Shut The Hell Up and Vote for Romney
It seems to me that many left-wingers confuse good intentions with good outcomes and mistake the feeling of virtue for virtue itself. I hear them say things like, “Well, at least Obama cares,” as if the presidency were not an important job that could be done well or badly. Would they choose to be operated on by a surgeon because he cares or would they prefer one who knew what he was doing and could get the job done? They praise programs for their intent without considering their outcomes or costs. They do not weigh their liberty in the balance of their reason. At their worst, they cherish a sense of themselves as good and generous because they vote for the people who tell them they are good and generous, and hold as hateful those who will not join in praising the emperor’s new clothes.
But there is a conservative version of this as well. There are conservatives who confuse good principles with good outcomes and who mistake the feeling of wisdom for wisdom itself. I hear them say things like, “There’s no difference between Obama and Romney,” as if a president with no intention and no plan of fixing our looming debt crisis is the same as a candidate with a proven record of fixing such problems and who has given his word to try. They hold their firm adherence to their ideals above the doing of what good they can. They trumpet their vaunted love of liberty while throwing their vote away on a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, which will do not one thing for their liberty or anyone else’s. At their worst, they cherish a sense of themselves as superior because of their fantasized solutions while discounting as a fool anyone who would support the best option available.
Over the course of this campaign, I have come to have a lot more respect for and confidence in Mitt Romney than I did when the campaign began. In fact, I have come to hope he may be just the man the moment requires. Maybe this means he’s just a good politician and I’m gullible or maybe it means he’s a good man with a good plan and I’ve come to see him more clearly. But in either case, there is no doubt in my mind that he is by far — by far — the better of the two plausible choices. Obama is a mediocrity schooled in hostility to our founding principles. Romney is a successful man of the world who may not hew to every tenet of my cherished beliefs, but who wants to see the country prosperous, free, and powerful as it once was and as it can and should be again.
So yes, you’re wiser than all of us — more firmly rooted in conservative principles than any of us — you are wholly unpolluted by the shabby compromises of either party and your protest vote will rock our worlds.
Now shut up and go vote for Mitt Romney. For the love of your country, choose the better way.
I’ve been saying the past few days to anyone that would listen, that I don’t know why I wasn’t a bigger supporter of Romney before. It seems the more I watch and listen and learn, the more I like and respect him. Yes, he is a good man and yes he has a good plan! Maybe my opinion of him before came from the way the media portrayed him. I think that’s true with many, many people. Seems obvious to look at the crowds he’s gathering at rallies all over. Vote Romney! Vote for Country! Vote for Biblical Values! Vote for Freedom!
I have written right here at PJM that Romney is not very conservative, that he will disappoint those who now support him, that I would not vote for him in the primary and I didn’t. I’ve said he is a manager/executive who only wants to get things done well and does not really care about ideology. He only wants to go down in history as a great executive president. I haven’t changed my mind. But I don’t think he is a bad man.
My long-time lady friend Miss Snarky Doucher[pronounced in the French manner, dueSHAY] and I will gladly vote for Romney today. Demunist Obama must be fired. He has already proven to be a lawless, anti-Constitutional, radical leftist who, on top of all that, lives in a fantasy world wherein all his idiotic policies are serving the nation well.
Goodbye, Obama, may you fade into retirement, grow wealthy, and have the esteem of your party like the infamous perjurer named Bill Clinton.
I voted for the Libertarian candidates. That’s a true vote for freedom.
Then you wasted your vote. You might as well have voted for 0bama.
Statistically not true for my state. Also, a vote for a third party candidate does not put an extra vote in Obama’s column.
“a vote for a third party candidate does not put an extra vote in Obama’s column”
Of course it does, because you are diluting the Anti-Obama Vote…
In a close call election like this, its like those Fire-Ants that individually death-lock in battles between hives…one each is sacrificed to defeat one other, and the hive with “the most” simply wins in that contest*. Throwing your vote away on a Third Party Candidate leaves ONE MORE “un-cancelled” vote in Obamas column which will require ONE MORE Romney vote just to make it ‘even”.
So if there is a VERY SMALL surplus of “anti-obama” voters of any stripe available in a State, WASTING ANY OF THEM on third party guys is the same as voting for Obama. More people may vote AGAINST him, yet he will win.
People ignorant of this kind of Basic Political Math are how Bill Clinton managed to win TWO Presidential elections with only 40% percent of the vote.
So save your smug Independent-ness and Cool-Indie Poser-ism, because if you vote Third Party you’re nothing but a USEFUL IDIOT for the Obama Campaign.
(*plus all the voter fraud exclusive to the Democrat Machine)
Well, I can’t vote for Romney. Everything about me makes me sick to my stomach. The more I read about stuff he did in the past, the more grossed out I got. Plus Mormons are morons. No person in their right mind believes that hooey. No one. A vote for Romney is tantamount to a vote for Tom Cruise, IMO.
Besides, I am so sick of what politics and campaigns have turned into in this country I’m not voting for the same old same old. Not anymore. Not until things change, and nothing will ever change if all conservatives run are the same tired old candidates. When Romney loses, and when they calculate in the third party voters and see if that made a difference or not, maybe they’ll get it.
Plus, I can suck it up for another four years of Obama. Eight years of Romney? You gotta be kidding me.
You didn’t vote for freedom, you voted for the Libertarian candidates. There’s a difference. If yours and other Libertarians’ votes mean 4 more years of Obama, then you didn’t vote for freedom, you voted for your feelings. You also guaranteed that L/libertarianism will have no effective future in America, and will be viewed as a weird cult on the fringes of American political life with absolutely no ability to affect policy.
How is not voting my conscience the moral thing to do? Or the free thing to do? Or a vote for anything other than coercion, bullying and suppressing votes?
I exercised my right to vote, and I was not swayed by those who think they own my vote somehow. I am not for Obama. I am not for Romney and the Republican Party. I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate or party.
No it’s not. The reality of it being a vote for Obama aside, Libertarianism is completely incompatible with the principles on which this country was founded.
Like or not, liberty is based on MORAL values, and cannot exist otherwise. (That’s why it cannot be forced on the middle east, or anywhere else.)
Libertarianism, like communism, fails to understand human nature, and is therefore unworkable in the real world. It will lead to totalitarianism by a different road than communism, and likely a longer road, but it leads there just the same.
I love the idea of getting rid of things like the Dept. of Education, Energy, HUD among others but I cannot and will not ever support the Libertarian theology as they seem to hold the pursuit to have sex with anything not tied down as the most important thing in the world. I see more hate for Christians come from libertarians that leftists.
