True, but for death and taxes. ; )
That "conservative" Senate candidate could turn out to be another Justice Roberts, or any other Republican who has chosen to work with the Dems.
While generally true, odds are against it due to his voting record, which was assembled without the glare of the campaign. No doubt one can assume that what he's done in the past is what he'll do again, or sommore... which is why I am *for* him (and *against* Romney). That is why Conservatives have always (and should always) based their decisions upon the record.
The only thing I'd regret down the road is not trying to get rid of Obama now. We know what his agenda is.
That is a prediction based in ignorance, IMHO. Much of what Obama is doing nationally, Romney did, or helped to do to Mass. decades ago. And much of that was already in the works in Michigan because of his parents decades before that.
I'd rather vote against an horrendous agenda I know will continue with Obama, than not vote because I assume something that hasn't happened yet. That's the difference between you and me.
See above. It has happened. What you could argue is nothing but a sense of scale, and a hope that Romney will not super-size once he ascends to a position of power that will allow him to...
There is not much difference between a Communist, a Socialist, and a Liberal. In the end, it is all the same. And that end, whether Romney or Obama, is what you are voting *for* (no offense meant). I will NOT vote *for* the same. That, FRiend, is the difference you speak of.
In regard to your comment about the guarantee of death and taxes, I think we can add FR bogging down during debates and election night to that mix.