JAG, I agree Obama is horrible, and I am frightened for the future. But simply saying “Marxist” over and over again is not going to convince most people of anything. You ask, “What kind of incentive do Americans need...to not vote for a Marxist?” I think the better question is, “What kind of incentive do Americans need to get out to vote against him?” The answer is that they need a clearly superior alternative. The current GOP is not a clearly superior alternative for most people. You are talking about a party that—after spending 60 years promising small government if they finally got into power—FINALLY got into power in Congress and the White House and proceeded to double the debt, double the size of government, accrue enormous unConstitutional powers onto the Executive Branch, get us involved in two expensive interventions abroad and yet fail to capture Bin Laden, and finally nationalize the banks, insurance industry, and mortgage industry! And THEN they managed to nominate just about worst RINO Establishment hack running, a man who is the very definition of “Same Old Thing.” Saying “Obama is Marxist” isn’t enough incentive to get a lot of people to go along with that.
What the GOP needs to do is provide the incentive by being a true, clear, viable alternative. That means being the Party of small government, free markets, sound money, civil liberties, peace, and freedom, rather than the Party of huge government, managed markets, inflation, the surveillance state, war, and statism. People don’t WANT the Welfare State. What they want is true freedom alternative.
Any version of Republicanism extant today is clearly superior to Marxism. That is my point in a nutshell.
You simply keep repeating that the GOP is not a party of limited government.
Again, what evidence do you have that people WANTED to vote for limited government in this election?
If, as you posit, voters actually want limited government, there is no logic to them voting not only for unlimited government in Obama, but for a clear redistributionist.
It's nutty to think people who voted for free cotton candy actually would have wanted to vote for broccoli, even though it's much healthier for them.
As I said, the problem here is not the candidate or the message. The Republican message was clearly superior to Obama's message. If that didn't attract people, then we have a lot of work to do in educating our fellow citizens.
But continuing to focus on the party and the candidate as if that will magically make people not vote for "free cotton candy" when it's offered is absurd.
Until the masses accept that there is no such thing as "free" cotton candy---that everything they receive from the government comes at the price of liberty---AND they dedicate themselves to preserving liberty, rather than being willing to trade it for bread and circuses----there is NOTHING ANY candidate or party can do to make limited government attractive to them.
You're just repeating your wishful thinking that "if only the GOP offered true limited government," voters would flock to it.
NOT HARDLY.
Until we grow the mindset changes I set out above, "free" candy will now continue to win every time.