Madam, did we read the same article ? I refer you to the last two paragraphs.
Have you forgotten how votes for Ross Perot enabled Clinton to win the presidency on a mere 43% of the vote?
Although conservative before Obama’s arrival on the scene, his antics and those of his fellows –like a nightmare version of Killer Clowns from Space– have driven me even farther to the Right.
Although it has no hope of being reversed, I think that universal suffrage was one of the worst ideas we ever adopted.
Although I am a Californian and my state is a lost cause, I will vote for the lesser of the two evils for sure. Politics is rarely ever about anything else.
I have to agree as unpopular a sentiment as that is. When we gave votes to blacks and women, fine. That was fine. When we gave votes to every Tom, Dick, and Harry regardless of whether he was educated or whether he paid taxes. Now THAT was a dumb idea.
What he said.
It’s really easy, especially as a young adult, to believe that a “protest vote” reveals your superior intelligence, raging virtue and very above-average moral fibre. Except, of course, that the protest candidate can’t win, you facilitate the election of a socialist, and at the end of the day, no one cares how smart, pure and upright you are. They’re just pissed at the outcome.
What we should be pulling for, as we pull the proverbial lever for Mitt, is this: that those starry-eyed young Obama voters – out of work, out of money & out of hope, yet likely to have a stroke at the thought of voting GOP – get behind, say, Ralph Nader. Unlike Paul or Johnson, Nader at least has the pedigree as the best candidate who never won an election…
Nader? Really? The man who single-handedly destroyed the American Nuclear industry?
Destroyed? Many great ships of war are nuclear-driven and nuclear electricity producers are still operating. In addition nuclear energy, while safety will continue to be a high priority, shows far more promise for the future than either wind or solar.
How many new nuclear power plants have been built since the “anti-nuclear” movements?
*crickets*
Except that it depends on what state you live in — Romney’s not going to take California, therefore a vote in support of the Libertarian Party is probably more meaningful than voting for Romney AFAIC.
Yes, agree with that, especially since the CA Republican party is a dusty, crusty joke largely comprised of serial losers — but is does depend on where you live.
A protest vote in a heavily contested state is a wasted vote — in those states it makes sense to hold your nose and vote for Romney, without even blinking.
I live in CA, and I voted for Romney because if Obama loses, I want his repudiation to be loud and clear in the popular vote. And if Obama wins, I do not want him to be able to claim any sort of mandate. Gary Johnson is a fine candidate, but this election is too important for me to throw away my vote on him, even in California. We *must* retire the disgusting nihilist currently occupying the White House.
Finally, Romney is a much better candidate than many on the right seem to think. The more I learn about him, the more I like him both as a person and as a politician.
Oh how I wish more voices on the right would say just this. I want to puke when I read there’s no difference between Romney and Obama. At heart these so called “conservatives” are as Utopian so called progressive. It’s either perfection, as they seem to say existed some time in the past, or it doesn’t matter who wins. I heard Ron Paul today on some radio program say third parties are worthless, and that the libertarian voice in the Republican Party is greater today than it’s ever been. Exactly. Try going back to the Republican Party Ronald Reagan inherited. So called moderates made up a big chunk of the party. Now, not so much. These purists deserved to be seen as the modern day Birchers that Bill Buckley read out of the Republican Party in the sixties. I say to them, good riddance!
Like Andrew Klavan, I reject as obvious nonsense the trope that “There’s no difference between Obama and Romney,” but there may not be enough of a difference to avoid the coming catastrophe.
Mitt Romney should be commended for choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate, as his plan is the most serious plan being put forward by the Republican leadership, but the most important fact about his plan is this: it does not balance the budget until 2040.
The Republicans’ most serious plan to address what Klavan correctly identifies as our looming debt crisis is to ADD to that debt for AT LEAST another 28 years.
Under Ryan’s plan, we don’t even balance the budget for another seven presidential terms, and that’s the very first step required to paying down a dollar of the debt.
Going on the evidence of his actual record, I think a President Romney is likely to use the Ryan Plan only as a first offer in negotiations with a party that is entirely opposed to addressing the debt and is willing to vilify even Ryan’s laughably modest proposal. He’s more likely to invoke the plan to triangulate with his colleagues across the aisle than to use it as the tiniest starting point to real reform.
(And is there any real doubt that Romney and Boehner won’t be half as ruthless in pushing to repeal Obamacare as Obama and Pelosi were in passing it?)
Klavan writes that Romney “wants to see the country prosperous, free, and powerful as it once was and as it can and should be again.”
That may well be, but there’s very little evidence that he has both the principles and the courage to chart the difficult course we need to take and do so against the opposition that will be as vicious as it will be predictable.
He writes, “I have come to hope he may be just the man the moment requires,” but haven’t we just learned the risk of hope that isn’t justified by the candidate’s record?
The morally correct thing may still be to support Romney, but not at the loss of our understanding just how likely it is that we may be replacing a truly awful president with one who’s still inadequate to the crises we face.
Regulations. Executive orders.
@ Lawrence
Be careful here, do not inadvertently buy into the “Romney = bad RINO” meme people have sprayed around like DDT. As a resident of this tax-and-spend hellhole, I can state that Romney as governor did very well indeed.
Consider where he began as Governor and where he ended. He got us back all of the jobs we’d lost as part of the Dot-Com Bubble – and we were particularly hard-hit here – paid off our debt in jig-time, and left us a substantial rainy-day surplus (I am certain his successor, Deval Patrick, appreciated that, not that he’s ever actually come out and said as much); we went from being dead-last in job creation, but ended up as 28th (I think that’s the correct figure – correct me if I am wrong, please). And all dealing with a Democrat-heavy Legislature (85% by some estimations); in point of fact, Romney used his line-item veto over 800 times to try to resolve our economic problems (over 700 of which were then reversed by the Legislature).
By what standard then do people measure “success?” I’d say the above is a sterling record of bi-partisanship, common sense and business acumen, and he didn’t roll over and kowtow to the Democrats either. The man does in fact have some very real stubborn to him. It doesn’t appear self-evident to many, but the Massachusetts Democrat “Machine” is every bit as nasty as the Chicago Way, just more subtle. He did well fighting back. If that isn’t success, then what is?
I think people underestimate him, big-time.
Just an aside, but one can relate him and Obama in terms of Civil War Generals. Romney is Grant, once described as “a simple man of the Republic, going about his business”); Obama is a cross between P.T. Beuregard and McClellan – incompetent, full of show and fine speech, all of which signifies absolutely nothing save a lot of verbiage designed so as to get his way with us.
