April 11, 2012
— Ace Kind of an advertisement for Romney -- in conservative circles, anyway.
Ramesh Ponuru wrote some time ago that Obama would have a choice of portraying Romney as either a flip-flopper with no principles or an extremist conservative ideologue.
Can't really do both. As you push on the "wishy-washy opportunist narrative," it undermines the "rigid ideologue" one.
Ponuru figured, correctly as it turns out, Obama would go with the "extremist" meme.
There is a way to do both, and Obama will try it: He can claim that Romney has no core but is a mercenary opportunist, and his only chance for power is to be a "severely conservative" extremist, and hence has flip-flopped to the extremist position.
I don't know if you can really grab both of those, though.
Obama's running around the country branding Romney as Barry Goldwater on steroids (if only).
The president, campaigning in the critical swing state, delivered three speeches that sounded some common themes. The main one was that Romney and today's Republican Party have reverted back to the unreconstructed movement conservatism of Goldwater, one in which nothing much else matters but protecting the rich and shrinking government to a size not seen since the Eisenhower era.Obama tossed back in Romney's face the line that the former Massachusetts governor has been taking during the primary campaign in order to fight the charge--made most effectively by Santorum--that he and the president are too similar: that this is a historic election between candidates with two fundamentally different concepts of government. "There are contrasting visions here," Obama said at one fundraiser event. "And this election will probably have the biggest contrast that we've seen maybe since the Johnson-Goldwater election -- maybe before that."
And a new video strives mightily to convince people that Romney is a conservative's dream.
Will this work?
Let me tell you something I like about Romney: His bite is worse than his bark.
Contrast Romney's over-cautious (to many) style of campaigning, where he refuses to call Obama a "socialist," to Gingrich's statement that Obama is a socialist, and a radical, and captured by "Kenyan colonial" thinking.
Most people do not get into the details of policy. Even we here at The Q do not know (by and large) the fine details of the Ryan Budget. We know the basic parameters, and the basic impulses, but I cannot -- and I expect many of you cannot -- specify the level of subsidization for 65 year olds' purchase of health insurance.
I would guess it's around $8,000, with higher subsidies for older people, averaging out to around $11,000. But this a guess.
Now if you know, why the hell aren't you blogging here?
But I imagine most people don't know.
Most people use tone and persona and broad thematic statements as proxies for actual policy details, which they neither have the time nor inclination to analyze.
Mark Steyn noted of Gingrich that he was the worst of all possible worlds, someone whose policy impulses were actually moderate-ish (not moderate, mind you, he's a conservative all right; but moderately so) but whose rhetoric was hard-charging "extremist."
Now, what does the lazy public gather from this situation? That he's a technocratic future with a lot of policy widgets, many of which are not "conservative" but merely (possibly) better than the current bureaucratic model, who uses sharp language to attack his Democratic opponents?
No. The lazy public only looks at the very surface of things and says "kind of extreme."
Now, Romney is open to this sort of Surface Level Attack, all right, because he did use boneheaded language like "severely conservative."
Nonetheless, he has tried, mostly successfully, to keep his rhetoric moderate-sounding.
His actual policy profile (as he's announced it during the campaign) is solidly right, however.
Whereas Gingrich's bark might have oversold his bite, Romney's bark is less threatening than his bite.
I think that's a good position to be in.
I know people yearn for the guy whose policies are super-duper TrueCon, and whose rhetoric is 100% honest in also being super-duper TrueCon (and aggressively so), and whose rhetorical powers and charisma permit him to profit from such a combination, but honestly, that last one is a high hurdle to, um, hurdle, and you're not going to get many Ronald Reagans in a century. Most candidate's political powers will be far more modest.
So given that we did not have a candidate with a level of charisma and command measured in the gigawatts, it seems to me that it is best, then, that a candidate projects a moderate image and tone while actually committing himself to a solidly-right campaign platform. We get most of the policy choices we prefer, and the independents get someone who doesn't trip their lazy, surface-level "extremist," um, tripwire.
He's not by any means a perfect candidate. But I think he'll do.
Posted by: Ace at
10:16 AM
| Comments (327)
Post contains 828 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Mister Christopher at April 11, 2012 10:19 AM (DQhAB)
MSNBC Current headline: "Can Romney Put the Brusing Primary Behond Him?"
A: Not if we here at MFM can help it.
If Mitt can make the case for conservatism like he did after the Wi primary, then he can catch fire. The moderates can be convinced that Obama 's government state is not the America that we want.
Posted by: California Red at April 11, 2012 10:19 AM (DXTKe)
That would be on my bumpersticker, if I allowed stickers on my bumper.
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at April 11, 2012 10:19 AM (QTHTd)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 11, 2012 10:20 AM (8y9MW)
No...we know what he is...and what he isn't.
Like I said, Romney will now be painted as the new face of Conservatism, the Republican Party will get dragged further to the Left, and if he wins the nomination, so will the country.
Reagan Conservatism is now being painted as "fringe".
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 10:20 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: huerfano at April 11, 2012 10:21 AM (bAGA/)
Posted by: Jean at April 11, 2012 10:22 AM (46qC3)
Posted by: steevy at April 11, 2012 10:22 AM (6HIQG)
Posted by: steevy at April 11, 2012 10:23 AM (6HIQG)
Posted by: ace at April 11, 2012 10:23 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: willow at April 11, 2012 10:24 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:24 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: The Mole at April 11, 2012 10:24 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at April 11, 2012 10:24 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Truman North at April 11, 2012 10:25 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: joncelli, a man of gravity at April 11, 2012 10:25 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: willow at April 11, 2012 10:25 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Hedgehog at April 11, 2012 10:25 AM (3jGS1)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:25 AM (jUytm)
Romney appears to be something that Obama isn't:
Competent. And mere competence cannot be too highly rated.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at April 11, 2012 10:26 AM (hLRSq)
I've already got two lefties on FB with their panties in a wad about Allen West pointing out that some 80 Dems in Congress are communists. *
The extreme label plays into our hands. The biggest knock against Romney is he has failed to ignite the base. While the Dems are doing this to rally their base, it'll do far more to rally the GOP.
* 70 have long been identified as members of the socialist party of America caucus.
Posted by: jimmuy at April 11, 2012 10:27 AM (kSaUf)
I'm thinking that Romney's bite may be worse than his bark. .....There have been some clues. ...Like him saying in one of the debates, that he would reign in the excessive government payrolls.
I say this, as a bigtime Perry supporter. ....But I have noticed little clues, that Romney might be hiding some of his conservative views in order to get elected. Which I hope is the case.
Posted by: wheatie at April 11, 2012 10:27 AM (+5U+B)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:27 AM (jUytm)
If you'd actually done that, you wouldn't be endorsing it for president.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 10:27 AM (vyS+v)
Barky's really gonna scare the 18-25-year-old voters by comparing Romney to Barry Goldwater - Obama was only 3 YEARS OLD when the man ran for President.
I fully expect Ezra Klein to start hyperventilating about a man who ran for President almost 50 years ago, don't you? I mean, that's ANCIENT, man!
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at April 11, 2012 10:27 AM (0xqzf)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at April 11, 2012 10:27 AM (pGvwm)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:28 AM (jUytm)
ace,
Last year Ryans subsidy was an average of $12,000 for poor seniors, it was means tested though and they never got as far as saying what income level your subsidy started declining. I don't know what it is this year but I imagine in didn't change.
