Will Romney victory set America back?

I got a thoughtful letter from Ken De Vries, a Republican candidate for the Idaho House of Representatives about whether a victory by Mitt Romney might actually set back the cause of states rights and the Constitution.

"Today, I am a candidate for the Idaho House of Representatives," he wrote. "I represent voters who see [Barack] Obama as the biggest threat to freedom since Lenin. However, many of those voters are going to vote for Romney because they honestly believe that he will be better. Here is my dilemma. As long as Obama is in the White House, the fire remains lit under the states rights movement. If Romney is elected, I fear that the fire will go out. People will go back to sleep because they have a Republican 'savior' in the White House. You and I know that this is not the case and that Romney is just Obama-lite. Socialism, corporatism and the Nanny State will do just fine under Romney, except it will be disguised. Romney's stealth socialism is a far bigger threat to freedom than is Obama's kick-in-the-groin version of socialism."

He continues: "I have said for decades that the only way to win the battle for liberty is county by county and state by state and that, while we should always vote our conscience in the federal races, the local and state races were far more important. This is the way our system of government was designed, and people are beginning to wake up to that fact. Obama has been responsible for getting a lot of the locals in my district mad enough to get involved, and they are beginning to wake up to the whole issue of states rights."

Is he right?

He makes good points.

TRENDING: Susan Rice conducts New Age ritual in heart of White House

In fact, he is making the argument I made in 2008, in a book called "None of the Above," to vote for neither of the two major party candidates because both had demonstrated their utter contempt for the Constitution.

I also argued that if Obama won, his anti-American policies would result in a major uprising among the American people – and that's just what happened. It was called the tea-party movement and had a dramatically positive impact on the midterm elections of 2010.

So why, he wonders, am I changing my advice in 2012 and advocating a vote for Romney, whose record on limited government is not much better than John McCain's?

It's a good question – a valid question. If principles are principles, why should political tactics and strategies change from year to year?

I only have one reason to give you and Mr. De Vries, who I hope wins his bid for elective office in 2012: America literally cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. The uprising I anticipated and predicted in 2008 was strong, but not strong enough. The Republicans elected to Congress in 2010 were much weaker and much more timid than I could have imagined. They had the power of the purse strings and could have denied Obama the funds he needed to carry out his economic reign of terror, but they did not use it.

Now America is in crisis beyond anything I could have imagined in 2008. I had counted on the people taking back power much more quickly than they did. And I'm not going to make that mistake again.

America needs a lot more time than the next four years to straighten out its act.

No, I do not believe Romney will be a part of that process, but getting rid of Obama is absolutely necessary to renew it.

The 2012 election to me is about buying time.

And that's why I am not advocating a "None of the Above" purist approach in 2012.

This time, with America's imminent future at risk, for me it's anybody but Obama.