Replies

Thank you for asking why a Romney landslide would be a disaster.

If Romney won in a landslide, you and I and every Republican and even a lot of Democrats would know full well that the landslide would represent NOT support for Romney, but a resounding referendum AGAINST Obama, that people were so disgusted with him and so desperate to get rid of him, that they turned out in droves to prove it.

But once embarked on a Romney presidency, ABO and Obama would be forgotten. Six months, one year, two years, into a Romney presidency, we would see moderate Republicans, Romney himself, Democrats, and MSM leftists (but that's redundant!) tersely reminding conservatives of Romney's popular landslide, his mandate, the clear and overwhelming signal from Americans, even Republicans, that they wanted and supported Romney's form of progressivism. That is what the majority in DC would claim, and the numbers would back them up. They would use those numbers to pressure conservative Republicans trying to oppose Romney's agenda.

If Romney wins, I pray to God that it's only on a weak plurality so that ALL of Romney's enemies, both right and left, can say, "But look, most of America voted against him." A plurality would be the only card conservatives could play in combatting Romney's liberalism. Without a plurality, they'd have no cards at all.

A post that absolutely chilled me to the bone, as I was trolling (hey b9 -- ;^), keeping my lure in the water of life!) for FReeper names to add to my list including Jim Robinson, me, and in fact YOU, Tennessee Nana (kindly let me know if I'm in error and I will remove it) of folks who refuse to vote for Romney becasue he's a bridge too far ...

.... ANYWAY, the most chilling post I've seen, the most important and crucial and enlightening, was this one from British FReeper gzzimlich. I wish every ABOer would read and absorb it three times before knee-jerking a response:

I live in a country (the UK) where the “conservative” choice supports gay marriage, socialised healthcare and the “right” of unions to make domestic labour almost prohibitively costly to employers.

I emphasize that this is the “conservative” candidate (David Cameron.)

Romney might seem like a decent option when compared with Obama, but my country - a surveillance state in which the use of “reasonable force” in defending your life and property was only made official policy a couple of years ago - is a prime example of what happens when you compromise your principles and start rationalising voting for the lesser of two evils. -- gzzimlich, posted some months back on Free Republic

ABOers, heed Brother Gzzimlich.