Vote Obamney or the Other Lizard Will Win!!!!

Or we could, en masse, think different if only we chose to do so and not be cowed by fearmongers from both parties saying, “A vote for anybody but our lizard will let the bad lizard win!!!!”

Zippy’s right: “Voting for the lesser evil isn’t the same thing as voting for less evil. It is just voting for more evil at a boil-the-frog pace.”

Been tried. Isn’t working. Won’t work. Try something else: like not supporting grave moral evil. There are candidates who don’t ask us to do that. Try supporting them.

HT: Caelum et Terra

"Listening to this, I was thinking about how happy I am to have finally connected ..."

What Evangelizing Culture Looks Like
"Also regarding monarchism, I am in favor of a country being personified by a monarch ..."

I had Lillian Vogl, the Chairwoman ..."
"Thank you. I do get it, and those sisters bring a tear to my eye. ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"BWAH-hahahaha! Just when you think the idiocy can't get any more idiotic, you find that ..."

What a Time to Be Alive!

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Timothy of Seattle

    Or as I like to call them, Romama.

  • SecretAgentMan

    Where can I get that graphic as a yard sign? I’d like to put one in my yard in October. It would be nice if a few million other people did that too.

  • SecretAgentMan

    Or, perhaps even better, a yard sign that says, “Don’t let the bad lizards ruin America, vote lizard!” featuring a scale-covered donkey and a scale-covered elephant on opposite sides of the motto. It would also be kind of fun (but probably too complex for a yard sign), to show two lizards pulling off their donkey and elephant faces like the invaders on V.

    • ivan_the_mad

      A reference to V??? I award you with my highly coveted Gold Star of the Day.

    • Kristen inDallas

      If you can pull of that graphic… I wil help with the production and distribution of the yard sign! 🙂

  • Mark: I get what you are saying about the lesser of two evils still being an evil. However, I think it is important to note that it is permissible, though not necessarily recommended, to vote for a candidate who supports an evil so long as one votes for them because of the good, rather than the evil that the candidate promotes. In addition, the foreseeable evil result must be proportionally less than the good one. Thus, voting for a pro-torture Republican is not an intrinsically evil act, nor is it necessarily evil to vote for a pro-abort Democrat.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Check out the hyperlink through “think different” in the OP for where Shea quotes Ratzinger talking about proportionate reasons 😉

    • Ah. Now I feel a bit silly. Read the linked article. It is very good.

  • Rae Stabosz

    Patrick, Mark knows that, and both acknowledges it and discusses it at length in his own article, linked to above under “think different”.

    I go back and forth about this one. I think Mark is right, but I have good friends who think it is actually possible for blue state Delaware to go Republican this year, and they are working strenuously to make that happen. I was intending on telling all my (few) readers and (more ) friends to support a write- in campaign, to send a message that we the people want ” none of the above “. But I can’t resist a quixotic effort like my friends’, so I told them they had my vote .

    • ivan_the_mad

      Whoops. Read this after I replied to Patrick. Fie on duplicated effort.

  • Andy

    As long as we are looking for the less evil we are stuck with evil – Sauron or Voldemort, or more aptly Godzilla vs. Rodan, making no judgement as to who is who of course. We as a people need to recapture the conscience of the country – it will take time – but voting for candidates other than the media-corporate choices can lead to better choices. Until we do that the oligarchy or whatever “archy” it is will control the downward slide. This means rejecting what does not follow what the church teaches in all aspects, not just a select one or two. It means living the gospel and it means talking to and yelling at those who disagree. I personally m pulling for the beast from 20,000 fathoms.

    • ds

      Godzilla aint evil man, wtf!? He’s saved Japan so many times from I don’t know how many crazy ass monsters, and he does this even though they roll out the army every damn time they see him. That’s some serious turning the other cheek right there.

  • Fr. Shane Tharp

    Come November, don’t blame me. I personally welcome our new insect overlords.

  • Dave G.

    “Or we could, en masse, think different if only we chose to do so”

    But who would this alternative be?

