Replies

Pseudo-intellectual approach to criticizing conservatives that intend to vote for Mitt Romney for president. Way too cerebral a method to diss those who would prefer that Barack Obama be replaced by someone that isn't a dedicated Marxist. Most conservatives I know are unhappy with Romney as the GOP candidate but downright frightened by the thought of another four years of Obama.

The premise of a conservative allegiance to the Republican party is a gross misunderstanding of the fact that we have a two-party political system in America and one is basically communist and the other, quasi-socialist. 'Independent' candidates don't win presidential elections. Conservatives have rebelled against the GOP establishment and the TEA party is evidence of that rebellion. To date, it has only been partially successful, as seen in the 2010 congressional election. However, the GOP establishment is well entrenched and managed to finesse the primary process, pitting the conservative candidates against each other and eventually the conservatives in the race were either forced to quit due to scandal or simply a lack of GOP primary voter support (and subsequent funding).

So, we end up with Mitt Romney as the putative Republican presidential nominee. Not because of a 'denial' of his non-conservatism - we're well aware of that - or some imagined loyalty to the Grand Old Party but in reality, a Hobsons Choice situation where it's vote for Romney, stay home and pout or vote for some no-chance independent candidate to 'send a message' to the GOP. Been there, done that. Barack Hussein Obama ends up as president and does severe long-term damage to our nation on many fronts, primarily economic. Never again.

Mitt Romney may not be a conservative but with a more conservative congress he can be somewhat corralled and his liberal penchants kept in check. In any case, the attempt to portray conservative Americans that chose to hold their nose and vote for Mitt Romney on November 6th as some sort of neurosis is not only vapid but insulting.

I spent most of my life in Connecticut. I was Reagan's state chair when he challenged Ford in 1976. Some of us delivered the Senate seat of Lowell Weicker to Joe Lieberman and would do that each and every time. Considering Romney's track record and the way he, like Weicker, is justly loathed by anyone who is conservative, you don't really think he will carry Connecticut, do you? That's the Connecticut of Danell Malloy and of Richard Blumenthal and soon of Chris Murphy, etc., etc., etc. I really don't imagine the Massachusetts mushball carrying Illinois either.

The GOP Senate caucus in DC has loads of Weickers: McCain, Graham, Collins, Alexander, Nancyboy Kirk, Corker, Cornyn, McConnell, Murkowski, and many more. The only thing they would hold Romney to is the maximum squandering of money on their respective states and pals. You are kidding yourself.