Republican Voters: I have one question for you!

Posted by:

Republican Voters:  I have one question for you!

Republican Voters: I have one question for you!

This year, as is usually true in an election, there is not a candidate in the Republican primary that I am overly excited about. Don’t get me wrong, I will vote, and I will be an informed voter. I read a lot, I study the debates, I’m a political activist and try to engage in my community in a practical way that makes a difference. I’ve even run for office myself. I’m not passive in any way when it comes to doing what I can for the good of our communities, and ultimately our country. All I am saying is that, after intently studying the players, there is not a particular candidate that stands out in front for me in this election. I can think of a few names that, if they had run, I would be a lot more excited about, but nonetheless, as of today, we have five candidates to select from.

There are things I like about each of them. There are things that I do not like about each of them. Two candidates have already eliminated themselves, I have chosen to eliminate three other candidates for varying reasons, and I am still wrestling with which of the remaining two I will vote for.

I have to say that all five of the remaining men look far better than the man who occupies the White House currently. They would all be a good step in the right direction, comparatively.

And that brings me to my point. I am compelled to ask you a question. I think it is probably the most important question for Republican voters in this election. It does not matter if you have chosen to fly a flag in support of Mit Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, or Rick Perry. The question is for everyone. It is for me, and for all of you. Please answer it honestly. I would love for you to write your answer in the comments below and to forward this same question to as many people as you can.

Here it is:

When the primary is over, for the good of the country, and to ensure that the most liberal president in the history of our nation is not elected for another four years, will you unite behind the Republican nominee and cast your vote for that person, in an effort to take back the Oval Office in the November general election?

It saddens me, no, it angers me, to hear people say things like, “if my guy doesn’t win, I’m not voting in the general election;” or, “I’ll just write my candidate in.” Even more enraging is the thought that one of the candidates, after failing to acquire enough votes from the American populace to receive a bid of confidence as the party nominee, would even entertain the idea of jumping back in the general election under another party affiliate. Anyone who would do that does not have the good of the country in mind. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about politics, knows that the only thing that will come out of that, is a split conservative vote, ensuring another four years for Obama. A third party candidate cannot win in a general election! Insanity!

I’m not telling you who to vote for in the primary. Study the issues. Get to know the candidates. Be passionate about the person that you support. Vote for the one that you can most closely identify with. But, do not forget that the real goal in the primary is to determine a candidate who can defeat Obama’s liberal agenda in November. To do that, we must come out of the primary in unity.

Once again, if you are voting in the Republican primary, that’s a great start, but here is the question that is of utmost importance: Will you support the chosen Republican nominee and help us win back the White House?

If not, I’m sorry to say, you are the problem in America.

If you use Facebook, please take a moment to comment on this post below. Or, use the buttons to the left to send this post to your followers on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+ or Pinterest. I appreciate the feedback and doing this helps other people learn about my resources. If you do not use social media, please still leave a comment using the alternate form at the bottom of this page. Thank you very much!

Comment with Facebook, or scroll down to post only on this blog page:



  1. Sara  January 18, 2012

    I think it’s sad that we have so little confidence in God in a supposedly Christian nation. No longer is God a God of miracles, He is only permitted to work in our confines.
    I’m assuming you are talking about RP supporters changing over. We have to understand that a vote for Romney is THE SAME as voting for Obama. He will move the same direction. He is no better, so for me it is worth the risk. Romney said he would have voted for the NDAA, which makes him just as much of a Bill of Rights hater. Healthcare, tax increases, expanding the fed through war, what’s the difference? He just wears the Republican badge? That doesn’t make him any less progressive.
    So for those of us who see the long time move away from the Constitution in Republican presidencies and democratic…webaren’t willing to vote status quo, and I am trying to trust God with the outcome.

  2. Scott  January 18, 2012

    “A third party candidate cannot win in a general election”.

    Wow. We have finally discovered something that is impossible even for God. Sounds kind of like Abraham and Sarah deciding it was “impossible” for an old woman to have a baby.

    The problem with America is not people that refuse to hold their nose and vote for an Obama clone wearing a Republican name tag.

