Replies

I guess my question that goes still unanswered is okay, we allow Obama to win re-election. Then what? If there is indeed a bigger picture in play, how is another four years of Obama going to help US?

Having Obama in for four years won't help. Having Romney in for four (or eight) years won't help either -- in fact it will hurt by redefining "conservative". There are no "positives", so we focus on mitigating the "negatives".

Obama provides a target on the field in front of us we can unify to fight. Romney provides chaos in our ranks and constant discord that is difficult to overcome. It's pretty basic strategy really.

I would prefer that Obama lose to a conservative. But if he instead finds victory over a progressive liberal disguised as a conservative, the GOP is forced to become our ally once more and face a common opponent. And, maybe, the GOP will learn that buying a primary for a progressive candidate does not necessarily mean winning the general. They'll have to reconsider how they spend the coffer, especially as we quit contributing and dry it up.

My personal opinion is that the GOP would rather let the cat out of the bag on Obama's impeachable offenses than permit him four more years in office. It's a gamble, but I feel comfortable with it. And the alternative, having a liberal standard bearer redefine "conservatism", is not acceptable -- and in fact the Founders warned us against it.

You think it is a strawman argument, but that's the reality. If the GOP chooses Romney as its representative (our representative), then the GOP is little different than the DNC (we are little different). I can't abide by that.

We'll show up to vote. Don't worry about that. We'll vote for the conservatives on the ballot as we find them. But Romney is not in that camp. You say we burned up the phone lines and changed Bush. He left office right after igniting the "too big to fail" bailout fuse. How'd that work for us? Time to try something different.

Having Obama in for four years won't help. Having Romney in for four (or eight) years won't help either -- in fact it will hurt by redefining "conservative". There are no "positives", so we focus on mitigating the "negatives".
Obama provides a target on the field in front of us we can unify to fight. Romney provides chaos in our ranks and constant discord that is difficult to overcome. It's pretty basic strategy really.

I would prefer that Obama lose to a conservative. But if he instead finds victory over a progressive liberal disguised as a conservative, the GOP is forced to become our ally once more and face a common opponent.

Calm, reasoned sense. THANK YOU.

I think a powerful help toward mitigating the negative is to vote third party such that Obama (or God Forbid Romney) gets in by the slimmest plurality possible. If he's re-elected on a weak plurality where as much as 66 percent of votes cast were AGAINST him, it would seriously compromise and weaken his political viability, and strengthen his opposition.

I'm voting ABOOR and hoping Obama gets in on a 34% plurality (where 66% on record voted to OPPOSE him) because it's one way to "mitigate the negatives."

But if [marxist Obama] instead finds victory over a progressive liberal disguised as a conservative, the GOP is forced to become our ally once more and face a common opponent.

Maybe. Or, equally possible:

But if [marxist Obama] instead finds victory over a Mormon "etch-a-sketch" RINO who reverts to more liberal positions, the GOP is forced to accept that what they needed to do was move even farther left.

It's not clear that 100% of the conservatives out here would vote for a reincarnated Ronald Reagan ("Tip Oneil appeaser" and RINO Bush nominator, and look at his SCOTUS appointees....). Plus there's 40% out there who love what Obama is doing and more who are pissed at him because he's not destroying America enough.