[Dan Middleton]

"Who else do you have in mind to win during this very important time period?"

Win? What's that? You're talking to the wrong people with talk like that.

Better to lose on 100% of the issues than vote for somebody who would give us victory on 90% of them. Because that remaining 10% (whatever it is) is all-important, and if you're off the reservation on that 10%, you're a stinkin' RINO! So the next guy comes along and he's squishy on a different 10%, which is ALSO the critical litmus test, etc. So goes the logic of the modern GOP circular firing squad.

[JavaJumpy]

So goes the logic of the modern GOP circular firing squad.
_________________________

Is that the same squad who voted for Obama to teach the GOP a lesson?

[chimera]

We need to beat Strickland and Obombah when they are up for reelection. That is my priority. If that means getting half a loaf when the alternative is nothing, I guess I'll take it. As long as it doesn't include abortion. I guess I'm single-issue on that, but I just can't bring myself to support an abortion candidate, and I don't think Kasich is.

On the 2nd Amendment thing, I understand your viewpoint as a tactical matter. But I am wondering if it really is hopeless if we as a free people and armed populace find ourselves facing a tyrannical government taken over by anti-liberty socialist-communist types. Remember Red Dawn? Those kids started with simple firearms and built up their armaments by capturing better weapons. I am thinking some kind of similar tactics might be an option. Take to the hills and harass the enemy into submission. The Afghans did it against the Soviets, the VC and NVA against us, to an extent, a decade earlier.

Note that I do not desire nor do I advocate a re-run of Concord, because we'd get slaughtered in a set-piece, head-to-head match against modern forces (as the Iraqi Army found out). Guerilla tactics would likely be the only viable option, and small arms might be useful there, especially in difficult terrain.