Romney will do fine, probably better than fine. He is already poking holes in Obamas claims and has vowed to keep doing it. The press will have to cover it ever if it is to give him a True but False rating. By the time you get that far in the weeds Obama has lost the argument.
Posted by: robtr at April 11, 2012 10:28 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:28 AM (jUytm)
Competence is deeply threatening to some people. I ought to know because I see it everyday.
I work for the Federal government.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 11, 2012 10:28 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: ace at April 11, 2012 10:29 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at April 11, 2012 10:30 AM (nj1bB)
I'll let Ace's "reality" do that for me.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 10:30 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: wooga at April 11, 2012 10:30 AM (vjyZP)
the Dems got the RINO they wanted, so we know the RNC delivered on the thirty pieces of silver they received. let the race to bottom commence.
i'll be over in the corner drinking heavily.
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 11, 2012 10:30 AM (8MasJ)
Posted by: Jean at April 11, 2012 10:30 AM (46qC3)
Posted by: Come And Take It at April 11, 2012 10:31 AM (8Yc/9)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:31 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: drawandstrike at April 11, 2012 10:32 AM (iGKkt)
Posted by: DNC at April 11, 2012 02:25 PM (DQHjw)
*************
No, he's the Jewpacabra!!! And since he's disguised as a Mormon, that means he's even more devious than a normal Joo!!!
Posted by: MSNBC at April 11, 2012 10:32 AM (ggRof)
New DNC attack ad in the works, "You know which previous President also abused doggies? LBJ! ... errrrp"
Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at April 11, 2012 10:32 AM (HmCnI)
Posted by: ace at April 11, 2012 10:32 AM (nj1bB)
So, is Barry a Thief/Mage? 'cause, I could see that.
Posted by: toby928© at April 11, 2012 10:32 AM (GTbGH)
Careful, sooth. That constitutes an actual argument for the mouth-breathers out there.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 11, 2012 10:33 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: tasker at April 11, 2012 10:33 AM (r2PLg)
i'll be over in the corner drinking heavily.
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 11, 2012 02:30 PM (8MasJ)
Oh come on, what does this even mean?
Posted by: joncelli, a man of gravity at April 11, 2012 10:33 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: steevy at April 11, 2012 10:33 AM (6HIQG)
Posted by: Come And Take It at April 11, 2012 10:34 AM (8Yc/9)
-----------------
No kidding. I would enjoy voting for the man in that ad.
Maybe that's who Romney is. But: I don't care--I know who the JEF is and there is nothing--NOTHING--worse.
You play ads like that from here to election day and I might just be sending money to Romney--as a former Perry guy, no less!
Posted by: jimmuy at April 11, 2012 10:34 AM (kSaUf)
Which is why Romney will pick a boring, experienced, technocratic, moderate-sounding but conservative-voting, DC insider for VP. It reinforces his own key selling point of reasonable competence and further undermines the inevitable "extremist" rhetoric that Obama will try to use.
Santorum and Gingrich have helped Romney immeasurably by making his own persona and proposals seem so moderate by comparison.
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at April 11, 2012 10:34 AM (dcoFe)
I intend to jog and vote calmly.
Posted by: jwb7605 at April 11, 2012 10:34 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:34 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: steevy at April 11, 2012 10:34 AM (6HIQG)
Posted by: elizabethe is at stage 5 at April 11, 2012 10:34 AM (hCc/i)
Posted by: toby928© at April 11, 2012 02:32 PM (GTbGH)
*********
He must take some severe penalities for that INT of 3.
Posted by: Pipboy 3000 at April 11, 2012 10:34 AM (ggRof)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2012 10:34 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: John P. Squibob at April 11, 2012 10:35 AM (auLmt)
Posted by: Havedash at April 11, 2012 10:35 AM (F0WNa)
hell, he's not even a Republican, let alone a conservative.
the Presidential race is now on between to liberal Democrats. granted, one is much more liberal than the other, but there isn't a Republican candidate in the race.
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 11, 2012 10:35 AM (8MasJ)
Posted by: ace at April 11, 2012 10:36 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: wheatie at April 11, 2012 10:36 AM (+5U+B)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 11, 2012 10:36 AM (zacpj)
Posted by: Michael at April 11, 2012 10:37 AM (Hl5ka)
Posted by: tasker at April 11, 2012 10:37 AM (r2PLg)
This.
Posted by: looking closely at April 11, 2012 10:37 AM (6Q9g2)
The Resignening has begun. Next up, the Enveepening, and hopefully the Debatening and then, the Electioning.
We're sure not going to have an Enthusiasmening, but that's probably okay, since I doubt the D's will, either. Or, at least, enough crucial factions of the vague association of special interests called (for convenience and propaganda's sake) The Democratic Party.
Either way, I'll enjoy being part of the Overusening.
Posted by: Lance McCormick at April 11, 2012 10:37 AM (zgHLA)
Is this where we switch from D&D to the Kobayashi Maru metaphors?
Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 11, 2012 10:37 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: steevy at April 11, 2012 10:37 AM (6HIQG)
Posted by: Dave in Fla at April 11, 2012 10:37 AM (9t6jP)
Posted by: elizabethe is at stage 5 at April 11, 2012 10:38 AM (hCc/i)
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 11, 2012 02:35 PM (8MasJ)
Whatever. Will you be voting against Obama, which is to say FOR Romney?
Posted by: joncelli, a man of gravity at April 11, 2012 10:38 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: elizabethe is at stage 5 at April 11, 2012 10:38 AM (hCc/i)
------------------
Ever hear the one about how Mormons believe they get adopted into one of the Twelve Tribes? You're closer to the truth than the conspirators may allow.
Posted by: jimmuy at April 11, 2012 10:38 AM (kSaUf)
However, that went out the window when Obama got the nomination. Obama is a true leftist ideologue who (by SCOTUS picks, among other things), is willing and able to cause lasting, PERMANENT damage to the country. Under Obama, the "let the wookie win" strategy is no longer viable, because the long term dream "true con" will never be able to undo the damage. Thus I will support a RINO now, to get Obama out, and return to "true con only" mode in 2016.
Posted by: wooga at April 11, 2012 10:38 AM (vjyZP)
But I am planning some nighttime raids of Obama signage.
Posted by: Jimbo at April 11, 2012 10:39 AM (O3R/2)
Multiple media outlets reporting Zimmerman will be charged today.
Corey presser at 6pm in Jacksonville...
Posted by: Jay at April 11, 2012 10:39 AM (3LaGb)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:40 AM (jUytm)
Vampires don't have reflections.
Well, the predatory old-school blood-suckers don't. Barry's a gay sparkly, isn't he...
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 11, 2012 10:40 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2012 10:40 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at April 11, 2012 10:40 AM (SB0V2)
Posted by: tasker at April 11, 2012 10:40 AM (r2PLg)
He'll do for losing, which he will do in grand style, and no one will have to say they're sorry that candidate Romney did anything to make The Won feel bad about himself or what he's done, because Romney thinks he's a good man.
I await the gnashing of teeth an rending of garments in November.
Posted by: cranky-d at April 11, 2012 10:40 AM (4HDqe)
Posted by: Romeo13 at April 11, 2012 10:41 AM (lZBBB)
if i lived in a state that was up for grabs, it would be different, but i don't, so it really doesn't matter: between the hard core left, the mulch-generational dependency vote and the illegal alien vote everyone says doesn't exist, there is no doubt the SCOAMF will win the state going away, so my vote doesn't matter at all.
