Posted on 04/20/2012 8:09:50 AM PDT by xzins
Of course there are additional ways to advance the conservative cause other then when you cast your vote for President, and folks are certainly free to do all those.
But we're talking specifically about casting a vote for President this November. So when you've done all those other things, and you're sitting in the voting both to cast your vote for President, what should be done? According to you, an Obama Presidency will advance the Conservative cause. If that is your logic, then why wouldn't you vote for Obama so as to advance the conservative cause?
And I'm not asking you how you'll vote. I'm asking you to explain the logic of not voting for Obama under that assumption. Because I can't think of one.
There is no conservative scotus justice who will retire while Obama is potus. Even kennedy is rumored to have stated that. In the same way that JP Stevens, a rino republican liberal appointee, awaited the coming of Obama to retire, what a liberal Romney presidency will nominate is what he nominated in Massachusetts....liberals.
I am military, diggity, and one who has been around FR a long time. As have you. As an old-timer you certainly know how to dig into old posts of folks like me and discover where we have consistently stood over the years.
So, I will stand on my record...something draft-dodger Romney can’t do (1) regarding his avoidance of Vietnam service or (2) his ultra-liberal positions stated repeatedly through the years.
I am the conservative here, digs. Not Romney.
Silly me -- I assumed you'd read all the posts on this thread, and not just the ones responding to you; if you had, you'd have seen that I've answered your question before in some detail.
The conservative cause would be advanced best if Obama squeaked in by a weak plurality, the lower the plurality, the better: Remember when Clinton got in on 43% (as in, 57% of votes cast were OPPOSED to him), and what happened to him the next mid-term? I doubt the Republican Revolution would have happened had Clinton won with 53%.
A vote FOR Obama would count to making his plurality higher, therefore it is logical to WITHHOLD my vote from him. It's logical to withhold my vote from Romney because he HAS A SOLID, DOCUMENTED RECORD of promoting and supporting all the things I have been voting Republican all these years to OPPOSE. Voting for Romney is plainly as nuts as voting for Obama.
I refuse to cast my vote FOR either Obama or Romney as voting for one is as nuts as voting for the other. But my vote, like every American's, is precious. I will USE IT the best way I can. And that is to vote third party, even if it's for a Pat Paulsen candidate, for the express purpose of using my vote to push whichever statist/socialist wins, Obama or Romney, to as anemic a number as possible, and hope that Obama is the squeaks in on, ideally, as low as 34%. That would mean 66% of Americans who voted, voted to OPPOSE Obama, and equally important and powerful, it would mean that registered Republicans were conservative and BRAVE enough to tell the GOP that Romney was a bridge too far, which would HUGELY empower and embolden conservatism within the GOP, and devastate liberalism in the GOP.
The election of conservatives is the only thing that's going to save America. THAT is the bottom line.
Frankly, a Romney win poses a much greater threat to conservatism than an Obama win. It's a gamble either way, but the greater odds in favor of conservatism lie in rejecting Romney than in allowing Abject Fear of Obama to bully conservative Republicans into voting for a politician who HAS A DOCUMENTED RECORD of doing all the things conservative Republicans oppose.
Very well stated. You are right, most of those who will support Romney are not doing it because of what he stands for (which is nothing) but because of a Fear of Obama. Romney will destroy the conservative movement if he is elected. We have more to fear from a Romney victory than an Obama plurality win. We must fight through the convention and if we lose there and Romney gets the nomination, then we must rally around a conservative 3rd party.
Frankly if Ross Perot had run against Obama and Romney instead of Bush and Clinton, he might have won the election.
A vote for Romney is a vote for the Status Quo. No Hope. No Change. Just a rudderless ship of state being battered by the winds of popular opinion.
The anti-Romney (RINO) crowd is focusing on the future of conservatism and the GOP. It’s a LONG-TERM SOLUTION.
The pro-Romney (RINO) crowd is focusing on beating Obama. IT’S A SHORT TERM SOLUTION.
Personally I don’t think either choice is necessarily the “wrong” one. All of us want to defeat liberalism forever!
BOTH SIDES NEED TO MAKE SURE TO VOTE FOR THEIR CONGRESSMEN! Even if you won’t vote Romney (I certainly won’t)...
Thank you so much FRiend, for confirming that I have excellent company in the folks who've reasoned their way to the same conclusion I have.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich and God-loving, God-fearing American conservatives, and God vanquish Mitt Romney.
What will you do when Newt eventually endorses Romney? It might not happen until after the convention but it will happen. I don’t enjoy having to vote for Romney. Heck, 4 years ago, I had to down a 12 pack of Bud Light before I filled out my ballot for McCain. I feel that a Romney presidency could be quite damaging to this country, but an Obama presidency could be our deathknell. The massive debt and wealth redistribution will be too much to overcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.