Replies

Romney is "winning" by out advertising the opponents in high population, but decidedly liberal, counties. He is "winning" like a democrat. And when the progressive liberal Romney with an "R" behind his name goes head to head with the progressive liberal Obama with a "D" behind his name ...

I simply do not agree that Mitt Romney can be characterized as a "liberal."

The very best that we can reasonably hope to be elected as president, in any general election, is a center-right candidate, sauch as the late Ronald Reagan.

Not hard right.

But center-right.

[Mitt Romney] will lose.

That strikes me as a mere sentiment--not serious analysis.

For truly serious analysis, one might look to, say, the musings of Larry Sabato; Charlie Cook; Stu Rothenberg; Scott Rasmussen; or even Dick Morris.

So ... if ever there was a time to seed a 3rd party, give it a base, redirect RNC funding to it, and build a contender for future elections ... this is it.

Frankly, I harbor no desire for a third party.

In any case, your plan seems to require the sacrifice of the 2012 presidential election, in the (rather fatuous) hope that this sacrifice might help "build a contender for future elections."

And this represents precisely the sort of Big Picture mindset that I find most unfortunate...

There is no downside and nothing to lose because there is no victory to be had this go round.

Again, I disagree.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are nothing at all alike as regarding their respective approaches to (1) the illegal invasion of the Southwest (a.k.a. "illegal immigration"); (2) our nation's close relationship with Israel; (3) the preferable approach to Iran; (4) the need to drill for oil domestically; or (5) America's proper place in the world--just to name a few.

I believe that those who see America in terms of constitutionalists versus anti-constitutionalists are missing the point. Quite badly.

The real dichotomy, it seems to me, is between liberals and conservatives.

I simply do not agree that Mitt Romney can be characterized as a "liberal."

You might suffering from the Fox News characterization of Romney, then. He's about as "center-right" as Hillary Clinton. Issue for issue, and even by his own admission, Romney is a progressive. He is a better representative for the democrats than the republicans. (At least, that is, the republicans that purported to represent the conservative base.) The information is out there if you care to pursue it.

That strikes me as a mere sentiment--not serious analysis. For truly serious analysis, one might look to, say, the musings of Larry Sabato; Charlie Cook; Stu Rothenberg; Scott Rasmussen; or even Dick Morris.

Maybe you'll feel otherwise ... when he loses. Time will tell.

Frankly, I harbor no desire for a third party. In any case, your plan seems to require the sacrifice of the 2012 presidential election, in the (rather fatuous) hope that this sacrifice might help "build a contender for future elections." And this represents precisely the sort of Big Picture mindset that I find most unfortunate...

I harbor no such desire either. I want the republican party to represent its base instead of attempting to make the "new center" look like Romney or Hillary. The GOP has not sacrificed the 2012 election yet. But it does appear poised to do so. We'll wait to see what the convention brings. If the party leaves us ... we are left with two choices : 1) becomes socialists ourselves so that we still belong to the party, 2) or let it go and build a party that belongs to us. I'm not one to pee on the graves of our Founders; so #1 is a non-starter for me. Others will have to make that call for themselves.

I believe that those who see America in terms of constitutionalists versus anti-constitutionalists are missing the point. Quite badly. The real dichotomy, it seems to me, is between liberals and conservatives.

I try not to parse words to make wiggle room for wrong-minded points of view. I'm a "Constitutional conservative" and make no effort to marginalize either facet of the description.