I understand the sentiment - it's not exactly heartwarming when the only choices with a chance of winning are bad and worse. Casting a protest vote makes you feel good for a while, but it certainly helps worse.
But consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face
And if
bad won't learn from that, then as I said, they don't deserve to win.
I. DON'T. CARE. that
bad is ever-so-slightly-less-abusive than
worse. There'll never BE anything better if people refuse to VOTE for better when it comes along. And my point stands - those of us determined to vote for that something better get scorn and derision hurled our way because we choose to vote for something better than
bad, because supposedly we're honor-bound to ignore our principles and vote for
bad instead of
better and could potentially cost
bad the election? TOO. FREAKING. BAD. If
bad cared about my vote, and the votes of those like me, they'd ACT LIKE IT FOR A CHANGE, and they're NOT.
They don't WANT my vote. And they don't deserve it - so they won't GET it. Despite their continual presumption, they do not in fact own my vote, and I won't give it to someone like Romney. If that costs them the election, because enough liberty-oriented voters vote for actual liberty-oriented candidates rather than
bad - well, like I said, perhaps they'll learn from that. I doubt it, though, there's a reason we often refer to the R's as "the stupid party." People like to trot out old saws like "cutting off your nose to spite your face," or "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Well, to quote a response to the latter which I particularly liked, "I say that if nobody ever insisted on the perfect, there'd never be any good. " (L. Neil Smith). Go on, tell me I'm wrong.
We MUST demand better, or we'll never GET it. That entails risk, but given the crap we're facing even if
bad wins instead of
worse, and which we've historically gotten whenever
bad won over
worse, it's time and long past to start taking that risk, or admit that we (as a group, as a people) don't actually want liberty at all - we'd rather have
bad's version of the nanny state, as opposed to
worse's. Both are WRONG.
And like MB said, the power to destroy a thing is control over it. If they need my vote, they'd better start promising - and delivering! - at least some of what I want and need, or else they evidently think that they don't really need my vote at all, don't they? That's what they're acting like. If that costs them the election, that's THEIR fault. Me? I'm doing what little I can to make a real change, to push for something better than more-of-the-same. All they need to do to get my vote is respect that. Paul, for all that he's not perfect, would do so. Romney, Santorum, Gingrich - none of them care. None of them respect that. All of them see more-of-the-same as the way to go, because that puts one of them, or one of their competitors from the other wing of the Modern American Political Machine (second verse, same as the first!), into office.
That's what you're supporting. Someone who wants things to continue as they have been. Someone who thinks that easing back ever-so-slightly on the gas is an acceptable final response to charges that we're headed at 120 towards a cliff, so that we're only doing 110. We need to be supporting the guys who want to turn the freaking steering wheel so we're pointed a different direction. That's the only way things will get better.
