mittens [like the last of W] is the setup for disaster indeed...SOL has been pretty consistent in reading the political tea leaves, and i believe that this would be our *best* case scenario...
the whole setup of 'lesser of evils' tells me that we are being played to choose our own method of suicide...either way, we die...
the ballot isnt designed to vote 'against' a candidate...ive never found that option in the booth...
i wont vote 'for' bambam or his kissin cousin type statist pol brethren...
if [when] bambam gets his lame duck term, the mask and pressure ratchet up, and *maybe* he oversteps enuff to startle the herd and find the pushback line...
we'll know shortly...
I wish I had something encouraging to say about Romney. If he really is trying to fight his leftist nature, he is having a hell of a hard time convincing me.
When Gingrich decided that he no longer wanted to sit on Pelosi's global warming couch, he said that he had been wrong. When Romney flipped on the same issue, BAM! No admission he was wrong, he just magically flipped 180 degrees. I probably don't have to mention Romney's flips on amnesty and healthcare.
One could say that Romney MIGHT be better than Obama on certain issues, but there is no way to make a POTUS keep his promises, and no way to make RINOs in congress refuse a GOP POTUS. I believe GWB paved the way for Obama, and who knows what kind of monster could follow Romney.
But I won't vote for Obama, and I hope none of you do. He is a traitor who believes
"the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."