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 11, 2012 10:41 AM (8MasJ)
Posted by: Sockwave's Inner Voice at April 11, 2012 10:41 AM (kaOJx)
Posted by: jimmuy at April 11, 2012 02:38 PM (kSaUf)
**********
That would be a first for our network!
Posted by: MSNBC at April 11, 2012 10:41 AM (ggRof)
Posted by: Donald Trump at April 11, 2012 10:41 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: Jean at April 11, 2012 10:42 AM (46qC3)
Posted by: ace at April 11, 2012 10:42 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Jaws at April 11, 2012 10:42 AM (4I3Uo)
Every vote for Romney will have to have one countervote for Obama to tie, and one more vote to give Obama the "lead".
If a voter decides to "sit it out" and not cast a vote for Romney, it will only take 1 vote for Obama to take the "lead".
Regardless of how you may/may not feel about Romney, go and cast your vote for him - the Dems will have to come up with a LOT more votes if we do that.
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at April 11, 2012 10:42 AM (0xqzf)
Posted by: Spends too much time on memebase at April 11, 2012 10:42 AM (ggRof)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at April 11, 2012 10:43 AM (SB0V2)
Ace,
Besides retreating into hypotheticals there's a lot of lack of trying to change anything. Frankly I'm getting sick of the whole "Romney's just a closet lib, I'm not voting" crap.
Fine, you think we failed this one, that's your perrogative, but then you better be out at the next primary or involved in politics trying to change things some way, shape or form. Frankly I think a culture change will be necessary before the extreme right conservative makes any headway at a national level. (And not because of the "establishment." but because we're all over the map as a country on that one.)
(FWIW I was apathetic towards most of the canidates this run out especially after the huge post NH drop. My only conditions were "No Bachmann" and "I don't think americans will vote for another Texan yet.")
Posted by: tsrblke at April 11, 2012 10:43 AM (SYrwI)
i cant not vote for romeny becuase who i really wanted to win
president was that 99 pizzas guy he had some pretty good
idea about tax and things but romeny apposed him on some
few ideas so i probally will just vote for the pizzas guy any ways
becuase of my have my own principals about ideas and such
didnt you idiots ever here of having a loyalty to principals
probally not omg
#JusticeForSkillet
Posted by: Jose Canseco's Gristle Encased Head at April 11, 2012 10:43 AM (+lsX1)
You don't want to choose between Romney or Obama? Fine. But don't lie and pretend you haven't made a choice.
Posted by: jimmuy at April 11, 2012 10:43 AM (kSaUf)
This country was already screwed, I guess. We can now finish the job, either with Obama or with Romney. It really doesn't matter.
Posted by: cranky-d at April 11, 2012 10:43 AM (4HDqe)
Posted by: tasker at April 11, 2012 10:44 AM (r2PLg)
He'll do for losing, which he will do in grand style, and no one will have to say they're sorry that candidate Romney did anything to make The Won feel bad about himself or what he's done, because Romney thinks he's a good man.
I await the gnashing of teeth an rending of garments in November.
Posted by: cranky-d at April 11, 2012 02:40 PM (4HDqe)
Same question for you as for the other guy: does this mean you will be voting against Obama, which is to say FOR Romney?
Posted by: joncelli, a man of gravity at April 11, 2012 10:44 AM (RD7QR)
He'll do for losing, which he will do in grand style, and no one will have to say they're sorry that candidate Romney did anything to make The Won feel bad about himself or what he's done, because Romney thinks he's a good man.
Right- because the guy who's been running for President the last 8 years and has been frequently accused of attacking his opponents too harshly will just roll over and play dead when it comes to the general election, because he doesn't really want it that badly.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2012 10:44 AM (SY2Kh)
Yeah, conservatives are twice the number of liberals, but not enough to form an electoral majority.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at April 11, 2012 10:44 AM (9t6jP)
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 11, 2012 10:44 AM (Sh42X)
I'll take Bunga Bunga.
Man...I haven't heard that joke since I retired from the Army. Good times...good times.
Well, except for the daily bunga bunga that is.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 11, 2012 10:44 AM (sbV1u)
Obama Drudge headline: "I'm not trying to redistribute wealth"
Obama's mouth opens - out pops a lie.
The leftwing vilification machine full throttle.
Posted by: rectal exam at April 11, 2012 10:44 AM (O7ksG)
That left the field we got. Romney has been methodically planning this run since right after John McCain lost. He went around the country endorsing and donating to local candidates and congressional and governor candidates in 2010. The only other people who declared fairly early were Newt and Pawlenty. Pawlenty dropped out after the Iowa caucuses. The rest, with the exception of Romney, were candidates who either were flawed (Cain, Bachmann) or who had trouble with funding (Newt, Santorum).
The RNC didn't do anything to keep the first group from running, and the second group, who did run, were just not able to cut it in a national race. I had high hopes for Perry, but he demonstrated that you cannot enter a presidential race at the last minute.
Romney is the candidate. The democrats wanted him because they thought he would be a pushover. As it turns out, he is not, so now they are in a panic. I am going to enjoy this quite a bit.
Why anyone thought that a guy who made money by risk-taking and re-tooling companies would be a milquetoast, I do not know. So he doesn't talk tough...easier to slip the stiletto in.
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 11, 2012 10:44 AM (GoIUi)
Oh, sorry to step on your joke then.
Posted by: toby928© at April 11, 2012 10:44 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Nora at April 11, 2012 10:45 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:45 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 11, 2012 10:45 AM (ZKzrr)
That only happens if his middle name is McCain.
Ummm, his middle name isn't McCain....is it?
Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 11, 2012 10:45 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: elizabethe is at stage 5 at April 11, 2012 10:46 AM (hCc/i)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at April 11, 2012 10:47 AM (SB0V2)
In 2008, every single vote I cast in San Diego was a loser, from school boards, Prop 8 (eh, let them marry, I don't care), McCain-Palin, and Nick Popaditch. I mixed my votes left and right, but they ALL lost.
Posted by: wooga at April 11, 2012 10:47 AM (vjyZP)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:47 AM (jUytm)
We have no time to court disgruntled conservatives.
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 02:45 PM (jUytm)
All conservatives are disgruntled. I argue that disgruntlitude is diagnostic of conservatives. Ace's point is whether conservatives are realistically disgruntled -- this is, willing to accept reality. That too SHOULD be a conservative trait.
Posted by: joncelli, a man of gravity at April 11, 2012 10:47 AM (RD7QR)
Then the Pascalian wager should be Romney, for a non-zero chance of survival.
I tried to make a Ted Williams frozen head allusion but came up empty.
Posted by: toby928© at April 11, 2012 10:47 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: steevy at April 11, 2012 10:47 AM (6HIQG)
Posted by: minutemen for Mitt (formerly trainer) until the JEF is gone at April 11, 2012 10:48 AM (Rojyk)
With Obama up is down, back is white, and stupid is smart.
George Orwell was a piker. We now have Orwellian Obamaspeak.
Posted by: Vic at April 11, 2012 10:48 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at April 11, 2012 10:48 AM (SB0V2)
Name-call all you want, Sparky.
Nothing cowardly about standing for my principles. You wanna elect the guy who is almost Obama based solely on the fact that he isn't actually Obama. You want to do this because you think winning a high-profile office is more important than winning Congress and digging in for four years. You want Obamalite because you've decided to buy into the bullshit he's been saying during primary season while ignoring his record, his history, and his stated beliefs before he declared himself a candidate. So you've self-deceptively declared you "like" the same guy who was practically a commie back when Perry was still int he race.
At least I stand for something. You seem to stand for anything, as long as it's "your side" that wins.
