Then you'll be the very first Mittens supporter to so state, calmly and in a straightforward manner.
That should make you feel proud. That should also make you feel appalled.
Your pictorial analogy of the voting tally is not entirely accurate.
For those of us, regrettably, presently locked into residence in unalterably blue states (or, I suppose, unalterably red ones, as well) -- which, obviously, is my particular point of reference: yes. Yes, it absolutely is.
So I'll say this now, and probably not again: If one is willing and able to abandon one's conservative principles to indirectly support Obama
Once again, #3401: Once you've finally managed to define "conservative" downwards to the point where all it means -- literally, the ONLY thing it still means -- is "Not Obama": then you're no longer part of any coherent, principled or intellectually defensible political ideology.
Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph.
IMO at least a “part” of conservatism means defeating Obama in 2012.
I can’t believe (honestly) anyone would debate the previous sentence. For anyone who would, I can only say two things: 1. Talk about “sinking low”, and 2. This famous quote comes to mind when describing any such “arguments”: Oh what a complex web we weave, when we practice to deceive.
Because honestly, to me, it’s pure self deception (and convolution) to suggest the advancement of conservatism doesn’t at least involve the defeat of the Kenyan.
I honestly never thought 4 years ago that on FR of all places, it would actually be debatable whether or not “the defeat of Barak Hussein Obama at any cost” was a true goal of conservatism.
< sighs heavily and walks away from this thread >