Allston, I’m not just buying into some meme. I’ve been paying attention, and I noticed when Romney attacked Rick Perry from the left for speaking the truth about entitlements; I noticed when Romney assumed that the welfare state is a permanent system of support for the poor and when he subsequently proposed tying the minimum wage to inflation because his initial, inelegant comment made it sound like he was apathetic about the poor; I noticed when Romney caved on Augusta and joined the politically correct Left’s chorus of forcing a private organization to bend to their will.
And I noticed that Romney never did retract his defense of the individual mandate.
His desire to be bipartisan is no virtue when the other party has been taken over by Jacobins wholly uninterested in addressing the debt crisis, and his business acumen isn’t enough. What we need is someone with the vision and the courage to roll back progressivism against truly massive resistance.
If you think Romney has those things, by all means support him whole-heartedly. I don’t, so I can’t.
So, you’re either going to vote for Comrade Obama or a third party, which is the same as a vote for Obama. You’re an idiot!
You know, you can bully people who don’t vote the way you would force them to vote all you like, but that only makes you the same as the Black Panthers standing in front of the PA polling place.
There are plenty of people whose lives will not be affected much regardless of who wins this election. To some of us, a vote for a third party sends a message to the GOP that their candidates suck, that many of the social issues they run on are not social issues we support — that we’re sick of a lot of these stupid social and religious issues altogether.
If you’re going to bully and berate those who don’t march in lockstep with you, fine. A lot of us can afford four more years of Obama. Bully and berate away. Makes no nevermind to me. Maybe if there’d been less bullying and berating, some of the people voting for a third party candidate might’ve voted for Romney in spite of their concerns. Now? Not for anything.
How is Art speaking coercion here? He’s merely informing Bubba of the all-too-real potential consequences of a protest vote. Those consequences can and likely will be catastrophic for all of us, if Obama is re-elected with no checks on his “plans.”
Four more years of THIS crap, and it will make no difference if we elect a Democrat, a Republican, or a New Guinea Cannibal as President in 2016. All they will be able to do is preside over the devastated landscape, while we pick through the ash heaps for scraps of food.
And I can assure you, all of those “not really affected” people you mention WILL be “affected,” in ways they never considered.
Truly, Nora, THIS is how a Republic ends. Not with a whimper, and not with a bang, but with a bunch of smug dilettantes congratulating themselves on the ill-informed “choice,” with nary a consideration of the consequences of their actions.
Coercion? Maybe not. But I’ve seen enough of Art Chance’s posts to not be surprised if he was showing up at polling places with a billy club. His responses here are the verbal equivalent of that.
California is going to go to Romney. Period. That’s not going to change. So, for me, a vote for the Libertarian Party is a more meaningful and productive vote because a) it sends a message to the Republican Party that they’re doing a craptastic job coming up with candidates and b) it’s my flip off to the religious nutters who are just so appallingly nasty and hateful to anyone who doesn’t kiss their double-wide behinds. Screw ‘em.
No, he is not. A vote for Romney is +1 for your guy. A vote for an 3rd Party is +0 for your guy. A vote for Obama is -1 for your guy. Just because Romney sucks less, does not mean that he doesn’t suck. He is a moderate, and as a Conservative, I am angry that, once again, we got a moderate candidate, instead of a Conservative.
I really do not care if Romney wins or loses. It will suck to have Obama some more, but the upside is that the Stupid Party might finally decide to give us a real Conservative, next time. Well, no, but they will be suffering immensely, even more than me. Screw the moderates, the establishment Repubs. I am not a Repub, and if they want my vote, they damned well better give me a better candidate, not just another lying politician. I want solutions, not band-aids. A pox on both their houses.
Oh, please, Nora. Art Chance always seems to me to have been not only a gentleman but someone who paid a lot of dues in the belly of the beast, where “running around with a billy club” would have gotten him fired immediately.
Please feel free to have your own opinion – just because Andrew and others have (rather forcefully) put forward their own in this forum has not for one minute impinged upon your right to vote, to have an opinion, or even to express it. Keep up the debate – if you have useful ideas, keep adding them to the pot and keep advocating for your views. Please! This country needs it.
What this debate doesn’t need is constant “you are attacking me” and “I come to my opinions by thinking (implied: unlike you guys)” or “all you religious people are stupid, unlike me” posts that seem to constantly come from certain types on these forums who get their underwear tied in a knot when anyone argues that they might be wrong.
For what it’s worth, here’s what I believe – whenever a person “sends a message” by voting for a third party candidate that they know won’t win, they *do* send a message. But the message that is received by the party isn’t “gee, we made them mad. We should give them what they want”, but instead “well, they are unreliable allies. They told us to go screw ourselves… well that works both ways.”
Let me finish this by saying that this is just my opinion, and, though I expressed strong disagreement with your conclusions, for all I know you are a smart and thoughtful person with whom I disagree, who, I am sure, would never attack me with a billy club or anything else. Have a nice day, and enjoy your vote, however you use it. Long live the USA!
He’s what we have at the moment. To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, “You go to war with the candidate you have.”
We’ll see. I don’t think he’s perfect, but he has qualities that suggest he may have more mettle than one might, on the surface, believe.
Allston, I genuinely hope you’re right, but I cannot enthusiastically support a candidate when his record makes such a hope a very long shot indeed.
Sheesh, you are dumber than the useful idiots on the other side. Get a hold of yourself, Bubba! ABO2012
I’d like to add that using veto privilege 800+ times, knowing full well that 700+ of those vetos would be unpopular and would be overturned demonstrates a genuine commitment to principle and distinct courage (i.e. – doing what you know is right even in the face of near certain failure). People forget that most of the reason that Romney left office in MA with a low approval rating is precisely because he didn’t just roll over and take it from the legislature.
Yeah. How often did W use that veto pen?
Not sure if you noticed, but GWB is not on the ballot. And Romney =/= Bush.
Lawrence;
If Presidents could shove a budget down our throats, Obumbles would have done that as his first decree.
Here’s a time line and historical perspective on Obama’s budget and voting record for/against the budget:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/
Lawrence, a vote for Mitt Romney for president is a reasonable strategic move. I know I will like Mitt’s choices for the supreme court better than Obama’s. Congress writes the budget and I have no doubt that Mitt Romney would sign a bill that balances the budget faster. Think Mitt + Operation Counterweight. We already know that Obama will actively encourage out of control spending until financial ruin finally stops him.