    • Sal

      Ron Paul, isn’t it?
      I do understand what mart, et al. are saying about the lizards, voting as a moral act, etc. Except sometimes, one of the lizards is so exponentially worse than the other one, that he almost makes the other one look ‘good’. For a lot of us, that’s the situation here. Will probably struggle with this ’til November.

      • Dave G.

        I often get that Paul is the assumed alternative in these debates.

        • ds

          Ron Paul is appropriately mentioned in this post because he does actually believe that the lizards are disguised as people and are trying to take over. He discussed it on the Alex Jones show.

      • Sal

        Mark. More tea…
        may I add- if you’ve been voting for years, it would seem that it would be easier to look at the past and say “well, this hasn’t worked well”. But the, if you think about it, common sense vote your (well-formed) conscience act is still so counter to what we’ve imbibed all these years that it is quite scary.
        So, persuasion, rather than bullying, might work better with many. I got much more out of Mark’s NCR post than any of the blog ones re:voting.

      • Ted Seeber

        If you haven’t read the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, then you have missed one of the great philosophical humor works of our time.

        This article contains the entirety of the Lizards reference, however:

  • Matthew

    CTHULU IN 2012!!! Why settle for the LESSER evil??

    • That made me laugh out loud!

    • Andy

      Only if he sworn in on the Necronomicon.

  • Is it the lesser of two evils or the evil of two lessers? Any candidate is “a lesser” since no one is perfect. We can look at this as the proverbial half-glass of water. Is it who brings more evil at a slower pace or is it who brings more good at faster pace (and can actually win)? The best choice RIGHT NOW for the Catholic Vote is the presumptive Rominee, since there is no time to build up another candidate.

  • Dianne

    There are candidates who don’t ask us to do that.

    Like? Who do you want to vote for?

  • John C

    Don’t know about all the fantasy references, but, as I’ve said before, put on your big boy pants and vote for Romney. You know that he’s a far better candidate than Obama.

    • ivan_the_mad

      ” You know that he’s a far better candidate than Obama.” A telepath??? Amazing!!!

      • Jmac

        Props for getting around the strictures of John’s comment! Because technically, telepathy is part of sci-fi, not fantasy. John must have been touched by Vorlons, and I see no reason to doubt that they have our best interests at heart.

        • Chris M

          SHERIDAN: You’re trying to force us to decide which of you is right. You’re like a couple of parents arguing in front of their kids. Manipulating them. Trying to get them to take sides. Not for their benefit, but for yours! But what if the right choice is not to choose at all?

          [Later] VORLON: There is only order and obedience. You will do as you are told.

          [Later] VORLON: You will die for us when we tell you to die for us because the others know no other way

          • CJ

            You . . .You’ve let them hear!

          • Jmac


          • Beadgirl

            The Republicans are the Vorlons and the Democrats are the Shadows? That . . . kind of works.

      • John C

        A telepath? No, just paying attention to the issues.

    • CJ

      I don’t know any such thing. What I do know is that he’s a warmongering, plutocratic panderer whose only core conviction seems to be that he should be POTUS. Everything else appears to be open to negotiation.

      • John C

        I like the “plutocratic panderer”. Alliteration, right? As for negotiation, that’s what politics is all about.

        • CJ

          Sure, politics are about negotiation. Art of the possible and all that. But I do believe everyone, especially those who aspire to positions of power, should have some rock solid convictions. Romney’s well-documented flip-flopping makes me doubt whether he has any such convictions. For my money, he’s a weather vane that wants to be POTUS.

          • John C

            CJ: With regard to “rock solid convictions”: Romney comes from a fine family, and he has a fine family himself. He appears to be a man of solid traditional values and instincts. As for the flip-flopping, not buying any of that media bullshit. Careful you don’t get played by the liberal media, pal.

        • Ted Seeber

          And of course, the negotiation always does away with everything I like in either platform, so the world goes to hell in a handbasket regardless of who is elected.

          • John C

            Man up, dude! It’s called life.

            • ds

              You can vote for whoever you want, just like anyone else. One might say it’s more “manly” to refuse the spoonful of thin gruel that the dems and repubs are serving up and look for another candidate that one could vote for with a clean conscience.

