Wednesday, July 11, 2012

No vote for Romney? Well ...

In the most recent Gilbert Magazine, Dale Ahlquist, he of seemingly infinite Chestertonian knowledge, wrote an editorial entitled, "Why I won't vote for Mitt Romney."

I was intrigued.

I can think of many reasons not to vote for Romney, and I was curious to see if his reasons jibed with ones that had occurred to me.

He threw a curve ball - sort of.

Ahlquist talked about his experience as a lobbyist in 1996 and witnessing the Republican machine in operation determining the 2000 nominee. He saw the same process in operation this time around.

So he views Romney as a product of the party machine, and not the real choice of the voters.

Okay, I can see that.

He also alluded to some of the reasons why I will not vote for Romney. The Republican Party tends to pay lip service to social values such as the pro-life position on abortion, but once it suckers in the social conservatives it fails to deliver. Even worse for folks in my neck of the woods (New York) many of our local Republican Party elected officials and candidates would be Democrats in most other states. Heck, I'm currently represented by a Catholic Republican Congressman who supports abortion!

The Republican Party is really about money, he contends, and I agree. Big Business, as he puts it. Of course, the alternative is Big Government (that other major party).

And, to be honest, given Romney's track record, I still don't know how sincere he is on the issues that are important to me - like the Right to Life.

Where I might stray from Ahlquist's position is that Romney is still slightly better that Obama on some significant issues, and if I had to chose, and if I lived in a state where my vote might actually count, I would reluctantly vote for him. Romney is more likely to change some policies, and to chose judges who might be more reasonable. I think. I hope. 

Of course, because of the Electoral College, my vote in New York doesn't matter. This state will give its Electoral votes to Obama no matter what happens in the next few months - unless they indict him, and even then he still might carry the state. 

So I don't have to vote for either of the machine-chosen major party candidates. I hear Santa Claus is running. Hmm.....

But if I lived in a state like Ohio, I'd consider voting for Romney - sorry Dale. I don't want to see four more years of anti-life, anti-faith policies.

Ahlquist says he will vote for neither Obama nor Romney, concluding: "I will not play this game anymore."

I understand where he's coming from.

I'm just not there yet.


TS said...

Interesting post! I live in Ohio and will be voting for Romney, but what interests me is how Alquist seems to place the blame on the wrong place. Last time I checked, real, live Republican voters voted Romney as the nominee. So the fault lies there. If many are seduced by the media or money or - God help us - campaign ads, then well we deserve what we get. Anybody who votes based on a campaign ad ought get their right taken away, ha. So UNLESS the Republican party altered the votes cast in the primaries, then I'm okay with whatever. It's a democracy and it's certainly more democratic than in the '50s when candidates were nominatged in smoke-filled rooms.

It seems part of the ethos of many is a) to blame-shift and see everything in conspiratorial terms and b) to not recognize real advances when they come, as has happened in civil rights and the more open nomination process for the Republican party, to name two.

Trubador said...

I am in the same predicament as Dale and ASF. I'm in California, so I may be in the same situation as ASF is in NY come November - so I could then afford to vote a 3rd way. But if CA comes into play, then I'm in a quandary. Do I tow the line YET AGAIN, or tack a different course?

Perry was my initial candidate of choice (from a weak list of candidates). Santorum became my de facto second choice. Twice on my blog (on Nov 3 of last year, and on Feb 1 of this year) I exclaimed quite forcefully my unwillingness to vote for Romney.

Given where things are at right now, and after the horrific ObamaCare decision by the SCOTUS, and what would be a disaster if "The One" got another four years... I'm at the proverbial crossroads/horns of a dilemma.

Re: Dale's take on the (R) party machine, he's right. Quoting from one of my posts:

"I have towed the line patiently and diligently for a looooong time. I voted for Bush Sr. in ’92 even though he went back on his word re: taxes. I swallowed Dole in ’96 when he placated the conservatives by picking Kemp as his running mate. I voted for Bush W. when he placated conservatives by picking Cheney as HIS running mate in 2000. And I held the line and re-elected Bush W. in ’04 even though he and the Republican congress started going off the reservation. I held my nose and voted for McCain when HE placated conservatives by picking Palin."

And here we are YET AGAIN with Romney and whomever his running mate will be (Jindal?...Rubio?... fiscal/social conservative Catholics to dangle in front of our noses like a carrot to a shackled beast of burden?).

And we ALL know the (D) party has it's own political machine (thug-ish Chicago Politics anyone???... anyone... Bueller... Bueller...).

A lot may happen over these next 111 days until Nov 6. Until then... right now... I just don't know.


Tom said...

I'm still voting for Romney over Obama.

A Secular Franciscan said...

It will be a tough choice for folks in states in play.

Unknown said...

Dale Ahlquist is dead wrong on this issue. To read why, visit my article here: ‎