Jim, let me state I admire your statements. However, I do have a question for you.
What do you do when you are left with a range of candidates that are well below average? Last year, we had two great candidates (Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson) who unfortunately had essentially no chance of being elected. The primaries saw to that. After that, we were left with a bunch of flawed candidates. Ideally, we’d never be in the situation when we have to pick from Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. However, we were and we did. What happens then?
Any one of them, by their mere presence in the White House, would prevent legislation such as the monstrosity facing us today. No Congress, not even one so hard left as the current one, would risk passing close legislation knowing it faces both a veto and an inability to override the veto. This would be better for the country in the short term. Are you thinking that by letting the Marxist damage the country quickly it is better for the conservative movement in the long term? This is a valid idea, though a difficult one to prove.
Well, I have faith in the American people. I believe we’re going to see one hell of a turnover in 2010 and 2012. The people are awakening and they don’t like what they’re seeing. The Marxists have gone one bridge too far.
Just a comment on your post...
The back of the liberal/moderate Republican Establishment that has (and still is) controlling candidate placement MUST BE BROKEN at all costs...
What ever happens in the mean time - just happens...
Lead - Follow - or Get out of the way...