Replies

But that is 10X better than the Marxist we have now. Or do you disagree?

As a person, a human being, I think he's 10X better than Obama. As an individual acting the role of POTUS, I think he'll be slightly more Constitutional than Obama. As the figurehead of the ship we call "Conservatism in America", he's 50X more damaging than Obama. Even if we "win" this battle, we "lose" in that the war effort is set back. I sincerely believe electing Romney, and thereby defining contemporary conservatism in his sway, is more damaging to our movement than staying organized and focused on battling Obama positions. As Obama pushes hard left, the history books will record that he was slapped down for it, and hopefully impeached or arrested. As Romney pushes left, even if not hard, the history books will record that Republicans were the pro-abortion party, the pro-homosexual party, the pro-illegal-immigration party, the pro-stimulus-economy party, etc, etc, etc. That's a strategic mistake.

First of all, 2nd DV, I hope all is well with you and your wife -- I've have kept you in my prayers.

Second, you reply to so-real: We both know that’s not going to happen. We’re stuck with [Romney].

I sadly agree that unless we have a miracle, we will be looking at O v R in the presidential. That means that unless a miracle happens, regardless of how we vote a liberal will take the White House and be an enemy of conservatives in Congress.

We’ll be lucky if he picks a “Dan Quayle” type for VP, but I doubt if they’ll be even that conservative. There’ll be no “Sarah Palin” this time, I guarantee you. He is who he is. But that is 10X better than the Marxist we have now. Or do you disagree?

I agree that at this point in time, anyone looks 10X better than the Marxist we have now.

But one year into a Romney administration, when Obama was long forgotten and Romney was quietly, firmly snubbing conservatives at every turn as he advanced the global warming agenda, a "new" health care plan that looked very much like the old one, the homosexual agenda, and nominating liberal judges much like the ones he nominated in Massachusetts, a lot of rudely surprised conservatives would be kicking themselves and feeling a sick despair in the pits of their stomachs 10X worse than what they feel for Obama today.

Multiply that 10X if Romney wins by a landslide because while at this point in time WE all know such a landslide would be a referendum against Obama, one year into a Romney presidency that referendum would be perverted into a popular mandate for Romney's brand of progressivism. COUNT ON IT.

There is no such thing as voting "against" -- a vote is ONLY for something. A vote for Romney is a vote FOR advancing liberalism on the back of the Republican party, no matter how much those who voted for Romney intended it to be against Obama.

I will be voting FOR third party in the presidential race as a way to vote FOR splitting the vote so that whoever wins, enters office on such a weak plurality that he is defensive and vulnerable to enemies both within his own party and in the opposition party. I will vote FOR making the next government-advancing liberal president as weak and embattled as possible, so that conservatives have a better chance in their fight against him. Because our conservatives will find an enemy in the president regardless of which guy wins.

Many who vote for Romney will tell themsevles they're voting "against" Obama, but the reality is that they will be voting FOR the advance of liberalism, regardless of what they mean to vote "against."