    The problem is that people have resigned themselves to thinking that we can’t do any better, so we might as well just settle for the same thing we get every election.

  3. stephen Muth  January 18, 2012

    I stopped being a Republican under the Bush presidency, so I am abandoning the neocns there. I am an independent. In fact many of the new tea party congressmen were quickly denuded by the boys there. The Republican establishment is NOT conservative any longer. When there is a clear choice between a brother in Christ, or cult follower or a pseudo Christan, I know where I am going as far as the primary goes. In the general election any one of the candidates except Paul will just be the same ole same ole, and the deficit will bring us down. John, you may study the politics, but you seem to have a closed mind toward the facts of what Ron Paul has been saying for over thirty years. I was where you were, a stubborn Republican, till I opened my eyes. Bush helped to do that enormously, he is the one who really got the massive increase in GOVERNMENT spending going, and in areas more than just those horrible wars. Jesus didn’t say blessed are the warmongers, these guys are really itching for another one. I have posted videos, and articles from different defence, and military officials that have addressed the issues, but the republican cult follower’s have not even considered them.

    I am doing what I am responsible for as far as a Christian citizen of my country is concerned, and obviously fervent in doing so. But I personally think it is for naught, it is to late, and the Lord is at the door. After the election, and evil prevails I will concentrate on, and increase efforts in bringing souls to Christ, having finished my duties to the State.

  4. Sue  January 18, 2012

    First, a vote for Romney is NOT the same as a vote for Obama. That is a red herring I’ve heard from several different sources. I wish Romney were more conservative. I wish he didn’t have some of the baggage he has. But despite his faults, he is better than Obama. It is too bad that some would rather face another four years of Obama than vote for Romney. Let’s face it: Obama is trying to remake this country in the image of a European welfare state. And if he wins in November, there will be things he does that cannot ever be changed. America as we know it will be gone. Romney isn’t a Reagan conservative, but he’s better than Obama. Period.
    Second, it’s ridiculous to say that choosing not to vote for a candidate with a slim chance of winning means you’re not trusting God. God’s will is going to be accomplished no matter who sits in the Oval Office. I have heard a lot of comments from supporters of certain candidates that imply if you don’t vote for their candidate you are 1) not a true Christian, 2) not a true conservative, 3) you believe everything you hear in the media and don’t take time to educate yourself, or 4) you are just plain stupid. “All educated people will vote for _____.” So, I could ask those of you who have ever made such statements the same question Sara implied above: Do you think that God is limited to work within your confines? Can his will only be accomplished if your candidate is in the White House?
    I personally find it frightening and offensive that Paul blames America for 9/11 and for other terrorist activity. But if he wins the primary nomination I will vote for him, because he is better than Obama. I would hope that other Republican voters out there would do the same if their candidate doesn’t win. Because if you think you are acting nobly by writing in your candidate or voting third party–you aren’t. You are simply ensuring that our nation suffers under another four years of the most liberal president we have ever known. And the nation we know and love won’t be coming back. Ever.

  5. Kim  January 18, 2012

    For the most part I agree with you, especially in regard to the 3rd party split-off. But Sara has a valid point in regard to Romney. Would I vote for him if he’s the Republican nominee? Yes. But it would not be with much confidence that he would either win or do much better than Obama if he did. I think one of the biggest problems is that too many Republicans are dismissing the conservative in favor of more “moderate” positions and too many of the rest are buying the lie that a true conservative can’t win. And of the remainder, too many conservatives split among the remaining candidates. It’s a formula that results in a “moderate” or liberal Republican nominee who, historically, has gone down in defeat, either initially or upon a re-election bid. Think Ford, Bush I, Dole, and McCain vs. Reagan and Bush II. Yes, I think the situation is dire, and we have to try no matter what, but when it comes to Romney, I can understand why some people’s consciences just wouldn’t allow them to vote for the man. And in that circumstance, telling someone they are “part of the problem” probably isn’t the best way to win them over to your way of thinking. “Speaking the truth in love…”

  6. Dereck  January 18, 2012

    Very well said, Sara. Status quo politics and the lesser of two evils mentality got us Obama in the first place-because McCain was to moderate to begin with in the last election. It appears we are heading in the same direction this election, but I also will put my ultimate trust in God, not politics.

