Replies

I will not pull the lever for the abortionist/socialist big government RINO Romney. And I don’t care who he selects as a running mate.

I agree.

I'm not trying to be tunnel-visioned, or intractably stubborn, or "taking my toys and going home". It's just that, over the past forty years, the trend has not been good. This is especially true for social conservatives, of whom the establishment demands their votes, but not their values; of whom they try to instill fear by warning that the other options are worse; or who delight in telling us that we have nowhere else to go.

Well, we no longer fear. The warned-against liberalism is now in our own party. We have been played.

I stated in an earlier post on another thread that, although I am one of the longest term Santorum supporters on this site (perhaps the longest term supporter), that I will not vote for Romney even if Santorum is his VP pick.

The handbasket is headed for the cesspool at the bottom of the slippery slope, and Democrats and Republicans alike are taking turns driving. Some are already hip deep in the cesspool at the bottom of the slope saying, "You know, it really doesn't smell that bad after all."

I may be drug into the cesspool, but I will not willingly jump in. I will sell my soul for a reduction in marginal tax rates, or any other 30 pieces of silver.

I will not vote for Mitt Romney.

I'm not trying to be tunnel-visioned, or intractably stubborn, or "taking my toys and going home". It's just that, over the past forty years, the trend has not been good. This is especially true for social conservatives, of whom the establishment demands their votes, but not their values; of whom they try to instill fear by warning that the other options are worse; or who delight in telling us that we have nowhere else to go.

Well, we no longer fear. The warned-against liberalism is now in our own party. We have been played.

Agreed. Let's not even look back over 40 years, let's go back to 1988.

In 1988 we got a moderate candidate because it was "his turn". He was not very conservative, and he gave us a more expensive government. In 1992, he also gave us Bill Clinton.

In 1996, again, another moderate candidate selected because it was "his turn". He gave us a second term of Bill Clinton.

In 2000, it was supposed to be McCain's turn, but George W. Bush had the money and right people backing him, so he jumped in line ahead of McCain. What did George W. Bush do? He proceeded to give us the most expensive, most powerful, most intrusive federal government in our nation's history (although Obama is trying to top him). Bush did this with a Republican Congress for several years of his time in office

In 2008, it was finally McCain's turn, and between him and Bush, they managed to give us Barack Obama.

Now here we are in 2012, and some folks think that because Romney has been running for the White House since 2005-2006 and because he has a lot of money backing him, that it's turn.

If Romney gets the nomination, he'll either give us a 2nd term of Obama, or if he gets in the White House (very unlikely), he will continue Obama and George W. Bush's trend of expanding the size, power, and cost of the federal government.

People who beat their heads against walls discover it feels pretty good when you stop beating your head against the wall. If Romney gets the nomination, I'm going to stop beating my head against a wall, or in this case, stop voting for folks just because they have an (R) next to their name. It's going to feel pretty good. The GOP has screwed me over too many times with the candidates it picks.