Reagan understood that, Palin understands that, but you, I guess, would rather evil totally dominate than vote for a RINO squish.
I find that kind of pitiful, especially since what some of us were warning, THAT THIS ADMIN IS TOTALLY EVIL AND POWER MAD, and now maybe even you understand that's true, you''re just too proud to admit you were wrong.
/johnny
And how exactly would a Republican president be significantly different? -- First, consider the character of the party-as-a-whole: they did nothing of any impact for Fast & Furious, despite it being (a) an unauthorized act of war, (b) entrapment [to the gun dealers], (c) treason [if the cartels are enemies of the states then the operation provided both material aid and comfort of immunity for the traffickers]; Benghazi was (a) dereliction of duty, (b) possibly murder, (c) possibly a cover-up for a F&F style operation in the mid-east; the IRS Scandals are (a) politically motivated, (b) felonies, (c) conspiratorially so — and what is the GOP doing? Is it proposing chopping the tax-code to something like "the income tax will be 10%; no exemptions, no credits, no deductions"? Or is it hoping to villainize the IRS, hoping that they will gain its controls when they come into power?
In short, what is the character of the Republican party?
Specifically, Romney would not be any better than Obama — yes, he might ease some of the overt overreaches, but here is the truth: he would not fight against statism, for he is a statist & he would not fight against socialism, for he is a socialist. -- Some people even here tout the ObamaCare waivers as being suffient to be "better than Obama"; this is foolish, here's why: with a waiver the president could extort any particular State by threatening to rescind the waiver.