Posted on 08/03/2012 1:26:47 PM PDT by Bratch
Don’t buy the doom and gloom pronouncements from conservatives telling you, “this is the most important election in history.” A loss for Mitt Romney would not necessarily spell long lasting disaster for Republicans, nor would it be the death-knell to conservatism. In fact, it’s possible a 2012 loss could lay the groundwork for a stronger Republican party and conservative movement.
Elections are almost always seen as urgent and morally imperative. But sometimes major victories can only come in the aftermath of what appear to be devastating defeats. John Kerry‘s loss in 2004 laid the groundwork for a Democratic takeover in 2006 and 2008, and Jimmy Carter‘s defeat of Gerald Ford in 1976 paved the way for the Ronald Reagan in 1980. In other words, it is a mistake to assume losing a presidential election is a permanent defeat.
“This should be the most important election since 1980, but so far it is not,” says Reagan biographer Craig Shirley. “Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle postulated the ‘great man’ theory of history, and indeed this was true with Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR and Reagan. But history has not summoned forth great men in 2012 and in fact our history today is small.”
This is not to say Republicans should concede the election, but conservatives should keep November in proper perspective.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Im open to suggestions. Seriously, a second Obama term will end this Republic, I would vote for a paramecium to get Hussein out of the White House..
I agree - I think that there is a lot of damage that won’t be undone in my lifetime. Four more years, and the damage won’t be undoable in anyone’s lifetime.
If the only concern is whether or not Republicans will ever again win elections, presidential or otherwise, then, of course the defeat of Gov. Romney won’t be a big deal!
Of course folks with “Rs” after their names will win the presidency and other offices.
The question will be, what does it mean to be a Republican?
In four years, it will be unlikely that anything close to a majority will support the repeal of DeathCare by Obama. In four years, support payments and transfer programs will be even more entrenched than they are today. In four years, our opposition to homosexual marriage will have likely been completely steamrollered, two or three additional radical socialist justices will have been appointed to the Supreme Court, and the bottom 60% of the population will permanently vote to tax the remaining 40% into relative poverty.
To win elections, Republicans will have to behave like Conservatives do in Great Britain, where the Tories must out-shout Labor in their support of the National Health Service to overcome the fear of the people that an incoming Conservative Government might actually move toward improving health care in the UK by starting to dismantle the NHS. Republicans will have to promise not to alter the progressivity of the income tax, nor to nominate Supreme Court justices to the right of Hugo Chavez.
More than any other Democrat since FDR or even Wilson, the Kenyan anti-Christ has purposefully set out a plan to transform the United States from a free and independent republic with a (still partly) free economy to a Euro-style neo-fascist, effectively a one-party, welfare state dependent on the UN or other world authority.
Yes, folks, a Mitt Romney loss would necessarily be a disaster. Not necessarily for folks who prefer the Republican label, but for folks who love freedom, who love their country, who view themselves as authentic conservatives.
Nothing against Tom.
/johnny
“There are posters on this forum who I believe want Obama to win. I would vote for a lichen before I would vote for Obama.”
Amen to that!
God Save America from 4 more years of BO>
I'm not saying I will vote for Romney and then give up. I think the Tea Party has shown its force and that will continue to grow. We just need to be smarter about how to go about getting someone to run for the presidency that we can all get behind and not split the vote.
I guess you would call it picking the person you want to fight with. I would much rather fight Romney than Obama. When I fight I intend to win and I don't think I would win against an Obama in a second term.
I had no idea we had a candidate of our own. Honestly, this is the first time I have heard that a Freeper was running..
I had no idea we had a candidate of our own. Honestly, this is the first time I have heard that a Freeper was running..
I had no idea we had a candidate of our own. Honestly, this is the first time I have heard that a Freeper was running..
But if you think a sitting Republican President would be primaried from the right in 2016, I think you are in error.
***yup, & you’re definitely a master of understatement here. Somehow, we are the ones constantly maligned for not thinking tactically or using ‘common sense’.
/johnny
It'd almost certainly entail significantly less work on their parts, if nothing else. ;)
sorry about the triple post..stupid laptop..
I am voting for a liberal.
***thanks for your honesty
I understand that. Many here are. I fully support you voting your principles, according to your concience. I will vote my principles, according to my concience.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
/johnny
“In four years, it will be unlikely that anything close to a majority will support the repeal of DeathCare by Obama.
Unlikely?
In four years, support payments and transfer programs will be even more entrenched than they are today.
Even more...?
In four years, our opposition to homosexual marriage will have likely been completely steamrollered,
How’s it looking with Mittens in the Whitehouse?
two or three additional radical socialist justices will have been appointed to the Supreme Court,
Additional?
and the bottom 60% of the population will permanently vote to tax the remaining 40% into relative poverty.”
Permanently?
Your way of thinking isn’t working. If it is, how did we get to Unlikely, Even more, Additional and Permanently?
Voting for socialists with an R after their name doesn’t work. You just made that point.
As deficient and unattractive an option as electing Romney may be (but it is the only realistic one, really), it beats the alternative: four more years of planned destruction resulting in a Communist dictatorship or at the best, civil war.
Therefore, I find myself agreeing with the Don Rumsfeld philosophy on war...
"You go to war with the army you've got, not the army you wish you had!"
Right today, Romney is the only army we've got that stands a chance of victory.
Please, people, don't lose sight of the big picture. The only goal right now is to beat the enemy, not obtain ideological purity. That can be done later if we survive. If we don't beat 0bama all the rest is for naught. We can take care of the cleanup, tweaking, and ideological cleansing after we've rescued the country from certain doom. It sure as hell won't happen if we don't beat these fiends. It would be "game over".
Romney is a liberal but he is not a Marxist.I want to live to fight another day and I think Romney is the way to do that.
We’ll be running a qualified write-in campaign in the great State of Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.