  7. Gwyn  January 18, 2012

    I does concern me very much that if Ron Paul does win the nomination with the help of Independents and frustrated Democrats, that establishment Republicans will not give him support. I hope the remember Ron Paul is not a socialist!

  8. stephen Muth  January 18, 2012

    Sue, “Paul blames America for 9/11” That statement proves you don’t know what he has said, you are listening to what others say. You must get it from the source. Also the things you are repeating from the establishment republicans is their spin on the polls, and not anything more than opinion, just as is mine is just opinion. When they say a slim chance of winning they are talking about the nomination they so fear. Ron Paul has the best chance to beat Obama in my opinion. Hopefully if Ron Paul does not get the nomination we can convince him to run third party, as some interesting things would play out there. If not, with any other one of them running, we will go down like Grease soon will.

    Kim it’s not my conscience that keeps me from voting Romney, it’s what he has done, and what he will do once he is in there. I doubt he would beat Obama anyway, remember the masses are for the most part blind, if I could be so kind.

    You know we as a nation could just get the government we deserve , our time might have run out.

  9. Sue  January 18, 2012

    Hmm, that’s interesting Stephen. Here’s what Paul has to say about who was responsible for 9/11 and subsequent terrorist activity:
    September 2012 Republican primary debate: “Just remember, 9/11 came about because there was too much government.”
    Tea Party Debate, 9/12/2011—“They have more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11, but we’re there occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves.
    As long as this country follows that idea, we’re going to be under a lot of danger. This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this, and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true.

    Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit — they have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing —


    PAUL: I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing, at the same time we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years.”
    Face the Nation Interview, 11/20/11–“Just remember that immediately after 9/11, we removed the base in Saudi Arabia, our policies definitely had an influence.” When pressed as to whether he was blaming America, Paul said no, because America is the common people. The interviewer then restated that Paul was saying it’s the government’s fault. “I’m saying it’s the policy-makers fault,” said Paul. Not the attackers. Not Al Quaida. The American policy-makers are to blame for 9/11.
    Paul likes to split hairs and say he’s not blaming America. He’s blaming America’s policy makers. Either way, it’s only natural for the terrorists to come over and bomb us because of what we’ve done to them. If we would leave them alone, they would leave us alone. That’s a frightening viewpoint. And it’s just not true.

    I think that most of the discussion here misses the point of the post. No one is saying a true conservative can’t win. No one is saying Romney is the best choice. The point is that the only way ANY candidate can win against Obama is for the conservatives to unite and vote together for whoever wins the primary nomination. I never saw John mention any names in his post, yet it has been interesting to see the Ron Paul supporters take offense and assume the question was directed at them. In reality, it’s directed at anyone who wants to see Obama voted out of office.
    Once again, I think trying to spiritualize the issue by accusing those who disagree of not trusting God is a red herring. I’ll say again, God’s will will be accomplished no matter who sits in the White House. But if the supporters of any candidate–Ron Paul or whoever else is disgruntled because their guy didn’t win–refuse to vote for the party nominee, the conservative vote will be split, Obama will rise above the fray, and we will be in for another four years of the most destructive policies our nation has ever seen.
    I’m curious whether anyone here has read one or both of Obama’s books? If you haven’t, you should. They paint a startling picture of the influences that shaped our current president and what he believes America should be about. No one who has read these books can believe that voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama.
    Please don’t misconstrue my comments to say that I believe Romney is the best candidate out there. I’ve never said that. I’ve merely said that he is better than Obama, and if he wins the primary nomination I will vote for him. If Paul wins, I will vote for him.
    So go out there and support your candidate. Campaign for him and educate as many people as possible about his strengths and policies. No one is saying Ron Paul isn’t a good choice. But when the general election rolls around, don’t just take your toys and go home (or write him in, or vote third party) if Paul doesn’t win. Understand that a write-in vote or a vote for a third party is the same as a vote for Obama. And please, stop insulting people who disagree with you by accusing them of blindly believing the media and not trusting God.

