I'm terrified of him too, but winning warriors come from a place of courage, and courage comes from a place of honor and principle. Honor and principle guide our politics, and Romney has demonstrated that he lacks both entirely when it comes to conservative politics. Winning warriors squelch their fears while assessing the situation, take risks, and WIN because they're willing to take those risks. Losers let sheer fear whip them into a panic where they made knee-jerk decisions and allow their enemies choose the battleground. Romney is a statist, and statism is our enemy.
Put fear aside and start assessing the circumstances with a cooler head. If Obama won another four years, Congress would go right and our power to stop him would grow stronger. If Romney won, nationalized health care, pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-global warming, pro homosexual agenda, and liberal activist judge appointments would be WHAT YOU VOTED FOR Republicans would be impotent to fight it, and the Republican party would become loathed and despised; THE DEMOCRAT PARTY WOULD BECOME STRONGER. And THAT death knell to the USA would be on the shoulders of YOU and others who are so scared they can't think straight.
I note that you avoid answering the question: Can you say Obama would make liberalism and statism more powerful in BOTH parties? It is hardly "conjecture" that Romney would -- we have proof of what Romney does and will do. Masschusetts, remember? So again: Can you say Obama would make liberalism and statism more powerful in both the Republican and Democrat parties?
You might try shoving fear behind you and looking that question straight in the eyes.
Thanks Jim for this thoughtful thread.
Thanks to all the FReepers who posted their replies.
Thanks Finny for bringing the “fight or flight response” into perspective for us.
_________________
This is the watershed election for the Republic that Benjamin Franklin gave us “if we can keep it.”
Three sample questions to be asked of each Republican Candidate, and amongst ourselves, are as follows:
Will the election of ANY Republican Candidate reduce BASELINE Federal spending, fiscal year to fiscal year?
What Federal programs that have not made a profit in the last 3 years will be privatized, reduced to the level of spending that is 3% less than the actual income, or phased out over 3 fiscal years? ( I use 3 % as 2 % is the inflation rate as targeted by the Fed.)
When will Federal Spending be cut to 3% below Federal Income?
The above 3 questions are based on the assumption there will be no significant financial progress made in the USA in our lifetimes, with the US Federal Government growing larger, instead of becoming significantly smaller.
As to political labels, let us ponder what the basic meanings of the two main categories are, as follows:
LIBERALS;
liberal; adj. 1.) Generous in amount or in giving.
Liberals are driven by their need to help.
Liberals believe that rich people do not need help.
Liberals believe that poor people do need help.
So, the sooner that the liberals can make the rich people poor,
The sooner the liberals can help them.
CONSERVATIVE:
conservative; adj. 1.) Favoring preservation of the existing order. - - - 4.) Tending to conserve; preserve; protect.
There are more questions that need to be asked before the Nominee in Tampa gets “the big head,” and thus stops listening to us. Among them are the following:
“Where stand you Mr. Candidate on the issue at hand?
Are you: (Boo) “Generous in the amount” that you will spend of my grandchildren’s money?
Or, (Yea) “Tending to CONSERVE; preserve; and protect” according to the Constitution of the United States of America?
BTW, “voting for electability” is a RINO habit of “playing not to lose,” just like other losing teams in football.