GOP hopeful said vote for Mitt Romney was vote for 'tyranny'

news-record.com ^ | 3/12/14

[x]

Here is the playbook of the Republican Establishment. Smear, Smear, Smear.

I'll ask around next time I get invited to the GOPe Clubhouse, but how do you know some Republican Establishment is behind this?

Of course, one of the seven other campaigns could have leaked the information to the press, but newspapers are fully capable of coming up with this information on their own.

Not many Republicans work on newspapers. Nowadays, not many Republicans own them, either.

[Finny]

Anybody who says Romney was the lesser of two evils has his head so far in the sand that it is not coming out.

Amen Sister Freeper.

Which is less evil -- abortion or child sacrifice to heathen gods? Come on, all you people who voted for "the lesser evil," PLEASE tell me: which is the lesser evil of the two?

[martiangohome]

Anti-Mormon nutbars would prefer anybody over an LDS follower.

[Finny]

Hmm...an admitted Republican who voted for 0bama.

Hmmmm ... a FReeper who admits he doesn't understand the binary nature of voting.

citizen, I know you can tell me all about what you were voting "against" when you voted for Romney. Now tell me: what were you voting FOR?

Because what you vote FOR is the only thing that counts, ever. When I voted third party, I know I was only voting "against" Romney and Obama in the most emotional, illusory sense. I KNOW that.

I also know EXACTLY what I was voting for.

Do you know what YOU were voting for?

[Balding_Eagle]

Can you name one election since elections have been held where the choice wasn’t between the lessor of two evils?

[dfwgator]

The last President I voted “For” was Reagan. The rest have been votes “Against.”

[Finny]

Can you name one election since elections have been held where the choice wasn’t between the lesser of two evils?

Right off the top of my head I can think of three: voting for Reagan was one. Voting for Tom McClintock (California) was one. Voting for Palin was one.

Republicans who cop that attitude that it can only ever be "our guy is limited to being less evil than their guy" are like the fencer on defense, constantly backing up into a corner. Time to start going on offense. Start advocating for and putting up candidates people can vote FOR instead of pushing candidates people resort to against their own interests in order to pretend they're voting "against" the other guy.

A LOTTA Democrats voted for Obama even though they hated him (you can confirm this by reading reader comments at leftist MSM sites) for EXACTLY the same reason a LOTTA Republicans voted for Romney even though they hated him. The Democrats said: "Anybody but the Republican!" The Republican said: "Anybody but Obama!"

And everybody loses because they've failed to figure out that you don't get to vote "against," only for. PERIOD.

[Balding_Eagle]

Are you saying that Reagan was without sin?

[C. Edmund Wright]

you wear your idiocy proudly….you have your tyranny now you blithering embarrassment….

[Finny]

Ah, a sophist.

[Finny]

(Emphasis mine): “Voters need to vote in light of the obvious truth that no substantial difference exists between Barack Hussein Obama and Willard ‘Mitt’ Romney,” he wrote. “.... Casting a vote for either Obama or Romney will advance tyranny since both candidates are committed statists who despise the Constitution … Well meaning but manipulated voters continue to vote for ..." bondage, tyranny, etcetera, etcetera.

Conventional wisdoms like "you always have to choose between lesser evils," and "if you didn't vote for [Romney/GOPe], you voted for [Obama/Dem nightmare]," and "I didn't vote for Romney, I voted against Obama," are all defense postures, the fencer on defense being pushed back into a corner or off a cliff.

Judging by public comments on forums left and right, in 2012, most Democrats weren't voting for Obama as much as they were voting against Republicans, any Republican. In 2012, most Republicans weren't voting for Romney, they were voting against Obama.

But a vote is only ever for something. When everybody votes "against," everybody loses.

It is time to start rejecting candidates who require voting "against" the opposition. Voting is binary. You only get to vote for.

It is time to change posture and go on offense. It is time to think in terms of voting FOR.

[Finny]

It's not about me, you dope. It's about them.

[C. Edmund Wright]

It is about you, and everyone else like you who do not understand how our system works, who don’t understand ‘more perfect’ union versus your irrelevant m-st-rbatory idea of perfection that will never happen.

All about idgets like you.

[Colonel_Flagg]

It is time to change posture and go on offense. It is time to think in terms of voting FOR.

Ironic, my friend ... that's what the GOP-E claims they stand for -- which is to say, giving people a reason to vote for them. Yet it's the one thing that the GOP-E refuses to provide. The bottom line is that people will twist rationales and make any kind of enabling statement to justify supporting the status quo, which is provably not working. Romney was a bridge too far for a lot of people in 2012 and as near as I can tell, the GOP-E is already showing they've learned absolutely nothing from his candidacy.

[Finny]

Romney was a bridge too far for a lot of people in 2012 and as near as I can tell, the GOP-E is already showing they've learned absolutely nothing from his candidacy.

Sadly, I also see a lot of fellow conservatives have learned absolutely nothing about the folly of voting "against" and the destructiveness of letting fear and desperation be their guides.

Republicans have been holding their noses to vote for long enough. I have a great idea: why not vote by following our noses?

[Kevmo]

best of luck with that posture here on FR