In my latest blog post, I once again stated my intention of voting Libertarian should Republican candidate Bob Thomas become the nominee at the 3rd District caucus in Columbia City this coming Saturday. I linked the post on Facebook, and a friend of mine commented that should Mr. Thomas be nominated, we must support him in the hopes of avoiding the maintaining of a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives.
In other elections, his argument is very much valid, but not this one.
My beef with Bob Thomas is because he is a liar. A serious accusation, but not one without proof. Shortly before the primary election was held, a radio ad approved by Mr. Thomas aired on WOWO that attacked Phil Troyer, falsely claiming he supported gay marriage and was given a D rating by the NRA, when in fact the NRA gave Mr. Troyer a B rating. When Mr. Troyer pointed out the false ad, a spokesman for the Thomas campaign claimed the ad correctly cited the NRA rating, and also an article from Sylvia Smith of The (Fort Wayne) Journal-Gazette to back their claim on the issue of gay marriage. Listening to the radio ad and considering what Mr. Troyer says about gay marriage, the spokesman was wrong on both counts.
Now what does this have to do with the general election should (God forbid) Bob Thomas be nominated? I have a question for you: Would you support a candidate you knew had lied about an opponent? You might say, Bob Thomas is the lesser of two evils in this case; I couldn't disagree more. This is not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils here, but possibly a matter of having a choice between an incompatible candidate and a liar; a matter which throws the philosophy of the “80% choice” out the window, as far as I'm concerned.
Bob Thomas may very well be closer to where I stand on the issues than the Libertarian nominee, Scott Wise, and the Democrat nominee, Tom Hayhurst, but because Mr. Thomas has willingly lied in the course of trying to win a seat in Congress, I can't trust his word. No matter whether he might be more conservative than Mark Souder was, I can't trust him when he says he is that kind of candidate.
And for those who bring up the genuine concerns of a Democrat majority still in place come January of 2011, if we agree to support a liar like Bob Thomas for the sake of expediency, the sake of convenience, wouldn't that be a case of the ends justifying the means? How is supporting a liar a good thing? And what if he is elected? How can any of us be certain he will be as conservative a Congressman as is hoped he will be? Well, Mark Souder lied to us when he was in Congress, you might say, but when did he lie about his primary opponents when he sought his first term in 1994?
On a final note, this whole thing may turn out to be irrelevant, since there are 14 other individuals seeking the GOP nomination, and Bob Thomas's name has never been brought up in discussions about who the likely front-runners and dark horse candidates are, but this does serve as a reminder of being wary of people like Bob Thomas. You might think his lying about one of his opponents wasn't a big deal, but for me, it is. I cannot vote for someone I know has lied to get ahead (or stay ahead) in an election; to do so is unconscionable.
If Bob Thomas becomes the Republican nominee, Scott Wise will have my vote in November.
0 comments:
Post a Comment