The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

You Should Only Vote Against The GOP Nominee If Your Name Is Pyrrhus

Posted on | February 21, 2012 | 23 Comments

by Smitty

I don’t care if Ron “How About My Idiotic Newsletters?” Paul takes the GOP nomination: as you care about your country, you really want to support the GOP nominee.

Two words to those who’d speak otherwise: “Judicial Nominees”. The thought of #OccupyResoluteDesk plucking a couple more wise female softballers from his. . .back pocket should give you pause. Aren’t you projectile vomiting ill at the idea of hearing Yet Another Progressive Nitwit go before the Senate, swear to respect our Constitution as written, and then proceed to treat it like Rosanne Barr treats music?

To paraphrase the famous South Park jingle,

Let’s get out and vote,
Let your voices now be heard,
We are going to embrace a douche,
To retire incumbent turd. . .

The three viable candidates are all variations on the theme of big government. Our best effort is to keep the nominee’s feet firmly fast to the fire, knowing that PROGRESSIVISM DELENDA EST, and the Tea Partiers aren’t fannying about.

This statist pit wasn’t dug in less than a century; conservatives have to play the patient game, go to battle with the meat puppets we’ve got, and play the long, anti-Gramsci game. Temper tantrums about this or that candidate are unhelpful; they all suck. We suck. Get over it, and fight on, as you cherish your liberty.

Update: linked by That Mr. G. Guy


23 Responses to “You Should Only Vote Against The GOP Nominee If Your Name Is Pyrrhus”

  1. Another Ron Paul Convert? « That Mr. G Guy's Blog
    February 21st, 2012 @ 10:48 pm

    […] Smitty of TOM ponders a Ron Paul candidacy and the consequences if we don’t stand behind whomever is chosen as the GOP Presidential candidate… I don’t care if Ron “How About My Idiotic Newsletters?” Paul takes the GOP nomination: as you care about your country, you really want to support the GOP nominee. […]

  2. William Quick
    February 21st, 2012 @ 11:10 pm

     And I’ll tell you the same thing I told all the crap sandwich gobblers back when I refused to vote for McCain:  I’m not a Republican.  If you want me to vote for your candidate, give me a candidate I want to vote for.  If you can’t, well, you made your bed.  Enjoy the nap until the next time.

  3. Adjoran
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 12:04 am

     Fine, it’s your right.  But don’t pretend you aren’t helping to reelect Obama when you do it, mmmkay, Sparky?

    Whether you vote for a third party loser, leave the top line blank, or just stay home altogether, it is only a matter of degree of how much you are helping Obama, but you ARE helping reelect him one way or the other.  As long as you don’t try and pretend you aren’t doing that, and accept the responsibility for your actions, it’s your vote.

    But I definitely don’t want to hear you whining about the SCOTUS Justices and hundreds of lower court judges he appoints to lifetime tenure in the next term – for the next forty years at least.  After that, your grandchildren and their children will just have to piss on your grave themselves.

  4. Adjoran
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 12:13 am

    Amen, Smitty – the worst we’ve ever offered was 100 times better than Obama.

    To those who want to “send the GOP a message” by not voting for our nominee, think about what message you are really sending.  Because the message I’m hearing is, “Unless you nominate a candidate who is exactly what I want, I’m not on board, because it’s all about meeeeeeeeeeeeee.  I’m not a reliable ally, and you should waste no time on my concerns because I’ll find some stupid reason to desert you anyway.”

    There were some conservatives who “sent the message” last time and took their toys and went home instead of supporting McCain.  How’s that working out for them now?  Is the GOP licking their boots now?  Are they enjoying the Obama Administration?

    There are a lot of better ways to send a message than by screwing up the country’s future, possibly beyond repair.  Make a phone call, write a letter, send an email, twit, unlike them on Facebook.

  5. Chefmojo
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 12:58 am

    Adjoran, that’s not how it works. If I exercise my vote, it is to support the person I vote for. If I don’t, it’s a non-issue. You saying otherwise doesn’t make it so. I, like Mr. Quick, will vote my belief and conscience, and that doesn’t include voting AGAINST somebody. I vote FOR people. 

