And the leverage we will use to make the OTHER side compromise is...what, exactly? According to your post, we shouldn't try to send any message to the RNC at all because they won't listen to us anyway. Nice defeatist attitude you've got there.
Willard is not a conservative and a poor nominee in my opinion, but people are exaggerating to the extreme when they claim he'd govern like Obama. He simply can't. Romney couldn't be the same liberal as President as he was in Massachusetts even if he wanted to be. He answers to a different constituency now - nationally, a much more conservative constituency.
Huh? And Obama doesn't answer to a national constituency? The President has WIDE latitude to push the agenda and the issues in whatever direction he prefers, because most of the country is out to lunch, or can be persuaded. OBAMA is the one who's restrained from what he wants to do now. Romney will be able to govern exactly as Obama does, if not further left, because he won't have most Republicans in Congress opposing him. Just like Bush Sr. did on tax hikes, when the conservatives like Newt balked, Bush Sr. ignored them, made a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats and raised taxes even higher than on his first proposal.
In a 2 party system the vast majority of the voters are going turn out for one of the 2 party's. If our nominee were an actual conservative, you'd have some of the mushy moderate types insisting they will sit out or vote 3rd party. We get this every election cycle and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. You can stamp your feet, howl at the moon, send angry letters the RNC, it really won't matter.
Doesn't matter except when it does, like with Dole, McCain, Bush Sr., etc.? Liberal and moderate Republicans don't win elections as a general rule. I can't say for sure if that's because the base stayed home, but in Perot's case it was definitely because the base went elsewhere. If a conservative third party choice rose to the level of the debates this year, Obama would be guaranteed reelection. By nominating a liberal like Romney, the GOP leaves that vulnerability wide open. And I would love to see it happen and see their Rominee go down in flames this year, as long as we can make gains in Congress to keep Obama in check. A 3rd party conservative candidate should allow us to get Republican Congressional winners even if Romney loses.
If conservatives stay active and UNIFIED, we can make a difference and perhaps nominate a good candidate next time around.
I agree with that. But first Mitt needs to go down in flames so we get a chance at a conservative in 4 years instead of 8.
Also screaming and wailing about the system doesn't really help. If you angrily announce to the GOP that you won't vote for their nominee, then you become essentially useless to them and they simply pay less attention to you than before.
Makes no sense at all. If enough people protested the GOP, they'd be forced to change and do what conservatives want. You trying to talk down the only strategy that could help conservatives sounds like something a liberal would try to do. You think we should work harder to unify in a primary next time, but you think there's no point in us trying to unify AGAINST the GOP now to make them do what we want? We're just supposed to show up, vote for their handpicked RINO and write them a blank check? I would desperately love to see conservative support for the GOP drop like a rock, driving them down in the polls so I could watch them come back to us begging for votes. Unfortunately Romney is such a proven and obvious liar, we could never believe him if he told us he was making concessions to us.