Is reassuring Obama’s re-election the best scenario for the USA?
Voting is a civic duty is it not? How does throwing a tantrum and taking your ball and going home because you didn’t get your way beneficial to the country? I thought that part of being an adult or a good citizen was sometimes having to make decisions out of less than perfect options.
Yes, I have heard all of the arguments. NO MORE!! blah, blah blah. Or the better one, someone like Newt or Romney will make things worse and then it will get blamed on the GOP.
Those are all strawman arguments. One, I do not think that Romney could be worse than Zero. I definitely don’t support him. But if given the choice between him and Zero, I choose Romney. At least with him there is a snowball’s chance of getting something done to fix this mess, even more so with a GOP House and Senate. With Zero, there is no chance, no matter who controls the House and Senate. Not to mention the fact the we WILL lose the SCOTUS for a generation or two. And we know that Romney is a US citizen and does not hate this country.
Obviously, we all need to support our candidate in the primaries. But in the general election, we MUST be rid of Obama. If not, we can all pat ourselves on the back and gloat about how “principled” we are as the country we love circles the drain.
Besides, I do not know why sitting out the election if the “right” candidate (whatever that is) is not nominated considered the only position of principle. My position is also one of principle, defeat Obama. When I vote against Obama, I will be doing so with just as much principle as the person who withholds their vote because they didn’t get their way.
This is nothing personal towards you, it is just so frustrating to see this sentiment so prevalent on this site. Do you think the average voter thinks this way? They will vote one way or the other. If true blue Conservatives won’t support the GOP candidate, why should they? In the end, politics is the art of the possible.
You have to hand it to liberals and Fabian Socialists for one thing. They understand incrementalism. They seem to be smart enough to understand that in the real world you usually don’t get everything that you want in one fell swoop. Why can’t Conservatives understand this?
On the contrary, Romney would do more to sabotage any limited government conservative solution than Obama could even dream of doing. Romney as president would be the defacto head of the Republican party, and Romney HAS THE SAME POSITION on all five major liberal issues as Democrats, for crying out loud!! Romney is ON RECORD as advocating and promoting:
-- nationalized health care
-- on-demand taxpayer-funded abortion
-- the homosexual agenda
-- liberal activist judges (3 out of 4 of his appointees in Mass were not just Democrats, but activist liberal Dems!)
-- cap-and-trade "global warming" environmental regulation that most certainly would end up being global
BizBroker, voting for either Obama or Romney is NUTS.
Voting third party to make sure whichever clown wins, wins by a plurality so low that it's a political indictment against him even as President, THAT is how to make lemonade out of these two lemons.
I'll be crawling over glass (figuratively, God willing!) to vote ABOOR.
Conservatives do understand, that is why they reject your Chamberlain solution.
It's happening right under your nose in the GOP. However, it is not in the direction you or I prefer.
Where you're seeing incrementalism, I see capitulation. I will not embolden the GOP's incremental shift to the left.