    I will not vote FOR either Romney or Santorum. End of story. The chips will fall where they will. This “formula” of yours is so much crap in a bag, and carries the intellectual weight of your avatar.

    As for SCOTUS? Do you really think these statist chumps are going to do the right thing? Really? Reagan, GHW and W beg to differ, my friend. 

  6. AngelaTC
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 4:17 am

    Yeah, right.  After 4.5 years of being visciously told I’m not really a Republican, suddenly I’m going to vote for the GOP candidate, even though they can’t even be bothered to pretend to add any of my planks into their platform?

    Good luck with that. 

    They lost hard in 2006 and 2008 because they couldn’t be bothered to pay attention to conservatives. THey’ve had 6 years to figure out a way to bring the small government crowd back home, and they’re still playing this tired old card? Please.

  7. ThePaganTemple
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 7:13 am

    I’ll more than likely vote for anybody the GOP puts up, but I can’t swear I’d vote for Mittens. Bottom line-it all depends on how he runs his campaign. If he acts like an ass reaching out to moderates and independents and talking about what a nice guy Obama is, and some of the other shit I’ve heard out of his weaselly mouth, the way I see it is, if Obama is such a nice fucking guy, why the fuck don’t I just vote for him? Fuck this ignorant shit, I want a Republican candidate who runs as a fucking Republican should run. I will accept no substitutes.

  8. Bob Belvedere
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 7:32 am

    The question many of us will have to be asking ourselves is: If Romney or Gingrich get the Nomination, do we want to try and help elect someone who, at the very best, will merely slow down our speed on The Road To Perdition, because Romney doesn’t understand just how bad the situation and Gingrich will do whatever benefits himself?  Do we think we can, through control of both houses of the Congress, reverse the course to collapse we are on?

    Or is this the best time to bring the tyrannical boil to a head and let Obama and his Leftist minions own the collapse?  Is it better that the collapse happen now, when it might be easier to rebuild on the debris, or later when we may be so weakened that we cannot mount an effective restoration of our freedoms and liberties.

    I keep going back and forth between the two.

  9. Quartermaster
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 7:54 am

    None of them understand how close to the cliff we are. Even though Paul knows what needs to be done to FedGov, he betrays his ignorance of where we arein his foreign policy. It won’t matter who we get, we will go over the cliff before half of the next term is over.

  10. SDN
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 8:49 am

    Yeah, hypocrite, just like you RINOs got behind the Party candidate in the NJ Senate race. Oh, wait….

    “Shut up! because supporting the party nominee is the duty of you Teatard hicks. Your betters are under no such restraints.”


  11. Pathfinder's wife
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 9:14 am

    I’ve already stated what my intentions were — they didn’t change; I keep my word.

    In the end though, I’m not sure the canidates are what really matters — how much faith do y’all have in the American people?
    I think that’s where it all gets decided; quite frankly I’m only going even money (and only at the $2 window).

  12. William Quick
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 9:49 am


    In the end though, I’m not sure the canidates are what really matters — how much faith do y’all have in the American people?

    I keep noticing that the American people have participated in their tens of millions in every decision that has brought us to our current parlous state, and keep right on reelecting the representatives they claim to hate.

    And when they do rise up and toss out a few scoundrels, both parties and the media unite to excoriate them.  And then we get a heaping helping of same old, same old, and demands that we vote for them because they aren’t Satanic Democrats.

    Apparently you really can fool some of the people all of the time.

  13. William Quick
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 9:52 am


    It won’t matter who we get, we will go over the cliff before half of the next term is over.

    Unfortunately, I think that is a strong possibility.  The Obama administration and the Dems have moved a whole lot of crisis-type legislation and its effects off until just after the election.  At that point a heck of a lot of bills come due – (huge Obama tax increase called “repeal of Bush tax cuts, anyone?)  and I don’t think we’ve got the wherewithal to pay them.

