I’ve said over and over that voting for a Republican or Democrat will be taken as an endorsement for all the big-government programs your candidate voted for – no matter what reason you had for voting for him.
You may have thought you were voting to limit the damage – to prevent the "greater of two evils" from being elected. But that isn’t the way your vote will be interpreted.
Your candidate will look at his victory and say, in effect, "The public has endorsed my plan to ‘fix’ government schools with a new government program. The voters have said they like my ideas to involve government in prescription drugs. The people have spoken, and they have endorsed every vote I’ve made in Congress and/or every new government program I outlined in my campaign."
And no endorsement you’ve ever given could be as disastrous as the vote you cast last November, if you voted for George Bush. If you don’t think your vote was taken as an endorsement of all the killing in Iraq, just look at these statements from last Sunday’s Washington Post interview:
THE POST: In Iraq, there’s been a steady stream of surprises. We weren’t welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven’t found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn’t gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn’t anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I’m grateful.
Remember this the next time you’re tempted to vote for anyone who doesn’t present a specific, detailed plan to reduce government dramatically.
January 21, 2005