  10. stephen Muth  January 18, 2012

    Sue I agree with everything he said because it’s the truth. Even back when I was a NeoCon ( that’s a name they coined them selves ) we knew they attacked us because we were in Saudi Arabia, Bin laden complained about it all the time, it was a holy thing with them, and it allowed him to recruit more fighters. It was acknowledged, and often repeated by NeoCons in office, and on Fox. That, is the truth. Also those three presidents right before Obama did massive damage to our country. and like I said before so will any of those others running except Paul. They are NeoCons that want another war, and will never really cut spending sufficiently to save our nation. as always they know a war will hide the issues. My goodness why do you think they will do what they say this time? They are getting ready to raise the debt ceiling again as we speak. They think we are simpletons that will follow along as always. P.S. some of those morons also booed the golden rule.

    Once again I have insulted no one in this post

  11. Sue  January 18, 2012

    That’s fine that you agree with him. I’m glad you found a candidate who represents your viewpoints so closely. That wasn’t the point. I’m not arguing policy here. I’m simply pointing out that Paul did blame America for 9/11, and that your assessment that “you don’t know what he has said, you are listening to what others say. You must get it from the source” isn’t true.

    The rest of my post was directed toward a more general audience, not you in particular.

    The point of all this is that we can differ and still respect one another’s viewpoints (I hope). I hope that we can come to different conclusions without saying someone isn’t trusting God (as has been said by a couple of people in this comment section and by others I have encountered). I hope we can differ in our conclusions while not saying someone hasn’t taken the time to educate themselves and that they are simply listening to the media (another assertion I have heard many times and from various people).

    And in the end, I hope that conservatives can agree that keeping Obama out of office is more important than our personal discrepancies.

  12. KPM  January 18, 2012

    I find it interesting that in the same debate referenced earlier, Rick Santorum mentioned a post that appeared on Ron Paul’s blog on September 11 in which Paul specifically blamed America for 9/11. Conveniently, that post is no longer on his site. Hmm…

    Also, for those who think Paul is the essence of conservatism, I find it interesting that in 2008, he endorsed Bob Barr (a pro-choice libertarian), Cynthia McKinney (a far-left Green Party candidate who lost a Democratic primary due in part to corruption and anti-Semitism), and Ralph Nader (a leftist independent). He does not believe the definition of marriage matters and will do nothing to protect the rights of the unborn on the federal level (although he is personally pro-life, he believes this is a state issue).

    These statements are based on Paul’s voting record and verbal statements he has made over the course of his political career.

  13. Stephen Muth  January 18, 2012

    I give up, I’ll save my finger on this keyboard. Anyone else?

  14. Kevin  January 20, 2012

    I will unite behind Ron (or any other Republican) if he were to win the nomination. If his partisans refuse to unite behind him, as they are threatening, they illustrate fully the immaturity that poisons our current state of Democracy.

    The punishment for such immaturity is the shredding of what is left of the Constitution by the Democrats. So the question is? Do you love the Constitution enough to FIGHT FOR IT with every part of your own being, even when that fight is may be against your own personal desire to have all that you want.

  15. Anita Wells  January 20, 2012

    I agree with you John. Instead of people having a \moral victory\ by saying, \I don’t agree with the person who got my party’s nomination so I will either not vote or vote 3rd party\ (no one has won from a 3rd party to date- no, it’s not impossible if God wills it but it would probably take a miracle from God for it to happen- not saying it won’t ever happen but never has yet), we need to get Obama out. Period. Before our country is totally ruined would be my preference for sure. Taking the \moral victory\ stand and trying to \prove a point\ will and has in the past ended up in (at least in this case) Obama’s re-election. Some may disagree with me and that’s fine but I will not argue or respond back to anyone who posts a disagreement. I don’t want an ugly fight and refuse to take part in such an argument. That’s all I have to say. Well said, John- you have a lot of common sense on this topic and your post was well thought-out. (what else would you expect from a sax player! LOL)

  16. Chris  January 20, 2012

    The problem with getting behind whichever candidate wins, is that some of the candidates are no different than what is currently in the White House, they just wear a different tie. The establishment candidate will do no different than who is currently in DC.

