I understand your concerns, I just think that Romney may govern a little differently with a conservative house and senate than he did in dealing with the Massachusetts politburo. Even Reagan compromised when he had to. From "An American Life: (his autobiography)
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it."
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything."
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'"
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
We have a Senate filled with RINOS, and a House without BALLS.
It is them that will help Romney get the 75-85% of the liberalism he wants.
He wants it, they want it and Demoncrats will agree, since they want it too.
I’d prefer attacking Zero on every front, at every turn, to reinvigorate our party, than to give in on 75%+ of the liberal agenda.
With Reagan, we had a conservative in charge. With romney, a liberal. To the degree Reagan advanced conservatism, Romney will advance liberalism. He did it in MA. We have no factual reason to expect anything differently now, than how he acted.
I’d rather stake out a conservative opposition and fight, than to empower liberalism.
You may not know that Mitt used to support and even fund raise to make the federal Congress AND the Senate democrat.
That was before he even reregistered Republican in October of 1993, after having voted for Paul Tsongas.
Massachusetts never moved Romney left, he CHOSE Massachusetts over Utah when he decided to run for Governor, because Mass. was a better match for his liberalism.
Reagan was known as a right-winger in California and nationally, we prefer that you not sully him with Romney who despised Reagan, changed his party registration because of Reagan, refused to vote for Reagan, and who has spent 5 years trying to convince America that Reagan was "adamantly pro-choice".
If you want to quote Reagan in a manner that is relevant to voting and to candidate Mitt Romney, then use this one.
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all."- Ronald Reagan