[Marguerite]

“Romney may suck, but to draw a moral equivalent between the two shows a lack of understanding or an unwillingness to believe in the depths that Obama will aim for in his second term to finally “Fundamentally Transform” America.”

Who’s the lesser of two evils is not the problem.

The problem is that half of the population rely on government for subsistance, one way or the other. They vote for big gubmint anyway.

The problem is, that if GOP wanted indeed to beat Obama, they wouldn’t pushed a Mass. Republican, a.k.a. a liberal, for whom “R” stands for “Reformer” for nomination.

The problem is that, without claiming it aloud, many Christian voters won’t choose a Mormon as president.

The problem is that Romney only “won” in blue states, which anyway vote for Obama in national election.

The problem is that Romney suxs.

[Eagle of Liberty]

The problem is, that if GOP wanted indeed to beat Obama, they wouldn’t pushed a Mass. Republican, a.k.a. a liberal, for whom “R” stands for “Reformer” for nomination.

Okay, then riddle me this. NONE of those people who have come out and endorsed Romney want to beat Obama? None of them? They are all in on the joke? If so, then we are sitting at a HUGE disadvantage with no Field General to take this conservative movement to the next level.

And to add to that, we will have a Marxist as our leader for another four years. And at the end of those four years, no matter how bad Obama makes things, his loyal troops will vote for the next far left politician because that is what they desire. They desire a TRANSFORMED America. We are simply giving it to them on a silver platter. AND we are getting backed into a corner where the only way out will be armed rebellion.

This is not a typical "lesser of two evils" scenario because Obama is an entirely different kind of evil. If he still wins re-election despite all that we know about him, God help us.