That is debatable but let's just consider one vital aspect of conservatism: fiscal responsibility. George Bush was certainly irresponsible and I believe we can be reasonably sure that Romney will be far less profligate than Bush was. Bush left us in a place where we could not defend ourselves against Obama and where we were left without standing to politically challenge Obama's spending.
This aspect has now become more than important, it literally spells life or death for the nation. If you believe that Romney will be more spendthrift than Bush we have a reasonable argument about which reasonable men might differ but please do not try to convince me that Romney will be more spendthrift than Obama.
The problem with Obama in the White House is that the critical problem in spending is entitlements and as long as Obama is in a position to frustrate congresses' attempts to reform entitlements, the nation proceeds in warp speed toward fiscal disintegration. Surely, he would not attempt to convince us that Romney would do the same?
Moreover, the life of the nation is at stake in international affairs in which Iran is about to get the bomb and that means the war of militant Islam to take over United States will have made a whole new turn. We will then face the serious possibility of bombs being smuggled across our southern border and exploded in our cities accompanied by demands for submission to sharia.
Surely you do not contend that Romney will sit passively in the face of an Iran arming itself the bomb?
Each of these two examples, and there could be more, demonstrate as clearly as we are given to foresee why the nation is imperiled under a presidency of Barack Obama and would not be under peril with Mitt Romney.
Fidelity to the Republican Party, or even to conservatism, is not the same as patriotism. We are talking about the survival of the Republic and nothing less.
