Saturday, September 17, 2016

I have decided to vote for Evan McMullin for President.

I have decided to vote for Evan McMullin for President.

As readers of my blog know, I am a Republican Refusenik. I have been saying for a year that I could never vote for Donald Trump, and nothing has moved me an inch in his direction. He is a life-long liberal. He has always supported liberal Democrats like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel. He has also said he was 100% pro-choice, including on partial birth abortion, that he wishes no one had a gun, and that the Romney lost in 2012 because Republicans were too harsh on immigrants. I think his change of position of these and other issues is entirely based on running as a Republican, thinking he could fool enough gullible voters in the primaries by disavowing all he ever said on political issues. And it worked.

Leadership requires experience, knowledge and character. trump has no experience in government, his knowledge on government economics, finances, the military and foreign policy is tissue thin. And is character is meretricious. He has exhibited only two constant values: self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment. If you want a longer explanation, I link to a great many articles about Trump here, almost every one of which disqualifies him from getting my vote. Ever.
In the same token, I could never vote for Hillary Clinton. Her achievement including being Bill Clinton's wife/attack dog to put down bimbo eruptions ("Every woman has a right to be believed" about sexual assault, she says--unless they are accusing Bill.) Her achievements legislatively in the senate mostly run to naming federal buildings. And as Secretary of State, she pushed for the non-congressionally-authorized war that turned Libya from a stable sate that was no threat to us to a terrorist hell-hole we may yet have to expend blood and treasure cleaning out, to abandoning four Americans to be murdered by terrorists in Benghazi to prevent a firefight that would likely have killed Muslim non-combatants, resulting in riots and jeopardizing Obama's reelection, then blaming it on a YouTube video when her emails prove she knew it was a terrorist attack. And as Secretary of State, she comingled the business of the State Department with fund raising from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation, which charity monitors think of as a slush fund. See:
And of course, her character is as bad as Trump's. Always has been. See this:
I was against Hillary Clinton back when Donald Trump was giving her money, saying she was his friend, had been a great secretary of State (after Benghazi) and that she would be a great president.

I believe there is no lesser of these two evils!
So that leaves me to cast a protest vote. The most impact could be made by voting for the Libertarians, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. They are on the ballot in every state I understand, and as I write, polling at about 9%. I think their integrity is better than Trump's or Clinton, and they promote fiscal responsibility and small government. Some of their liberal social philosophy (gays) does not trouble me, while other parts do (late term abortion). But the real killer as far as my vote goes is their 1930s isolationism and desire to drastically cut the military while we are at war. Johnson not recognizing Aleppo is troubling. The city's tribulations have been in the news almost daily for weeks. Despite being libertarian, Weld has also said concerning things about more government limits on guns. So that protest vote is a non-starter.

Jill Stein is of course far to the left of Trotsky and not worth considering.

So I come to the only true conservative running, Evan McMullin.

McMullin is a write in candidate in most states, including Wisconsin, though I understand he has qualified for the ballot in about 20. (I read that Gov. Scott, a Trump supporter, maneuvered to knock McMullin off the Florida ballot, despite his having the signatures.) I'm assured he will file the necessary paper work to be eligible for write-in votes--the parties are admirable bi-partisan in working together to limit ballot access by independents and third parties. (On April 2, 2014, Governor Scott Walker signed into law AB 419, which requires that write-in candidates file campaign finance statements in order to have their votes tallied. Otherwise, there are no specific filing requirements for write-in candidates.)

Evan McMullin has long experience as a CIA officer in foreign hell spots, fighting terrorism. (Note to Gary Johnson: If you want to know more about Aleppo, McMullin has been there.) He has worked in the private sector in banking and in the legislative branch of the federal government. For more about him:

On the issues, he is, as I have said, the only conservative running. Reading over his positions, I find myself in about 95% agreement. You can read them yourself here:
His website is:

Of course, he has no chance to win. Unless millions of people come to the same conclusions I have. Then again, in 1972 when I graduated from the University of Massachusetts and ran for the incumbent state senator in a 4-1 Democrat seat that last elected a Republican in 1938, everyone said I had no chance. When the polls closed on election night, the local radio station allowed that I had run a good campaign and would probably only get beat two to one. When they went back on the air in the morning, I was ahead with all precincts reporting. So I'm writing in Evan McMullin.
Could I change my mind? Sure, if Clinton should drop out and the Democrats select Jim Webb as her replacement or Trump drops out and the Republicans select Cruz, Rubio, Walker, maybe even Pense as his replacement.

Save the Constitution and the Republic. Vote Conservative.

Robert A. Hall.
USMC 1964-68
Vietnam 1967
USMCR 1977-83
Massachusetts Senate, 1973-83
Republican Whip, 1981-83.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. from a blog reader and friend:


    While I can't fault the logic in your choice, I am sticking with Johnson. McMullin and Johnson have roughly equal chances of being elected. However, the somewhat more plausible possibility is that Johnson wins a few electoral votes, and denies Trump and Clinton the 270 electoral votes needed for election.

    This would put the decision in the hands, essentially, of Paul Ryan. Of course, since he has given his (tepid) endorsement to Trump, the House could still put him in office. But the open debate would give sanity a chance to bubble to the top.

    In this scenario, whoever wins would be a crippled leader, with no "mandate". Half the poluplation would view them as less legitimate than Bush in 2000.

    To me, this is not a bad thing. The Executive Branch needs trimming. Americans have become accustomed to divided government. States need to put their "big boy" pants on, and deliver without Federal "help".

    Finally, another path is a Convention of the States. North Carolina should be willing to pass a resolution after the beating we've taken.

    My random thoughts...


  3. A vote for any independent candidate is a vote for Hillary Clinton!