Give me a Republican-controlled congress and an Obama second term wherein the president will be able to accomplish nothing for four years. Then give me a real candidate in '12.
That's not the "Coward's way out", it's the long game; give up the battle to win the war. Standing for my principles isn't cowardly, and your pravda-esque proclamations of such only confirm I'm right.
Frankly, I don't think you have any respect for yourself, much as you want to claim otherwise. I know (ad hominem denigrations aside) I can't respect someone who demands we fall in line behind the nominee because the establishment has chosen their king.
This is why - as a Conservative - I left the Republican Party years ago, because the Republican Party left Conservatism in favor of "winning".
It's all about "winning". Even if your guy is in favor of many of the things the President has already proposed or enacted.
Keep fucking that chicken...
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 10:48 AM (vyS+v)
@115 "It was either Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell who learned me that not making a choice is still making a choice."
Uh, that was Neal Peart and Geddy Lee, dude.
Posted by: Jaws at April 11, 2012 10:49 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:49 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Daniel Jeyn at April 11, 2012 10:49 AM (jBA6+)
no, i don't have to consider the "popular vote", since it has absolutely NOTHING to do with electing the President. (MFM harping on it to the contrary)
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 11, 2012 10:49 AM (8MasJ)
Posted by: Nora at April 11, 2012 10:50 AM (VxqUc)
You know, that is incredibly insulting to the Santorum voters and the SoCons. You are in effect claiming that a core part of the GOP base is so childish that they would rather see the country burn to the ground, than vote for someone who beat their guy in the primaries.
I call bullshit.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at April 11, 2012 10:50 AM (9t6jP)
Posted by: Jewish janitor in SF at April 11, 2012 10:50 AM (bwFDU)
As I've clearly stated before ...
Posted by: Barky at April 11, 2012 10:50 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Havedash at April 11, 2012 10:50 AM (F0WNa)
We can haz snu-snu?
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 11, 2012 10:51 AM (ZKzrr)
So who do you vote for? And does it bother you that whoever you vote for has no chance whatsoever to actually influence the direction of the country, or is it just about being pure of heart?
Posted by: joncelli, a man of gravity at April 11, 2012 10:51 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Jaws at April 11, 2012 10:51 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: tasker at April 11, 2012 10:51 AM (r2PLg)
With Obama up is down, back is white, and stupid is smart.
George Orwell was a piker. We now have Orwellian Obamaspeak.
Posted by: Vic at April 11, 2012 02:48 PM (YdQQY)
Hmmm.... interesting thought... could his entire view of reality be based on the fact that he is neither Black, nor White? but both?
Ergo, he gets to 'choose'... making only the choice important? Which leads to subjective reality is unimportant? because how he has portrayed himself has gotten him to the Presidency?
Posted by: Romeo13 at April 11, 2012 10:52 AM (lZBBB)
As evidence See York, Sgt.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 11, 2012 10:52 AM (sbV1u)
Dump Mittens Now . ..(they don't fit so he must quit)!
Posted by: Pragmatic at April 11, 2012 10:52 AM (lTnzg)
Romney needs The Mandate of a popular win if he's going to be able to do anything at all, so yeah, it does.
Posted by: toby928© at April 11, 2012 10:52 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Nora at April 11, 2012 10:53 AM (VxqUc)
143what's it like to be gruntled? is that actually something a person should want to be?
gruntle
verb
to cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of; "She managed to mollify the angry customer" [syn: pacify]
Posted by: wheatie at April 11, 2012 10:53 AM (+5U+B)
Posted by: steevy at April 11, 2012 10:53 AM (6HIQG)
@100 so my vote doesn't matter at all.
If I recall correctly, that's what approximately 2,000 people in Florida also thought in Florida in 2000.
Thankfully, they were all Democrats.....
Don't you DARE let the Dems have the chance to say, "Well, Obama won the Popular vote".....
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at April 11, 2012 10:53 AM (0xqzf)
Posted by: Mister Christopher at April 11, 2012 10:53 AM (DQhAB)
Posted by: Fopworth Higgglesbey Cranworth, Rear Admiral, M.B.E. at April 11, 2012 10:53 AM (Dll6b)
Posted by: HoboJerky at April 11, 2012 10:53 AM (xAtAj)
Please.
If Romney can't paint Obama as an Extremist's Extremist merely by citing his record, then he needs to quite politics and run a kid's softball team, instead.
The GOP will indeed be the Party of Stupid if is allows itself to be painted as "extremist" by the Party of Extremism.
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 11, 2012 10:53 AM (Iaxlk)
Posted by: tasker at April 11, 2012 10:53 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: argh at April 11, 2012 10:54 AM (/Kqvx)
Dear Eeyores:
Get the fuck out. You are tiresome.
No, really--there is the door.<<<<
They would argue that hurting their feelings is not persuasive. They want you to kiss their ass and then MAYBE they'll vote for Romney.
Fuck that.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 11, 2012 10:54 AM (zacpj)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at April 11, 2012 02:47 PM (SB0V2)
If they're not they may as well be. Willard wasn't my first or second choice but I'm 100% for him in November. And I won't pout and badmouth him like fans of a certain fuckheaded Delaware politician did 2 years ago.
Posted by: Captain Hate at April 11, 2012 10:54 AM (Cw+Gl)
Posted by: Come And Take It at April 11, 2012 10:54 AM (8Yc/9)
Posted by: Good Plan at April 11, 2012 10:55 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: Fopworth Higgglesbey Cranworth, Rear Admiral, M.B.E. at April 11, 2012 10:55 AM (Dll6b)
Scalia is 76 years old. Kennedy is 76 years old. Ginsburg is 79. Breyer is 74. You underestimate the likelihood and magnitude of Obama getting more appointments.
Posted by: wooga at April 11, 2012 10:55 AM (vjyZP)
That's really special, the way that mind works.
That's like saying, "I really want to win this war--believe me--, but our general is a no-good, piece of shit, who I'll never support."
Good luck with that, sir.
Posted by: jimmuy at April 11, 2012 10:55 AM (kSaUf)
Posted by: tasker at April 11, 2012 10:55 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: steevy at April 11, 2012 10:56 AM (6HIQG)
Nevada has a "None of the Above" which will be getting my vote in November (at least at the presidential level). I won't be telling myself I haven't made choice.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 10:56 AM (vyS+v)
Ace drops the Free Will lyrics FTW!
Ironic because under Obama, we are losing our ability to make choices for ourselves.
Anybody that votes Obama or doesnt vote because Romney isn't pure enough does not live in reality and shoudl never call themselves conservatives.
Romney isnt perfect. He isnt my ideal Tea Party guy. He is establishment, RINO, flip flopper, etc.
But I am all in on Romney baby. Cuz we are staring down a pair of Obama terms that this nation cannot survive.
For SCOTUS appointments alone you vote Romney? To avoid the actions of a lame duck Obama you vote Romney. (Think de-arming vis a vis the soviets).
How any conservative or libertarian could not support Romney in the face of Obama defies me. Purists need to get some pragmatism and get on board the Romney train.
Posted by: California Red at April 11, 2012 10:56 AM (DXTKe)
Is Allahpundit playing a joke on us by sending the most retarded HA commenters here?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2012 10:56 AM (SY2Kh)
Fuck that.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 11, 2012 02:54 PM (zacpj)
If they have no desire to save their OWN asses (and the asses of their children) by voting Obama out....I have no desire to kiss it. Fuck 'em.
