Finally, someone gets it.
I disagree. Romney is objectionable in se, because of what he is and who he is, because of what he represents and whom he represents, i.e., for whom he reps.
You're both correct about the "conservative of the month" aspect of the campaign, but Willard is an anode that needs very carefully, and always, to be distinguished from the cathodes running against him.
For some of us maybe. The rest He11 no.
This is about saving our country from disaster. Mittens is no better than Obama I say worse. If by miracle of miracles Mittens was to win the GE, He would govern as a Liberal but Conservatives would get all the Blame. The GOP-E would rather set on their arse and feed on Pork than try to lead. If Newt wins the majority of the GOP-E is gonna be Unemployed.
If our country is to fail I want it laid fully at the feet of the Liberals. That way we get a shot at rebuilding her and restoring the Constitution without Liberals.
You often hear here on FR that "all the candidates are flawed," "no one is perfect."
Yet few seem to be willing to countenance that the other guy, the one who doesn't support "your" candidate, is using the exact same rationale to justify overlooking how much his candidate's stuff stinks.
At this point, I really think the "beat Obama" meme has hardened to the point that many voters are going to base their decision solely on how likely they think it is that a candidate can defeat Obama.
For months, that was the single rationale for Romney offered up by the likes of Ann Coulter et al. She thinks Romney is the one who can beat Obama. Okay, lately, she has been trying to up her game and come up with sort of reasons for supporting Romney (such as saying he's the only one who will fix immigration), but the fact is not very well hidden that all this is about is who they think, rightly or wrongly, can beat Obama.