We also have opportunities in 2014. So far the Tea Party groups have only weighed in in Republican primaries. Imagine what would happen if Tea Party groups tried to replace progressives with sane moderate Democrats in the deep blue districts. Aged out-of-touch progressives make for a very target rich environment.
“This time, vote like your whole world depended on it.” –Nixon, ’68
He means the shut up part. Like so many here at PJM, he often blocks me, because I am the guy he describes. Same censorship I get from the Left. We’ll see if my rebuttal posts.
Is there a difference between Obama and Romney? Not much. Obama lies all the time, and Romney lies just some of the time.
Will Romney repeal OCare? No, he’ll modify it. He has said many times, “Keep the good and throw out the bad.” In time, the Dems will get back in power, and put the bad back in, just like in MA. Romney vetoed 8 line items in MassCare, and Patrick put them all back in.
Romney will cut some staffing in government, and he’ll streamline some things, making it more efficient, but there will be no serious cuts. Then the Dems will put them all back in.
The establishment Repubs chose Romney early, because he will play ball. He’ll keep the game going. That’s why he won, because he got the big money early, and so they game goes on.
If the damned Republicans wanted my Conservative/libertarian vote, then they should have given me AnyoneButRomney (or Huntsman). Dear God, I’d have even voted for Gingrich or (gulp) Paul, anyone else who would have been willing to change course.
Romney will slow things down, but he will not change course. You are kidding yourself if you think things will change greatly. You are projecting. This is more HopeyChangey, only by the Repubs.
Romney will win, and some things will get better, but the trajectory will remain the same. The big-government Repubs will be in charge again! The spending will continue, as will the wars, and well, everything else.
You are not entitled to my vote. You actually have to earn it. I refuse to play the stupid game of my guy is less bad than his guy. If you do not vote for him, it will suck even worse. This is extortion. I refuse to participate. I refuse to vote from fear.
The Bush years sucked. Yeah, Gore or Kerry would have been worse, but it is never going to get better, if we keep accepting the lesser of two evils. I can proudly say, I never voted for Bush I, Dukakis, Clinton, Dole, Bush II, Gore, Kerry, nor Obama, and I shall not vote for Romney, either. I never voted for any of this crap, so you cannot blame me for the results. Give me someone who is actually not one of these corruptocrats, and you will get my vote. Until then, it is you who should shut up.
Romney is a good and decent man in his personal life, but he is just another lying politician who stands for nothing and is willing to play ball to become President. If he proves me wrong as President, I will freely admit it… but he won’t.
Unless you curse or are otherwise abusive, I never block you, Mark. But your posts often do go to spam for some reason, and if I miss them there, they might get tossed. I’m not tech enough to prevent this.
Marc;
“The Bush years sucked..”?
You even said so yourself; The Dem’s control it all anyway.
During Bush’s term, who had the majority and control in Congress? And who is threatening to shut down OUR government if Romnay wins?
You(we) are very lucky there hasn’t been any attacks in America like 9/11, because Odumbo would be the only one with a military escort. The rest of the American people would be on their own. Ever heard of Benghazi?
Malone, you still can’t see the forest through all those ideological trees you have planted around yourself. This is politics, not philosophy. We take what we can get and we join the battle again next time. You can take your high minded principles and be left carrying water for the Communists, but I will vote against them every time. I will fight them, if that becomes necessary, and you will still be on the sidelines listening to the echoes of your self righteous pontifications even after you and your progeny have been consigned to governmental servitude. ABO2012
Yeah. George Patton – as canny a battlefield commander as we’ve ever had – said he”d prefer a good plan today rather than a perfect plan a week from now. We won’t, not ever, get everything completely our way. You have to be happy with the good and accommodate the bad. Anything other leaves you paralyzed.
I’ll take Romney, warts and all, rather than this deathly stagnation. Four more years of this, and we’re done.
And saying to yourself, if it all comes to happen, “yes, but I made my protest” is small beer, when everything is collapsing around you.
You’re entitled to your cynicism about Romney, though I think you’re taking it way too far. The stakes have gotten too high for him at this point, and tea party types are going to hold him accountable once he’s in office. There is good reason to expect him to make good on his word. But still, at worst you’re forgoing a squishy yes or a maybe on these issues in favor of a solid no. If the no is what you want, then fine, but don’t get all preachy about how Romney isn’t perfect enough for you, because the ideal candidate you want is never going to get elected, ever.
Here’s the thing: You said yourself that Romney would modify Obamacare rather than repeal it. Accepting that premise at face value, how is leaving it unmodified better? If you live in a state other than NY, CA, HI, or maybe a handful of others your sit-down protest vote endangers just that. I live in NY; I could sit out the Presidential vote without impacting it, but I’d rather go for the slim chance of impacting it and hope others are like-minded.
You said Romney is likelier to slow our rush toward fiscal catastrophe than reverse it. Well duh, everyone who’s against Obama’s fiscal agenda agrees on that. But you have to slow down before you can reverse anyway, and are you really willing to risk us not slowing down? And furthermore, it’s downright crazy to say that anyone who was going to totally reverse course ever had a shot at the general election, much less making good on their promise; the special interests are too entrenched, and have to be dealt a first major setback before they can be taken on in earnest. But if we gain ground here, we can continue gaining ground, and yes, continue buying time to gain more. The tea party understands this and got involved in local and state races in 2009 and beyond.
As badly as you’ve painted Romney, by your own admission it’s still a choice between the policies that will in short order make the fall of Greece look like a drop in the bucket (well you didn’t say that part) and any chance of forestalling that fate, let alone preventing it. If you really loathe Romney but truly do think Obama’s policies are worse, then vote for Romney, and then get invested in keeping him grounded so that he feels your hand–and the hands of all conservatives–on the lever if he weasels out. In so many ways this election is the very last chance to set things straight before we derail so badly that the damage won’t be undone in half a century. Get over here and help pull the brake. And I don’t care if you don’t even live in a swing state; if you’re in a solid blue state, even bringing the state closer gives conservatism a clearer mandate.
You make a good argument, truly, but I still disagree. We are never going to get rid of the entrenched bureaucracy by rewarding it. I am not standing on ideological grounds, here, as some have charged. I am looking long-term.
People are rising up against Obama, but they are choosing what looks like Obama-Lite. I guess the pain is not severe enough for them to truly understand that government is the problem. Another term of Obama might just make it hurt enough for them to realize. I know it would really suck in the short term, but long-term, things will get better faster.