Posted by: Tami at April 11, 2012 10:56 AM (X6akg)
Marvel at this. Just marvel.
Posted by: toby928© at April 11, 2012 10:56 AM (GTbGH)
"His actual policy profile (as he's announced it during the campaign) is solidly right, however."
What?
When you need to include the parenthetical for the statement to be (superficially) truthful, there's a problem.
I am voting for him. I'm not one of those morons who only vote for Not-Witches, though I am displeased that my d20 was of no avail in building my Conservative Elf.
Posted by: Crispian at April 11, 2012 10:56 AM (P9LP6)
Posted by: steevy at April 11, 2012 10:57 AM (6HIQG)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:57 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: California Red at April 11, 2012 10:57 AM (DXTKe)
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 02:48 PM (vyS+v)
Really? Really? Have you not been paying attention these last few weeks? We could control the House and the Senate and we're not going to rein this rabid dog in. Obama is an expert at utilizing "regulations" and "appointments" to accomplish his crazy goals. Best we could hope for is to mitagate some of the damage.
Also, I'm all for the standing up for your principles bit, really I am. Rock on with that. But you can't be so staunch about them to the point of contradiction. First off, they're not mutually exclusive. You stood up for your principles in the primary. Majority overruled, you. You now have a different chance to stand up for the principles that Obama's against (by bouncing him from office) but you're so staunch about the other principles you won't do it? Do you not see the paradox?
Finally all you "I'm glad I live in a Solid Blue/Red state so I can sit this out" people. Go screw yourselves. Those of us in purple states are holding the line and damn proud to do it. I'm glad you sleep at night with your Faux pride. I sleep better knowing I didn't just run away. (If I'm reading these posts wrong, I'm sorry, I saw that somewhere else and may be projecting it here.)
Posted by: tsrblke at April 11, 2012 10:58 AM (SYrwI)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 11, 2012 10:58 AM (jUytm)
I don't want you to kiss my ass. I don't want Romney to court my vote. I won't be swayed by bullshit and I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils because our side decided this was the best choice to "win".
That's not winning.
Good luck with your candidate.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 10:58 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: Good Plan at April 11, 2012 10:58 AM (VxqUc)
If I was a Santorum supporter, I would be insulted by the implications of some of the statements I'm hearing.
Hell, my guy didn't even wait for the SC primary to be held, so I've had lots of time to get used to Romney.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at April 11, 2012 10:58 AM (9t6jP)
Posted by: SFGoth at April 11, 2012 10:58 AM (dZ756)
For me it's still Cake or Death.
Romney is not the cake I was hoping for.....but compared to Barky, he's still cake. ....And the consequences are dire, and indeed death. Death to our freedom. Death to our country.
So I will take the cake....even though it is the bland pound cake with no icing on top. ....It's better than death.
Posted by: wheatie at April 11, 2012 10:58 AM (+5U+B)
That's like saying, "I really want to win this war--believe me--, but our general is a no-good, piece of shit, who I'll never support."
Good luck with that, sir.
Posted by: jimmuy at April 11, 2012 02:55 PM (kSaUf)
And just how many Generals did Lincoln fire during the Civil War?
Posted by: Romeo13 at April 11, 2012 10:59 AM (lZBBB)
Then I would ditch the phone with the GPS device and high-tail it to a remote place with either no extradition or a complicated, long process, one that could get tied up for years.
Zimmerman should also get some Hispanic help from places like, oh, the Peruvian ambassador. And he should file a complaint against the Attorney General with the human rights section of the UN, to get THEM all tied in circles.
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 11, 2012 10:59 AM (GoIUi)
Nevada has a "None of the Above" which will be getting my vote in November (at least at the presidential level). I won't be telling myself I haven't made choice.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 02:56 PM (vyS+v)
Yes, because not choosing the only relevant options maintains your purity. You won't give the candidates you essence, right?
Posted by: joncelli, a man of gravity at April 11, 2012 11:00 AM (RD7QR)
*Every* vote counts. Red state, swing state... even blue state. I'd like to see Obama go out, not just on electoral votes, but with a popular vote tsunami against him. And if anyone could swing a blue state, as extremely unlikely as that is, Romney-- who won MA-- just might. Cf. New Jersey. So fuck yeah vote for Romney, even in California! Stranger things have happened.
Posted by: lael at April 11, 2012 11:00 AM (bKBHl)
Posted by: Jean at April 11, 2012 11:01 AM (WkuV6)
All repubs have to do is stay focused and keep up their enthusiasm for voting Obama out and Romney could narrowly win independents and eke out that 50+1 victory.
I don't know why you think it will be so narrow. Polls of Likely Voters consistently show Obama and Romney within the margin of error, and the undecideds at around 7%. Undecided voters invariably break 80/20 against a sitting President.
Not only will Romney win... he'll CREAM Obama.
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 11, 2012 11:02 AM (Iaxlk)
Posted by: Nora at April 11, 2012 11:02 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: Ambrose Burnside at April 11, 2012 11:02 AM (jUytm)
Since I am not looking for a savior, a messiah, a man on horseback to save me, I'll take Romney.
That other crap is for Obama voters.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at April 11, 2012 11:02 AM (hLRSq)
Posted by: elizabethe is at stage 5 at April 11, 2012 11:03 AM (hCc/i)
Wow... interesting how the Firebrand Holier than Thou Republican Zealots, are telling those not so zelous, to go to hell...
And that a loss will be THEIR fault... for not believing enough...
Sounds EXACTLY like conversations in 2008...
Posted by: Romeo13 at April 11, 2012 11:03 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Blue Hen at April 11, 2012 02:57 PM (c9Ivb)
Sorry but I knew you, of all people, would remember it well.
Posted by: Captain Hate at April 11, 2012 11:03 AM (Cw+Gl)
Sounds like the decisions already been made then. And if that's the case, why should I vote against my principles?
Or...maybe with actual control of Congress, he would be reined in by a house and Senate that knows they cannot be overridden.
Seriously, between this and the endorsement of Romney as "the guy who could most likely win", why would I want to join with those who have such defeatist attitudes and wind up with someone I didn't want anyway?
Not really a convincing argument.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:03 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: navycopjoe at April 11, 2012 11:04 AM (Ca+zh)
In their hyper-simplistic mind, their thinking (using the term loosely) goes like this:
I don't like Obama.
I also don't like Romney.
Therefore, Romney is the same as Obama.
I'm too principled to vote for Obama.
Since Romney is just like Obama, I'm also too principled to vote for him.
Don't bother with facts, logic, or reason with people like this. You might as well try to explain quantum mechanics to a 6 year old.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 11, 2012 11:04 AM (SY2Kh)
Question Sgt. York,
If None of the Above winds in NV what happens? No seriously, because if it doesn't actually trigger anything (say for example they just discount all of those votes and move to the runner up instead of a second election.) it is literally the same thing is merely skipping that part of the ballot.
No, you don't get the claim the moral ground of "I made a choice." because you didn't you chose not to vote, NV just has a box to check so they can verify their counts on that.
Posted by: tsrblke at April 11, 2012 11:05 AM (SYrwI)
still would it stop Obama? he went around congress to wage war. He doesn't believe He is limited or in any respect a partner in leadership. HE wants full control of every decision from legislation to what we eat.
He instigates racism and hate Through his administtrations tatcics, is this really what our country can take for another 4 years until we get a better pick?
why does one think a better pick is possible in four years anyway?
Posted by: willow at April 11, 2012 11:06 AM (TomZ9)
Nose. Face. Spite. Some disassembly required.