            • CJ

              Is “man up/big boy pants” the best you can do? Other posters have given you reasons why they won’t vote for Romeny and you respond with vague statements about manhood, liberal media, and “that’s life/politics.”

              Is there a good reason why I should vote for him? I’ll save you some trouble; the fact that he’s a Republican isn’t good enough, and neither is the fact that he isn’t Obama.

    • Ted Seeber

      I don’t know that at all. Every President in my lifetime has bee *measurably worse* than the one previous, and I see nothing in Romney that tells me he will break the trend at all.

      • I do not think that Romney will be worse than Obama, because the Republicans are not actively devoted to crushing the Catholic Church as Obama and the Deomcrats have repeatedly shown themselves to be. However, I do think that Romney will be very nearly as bad and will do nothing to stop the economic and social downward spiral of America. A Republican president might temporarily lessen the animosity towards the Church, but it will be renewed the moment another Democrat is elected. So I do agree with you that voteing for Romney is not a good solution.

        • Ted Seeber

          “I do not think that Romney will be worse than Obama, because the Republicans are not actively devoted to crushing the Catholic Church as Obama and the Deomcrats have repeatedly shown themselves to be. ”

          So what? They’ll just find something else to be evil about. Every President in my lifetime has. I thought Nixon was bad, until Ford Pardoned him. I thought Ford was bad, until Carter sent an airforce rescue team into a dust storm and caused stagflation. I thought Carter was bad, until Reagan cut taxes on the rich, raised taxes on the poor, and started dealing with the Contras and the Taliban. I thought Reagan was bad until Bush I spent billions trying to save a family of autocratic billionaires. I thought Bush I was bad until Clinton lied about sex and turned out to be the biggest, most blatant philanderer ever elected to office. I thought Clinton was bad until Bush II decided to NOT go after the worst terrorist criminal we had ever faced and go after the guy who insulted his dad instead, all while taking away our civil liberties. I thought Bush II was bad until Obama appointed the very people who had just crashed the economy to deal with the recession (notice *BEFORE* he even took office), started pushing Planned Parenthood Eugenics while attacking the Catholic Church, AND continued the war on terror while turning over the day to day operation to a bunch of remote control robots, who were then turned on American Citizens.

          I’m not sure how the trend can continue, but I’m very sure that it will- if not with Romney, then with one of the two guys put up in 2016. This civilization is falling, and it won’t stop until the only thing left is a few Catholic Monasteries with *very* think walls and an automated anti-aircraft defense system.

      • Reagan was measurably worse than Carter? Or are you just under 32?

    • Peggy R

      The primaries were the time to vote for a more conservative candidate. But Mark poo-poohed every imperfection. That said, I vehemently opposed Gingrich on moral grounds–I didn’t want to make wife #3, mistress #2 into a First Lady. I was mostly with Santorum, as imperfect as he was. Now, we’ve got Romney. Go out and start your own third party if you must. Quit waiting for some one else to do so. Power and recognition will have to filter up. Start with local and state legislatures, then Congress. Then in a generation or so, maybe you’ll have broad enough participation to have a viable presidential candidate.

      • Ted Seeber

        I don’t think that the United States has twenty years left. In fact, given the way Obama is acting now- I kind of wonder if we have 4 months of democracy left before the hellfire missiles start raining down on NRL* offices. And if Romney wins- the only difference is that the hellfire missiles will be raining down on NLRB^ offices.

        *, National Right to Life. ^, National Labor Relations Board

        • Give thanks to Alan Gura. He bought this country at least an extra decade. Now we’ve got to make use of it.

  • Apparently it’s the year of the lizard ( – Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up.) And we’re probably stuck with a lizard no matter what. I, however, do not care to vote for a gila monster just because he is running against a beaded lizard. Now, an iguana would be an entirely different story.

  • Josh

    I’m left wondering if Romney and Obama don’t secretly love all of the talk about third party voting. They have to know, as anyone with a rudimentary American political science background must, that a third party won’t win election (except in times of truly catastrophic social/political upheaval such as was present just prior to the supplanting of the Whig party by the Republican Party when civil war loomed). Nor do we have a parliamentary system that awards a “piece” of government power to high performing third parties. It is an all or nothing proposition. So the votes that go to the third party are not going to be a factor in an actual election. At the same time if they don’t have to worry about either winning or losing your vote, then they are free to ignore your policy preferences and ideas. They get to win the highest office in the land while being beholden to the smallest coalition of voters.

    • Kristen inDallas

      In a presidential election year only about 50% of eligible voters bother to show up.
      This means that about half of the american people have already decided that it was not worth their while to vote for either of the major parties candidates. Of those that do vote, about a third claim to be either third party, moderate or “idependent.” They tend to vote for the best candidate that “has a shot at winning” though some will just vote for who they believe to be the best candidate.
      Getting enough votes iss not totally unlike a good stock, the higher the odds seem that a candidate could win, the more people are likely to vote for him/her. So it’s not really about smashing out of the gates, it’s about momentum (and acurate media reporting about a particualr candidate’s odds).
      The reason third party candidates usually don’t win, is because people have bought into the idea that they can’t win. These people have an oddly limited definition of the word “can’t” IMHO.

      • beccolina

        Based on that, doesn’t it make sense to try and get 3rd party candidates into the house & senate before pitching one as president?

        • Peggy R

          Exactly. A third party has to be built from the ground up, local, state, congressional offices first.

      • Josh

        Well, no, not really. Third parties tend to not win because that is the nature of the first past the post system that is built into the US Constitution. Remember I granted that in cases of extreme social and political turmoil it is possible for a third party to completely to completely supplant one of the major parties as the Republican Party did the Whig Party in 1860. But we don’t currently have US Senators physically assaulting one another on the Senate floor or John Brown riding around Bloody Kansas seeking open insurrection and murdering his neighbors. We just aren’t there.

        I just don’t believe that people who are not currently voting are refraining out of despondency. I tend to think it is more likely that they just don’t really care all that much. They wouldn’t care regardless of who was on the ballot. I’d be willing to be convinced otherwise by a compelling demonstration that I’m wrong. But I’m not. There just isn’t a treasure trove of votes waiting to be uncovered in that part of the public that doesn’t already participate in elections.

        So a successful third party has to build a coalition out of people who are already at least passingly familiar with their local polling place. So where are you going to get them? If I only appeal to people who would otherwise vote Republican then I can’t win since I am only appealing to about half of the electorate and I need over half to win (not much margin for victory there) otherwise I am just a spoiler throwing the election to the Democrats. So I need to try to draw votes from both parties if I’m going to be a successful third party. Ross Perot tried it. He tried to be a fiscally conservative pro-choicer who also happened to be a fierce protectionist against labor outsourcing. He reckoned this would be a winning combination. It wasn’t

        • Ted Seeber

          “But we don’t currently have US Senators physically assaulting one another on the Senate floor or John Brown riding around Bloody Kansas seeking open insurrection and murdering his neighbors. We just aren’t there.”

          Yet. I think we’re pretty damn close myself- though it’s likely to come from the top down with “lightning strikes” on either Catholic Churches where Right to Life groups meet, or Labor Union Headquarters.

  • Bill

    It’s not a media contrivance. Romney has flip flopped on abortion for example.

  • Mark

    Will never support a democrat party tied to planned parenthood abortion mills and the only other real choice is republican. Last time I looked only human beings can be elected and thus will will always have the possibility of evil. However, with democrats you have a certainty of evil witnessed by the holocaust of 54 million slaughtered babies and counting with the party and especially this president in full combat support of the continued slaughter. There is a chance some will be saved with the republican candidate. All others have zero chance of winning presidency. The place to work to make the candidates stronger is on the local and state levels and build that up over time. right now, it is romney or obama and again, Obama is certain support of all forms of killing of babies and there is at least a fighting chance with Romney.

  • All others have zero chance of winning presidency.

    Technically it isnt zero; though as a practical
    matter it might as well be zero.

    But if we are talking about almost-zero chances, your vote has even less chance of determining who wins the presidency. That is, it is far more likely that a third party candidate will win the election than it is that your or my personal vote will determine the outcome.