A slow decent into the abyss means the Repubs get the blame, like under Bush. Bush is a big-government Repub. He and the “moderates” in Congress did not follow the Party platform, and so, the public thinks the Party stands for what Bush stood for, despite what the platform says. It seems this is correct. The Party has offered up Romney, another big-government Repub.
I hope I am wrong that things have to get much worse before people will get it. I hope that when things get just a bit better, that people will not become complacent. I pray to God that Romney gets it right. I hope he surprises the Hell out of me. I’ll beg forgiveness, if I am wrong. I’ll grovel.
That said, it is wrong to tell me to shut up about this, or call me an idiot. If you want to hold Romney accountable, then he has to know that he is ever on thin ice. He won’t know that, if voices like mine are not heard. It is important to not let the urgent be confused with the important. This election is urgent, but the right direction is what’s important.
I fear we only get one shot at this. Romney has to get it Right, so we must keep the pressure on. If he fails, the Dems will be back in force, and it will get very, very bad… maybe permanently so.
I probably did no one any favors by being so strident, though. For that, I apologize.
Shorter answer: No.
The problem clearly is that some libertarian are essentially the pacifist wing of the NRA. They like guns and believe in self defence but they object to all the tactics and weapons of war because it kills brown people. Most have never been in an army [a few old conscripts excepted] and don’t grasp the information limits that war imposes.
They think we have some how provoked the attacks on us and, like Obama, they believe that if were just nice to Islam, communism, fascism, etc then they will be nice back or quietly go bankrupt. The catch is conquest, looting and ransoming minorities is an alternative to bankruptcy.
The problem is that they are right wing humanists with a touch of post-modernism. They reject the idea of evil and the idea that someone may actually genuinely hate liberty. The idea that some belief systems are political and can’t be can’t be reasoned with, bribed or simply left alone, is alien to them.
They are absolutising choice but if someone’s choice is to martyr themselves to kill free people then they are genuinely stuck. Some have argued that we should have negotiated with Hitler and Hirohito so WW2 would never have happened yet when I point out where that was tried, its all on wikipedia, they just flame me. Some jump back to WW1, by the time we finished arguing one was back to the war of the roses!
I think deep down they know that IF communism, islamism, etc were real threats THEN the only real solution is war but because they have made choice so fundamental they can only see one form of war that would succeed, genocide. They don’t trust states to succeed in containmenmnt.
I believe Ron Paul is right on the USA’s financial limitations. It can’t afford to be the global policeman and Europe or the UN won’t take up the slack. However because their essentially anarchist they have no state based alternative. When I point out that a non state solution means American mercenaries in every fight they are again stuck and resort to screaming insanely.
Amen. Amen.
Maybe we should havwe junior voting, like a junior driver’s license, If you are between 18 and 21, your vote is just advisory. Well, I can dream, can’t I?
I wonder if some state would lower their voting age to 16 or 14. Would be an interesting experiment.
OK, listen, we’re in trouble. Five states recenty repealed their bans on selling alcohol on election day. This works in Obama’s favor, of course.
Don’t drink and vote!
Before I could get drunk enough to vote for The Newspaper, I’d die of alcohol poisoning.
Yes, the better way. It stacks up thusly: Go vote for Romney and you’ll be able to brag to your grandkids about your part in a historic vote.
So vote at least once and preferably often, to level the playing field and embark on the long road to national recovery. Oh, and you might as well enjoy yourself: If you see that untethered floating fat-man Christie or a supporter (a truss?), tell ‘em to take a flying f*** into oblivion. And remember: though Black Panthers will likely respond satisfactorily to contact with a baseball bat, resolute gentlemen of a certain disposition may decide to go packing just in case.
Touche, Andrew. Well-said.
I’m sending your article to my husband. Fortunately, being Canadian, he can’t vote, but I’m irritated by his I’m-wholly-unpolluted-by-the-shabby-compromises-of-either-party attitude, and his refusal to acknowledge that there’s a world of difference between Oblahblah’s empty rhetoric and even emptier record and Romney’s proven leadership and business acumen.
Thanks for this! You’re right on! I’m praying for our nearest friends and allies on this most important day for the U.S.A.. God bless America!
NO MORE YEARS – TOP 20 REASONS WHY A REGIME CHANGE IS IMPERATIVE. Here are the Top 20 reasons a regime change is imperative, now: 1. $5 Trillion in New Debt – By the end of FY 2012, Obama had added $5.3 trillion to the National Debt – almost one-third of the total ($16 trillion). He rolled up more debt in three years than the first 41 presidents … READ MORE: http://bwcentral.org/2012/11/no-more-years-top-20-reasons-why-a-regime-change-is-imperative/
Romney has no principles, no convictions, no core values. It’s election day, and we still have no idea what his plan for governing is other than that it has 5 points. This is a guy who has waffled on literally every issue, and has taken liberal positions as much as he has taken conservative ones. And he believes neither. He doesn’t believe in America, or Democracy. He believes in Mitt, and, like any good flim flam artist, he’ll do or say whatever it takes to fool you into thinking that he shares your values. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the guy who laid you off and shipped your job to China so that he could buy himself a new vacation home. And he’s betting you’re too gullible and stupid to understand that.
I dislike Romney nearly as much as you do. But so what? There’s no moral purity in staying home for a good sulk. Do you want to start the process of fixing the country, or not. It’s an easy choice.
If you balk, remember Biden’s just a heartbeat away. Not exactly the end of the rainbow.
Pure propaganda, Mike T.
Not to mention a complete crock.
Hey Mike;
You posted at the wrong site; You’re not at Politico.
While the other guy (you know, the big government spender. borrowing from China and wasting money faster than his treasury can print it) has nothing positive to run on in his bid for another 4 years, so, like you, he has spent his time lying about and misrepresenting his opponent.
Tried to paint a successful entrepreneur and money manager as a criminal, you know the drill.
Obama’s entire campaign has consisted of lying to his audiences, just as he lied to the American public for 2 solid weeks on Benghazi. (Your candidate is still trying to “figure out” what everybody else knows about that September 11 attack in Libya.)
Has nothing but hot air to run on, so he makes up cute little terms like “Romnesia”.
(If Romnesia will make me forget the past 4 years…I want it).
You haven’t been paying much attention to anything beyond your envy. Romney has a plan. It is the same plan Reagan had for our economy. It does work. You are so blinded by your envy of people who have accomplished no more than what we all would like to accomplish, that you sound like a whining Obama acolyte. ABO2012
“… they cherish a sense of themselves as superior because of their fantasized solutions …”
Precisely. And while this column’s absolutely essential, I doubt that they’ll turn. They need “themselves” so much.
