I was disappointed this week when Donald Trump mathematically eliminated the chance of having a contested convention because of his dominant performance in the Indiana primary. I have been even more disappointed by seeing people who hate Clinton and hate Trump saying that they’ll hold their noses and vote for either one or the other.
If you are morally opposed to both Trump and Clinton, it seems to me that the only moral choice left is to vote for a third-party candidate. Please check out the Libertarian debate hosted by John Stossel and ask yourself if any of these candidates aren’t head and shoulders above both Trump and Clinton.
Also, try taking the quiz at isidewith.com and see whether you side more with a Libertarian candidate on the issues than with either Trump or Clinton. Personally, I found that I had more positions in common with all of the libertarian candidates than I did with either Trump or Clinton.
I’m planning to vote for a third-party presidential candidate this year for the first time in my life. If you are also part of the #NeverTrump or #NeverClinton crowd, you should seriously consider doing the same.
Please don’t throw away your vote by voting for someone you hate.
If you haven’t noticed, it’s high time you dropped out of the race. Your continued involvement in the race is – if anything – more likely to allow Trump to win the Republican nomination than to achieve your stated objective of forcing a brokered convention.
Look at the latest Wisconsin poll results, for example: Cruz 36, Trump 35, Kasich 19. The only possible role you can play there is as a spoiler. Are you trying to get Trump elected as the Republican nominee? If not, then you need to evaluate the math and recognize that it’s time to drop. I don’t think I’m anywhere near being the only one who is growing less favorable to the idea of you being selected in a brokered convention, since you seem to be working so hard at preventing a brokered convention from happening.
Let’s take an honest look at how you’ve done in the contests to date. Displayed graphically, it looks like a tally of reviews for a really bad book. You have the smallest number of good finishes and the largest number of bad finishes. Admittedly I left out your 8th place finish in Iowa in this graphic, but, the key question from this data is clear: how can any of us take seriously a candidate who has more 5th place finishes than 4th place finishes, more 4th place finishes than 3rd place finishes, more 3rd place finishes than 2nd place finishes, and more 2nd place finishes than 1st place finishes?
Did you notice that you even managed to place 4th in Arizona in a three-man race? If that doesn’t give you a sense that it’s time to read the writing on the wall, it’s hard to know what would. Perhaps the fact that you’ve earned less than 10% of the vote in 19 of the contests held to date would give you pause.
Admittedly, you did win in one state (your home state of Ohio). Congratulations. But have you also noticed that, even in your home state of Ohio, people are either mocking or skeptical of your continued presence in the race :
- John Kasich is Getting Roasted (Cincinnati)
- Little Johnny Kasich’s Delgate Math Education (Columbus)
- 3 Reasons Why the Last 24 Hours Were Devastating for John Kasich’s Presidential Campaign (Cleveland)
Your strongest argument for your persistence in the race is your electability. You claim that polls show you faring well against Clinton, which is true. But have you thought about the possibility that the only reason you fare well in polling against Clinton, is that you are so irrelevant that nobody has bothered attacking you yet? It’s a pretty big stretch to assume that if you have 10 fifth place finishes (and 19 finishes at 10% or less) while competing only against Republican colleagues that you’ll be able to defeat Clinton in the general election.
Maybe it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee, because it certainly looks like the longer you wait the less pleasant the smell will be.
In summary, you may want to consider voting for Romney if you desire change, and if you look forward to something better than the past four years has offered. You may want to vote for Romney if:
– You believe that Wahington is broken by partisan wrangling and you want a President with a proven track record of working with both parties
– You want to see a candidate who has a track record of creating a positive working environment for women within his Massachusetts administration, while his opponent who — although passionate about women’s rhetoric — created a hostile workplace for women in the White House
– You believe that a candidate with a proven track record as a problem solver is more likely to help the United States solve its budget crisis so we can avoid following the path of countries like Greece into economic chaos
– You believe that pursuing a pragmatic plan for energy independence would provide an economic dividend and a peace dividend
– You believe that a candidate with a consistent personal track record of compassionate and altruistic behavior is the kind of person who can be trusted with high office
If you look forward to a better, brighter future, Mitt Romney may be the candidate for you.
