Replies

My vote cannot stop an anti-conservative from taking the presidency. However, it CAN contribute toward weakening the mandate of that anti-conservative.

Are you really trying that?!LOL...

You're seriously saying that you aren't concerned about an obama win? Well, most of us are concerned about it. You will find yourself in the minority there. That's fine of course... but you appear foolish in your refusal to acknowledge that you could put obama in charge again.

What's worse Finny? Obama or Romney? If you answer that like Jay Carney, then YOU are part of the problem.

Who's worse? Obama or Romney? Depends on if you are a republican or a conservative. I'm a conservative. I prefer my opponents tagged on a well-groomed field before me. The opponents causing chaos in the ranks and working in the shadows at my rear are far more dangerous. The mere fact that you have to ask which is worse, rather than which is good, should tell you something. Watching Obama try to throw the election to Romney should tell you something too. Sure, I'm concerned about an Obama victory. It's an evil thing. But we have three years now building a coalition against him. We are unified and have begun working toward a common goal. We are about to gain control of the congress. Why the heck would I willingly toss that away and damage the republican brand for the next three congressional elections and the next two presidential elections just to have a liberal statist with an "R" behind his name to call "leader"? Not a wise move, winning this battle and setting the whole war effort back.

What's worse Finny? Obama or Romney?

After thinking about it for more than a year now, I've concluded it's a toss-up. My vote will accordingly be NEUTRAL as to choosing between those two, but it will be instrumental in weakening the mandate. You like to "LOL" about it, but mandates are significant -- ask Bill Clinton, whose 43% non-mandate got him the Republican Revolution.

I don't know how Jay Carney answered it, and I don't care.

I'm used to being in the minority ... I'm also used to being proved correct down the road in my minority opinion. I was in the minority thinking that Hillary wouldn't get the nomination and that the GOP was letting itself be manipulated with the "Anybody but Hillary" meme. I was in the minority thinking that in 2009, Romney posed the biggest in-party threat to Republicans and needed to have a stake driven through his political heart; that opinion was poo-pooed by those who thought Romney's days were "over" after his 2008 defeat.

Not that I haven't been wrong a lot of times, and I expect you have, too.

But how you can deny that weakening the winner's mandate when that winner is guaranteed to be an anti-conservative isn't at least as reasonable a strategy in view of the PROBABILITY that an anti-Obama landslide would quickly morph into a pro-Romney mandate ... ?

Obama "in charge" with a Congress and nation full of voters who opposed him, is a far different reality than the Omnipotent Oz worst-case nightmare ABO has spun out of Obama.

And an on-the-record, pro-global-warming, pro state-run health care Romney "in charge" after a landslide of Americans voted FOR him, would ASSUREDLY make conservatives weaker and moderates stronger. Looking at the whole picture, it's clear to me that it's a toss-up as to which is worse, Romney or Obama.

So I will vote to give whichever one wins the most pathetic "victory" possible.