Replies

I believe you are correct. Romney's not a Marxist, he doesn't hate America, and he will not bow before dictators. Those may be the only good things I can say about him. But compared with the prospect of four more years of Obama - which will be the death of America, for real - it may have to do. A piss cocktail is a whole lot better than cyanide.

"Romney's not a Marxist" - although his father was an enthusiastic supporter of Alinsky.
"He doesn't hate America" - probably so
"he will not bow before dictators" - that's nice

Romney will run the Presidency like he ran Massachusetts. He will be a place-holder for the left, and will get blamed for the economy which will nose-dive beginning in 2013, thus opening the door for a roaring DemocRAT comback in 2016.

Republicans in the House and Senate will be disinclined to go against the leader of their Party. So which is better, a leftist Republican who will run roughshod over conservatism, or a lame-duck Marxist that Republicans in the House and Senate can fight against? I like Alexander Hamilton's quote:

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures."

I believe you are correct. Romney’s not a Marxist, he doesn’t hate America, and he will not bow before dictators. Those may be the only good things I can say about him. But compared with the prospect of four more years of Obama - which will be the death of America, for real - it may have to do. A piss cocktail is a whole lot better than cyanide.
“Romney’s not a Marxist” - although his father was an enthusiastic supporter of Alinsky.
“He doesn’t hate America” - probably so
“he will not bow before dictators” - that’s nice
Romney will run the Presidency like he ran Massachusetts. He will be a place-holder for the left, and will get blamed for the economy which will nose-dive beginning in 2013, thus opening the door for a roaring DemocRAT comback in 2016.
Republicans in the House and Senate will be disinclined to go against the leader of their Party. So which is better, a leftist Republican who will run roughshod over conservatism, or a lame-duck Marxist that Republicans in the House and Senate can fight against? I like Alexander Hamilton’s quote:

“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”

BRAVO!!!

The essential problem with doing what many of us are sorely tempted to do (sit it out) is that Obama is not likely to be a "lame-duck" anything. He is unlike any President we have ever had, and the full weight of the organized Left is poised to move hard and fast behind him if he is re-elected. They mean business this time, and by "business" I mean a power grab beyond imagining, facilitated by a planned insurrection.

Even if you doubt that might happen, consider this: we are one Supreme Court justice away from a radical and permanent alteration of the Constitution from a doctrine of limited government to a tool of social democracy. Romney may not be precisely inclined to support "strict constructionists", but Obama will certainly appoint radicals.