To quote the evil queen freely: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the most righteous of them all.”
Beautiful, Andrew. You are one of the many reasons I believe our sides’ writers are more thoughtful, persuasive, convincing and humble. Please continue to write for the good cause.
…throwing their vote away on a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, which will do not one thing for their liberty or anyone else’s. At their worst, they cherish a sense of themselves as superior because of their fantasized solutions while discounting as a fool anyone who would support the best option available.
As one PJM poster wrote awhile back…
“Don’t sacrifice the good in the name of the perfect.”
(or your idea of the perfect anyway)
You know he does seem to be a better candidate now at the end of it, than at the beginning of the campaign. I feel better about a President Romney right now don’t you? I know I did not during the primaries. Hell I donated money to one of the other guys. I am just worried now that Romney cannot pull it off. Please God forbid a re-elected President Obama.
So, Mike T.—you’re gonna vote for Obama?
Voting Gary Johnson – someone needs to show these idiots in the GOP that they can’t keep throwing up terrible candidate after terrible candidate and then intimidate me with scare tactics into voting for him. It’s extortion.
Gary Johnson ?
Geez, I lived under that NM governor whose claim to fame was legalizing pot and, even, enabling prescriptions for psychotropic drugs (Prozac et al.) to be written by non-medical practitioners.
“Let’s all get stoned” seems to be Gary Johnson’s claim to fame.
well, gee, if legalizing pot advances the cause of liberty (something GOPnicks lost sight of), I am willing to put up with the sight of stoned hippies. Tradeoffs and all that.
I fail to see a connection between legalizing pot and liberty.
And I really don’t want anybody stoned behind the wheel of a vehicle, we’ve got enough drunks on the road killing people as it is. Especially here in New Mexico.
Given how easy it is to get now, for all practical purposes pot is already legal.
The exploitation of the “medical marijuana” thing is egregious.
Marijuana has been California’s largest cash crop for some time.
To hell with the wheat and the strawberries, let’s grow The Weed !
To taanstafl:
Well, if you fail to see the connection, lemme clue you in:
1. Rule of the law. It took a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol. Where, I ask, is the Amendment to outlaw pot? And, for that matter, that “Given how easy it is to get now, for all practical purposes pot is already legal” business is a further erosion of the rule of the law, dontcha think?
1a. In the light of “Given how easy it is to get now, for all practical purposes pot is already legal”, legalizing it would change things HOW?
2. Unprecedented and excessive powers war on (some) drugs gave the police. No-knock warrants, stop-and-frisk, etc.
3. Money flow to drug cartels and gangs. With the repeal of the Prohibition, turf wars among booze importers stopped overnight.
Given the above, I’d rather accept dealing with an occasional pothead on the road, especially since the worst thing they do is drive way too slow. Unlike, I must add, drunks.
Isn’t it amazing that when you say Libertarian to a Republican all they know about is pot. I voted early last week, and, for the first time in my life did not vote for a single Republican, they’ve become unthinking robots obsessed with party over country and middle eastern mythology.
For any interested, here’s the blueprint for getting back to the Constitution:
http://www.lp.org/platform
1. Based on your particular logic, every psychotropic mind altering chemical should be legal and easily obtainable. There are all the usuals… heroin/crack/opium…and a plethora of newer mind altering substances.
Did you know that pot was legal in Britain and many have pulled back now and want it controlled as the newer “skunk” has come onto the market (the THC component is immensely greater than the plain old unadulterated stuff) ?
There is a movement afoot there to pull back from legal pot, given the negative mental repercussions among youth in particular.
Legalizing pot would make it infinitely more accessible to anyone and everyone, although bureaucrats in many states (including but not limited to California) salivate at the thought of legalizing pot as (yet another) source of tax revenue.
For the record, I find the pot cafes in Amsterdam and in British Columbia Canada where everyone is puffing away at will to be depressing places.
2. It’s the police aspect, those nasty federales, that turns off many, if not most, of those who put forth the “legalizing” argument.
3. Your best point, even the estimable William F. Buckley argued for legalization on similar grounds.
However…
…an occasional pothead on the road, especially since the worst thing they do is drive way too slow.
That simply isn’t true, as I can personally attest to on the basis of the one time I drove while under the influence of pot. There is no way I would want a stoned me on the road.
And JustAl, I am probably more Libertarian than you are. The subject of “pot” came up in the context of Gary Johnson, not Libertarianism.
To taanstafl:
1. Yes. If someone wants to fry whatever little brain he has, who am I to stop them? For that matter, where in the Constitution is the permission for the gov’t to stop them?
2. Um, coherent argument, please?
3. Lots of people drive drunk, too, let’s ban alcohol, shall we?
To: CB
1. where in the Constitution is the permission for the gov’t to stop them?
Lotta things going on for which there is no constitutional authority, per se. In fact, the current president has disdain, even contempt, for restraints on the reach of federal authority built into our Constitution.
Question: Tho’ cigarettes “kill”, why hasn’t tobacco been outlawed?
Answer: Revenue, cash, moolah
The “legalize” crowd is gonna go ballistic when and if legal pot gets subject to all the taxes that the money grubbing bureaucrats intend to levy.
2. Um, I thought my point was self-evident, that the legalize crowd has a giant knot in its shorts when it comes to law enforcement messing with their “freedom” to indulge.
In fact, the hallmark of many libertarians is a chip on the shoulder.
Legal authority in general expanded under Barack and his DHS. Are you complaining about that expansion of authority as so many people did under a much less invasive and intrusive administration, the previous one ?
3. I have a relative who smoked pot around her kids as they were growing up and let them smoke, too, as young children. There is evidence now that marijuana smoking has some very dire consequences in the undeveloped/underdeveloped/adolescent brain, which has certainly been borne out in the case of my relative’s children.
to taanstafl:
1a. Tu quoque fallacy on your part. Just because dems get away with all sorts of unconstitutional things, that’s not a license for reps to do the same thing. Again, how those two are different, explain?
1b. Not being a part of the “stoner crowd”, whatever that might be, I’d rather see that money going to the gummint, a gang I can exert some influence over, as opposed to the cartels, where I have exactly zero influence.
2. Again, not being a part of the “stoner crowd”, I have a huge problem with those raids, too. It’s my money that gets spent on that sort of thing, since you don’t seem to understand the argument from morality, limited powers of the government, and self-ownership.
3. So just because one person is too stupid to indulge in recreational chemicals responsibly, Constitution must be shredded?
My vote is not yours to have. You have a shot at EARNING it. And until GOPniks stop nominating candidates that are virtually indistinguishable from those from the other wing of the Glorious United Demopublican Party – fat chance.
“Shut the Hell Up. . .”
Oh, yeah, I can see the difference between the author and the socialists, he didn’t use the “F” word. . . and that’s about it.
Here’s a hint, those who choose to think don’t like arrogant presumptuousness and street gang verbiage. The author and others like him here and on other sites have convinced me to end my 30+ years of voting the republican “lessor of two evils”. Now, Mr. Klavan, Shut the Hell Up and remember you helped drive people to Johnson’s banner.
Amen!
Just voted with my wife. Republican ticket all the way here in MA. _Huge_ turnout, I personally have _never_ seen so many people voting. We had to wait in line for about 10 minutes, and we’re on Cape Cod, small town, never waited in line to vote before.
Romney/Ryan 2012!!
Andrew said it all, now go and vote for Romney/Ryan!!
Oh, si; Obama means well (and comes from an unfortunate childhood), so therefore he is good. (gag; choke; snort)
Privileged childhood, private Punahou School in Hawaii.
Plentiful choom and coke, which (my thesis) the brain cells were compromised early. It’s why actually paying attention to the minutiae of governing is so tedious for Obama.
And all those subversives giving him a leg up along the way so he could get into Harvard with a 2.6 and copious “incompletes” from his daze at Columbia.
The Good Book says that faith without works is nothing. I think you can also say that “principles” without action is nothing.
I don’t believe a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama necessarily, because that assumes that there will be a bigger turnout on the Democrat side which I don’t think is going to happen. I think a vote for Johnson or Paul is the same as doing nothing. Just stay home. You are just wasting your time and the other voters’ time, and wasting gas to boot. No one is going to look at the one percent who voted for a third party candidate and think … well, anything. They aren’t going to pay attention.
I was pretty vocal in the primaries that I did not like the slate of candidates, Mitt included. He was not my choice and…my choices didn’t run for the top of the ticket.
I like Rob Portman, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Marco Rubio, Alan West, John Thune, Kristi Noem, Bobby Jindal, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley, and believe that the Republican Party has a strong “A” team, that puts the lie to every slander uttered against them and spread by the OPM. (Obama Propaganda Ministry)
My favorite candidates didn’t run. The MOMENT the primary was decided, ALL the issues about why I favored others or disfavored Romney evaporated into the mist.
Because, …the very notion of the continuation of the road to complete destruction to my country would leave NO option, other than to fully, wholly, and completely support the defeat of small c communism and the Lawless Presidency. Period. No other issues matter one whit.
Failure to support Romney is nothing less than abandoning a sacred trust to protect and preserve this land of ours.
Third party “protest” vote…this time…is an act of betrayal.
There are two choices for the winner: Obama or Romney.
I already voted for Romney this morning. He’s a dreadfully weak candidate, it’s hard to like his chances, and though if elected he’ll doubtless be an improvement over Obama, it’s hard to confidently say anything more than that. Nevertheless I voted for him.
But I will not “shut the hell up,” thank you very much. There are numerous Republicans who used every shoddy trick and rhetorical knavery in the book to ensure that no one better would get the nomination, or come within sniffing distance of it. Bygones will not be bygones. If (as I suspect) Romney loses, a healthy reckoning will be due those jacklegs who helped this general election shake out as as it did, and then smugly dictated their rank & file to shut up and deal with it.
We’ll never field the perfect candidate, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. But that doesn’t give the party’s most cynical operators a blank check to indulge their ideological emptiness. If Romney loses, no one will indulge you by shutting the hell up … nor should they. A lot of people had best pray that he wins, and not just for the usual inter-party political reasons.
Unless you own land, a business or have a job, and are 21 you should not be able to vote. The drinking age is 21 and the voting age should be also. The candidates should each get two months to campaign and only $1,000 to use to campaign. That would shake things up in this country…Alas, I always wake up from my dream…
Voted for “hope” of my country returning to Christian roots and “change” the White House back to sanity early this morning… felt good this time.
Like Marc Malone above, I too never voted for Bush I, Dukakis, Clinton, Dole, Bush II, Gore, Kerry, or Obama. Before that I voted for Reagan for his second term. Anderson before that. I backed Paul in the primary. I swore at the beginning of the process that if Romney was the candidate I’d vote for Obama, just for spite.
The Libertarians are running a butt-hurt Republican who doesn’t even espouse the party’s platform – I doubt he could even articulate it. None of the other small parties are even worth a protest vote. Realistically, then, I’m stuck with going back on my oath or voting for Obama. Or writing in none of the above. Yuck.
Romney isn’t going to change the contry’s direction. I doubt he’ll even slow down the ride over the cliff much, if at all. Based on the spending orgy we endured under the Republicans the last time they ran the whole show, I don’t see why they should be trusted to do anything but what they’ve done before. The party “elites” like the trough just fine and are only mad because the Demonratics nosed them out of it in 2008. This election is only to see wich hogs line up at the trough first. I get it.
I started trying to work within the Republican Party this election cycle. Contributed a little money. Ran as a delegate and got elected and endured our charade of a state convention.
All that said, when I get into the booth I’ll vote the down ticket and decide whether or not to pass on the vote for president when I get there. Mourdock is a good choice for the senate and I’d like to see Pence continue on Mitch Daniel’s path.
If I do end up voting for president, it will be for Romney. He may be even worse for the republic than Bush II, but Obama is an unmitigated disaster. I’ll wash my hands when I’m done and go back to work with Paul and Co to reform the Rupublicans from the inside, if possible.
That doesn’t mean I have to like it. I don’t even have to “shut up.” I will have to hold my nose, though.
As a lifelong libertarian atheist living in California, I am used to being an outsider who throws her vote away. Always been anti-Obama, but have since become pro-Romney and voted that way by mail last week. He’s far from perfect, but this election is huge for two reason: Benghazi and Obamacare. That more people on both sides of the aisle don’t see this yet amazes me.
Sadly, regardless of who wins tonight, tomorrow we will still be at war, overseas and at home. Bipolar America lives!
I will not vote for a Mormon and neither will %80 of my congregation in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. America needs a Christian leader and the GOP has betrayed social conservatives and the nation by nominating a non-Christian. There is no doubt for anyone who has read the works of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or modern Mormon theologians like Bruce McConkie, that Mormon beliefs are gnostic and unChristian, dismissing basic conceptions like original sin, the creation, the primacy of Jesus’s sacrifice and the Trinity. That so many so-called Christian conservatives have embraced a devout Mormon shows the failure of orthodoxy to educate its congregants in even the basics of Christian faith. It’s telling that those few who will vote for Romney in my Church are the LIBERALS, and his nomination jolts the mind and freezes the heart — it reveals the profound lack of seriousness among conservatives and the GOP to rid America of Obama.
“…it reveals the profound lack of seriousness among conservatives and the GOP to rid America of Obama.”
No, your inane anti-Mormon argument reveals *your* profound lack of seriousness about this election. The Mormons I have known in my life are some of the most decent people I have met. And, as we are not a theocracy, the religion of the president matters not one whit if he does not try to impose it on others.
If we were voting for a national spiritual leader (an American ‘Pope’ if you will) then you might have some sort of basis for your position. However, the completely secular position of POTUS does not and should not require adherence to one faith or another. In this particular instance, why would you vote for an utterly and obviously incompetent mainstream-ish Christian (Obama) in favor of a far more capable man (Romney)?
The only viable candidate I would NOT vote for at this time in opposition to the current POTUS would be the right hand of Lucifer himself, if he were running. I have wondered a couple times in the last 4 years if the current prez IS the right hand of Lucifer, with some of the asinine things he has done.
Well said. I originally thought to hold my nose and vote for Romney, but now I support him wholeheartedly.
I think his determination to “fix things” should not be underestimated.
‘But I will not “shut the hell up,” thank you very much.’
Me neither. Nor, will I take orders on who to vote for.
‘Now shut up and go vote for Mitt Romney.’
That part of the article was poorly worded, at best.
Romney was not in my first ten choices as the Republican candidate. I wanted a conservative candidate. Today I would crawl through glass to vote for Romney so that Obama will never have the opportunity to seat another justice on our Supreme Court. There could be 2 plus justices affirmed to the court in the next Presidential term and I want to make sure that I have done my part to help those on the court that uphold our Constitution.
Gee, Chrissy agrees with Andrew (probably a first)
…what began as a plea from Matthews about the importance of voting quickly disintegrated into a rant about how little he thinks of third party candidates participation in the process…if you vote for one of these numbskull third or fourth party candidates like Gary Johnson or Joe Steele…
Published on Oct 23, 2012
Luke Rudkowski asks NY Congressman and Romney representative, Peter King for his insight on how Mitt Romney should handle the inheritance of Obama’s kill list should he become president. Peter King touts the kill list as “totally right, totally Constitutional” as he quickly becomes angered and derogatory towards Luke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6GQr8m5cOY&feature=player_embedded
Well said, Mr. Klavan.
Today’s election is a very simple choice for the independents and the libertarians.
They can demand the perfect and be led into slavery to the state, or they can choose what they may consider the lesser of two evils that at least offers a path out of servitude as subjects of the state, and within which they will have influence to shift the the country in a direction which they prefer.
If they are so short sighted as to choose the former, then please go. Go find your utopia. We don’t need someone that simple minded at our backs.
Strategically, Romney is a wall of sandbags for us to hide behind while we frantically try to fill Congress, state and local offices with conservative and libertarian candidates. I would never want to be in a battle with libertarians at my side -complaining and nitpicking every little thing while all my ammo is stolen and my soldiers are killed.
Why would we make a bigger mess of everything with Obama for 4 more years, just making our future office holders jobs that much harder?
Like Tammy above, I would be wheeled in on a gurney to vote just to avoid a racist like Sotomayor on the court. I assumed she was horrible but after reading David Horowitz’s new book I am completely revolted.
Klavan is right, there is just too much holier than thou self-righteous mumbo jumbo from Libertarians.
Life is a not a freaking treatise in philosophic nonsense, the card we now have is Romney, vote for him and guard you anger for something productive like offering a better set of cards next time.
Doing something that is designed to be productive to make *only yourself* feel good but accomplishing nothing. I believe the name for that behavior is ‘masturbation’.
Gosh! To be on a par with Romneyspeak, you should say:
Please, shut the H-E-double hockey stick up, and make darn sure you vote for Romney
“I voted for the Libertarian candidates. That’s a true vote for freedom.”
You and me, Nora.
Willful ignorance regarding those who have openly declared war against us is criminal negligence.
Election 2016 Breaking News:
Government spokesperson: “Well, after 20 years and $345 Trillion, our government finally announced today it was disbanding the Department of Homeland Security.”
But wait! (shrieked an apparently panic-stricken, planted crank): Have you stopped the Threat Against America™ yet?!
“No,” replied the government spokespuppet, “But we’ve finally been able to identify that threat: Muslims.”
What? You can’t say that! All indoctrinating cultures are exactly the same, so if you want to take away all the rights of the criminals who have threatened to destroy us, you’ll just have to take away all the innocent people’s rights, too! That’s just how it works; fair is fair!
“Well, we tried padding our nests by joining islam in criminally-negligent Submisison to extortion, as you insisted, and it did indeed fool most of you for a while – but now you’re broke and can’t pay us to oppress you anymore. So after we burn the last of you in the FEMA camps, we’ll have to relocate our travelling pig & pony show back to China, where we’ll retire to our Kommintern rewards. Now that your silly “Freedom!” and “individual rights” threat to us is over, we can go back to eliminating the less intelligent people in Africa and the Middle East; besides, while they won’t fall for our idolatrous “group rights” scenarios as easily as you did, they DO still make much better slaves.”
Well, time for post-game analysis: shutting up and getting with the program gained us what, exactly? More to the point, perhaps: since we can lose the White House perfectly well WITH the likes of you & Romney, what the #%$@ do we need you for? What did we ever need you for? Let the purges commence, by God.
Well, no Senate, and that was the important thing, but it was no real surprise. Romney had no coattails. Dems must’ve had huge turnout. I wonder how much of that was voting machines? 85% of Philly went Obama? Really? That basically carried the State.
Time for a new Party. Time for the Republican Party to die.
I’m not posting on PJM anymore. Too many of my comments get eaten. They have ever since folks here got on board the Romney wagon last year. Bye.
We’ve not always agreed, but often did. Sorry to see you go, but I agree on your prognosis. Meanwhile I guess the GOP is gearing up for business as usual, who’s “turn” is it next to get beat? Santorum? They elites have consolidated their position by Gerrymandering Allen West into a district he has apparently lost, as he goes, so goes the hope for a GOP future.