During the summer of 1992 (and it seems like it was just the other day, not twenty years ago) the bumper stickers began to appear: "Don't blame me. I voted for Bush."
About a year later, as people became more and more disenchanted with the President, another bumper sticker appeared: "Don't blame me. I didn't vote for Clinton."
Those Perot-folks were the people I did blame.
Bill Clinton 43%
George Bush 37%
Ross Perot 19%
Most of those Perot votes were anti-Bush votes than they were pro-Perot votes, and most of those voters were even more anti-Clinton than they were anti-Bush. If our country had had preferential voting in 1992, Bush would have been re-elected.
We have a two-party system in this county. I don't approve of that. Technically, with what's on the books, we don't have a two-party system, and there is room for third-party candidates. But that's not the reality. The reality is that we have a choice of two in the upcoming election. Either Romney or Obama will be the next president.
Economically, we can choose between the socialist Republicans or the even-more-socialist Democrats. As many of my friends believe, it's two sides of the same coin. Personally, I think sliding down the slippery slope at a slower rate is better than careening down it. There are those who will disagree.
But there's something far more important than economics (and I think the economic state of this nation is pretty darn important). The HHS mandate would never have happened under Mitt Romney. Are you aware of what's going on in Sweden to stamp out the gospel and religious freedom? Life issues are at stake in the November election. Freedom of religion is at stake in the upcoming election. No, I don't think Mitt Romney is the best person for the job. But seeing as how we have a choice between only two men, he is the better man for the job.
Those who voted for Perot were the ones who really elected Clinton.
Are we going to make the same mistake this November?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment