… NOR SHOULD HE
At this point it’s becoming increasingly clear that the 2012 election is a battle between two firmly convinced (albeit ideologically unaware) segments of the American electorate – with very few undecided voters weighing the “choice” they have to make on November 6 between U.S. President Barack Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
According to the latest Washington Post/ ABC News poll, 49 percent of America is with Obama and 46 percent is with Romney. One percent said they were voting for another candidate, one percent said they were voting for neither candidate and two percent said they had no opinion.
No one is undecided, in other words – which is exactly what the purveyors of the “two-party” system were hoping for.
As we’ve noted on innumerable prior occasions, though, this is a false dichotomy. It is a thesis without an antithesis – a bastardized Hegelian dialectic in which there is never a true”synthesis,” only a leftward slide toward the ash heap of history that gains momentum with each additional trillion dollars of debt and round of money printing.
The only candidate to grasp this reality? Ron Paul.
“(Obama and Romney) represent a one party system,” Paul said last week. “Somebody said, ‘why don’t we get a third party?’ And another one said, and I think correctly so, ‘why don’t we get a second party?’ … I’ve been in this business a long time, and believe me, there is essentially no difference one administration to another, no matter what the platform.”
Exactly. America’s 21st century political system can be summed up as follows: socialists masquerading as Democrats and Democrats masquerading as Republicans, with a bought-and-paid-for fourth estate pulling the strings.
Are there any actual Republicans in this political dystopia?
Yes … they’re called “Paultards.” They’re just not welcome in the “Republican” party anymore … although they are still expected to vote the “right way.”
Paul is refusing to do that, though. As of this writing he is not endorsing Romney – and has strongly implied that he will be casting his vote for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.
Same here … in fact we’ll be endorsing Johnson’s presidential bid later this month (after endorsing Paul in the 2012 primary)
Paul’s reluctance to embrace Romney is surprising to some considering the lenience he showed toward the former Massachusetts governor during the 2012 primary. In fact former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum explicitly suggested that there was a “corrupt bargain” at work between Paul and Romney given the extent to which Paul bashed other Republicans – but seemed to lay off of Romney.
Apparently there was no bargain … and thank God for that.
As we’ve noted previously, Romney simply cannot be trusted - and Paul is correct not to trust him, with either his endorsement or his vote.