I've not seen this level of adolescent reasoning since I last chatted with a gunboard 3per / Luap Nor supporter.
Posted by: Jaws at April 11, 2012 11:06 AM (4I3Uo)
Congratulations. Henceforth you shall be addressed as Major Moby.
Dismissed.
Posted by: Field Marshal Mellow at April 11, 2012 11:06 AM (OokNw)
Posted by: Nora, former Santorum supporter, says MITT 2012 at April 11, 2012 11:07 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: Nora, former Santorum supporter, says MITT 2012 at April 11, 2012 11:07 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: Grey Fox at April 11, 2012 11:07 AM (zj1Yv)
Posted by: willow at April 11, 2012 11:07 AM (TomZ9)
Nice. I wish I had snarked it.
Posted by: Sterling Hayden at April 11, 2012 11:08 AM (GTbGH)
The nightmare of this scenario is enough for me to say "I have always been totally supportive of Mittens Romney as THE Republican candidate in 2012!"
Posted by: Hrothgar at April 11, 2012 11:08 AM (i3+c5)
yet this is what we have, we cannot wait 4 more years i believe that with all my soul.
Posted by: willow at April 11, 2012 11:09 AM (TomZ9)
<<Whether this blows a processor or not, Obama DID win 54% of the vote in 2008. He won ten million more votes than John McCain and Sarah Palin.>>
Yeah. And why? Because McCain represented a third Bush term. McCain represented Amnesty, TARP, Medicare Part D and so forth.
Seriously, do you HONESTLY think that Obama won '08 because the Leftist Agenda is so appealing?
He won because he had a charismatic message that the Right could not produce. He won because of fatigue with Bush's domestic agenda that McCain intended to double down on. He won because he made a lot of vague statements that made him look a hell of a lot more appealing than some old guy who felt he should be president because it was his turn.
And you tell me I don't live in reality?
Reagan won because he sounded like a Conservative. So did Nixon.
Hell, so did Clinton.
Don't try to tell me '09 was the result of some kind of policy appeal to the center. If you beileve that then one of us is DEFINITELY not living in reality.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:09 AM (vyS+v)
@210 "The Conservative question becomes: "How do we control Romney after the election." He will want to compromise, please all. My suggestion, drag the Overton Window to the right of Attila. Put up Conservative ideas and bills that would make Goldwater blush. Let Romney save the country from the arch-conservatives; all while governing to the right of RINO."
Finally! Someone who knows how to negotiate!
Posted by: Jaws at April 11, 2012 11:09 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2012 11:09 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Buddy Roemer at April 11, 2012 11:09 AM (chysP)
I want the United States of America to survive as a free-market, Constitutional Republic, with the freedoms guaranteed us under the Bill of Rights.
I have grandchildren that I care about and I do not want their futures hampered by massive debt, preferences for certain political and ethnic groups, and a China and Russia which control the balance of power.
Romney is our only hope. Ordering my bumper sticker today.
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 11, 2012 11:09 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: willow at April 11, 2012 11:10 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Buddy Roemer at April 11, 2012 11:11 AM (chysP)
Dear Morons,
If you do not choose Obama or Romney, for the next 4 years abide the(Crispian's) Golden Rule: silence!
If you want to vote 'present' and pretend that's a choice, knock yourselves out. But say nothing when policies are enacted and judges nominated.
Romney wouldn't even be my third choice but he will nominate better judges and he will refrain from the disastrous economic policies advanced by Obama. Is it loathesome that we have to vote for the "lesser of evils"? America has always been faced with such a choice. That no candidate (not even Reagan) has been perfect, does not mean those who care about America should not vote. Every presidential choice is significant. Many people habitually choose not to not vote - because they don't care. They don't care because 'it's all a game,' because 'all politicians are the same,' because 'it doesn't really effect them.' Don't add your own stupid reason to the list about the 'lesser of evils.'
Make a real choice and stop being cowards.
Posted by: Crispian at April 11, 2012 11:11 AM (P9LP6)
Not really a convincing argument.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 03:03 PM (vyS+v)
I'm not asking you or anyone else to "join" with anybody.
I'm just asking you to please, Please, PLEASE vote against the fucking Marxist we have in the White House before he destroys us. Please?
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 11, 2012 11:11 AM (Iaxlk)
Posted by: Lincolntf at April 11, 2012 11:11 AM (HethX)
Posted by: Buddy Roemer at April 11, 2012 11:12 AM (chysP)
I believe we can.
They said the same thing with Clinton. (and yet, we got welfare reform, and the Contract with America)
They said the same thing when Carter won his first election (we were all doomed...and in those days, my parents were ecstatic to buy their first house with a 19% interest rate in 1979).
And we're hearing it now.
With a Republican-controlled congress, we can do four more years.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:13 AM (vyS+v)
Sounds like the decisions already been made then. And if that's the case, why should I vote against my principles?
Okay maybe I wasn't clear (although I'd like to think I was, I'll take a show of hands on that one.) "The Decisions" can still be undone with anything slightly right of Obama in office. 4 years from now, not so much, the damange will be pretty signficant. So yes it does matter. It matters a lot, it's not "already a done deal." Don't misinterpret me so badly.
Again, you're logic is even more torturous than my own. You claim principles so strong they can't be violated, yet by not accepting the reality (whether you like it or not) you're going to allow those principles to be walked all over.
Let me be entirely clear: Unless you accept 3rd party options (I don't), you have 2 choices. It sucks, it really does. In such a case, (since either A or B will have to win there is not "try again" or "don't fill spot" option) not chosing A is a effective vote for B. Them's the breaks.
Posted by: tsrblke at April 11, 2012 11:13 AM (SYrwI)
Posted by: Bob Saget at April 11, 2012 11:14 AM (SDkq3)
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 03:13 PM (vyS+v)
And they were right.
Posted by: Joe Mama at April 11, 2012 11:15 AM (OokNw)
I know this. But at least I won't feel dirty when I step out of the voting booth. "None of the Above" is me expressing my displeasure with all candidates via my vote.
Plus it allows me to say "don't blame me, I voted for none of them!"
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:15 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: Buddy Roemer, the REAL candidate at April 11, 2012 11:15 AM (chysP)
Posted by: Lincolntf at April 11, 2012 11:17 AM (HethX)
I voted for none of them! Just like you!
Posted by: Buddy Roemer, the REAL candidate at April 11, 2012 11:17 AM (chysP)
Like I said. I've been hearing this for thirty years.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:17 AM (vyS+v)
I'm all in for Romney. Now that the missus has a job again, I may even give a few bucks. This country will be unrecognizable if Obama gets another 4 years.
Posted by: Hedgehog at April 11, 2012 11:17 AM (3jGS1)
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 02:56 PM (vyS+v)
So instead of Obama having to come up with 2 votes (to your 1) to get ahead, you're going to let him slide by with just 1 vote (to your 0 vote).
We could have had a Republican rocket scientist - a CUTE one! - sitting in Raul Grijalva's seat if 5,000 voters hadn't seen fit to throw their vote away on an "independent" candidate in 2010.
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at April 11, 2012 11:17 AM (0xqzf)
Posted by: Buddy Roemer, the REAL candidate at April 11, 2012 11:17 AM (chysP)
For what it's worth, I've been solidly convinced since before the '08 election that there was not much greater than a 0% chance ANY Republican was going to win in '08. It wasn't going to happen. Period.
And with that being said, John McCain did us all a favor by taking the pounding nobody else wanted to take. Fred didn't want it, Rudy didn't either. You could make the case that Romney and Huckleberry were putting their time in so they could run this year.
If we had run a TRUE CONSERVATIVE, that person would have been trounced too. Probably worse than McCain.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2012 11:18 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: argh at April 11, 2012 11:18 AM (/Kqvx)
Posted by: Buddy Roemer, the REAL candidate at April 11, 2012 11:18 AM (chysP)
What part of "not compromising my principles" do you just fail to comprehend?
Did I not repeat that enough?
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:18 AM (vyS+v)
As long as you feel all warm and fuzzy and have a pleasant quip, I suppose it doesn't matter what becomes of our nation. Clearly your vote alone isn't going to change the election, but to the extent that many people think like you do, it's idiotic.
Posted by: Crispian at April 11, 2012 11:18 AM (P9LP6)
Probably right.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:19 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: Buddy Roemer, the REAL candidate at April 11, 2012 11:20 AM (chysP)
Right back atcha, Sparky.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:20 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: Jaws at April 11, 2012 11:20 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: Buddy Roemer, the REAL candidate at April 11, 2012 11:21 AM (chysP)
Posted by: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain at April 11, 2012 11:22 AM (bj+Nc)
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 11, 2012 11:23 AM (GoIUi)
Cool. Hey, you know what? I totally support your choice to do just that. My distaste is for a candidate, not those who choose to support him. I'm just saying what I think should be done.
<< This country will be unrecognizable if Obama gets another 4 years.>>
I know...I've been hearing these same words since I was six years old, when Carter won election. I'm sure we'll survive.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:23 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: Bob Saget at April 11, 2012 03:14 PM (SDkq3)
Canada also has the ceremonial scraping off of the butterscotch pudding. You have to admire a country with such rich traditions.
Posted by: BurtTC at April 11, 2012 11:24 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 11, 2012 03:23 PM (GoIUi)
Indeed, it's usually impossible to satisfy all principles at all times (it is not an idea world). Such we rank principles. I rank ABO as #1. I weighed all my principles and I'm morally satisfied voting for Romney.
Posted by: tsrblke at April 11, 2012 11:24 AM (SYrwI)
Also, the 2012 vote counting for many states has been outsourced to a Spanish company owned by Soros! (couldn't find a reputable link for this so I might be wrong).
When it comes to Dem voting rules, no headstone is left unturned!
Posted by: Hrothgar at April 11, 2012 11:25 AM (i3+c5)
So elections don't matter? 4 more years of a liberal presidency has no effect on the trajectory of our nation? Finally, we've got to the heart of the matter, you really don't care since you don't think presidents make much of a difference. Voting is just your way of exercising your "principles." How fulfilling!
Posted by: Crispian at April 11, 2012 11:26 AM (P9LP6)
Short Answer: The primary principle of not replacing him with someone a lot like him.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:27 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 03:23 PM (vyS+v)
You keep referencing Carter and I think it's important to note they did kick him out after 4 years. Which is what we're trying to do here. We could generate tons of hypotheticals about what would have happened if Carter had won a second term.
Posted by: tsrblke at April 11, 2012 11:27 AM (SYrwI)
Cause really, Romney hasn't been to the convention, he hasn't been anointed yet, so it's a little premature. Especially considering the fact that all those folks who helped with the 2010 election may not be on board with Romney but rather waiting for the newt, perry, cain, bachman, palin, the fred crowd to do something at the convention to save them from romney.
Posted by: Mittens! at April 11, 2012 11:28 AM (oZfic)
And that's your choice to make.
I promise I won't try to denigrate you for making it...or talk you out of it.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:29 AM (vyS+v)
I was an adult when Carter was elected. Due to Carter, we got the Dept. of Education. We got the Panama Canal; given away. We got all of the draft-dodgers pardoned, who mostly have come back to work with the left. We got the Shah thrown out, and the beginning of the Islamic jihad.
Carter did a lot of bad stuff which could not be undone even by Reagan, especially in foreign policy. His gutting of the intelligence agencies and the military left us severely weakened when Reagan came in.
It's the COUNTRY that will be harmed; individuals may do ok under Obama. But a lot of people won't, and our foreign policy, our military, and Israel in particular cannot stand 4 more years.
What principle is more important than defeating Obama?
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 11, 2012 11:29 AM (GoIUi)
What principle is compromised by voting for Romney?
Is that principle above the principle of "slowing the destruction of your country" in your hierarchy of principles?
Suppose your kid or someone you loved had a type of cancer that could only be successfully treated by one drug manufactured by pharmaceutical company which also manufactured abortifacients, something you deem gravely immoral. The alternative would be to let the cancer go untreated and the loved one would die. How does your conscience reconcile the hierachical place of those principles?
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at April 11, 2012 11:30 AM (qwK3S)
Posted by: Mittens! at April 11, 2012 03:28 PM (oZfic)
You are the dumbest fucking person to have ever existed. Is your braindead daddy still claiming that Huckabee is going to become the nominee through the convention you retarded skank?
Posted by: buzzion at April 11, 2012 11:30 AM (GULKT)
That is simply fatuous codswollop.
I am done talking. I need to go get supper started.
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 11, 2012 11:31 AM (GoIUi)
What part of "not compromising my principles" do you just fail to comprehend?
You know who else never has to "compromise their principles" or say, "I didn't vote for him"?
People who live in dictatorships.
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at April 11, 2012 11:31 AM (0xqzf)
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 03:15 PM (vyS+v)
So it's all about YOU, then?
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 11, 2012 11:31 AM (Iaxlk)
See my post above. Romney is no Conservative...he's hardly a Republican...I vote for candidates who match - or closely match within reason - my political ideology.
I think Romney would have a better chance of winning if he ran as a Democrat.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:32 AM (vyS+v)
I understand there isn't supposed to be any math on this blog but these are 3 distinct #s.
I just look at that as cowardly, as it stubbornly refuses to answer the actual question posed.
Name calling won't help or don't you remember saying something similar just a few days ago.
4 years of full throttle fuckup vs 4 years of possible good mgt. from the top having a slim chance of actually getting done let alone changing anything in the face of DOOM.
Posted by: DaveA at April 11, 2012 11:33 AM (onSRg)
'...I vote for candidates who match - or closely match within reason - my political ideology."
I appreciate your support!!!!
Posted by: B H Obama at April 11, 2012 11:34 AM (kaOJx)
Well, all that is fine, York.
We just don't want to hear your complaints about the second term of President Barak Marx Obama for four long years. Because someone that couldn't be bothered to pull the lever against him has no standing to say one negative word about him.
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 11, 2012 11:34 AM (Iaxlk)
Posted by: Huggy at April 11, 2012 11:35 AM (VtU/3)
And that's your choice to make.
I promise I won't try to denigrate you for making it...or talk you out of it.
No, try, I insist. Really that's not snark, I love discussion, opposing points, the whole 9 yards. I cannot make an informed choice without hearing argument from the other side. I've been swayed before. Present arguments, draw conclusions! Put them out there to be critiqued. Mine are out there (in fact you've critiqued them!) Why not do the same? That's what makes this country so freaken awesome.
FWIW, you've put forward the "principles matter" argument. I'm not sure you've given it an adaquate defense though considering the number of people who have pointed out that votes matter too. Carried to it's logical conclusion you could say that if enough people felt as you did on that matter Obama would win by default, a conclusion that is inconsistant with it's premise.
Posted by: tsrblke at April 11, 2012 11:35 AM (SYrwI)
People who live in dictatorships.>>
Also dead people...which has as much relevance as what you just said...
