Skip to comments.A Mitt Romney loss wouldn’t necessarily be a disaster
Posted on 08/03/2012 1:26:47 PM PDT by Bratch
Dont buy the doom and gloom pronouncements from conservatives telling you, this is the most important election in history. A loss for Mitt Romney would not necessarily spell long lasting disaster for Republicans, nor would it be the death-knell to conservatism. In fact, its possible a 2012 loss could lay the groundwork for a stronger Republican party and conservative movement.
Elections are almost always seen as urgent and morally imperative. But sometimes major victories can only come in the aftermath of what appear to be devastating defeats. John Kerrys loss in 2004 laid the groundwork for a Democratic takeover in 2006 and 2008, and Jimmy Carters defeat of Gerald Ford in 1976 paved the way for the Ronald Reagan in 1980. In other words, it is a mistake to assume losing a presidential election is a permanent defeat.
This should be the most important election since 1980, but so far it is not, says Reagan biographer Craig Shirley. Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle postulated the great man theory of history, and indeed this was true with Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR and Reagan. But history has not summoned forth great men in 2012 and in fact our history today is small.
This is not to say Republicans should concede the election, but conservatives should keep November in proper perspective.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
This will be a bigger thread than 4 time DUI illegal immigrant kills New Mexico baby.
It could be no worse than a second term of Obama.
Hogwash - the Village is burning and there will be little left.
This is absolutely no way that anyone can convince me things could get better for 2016 IF Romney loses. What kind of dope are you guys smoking? You give Obama four more years and it might as well be decades.
Of course not. But an Obama win would be. The Tea Party movement is not crazy about Romney. But I predict they will turn out in record numbers to defeat Obama.
If we keep on electing Tea Party types, we won’t have no stinkin’ compromising!
Hogwash indeed. Great post.
I stand with : Sarah Palin ,Michelle Bachmann,Rick Santorum, Herman Cain,Dick Cheney,George W, Rush.
I trust their judgment.
Those that don’t are RINOs trying to occupy the GOP and make it a 3rd party.
ie= l a z y .
Well the Supreme Court doesn’t have a handicapped transsexual muslim member yet, so there’s another groundbreaking opportunity for Baraq term 2.
But on the other hand - A WIN for Romney would indeed be a huge set-back for conservatism.
NONSENSE! Obama wins and it is over. Period. Don’t believe this crap.
... only economic/social collapse and the Second American Revolution and/or Civil War.
Eight years of Obama would only be twice as bad
as four years? Count me out. Even were Romney
to be a mediocre president he could still be
removed after four years with out a vast amount
of damage done, EIGHT years of Obama would be
three times the damage done in his first four.
So the choice is a simple one. NOBAMA, once was
This is not to say Republicans should concede the election, but conservatives should keep November in proper perspective..
Which leads me to wonder if the author knows the two are NOT mutually inclusive.
“...the Supreme Court doesnt have a handicapped transsexual muslim member yet....”
Are you absolutely sure it doesn’t?
Given four more years, obama will complete the job of cobbling together his voter coalition of gays, welfare queens, blacks, OWS, public employee union members, abortion lovers, illegal aliens, etc. By 2016, they will have reached critical mass and will constitute a clear voting majority until the country collapses ala the European Union.
I've heard the same over-the-top crap every election cycle since forever. We're still here.
Fear isn't going to make me vote against my principles.
You give Mittens four years, and you’ll literally be asking us to give him 4 more. That’s 8 years, two short of a decade. Better a socialist Mormon than a socialist Muslim, I suppose. Mittens doesn’t represent us. The Tea Party lost the nomination fight when Mittens won it. That’s the simple reality of this situation. On top of that, Mittens is unwilling to make any serious reforms. I know he makes empty vague promises about cutting billions, but nothing in his actual published plan justifies it. He will not touch social security or any of the entitelemtns, and even says he believes in the progressive nature of government. Meanwhile, he’s a pathological liar.
Mittens represents long term mediocrity and decay, while Obama is more of a “better to flame out, than to fade away!” kind of guy. Either way, there’s no bright spot here.