Indeed you do NOT, and folks like you, who I hope make up the majority of the ABO side, are folks I'm proud to call fellow patriots. Though I hope your black swan analogy isn't a little too close for comfort -- black swans are the exception, not the rule.
And frankly, lies and deception and denial and bullying are tools that I see ABO folks using frequently. On the other hand, folks who refuse to vote for Romney may get a little heated and emotional, but I don't see them being deliberately deceptive (as we've seen driftdiver be here with his "Reagan was pro-abortion" claims) nor do I seem them denying that it's a big gamble and that Obama is one bad dude. I think those of us who reject Romney are doing it with our eyes wide open; I also think that many who are willing to vote for Romney are doing it with their eyes squeezed shut.
The Kenyan anti-Christ is an abomination for our country.
So is Romney for the Republican party and the principles of conservatism, and therefore for our country.
I think a strategy of making whichever one wins as weak as possible is better than risking a landslide for Romney via ABO. That landslide we all know right now would be an anti-Obama mandate -- but six months into his term, many would be working hard to make that forgotten; Romney and his powerful AND WELL FINANCED cadre of Republican moderates would be framing it as a popular embrace of Romney's "progressivism," and the ONLY ones to fight that misconception would be the very ones who voted for him. Romney would view himself as "progressively" leading the GOP "into the 21st Century" with regard to "being responsible" and accepting global warming hoo-hah, while conservatives, who are not remotely as well funded as Romney, watched in helpless frustration as he advanced it with the help of moderates and Democrats.
There's a huge risk the same would happen with the issues of state-run health care, abortion, activist judges, and the homosexual agenda. Conservatives would be powerless and surprised at the positions Romney would take. They'd be kicking themselves for gambling that this guy, who is so lacking in character that he's perfectly okay with advancing abortion and extending homosexual "outreach" to 12-year-old kids, wouldn't betray them. Romney looks like a very bad risk to me.
God bless you, sitetest, and it's a pleasure FReepeing with you.
Thank you for the nice things you said. Back at you.
I see a number of folks around here who support Mr. Romney, but only one person who is clearly out to lunch. And I'm not altogether sure whether the poster is a liar or just not able to handle the abstract thinking necessary to understand the flaw in his argument.
And in my view, some of the things said about Mr. Romney, though true in part, don't display the full truth about him.
As an example, Mr. Romney was clearly a public supporter of a general abortion license for some years, and claimed to have been a support of this license for many, many years before that.
But what often goes unmentioned is that Mr. Romney claims to have had a conversion experience, and claims to be pro-life, now.
When he made this claim during the last campaign, and post-dated it to about 2005, I was unable to suspend my disbelief. I said to myself, Self, it would be very nice if we won one with this guy, if he has really converted to the side of the angels (and the babies), but Self, I think it all seems to be a little too convenient. And I said further, Self, look, if he'd have “converted” in 2005, and toed a pro-life line to, say, 2012, and THEN run for president as a pro-life Republican, I'd be a lot more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Well, here I am in 2012, and he's been remarkably consistent in his public rhetoric for the last five years.
That shouldn't go unmentioned when discussing Mr. Romney's history on the question of abortion.
And yes, I've heard all about how he promoted abortion in RomneyCare AFTER his alleged conversion, but I've also read stuff from respected pro-lifers that seems to explain that. And you know what? I just don't want to get into the weeds about it. There IS some merit to the assertion that he was, after all, in Massachusetts, and there was lots of stuff that was going to happen whether he wanted it to happen or not.
I will give him this: since announcing for president in 2007, his rhetoric, at least, has been on the right side, and he has supported a lot of pro-lifers around the country.
Not much of a pro-life record.
But the effort deserves at least a mention when talking about Mr. Romney's position[s] on abortion. To do otherwise is to leave out important facts. That's no better than leaving out the context of Gov. Reagan's “pro-abortion” legislation.
As well, this paltry pro-life record is still a damned site better than, say, Rudy Giuliani's. Even if Mr. Romney is a half-hearted pro-lifer, or is merely mouthing the words, the candidacy of someone like Mr. Giuliani would have been far, far worse, in that he would have formally changed the Republican Party to a second pro-abort party.
Sometimes a fig leaf is better than nothing. In this case, if Mr. Romney turns out to be a poor pro-lifer, we will likely get to fight another day.
And think about the fact that we can actually debate the question. There actually IS a question about Mr. Romney and the issue of abortion.
There is no question about the anti-Christ and abortion.
To me, that is a striking and important difference often forgotten or ignored by the folks who won't vote for Romney.
So, I think the failing to embrace the entire truth of things cuts both ways, at least to some degree.
“I think those of us who reject Romney are doing it with our eyes wide open; I also think that many who are willing to vote for Romney are doing it with their eyes squeezed shut.”
I don't really agree with that. I think some folks rejecting Romney have their eyes open, and some folks willing to vote for them have their eyes closed, but I think the opposite is true, too.
I see a lot of folks who seem to minimize just how bad the Kenyan anti-Christ really is. If not quite closed, I think a lot of folks are at least squinting a good bit, and distorting somewhat what they're seeing.
In like manner, I think that folks are closing their eyes to some critical, fundamental differences between the two men: Obama hates America. Mr. Romney loves America.
The first of these statements vitiates nearly any other good intention.
The second covers a multitude of sins and flaws, at least imperfectly.
“I think a strategy of making whichever one wins as weak as possible is better than risking a landslide for Romney via ABO.”
I'd be truly, truly shocked if Mr. Romney garnered more than 55% of the vote, or gets more than 350 - 375 electoral votes. I think he may win solidly, but I'd be utterly shocked if he won in a true landslide, either percentage of the popular vote (60%) or electorally (at least 400 electoral votes).
The bottom line is that the anti-Christ would need to lose better than one out of four votes he received last time, and Mr. Romney would have to pick up all those votes, for Mr. Romney to approach 60%.
So, I don't share your concern. I'd love to share your concern. I just don't think it's realistic.
I don't expect great things from Mr. Romney. I expect a muddled, mixed record. Pretty good on fiscal matters, decent on right to life, decent on defense, he may try some measure of entitlement reform. I don't think we'll get much more. I think the economy will heal and might even boom. I think he'll keep his conservative fences mostly mended, if not highlighted, because it will be difficult to win re-election if, like President Bush I, he alienates his base by going back on his word.
I do expect horrific enormities from the anti-Christ. I have no doubt that he will get to appoint three or four more ultra-liberals to the Supreme Court, will do what he can not only to promote abortion, but to persecute severely those who stand opposed to abortion, will continue to sell out our military and our defense, and will spend us into penury.
Sometimes the devil I don't know may actually be better than the devil I already know because the devil I already know is so close to perfectly evil (to the degree that evil can be “perfected”).
sitetest