...did you have to restrain yourself from breaking Godwin's law, or was that your next step?
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:36 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 11, 2012 11:37 AM (Iaxlk)
I'm sorry, York, but I just don't see how abstaining from the effort to prevent four more years of Obama somehow furthers conservative principles.
Anyway you slice it the baloney, it's bullshit.
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 11, 2012 11:39 AM (Iaxlk)
You want to play the Union strong-arm card and tell me that my vote is a de facto vote for Obama, you go right ahead with your stupid bullshit. Doesn't mean it's reality.
I'm pulling the lever, fuckstick, and I'm pulling it against both Obama and Romney. And the more assholes like you tell me I have no right to express myself with my vote the more I am convinced it's the right thing to do.
Better believe I've got "standing".
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:40 AM (vyS+v)
I don't care...
...mostly because you categorize it as "absatining".
And that's pure bullshit.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:41 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at April 11, 2012 11:41 AM (qwK3S)
@304: Sorry, but you know as well as the rest of us that pulling the lever for some total BS candidate is the same as staying home on Election Night.
Your complaints about Obama will fall on deaf ears. No one will care.
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 11, 2012 11:42 AM (Iaxlk)
Posted by: Admiral York at April 11, 2012 11:42 AM (P9LP6)
"Better believe I've got "standing"."
Yeah you got standing, whatever that means. To me, you are just another cocksucking Obama supporter, who is probably anti American.
Posted by: Dick Nxion at April 11, 2012 11:42 AM (kaOJx)
Um...yeah...a person who represents your ideology (i.e. your principles).
Why? Is it a beauty contest for you?
Or popularity?
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:43 AM (vyS+v)
and to me, you are nothing.
probably to a LOT of others as well I don't doubt.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 11:44 AM (vyS+v)
Posted by: Come And Take It at April 11, 2012 11:45 AM (8Yc/9)
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at April 11, 2012 11:45 AM (qwK3S)
"probably to a LOT of others as well I don't doubt."
So what York? Go vote for your "messiah" Obama. WIth my blessing your anti American prick bastard.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at April 11, 2012 11:46 AM (kaOJx)
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 03:43 PM (vyS+v)
To me it's always been the person that best represents my ideology of the choices in front of me. I'm more flexable in the general election that I am in the primary since primaries shape parties.
If the choices are very from me (and the position will have to be filled) I default to "against the person most opposed to my position." There's enough space between Romney and Obama in this case.
Posted by: tsrblke at April 11, 2012 11:48 AM (SYrwI)
Why? Is it a beauty contest for you?
Or popularity?
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 03:43 PM (vyS+v)
If you want that you better go and file the paperwork to run yourself. Because even whatever stupid pot-obsessed protest candidate you will wind up choosing won't represent your ideology.
Posted by: buzzion at April 11, 2012 11:49 AM (GULKT)
I'll vote for the lying blob of pond scum but I'll never delude myself that Romney is anything other than what his mediocre political record says he is. He's better than Obama because he's smart enough not to wage war against basic arithmetic but otherwise? Romney's inability to articulate a positive vision isn't some clever campaign ploy. It's because his vision is quite similar to Obama's in the core idea that an Ivy League educated automatically knows what's best and us stupid morons in flyover country should just shut up and let them run things.
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at April 11, 2012 11:54 AM (E9BEf)
@Sgt York
Fuck you, you sanctimonious prick.
I despise you and your ilk. Go ahead and stand by and let this country be destroyed. All because you didn't get your perfect candidate. Coward is too kind. You are the enemy.
Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at April 11, 2012 11:56 AM (6U9Rf)
An election isn't really about principles except as a secondary motivator.
We are presented with two men, and asked to choose which one we think would be the best to lead the country. Not "who agrees with me" or "who is conservative" or "who is the right race, religion or party."
The question is thus of Mitt and BO, who is the best to lead the country right now?
You don't get points for choosing a "none of the above" even if you believe that to be true. The fate of the country depends on millions of people making this choice. Some are going to think Obama is the best due to race, free stuff, Marxist desire for complete chaos, etc.
If you believe this country is worth preserving, then you have to vote for a guy who will at least TRY to fix it, rather than one who piles on destruction after destruction.
I do not think this is a morally difficult choice, myself.
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 11, 2012 11:59 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at April 11, 2012 11:59 AM (9eDbm)
Posted by: Jeff B. at April 11, 2012 12:00 PM (irCrF)
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 11, 2012 12:01 PM (GoIUi)
BTW, I believe "Sgt York" is anti-aircraft artillery system, or something like that.
Posted by: SFGoth at April 11, 2012 12:04 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Rod Patrick at April 11, 2012 12:09 PM (IlEiO)
Competent. And mere competence cannot be too highly rated.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at April 11, 2012 02:26 PM (hLRSq)
Yeah, we liked the way he competently came up with that conservative idea to make STATE-RUN health care mandatory in Mass. My administration and I rated that very highly. Romneycare 2012!
Posted by: Baracka H. Obama, I Won at April 11, 2012 12:11 PM (tQHzJ)
Good. It means precisely jack shit.
You hate me because I won't vote in lockstep with cunts like you and yet you call me anti-american.
You are precisely what is wrong with the Republican Party. And you are no different from the fascist wannabes on the Left.
You just wear a different stripe of fascism.
Posted by: Sgt. York at April 11, 2012 12:13 PM (vyS+v)
Ramesh Ponuru wrote some time ago that Obama would have a choice of portraying Romney as either a flip-flopper with no principles or an extremist conservative ideologue.
Can't really do both.MFM: He can if he wants to. And we'll try to make every smear stick
Posted by: TheQuietMan at April 11, 2012 12:21 PM (1Jaio)
Romney appears to be something that Obama isn't: Competent. And mere competence cannot be too highly rated.
*snickering in corner*
The way he outsmarted us in the '08 primary showed us he was a real braintrust.
Posted by: Huck & Juan at April 11, 2012 12:29 PM (tQHzJ)
Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at April 11, 2012 12:33 PM (UU0OF)
Posted by: Y-not at April 11, 2012 12:35 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Damiano at April 11, 2012 12:42 PM (A2+pr)
Posted by: packsoldier at April 11, 2012 12:53 PM (9tLNI)
I've asked to; you don't want me. Blackballing bastids ...
Posted by: Knemon at April 11, 2012 01:14 PM (u1+3w)
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at April 11, 2012 01:16 PM (9eDbm)
If you don't vote against the SCoaMF, you are "one of them". It's rather definitional.
Posted by: toby928© at April 11, 2012 01:19 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Rich K at April 11, 2012 02:42 PM (X4l3T)
Posted by: Rich K at April 11, 2012 02:45 PM (X4l3T)
Mitt knows that there is indeed a third party in the US -- the tea party, or the fiscal conservatives, or the people who just want to stop the nation from jumping off a financial cliff into an abyss, or whatever you want to call them. Mitt knows that they are only holding their tongues and watching the candidates and the election play out.
If there is business as usual in DC come January 2013, there will be hell to pay. And Mitt knows it. Obama does, too, but he intends to use that hell and the flexibility that a second term will give him. Scary word in his mouth: flexibility.
Go Mitt.
Posted by: PJ at April 11, 2012 03:42 PM (DQHjw)
Posted by: Huggy at April 12, 2012 04:18 AM (FKGw9)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.8007 seconds, 455 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: toby928© at April 11, 2012 10:18 AM (GTbGH)