Let me try to write this correctly one more time.
Those who support Romney do so because they have no other choice. That is what they say. That’s essentially what you said, “obama or romney”. IOW, you believe that if you vote for anyone other than romney then you are helping obama.
However, these “got no choicers” also say that they are the conservative base, that they’ll raise holy hell when romney gets out of line, etc, etc.
But, they aren’t holding his feet to the fire. When he came out supporting gay adoption, their first words were about (1) if you injure Romney then you’re electing obama. or (2) it’s about the economy stupid, quit diverting the discussion.
As you can see, CSM, either answer gives Romney a pass and allows him to move one more step to the left. And this from people who swore they’d hold his feet to the fire.
Bah humbug. The only thing they’ve held to the fire so far is a marshmallow.
They are quickly becoming leftist enablers. In fact, the simple acknowledgement that you have no choice enables Romney to move to the left.
But, they aren’t holding his feet to the fire. When he came out supporting gay adoption, their first words were about (1) if you injure Romney then you’re electing obama. or (2) it’s about the economy stupid, quit diverting the discussion.
Exactly right. And the reason they aren't holding Romney's feet to the fire is because they CAN'T. Not only because of the "got no option" argument, but also because of the fact that, because of the way the primaries played out and the way conservatives stupidly split up among 7 different other candidates, each condemning all the others as abject RINOs for disagreeing on two or three points, conservatives now have no sway on the GOP nominee.
Let's face it - Romney has ZERO reason to listen to a blithering thing that the conservative base may say or want. He's proven that he can win without the conservative base because of a combination of open primaries and the base's own stupidity/truculance/disorganization. All these people who think that they're going to "keep Romney honest" during a hypothetical Romney administration are fooling themselves. Romney can nominate all the liberal judges he wants, veto all the conservative legislation he wants, push for all the new spending programs he wants - and there's not a blessed thing conservatives can or will do about it because in 2016, we'll just have to vote "for the lesser of two evils" all over again against whoever the Dems nominate.
It's a game - and most conservatives don't have the courage to stop playing it.
However, these “got no choicers” also say that they are the conservative base, that they’ll raise holy hell when romney gets out of line, etc, etc.
But, they aren't’t holding his feet to the fire. When he came out supporting gay adoption, their first words were about (1) if you injure Romney then you’re electing obama. or (2) it’s about the economy stupid, quit diverting the discussion.
As you can see, CSM, either answer gives Romney a pass and allows him to move one more step to the left. And this from people who swore they’d hold his feet to the fire.
Bah humbug. The only thing they’ve held to the fire so far is a marshmallow.
They are quickly becoming leftist enablers. In fact, the simple acknowledgement that you have no choice enables Romney to move to the left
You see this problem in the objects folks post to threads critical of Romney. Many of the ‘no choicers’ ask, “why are you bringing this up it can only hurt Romney and in affect supports Obama.?” - Putting aside that statement for now, I ask “How can we hold Romney's feet to the fire if we can't criticize his moderate views?”
Personally, I see no way to reconcile the two. I agree with those saying that being critical hurts Romney, however if we all just fall in line and pull for ‘our’ boy we lose the ability to back up any attempts to hold him to the fire.
To those that say “we need to be behind him now, but hold him to the fire after the election.” I'm afraid this may thinking may be indulging in a false hope. The need to provide a unified party does not stop at the inauguration. Indeed to the media the reelection is just beginning. And so the same argument's used during the campaign will apply during Romney's first term. I can find no historic example of a moderate president having his feet held to the fire. Traditionally the president sets the agenda, Bush gives an illustrative example. He was more conservative than Romney,yet the Republican in the congress and the senate still were unable to hold him to Conservatives and many issues.
I have given up on the election as being between Socialist R and Socalist D. You are free to disagree, but that's not the point. I do not expect Virgil Goode to win, however, I see no other way to send a message to the Republican party. Given that supporting Romney, but holding his feet to the fire is impractical, I won't try. Instead I'll support a man who more closely fits my principals and hope the Republicans take notice that they are losing the base they continually abuse. In the end my hope is that either the Republicans learn to stick to their principals, or find themselves supplanted as conservative support fades. If the current path of more and more moderate Rebulicans continues our nation is doomed. The time has come to make a change.