  14. William Quick
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 10:02 am


    Unless you nominate a candidate who is exactly what I want, I’m not on board, because it’s all about meeeeeeeeeeeeee

    It really bothers you that you just can’t force us to gobble your crap sandwiches, doesn’t it?

    See, your real problem is you can’t convince us that it’s not really all about your goals. 

    “Exactly what “we” want?”

    Do you know how much crap I have to convince myself to swallow in order to vote for Saint Satan Santorum?  Yet I would, because it’s about the future of liberty, and I think there is at least a slender hope that he might do more to advance it than destroy it.  I feel much better about voting for Gingrich because he’s actually advanced the cause of liberty in the real world, something none of the other candidates can point to on their resumes.  But Mittens Romneycare, the GOP socialist?

    Yes, socialist.  What else can you call a guy who designed, implemented, and still defends the imposition of socialized medicine and its mandates on millions of people?

    That’s the crap sandwich you want me to swallow, so your party (not mine) can preside over the further destruction of American liberties.  In a bipartisan, cooperative manner, of course.

    I never understood why you Republicans seem to think it’s important to run candidates who can “attract independents,” but you never consider that quite a few independents are considerably more conservative than you are.  Apparently you don’t want, or need, liberty-minded conservative independents.

    How’s that working out for you?

  15. ThePaganTemple
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 10:24 am

    how much faith do y’all have in the American people?

    Absolute Zero!

  16. Pathfinder's wife
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 10:46 am

    As an independent, I’m laughing in agreement with what you just said!
    As a moderate (meaning I’m willing to at least hear people out when they speak reasonably and are willing to listen, and believe that moderation in all things is probably the wisest course) I’m also struck by this as well.

  17. Pathfinder's wife
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 10:50 am

    Well, you should try to refrain from total pessimism, otherwise you wind up a victim of disillusionment and despair.

    Always be willing to accept the notion of the happy suprise…even a 100-1 longshot comes in once in a blue moon.

  18. ThePaganTemple
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

     Collectively the American people are no different than the people of any other country. They vote for the candidate or party they think will pass out the most goodies. Then when the country falls on their face, they vote for who they think will fix things. Sometimes that happens to be a Republican, who many times will proceed to fix things. Then, once things are fixed-somewhat-what do the American people do? They go right back to voting for the candidate or party, far more often than not a Democrat, who they think will pass out some more goodies, again, and who more often than not then proceed to fuck things up. Again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    I’m sick of it. Granted, its not completely their fault, they are for the most part purposely ignorant, and intentionally made and kept ignorant by a social and education system that has brainwashed them into thinking the American system is supposed to be about “equality” and “fairness” and “democracy”. Three fifths of the American people are clueless about what this country and the constitution are really supposed to be about.

    So, again, I have absolute zero faith in them. I have not the slightest inkling that they will ever prove me wrong by exercising common sense and logical judgement on any kind of a consistent basis.

  19. William Quick
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

     Well, okay, but I like my approach better: Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

    But that’s just me.

  20. DaveO
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

    Checks and balances. Winning the Senate with a comfortable majority makes a re-elected Obama a zero. If pressed, the military will side with the Constitution. The next Senate will select between 1 and 3 Justices to the Surpreme Court.

    Paul lacks the same practical experience Obama lacked going (and by a fair measure still lacks). The people he’d have to bring in will know that they can rob America blind, and Paul won’t know.

  21. ThePaganTemple
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

     If pressed, the military will side with the Constitution.

    I would hope so, but don’t bet on it. Democrats have spent decades appointing leftist apparatchiks to high military posts. The name Wesley Clark ring a bell?

  22. Pathfinder's wife
    February 22nd, 2012 @ 7:17 pm

    Generals like Wesley Clark are going to go whichever way is their interest.

    Military isn’t in love with the Democrats, but they don’t exactly have a big crush on Republicans.

    My guess is the military won’t do anything that in any way sticks their necks out (they’ve been burnt before).

  23. SDN
    February 23rd, 2012 @ 12:15 am

    PT, most people don’t realize that generals must be confirmed by the Senate.