Romney’s governance of Massachusetts was marked by being pragmatic rather than ideological. He left a track record of reaching across the aisle. Similarly, Romney’s energy plan focuses on the pragmatic.
In a Forbes artcle, Mark Mills says that Romney’s plan:
Has a shot at succeeding because it reflects technology reality…. His goals appear focused on practical technologies. If ever there were an age that needed a practical President, it is ours. Romney’s plan reflects three indisputable facts. First, hydrocarbons supply 85 percent of what America and the rest of the world consumes, a share that will change little for decades to come based on every credible forecast including our own Department of Energy. Second, hydrocarbons are where the vast majority of current and future energy-related jobs reside. And third, the most important technology progress in energy has occurred with hydrocarbons, making them more abundant, affordable and greener…. Romney also proposes forging an energy alliance with Canada and Mexico, where our collective hydrocarbons resources are some five-fold greater than that of the Middle East.
If North America develops more energy clout than the Middle East, we could see a serious economic dividend and peace dividend, a prospect that seems pretty attractive.
And Romney’s plan also includes facilitating private-sector-led development of new technologies.
Overall, it seems like a plan that a thoughtful moderate could consider supporting.
In addition to having an impressive business and government resume, Mitt Romney’s life also provides evidence of altruistic behavior, which is certainly not a bad thing in a candidate for public office.
In the summer of 2003, two of Mitt’s sons were cleaning the beach at Lake Winnipesaukee when they heard screams from the lake. Romney’s sons raced toward the screams on their Jet Skis, while Mitt — who had been in the garage of the family’s summer home — followed his sons.
The Romneys found six people floating in their life jackets, along with a Scottish terrier. Their boat had sunk, and they were scared that they might be hit by another boat in the darkness. Mitt shuttled two of them to safety, while his sons stayed near the others. Mitt then made two more trips to ferry the rest to shore. All of them, including the dog, were successfully rescued. One of Romney’s sons had kept the dog on his Jet Ski during the recue operation, since the dog was the only one wihout a life jacket.
Sgt. Robertson [of the New Hampshire State Marine Patrol] said he wasn’t surprised at the Good Samaritan behavior by the Romneys, who are well known to the neighbors.
A few years earlier, at the same lake, the Romneys had performed another water rescue. In the previous incident, the Romneys had rescued a group of kayakers who had been threatened by wind and rocks.
And, before that rescue effort, Romney had also led the effort to locate the daughter of a business colleague, Robert Gay, who had gone missing. Gay told about the search operation that Romney organized:
My 14-year-old daughter had disappeared in New York City for three days. No one could find her. My business partner stepped forward to take charge. He closed the company and brought almost all our employees to New York. He said, “I don’t care how long it takes. We’re going to find her”…. He set up a command center and searched through the night. The man who helped save my daughter was Mitt Romney. Mitt’s done a lot of things that people say are nearly impossible. But for me, the most important thing he’s ever done is to help save my daughter.
Romney asked employees of Bain’s law firm and accounting firm to help out. The sight of all these professionals in suits walking around New York’s rough neighborhoods finally prompted media to cover the story, which helped generate the lead that allowed the rescuers to locate the missing daughter.
In addition to these rescue efforts, Romney has donated much of his time in church volunteer work, as mentioned in a previous post, and he has also donated much of his money to charity.
It seems to me that when you combine these examples of altruism with his track record in business, Olympics, and politics, the overall result is that Romney appears to be someone who can be trusted. It seems that someone who is willing to drop whatever he’s doing to run off and rescue people can be entrusted with the incredibly responsible job of being President … a job where decisions often affect the lives of many others.