip flopped back and forth once he became candidate, and how he was in the candidate selection before with McCain so they already knew of him from back then - he would be the Devil You Know to many independents and republicans and they did not want to vote for him because they knew that it would be the same as voting for the devil - as highlighted above from my commenter.
I saw that the person also wrote they would vote for ANY party that had a chance at ousting the current bad guy leader... okay...... so what if the person you voted for was worse or the same? What if it was a Green Party that was strong in second place, would you vote for them? What outcome would you expect? If it was Brian Mulrooney going for a second shot at the helm and thinking up new ways to take money from the people like GST, even under the 'progressive conservative' banner, would you vote for him? Just to get rid of someone you didn't like very much? I dont see how that is effective either.
Bottom line - Romney was not a good choice. He is a rich guy that everyone knew would be attacked. You can't put a rich guy up against a socialist and expect him to come out strong. It was close, but not close enough. Romney had true conservative people shaking in their boots because the SPENDING needs to be stopped and not many of his ideas showed any hope of making that a reality, any more than Obama's ideas did. Something big time serious needs to be done and Romney was not the guy to do that. End of story. He was not able to get people behind him because he was stiff, had a fake smile, and his policies were all over the place. He chose a VP that voted FOR ALL THE STIMULUS SPENDING each and every time that I have looked up in his voting record at the .gov websites. His own VP would literally vote YES and then go out traipsing around the countryside the next day and cry that something got passed that means more spending. Ron Paul got nicknamed Dr No for the countless numbers of times he showed up to vote NO on bills but he got trashed for not being part of the mainstream republicans.
Well guess what, mainstream republicans also had a big hand in getting the country in the deep hole it''s in today. As far as i'm concerned, the whole lot of them needs to be turfed. Republicans have been at the helm more years in recent history than Democrats so don't just put the blame in the D's laps. It's most of these govt people no matter what party they belong to. I lean right so I would hope repubs can get their act together sooner rather than later, but I will not blindly follow their chosen leaders if I know that they are as full of crap as the other guy. Why is that so wrong? I will not vote for 'the devil i know' either. I think that's great advice (even though not being taken the way it was intended).