  17. AudraM  January 20, 2012

    Small corrections for you, KPM.

    1) Ron Paul didn’t endorse Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, or Ralph Nader in 2008. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

    2) He’s never said he doesn’t believe the definition of marriage is important. To the contrary, he doesn’t think that anyone should be able to use the government (federal or otherwise) to force their definition of marriage on anyone else. His view is that it is a societal issue that the government shouldn’t inject itself into.

    3) You’re correct that he refuses to deal with a lot of things at the federal level – just as the Constitution requires. If you have a problem with federalism and a Constitutional form of government, I wonder what form of government you’d prefer we utilize. The fact that he upholds the founding documents as written is not something that I find fault with.

    Annnnd … Corrections, over.


  18. George Skinner  January 21, 2012

    A simple answer to the question. Ron Paul won’t & can’t win. The man is a loose unit. I will definitely vote for the Republican nominee.

  19. James Moore  January 21, 2012

    John, speaking for myself only, I once thought exactly as you articulated in your article. It was so important that Clinton not be re-elected in ’96 and it was so important that Gore didn’t win in ’00 that I didn’t really examine what was going on in the Republican party. I shrugged off gentle observations that friends offered me that there was no material difference between the Democrats and the Republicans because I believed the rhetoric that the Republicans delivered.

    Bush won in ’00 and the only changes were that government growth accelerated, we became enmeshed in two wars, we got the draconian USA Patriot Act that gutted the 4th amendment, we got this abhorrent concept of “Homeland” that sounds oddly akin to words used by European tyrants of the first half of the 20th century to rally the masses to wars of conquest and domestic oppression. Abortion didn’t end, in fact, within months of taking office, Bush authorized the use of federal money to experiment on human embryos for stem cell research.

    I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that any Republican candidate is better than Obama. There’s only one candidate that is different in any material way: Ron Paul.

    If the establishment Republicans were really pro-life as Ron Paul is, today, right now, Roe v. Wade would not be the law of the land. Ron Paul introduced legislation in every congressional session while the Republicans controlled Congress, the Senate and the White House to remove jurisdiction over abortion from the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) which would have made Roe v. Wade moot. The states would again be free to outlaw this plauge as they were prior to 1973. The establishment Republicans variously ignored or suppressed this brilliant legislation.

    If the establishment Republicans were really for small government as Ron Paul is, there would be no Department of Homeland Security, no Medicare part D, no Sarbanes-Oxley, no McCain-Feingold, no “No Child Left Behind”…shall I continue?

    If the establishment Republicans really honored their oath to the Constitution, there would not be two un-declared wars started and prosecuted for more than twice the duration of the second world war merely at the whim of the executive.

    If the establishment Republicans were really interested in the welfare of the United States, they would know the mortal threat that the Federal Reserve poses to the US. They would understand that fiat currencies were created to fail and take down the nation that authorizes them. They would know that it’s the central banks that cause the business cycles that displace millions of people and cause so much economic hardship. They won’t allow themselves the luxury of opening their eyes to these econcomic facts because they know that unlimited government growth and endless wars are impossible without fiat currency. The hard money policy that Ron Paul advocates brings an end to the government growth-feeds lobbists-feeds campaign coffers-feeds government growth gravy train. The establishment Republicans just want to get on board and drive. Not so for Ron Paul.

    If, as you say, I’m “part of the problem” to the establishment Republicans, so be it.

  20. Jimmy  January 24, 2012

    I guess some of you are too young to remember Ross Perot and the 3rd party he ran for in 1992 is the reason why Bill Clinton won the election because he took votes away from Pres. George H.W. Bush. So remember that in November during the general election. God Bless you and may God continue to Bless the United States of America.

  21. stephen Muth  January 24, 2012

    Ross Perot got mostly independents, not main stream republicans. Bush lost because he lied, and raised taxes. surprise, surprise. Ron Paul polls about even right now with Obama. The three others will all loose to Obama, they have too much baggage.

Add a Comment