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 ...
So every one should just lay down, roll over, give up before the fight even begins, because romney might comprimise?
Any number of supposed could be, might be, may be compromise's romney could ever make, would be a thousand times better then four more years of obama.
The number of Freepers wanting four more years of Obama is ZERO.
The number of Freepers who want a conservative in the White House, however, appears open to debate.
I expect everyone to vote the way they see that they need to. It's what a free republic is all about.
After the accident in 2009, fear of the future, and of death is pretty well gone out of my makeup. ;)
I trust their judgment.
***Don’t you have your own judgement you can trust? Being led by the nose to vote for a librul is not worthy of trust.
Those that dont are RINOs trying to occupy the GOP and make it a 3rd party.
***Those that DO are republicans trying to make the GOP into Democrat Lite. More significantly, those like you who come onto a conservative website and try to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs (by getting them to vote for a librul) are not conservative. You are not conservative. Free Republic is not a republican website; it is a conservative website.
Okay, ma'am. I'll bite. Name some. Please start with your tagline.
A Mitt Romney loss wouldnt necessarily be a disaster
***A Romney win means that the GOP-E was correct in that it no longer needs conservatives. A Romney loss means that conservatives get the blame for not falling in line with those who so severely disagree with our beliefs that they go out of their way to disrupt them. Either way, conservatism has already lost.
Your logic for voting against Romney is more effective than any ad the Obama campaign has put out.
Congrats, I guess.
I’m still voting for him though. Not because he is going to lead us to a blessed and wonderous future as you derisively suggest, but because the man he is running against has committed traitorous acts against our country and needs to be replaced by someone who (whether right or wrong) will sincerely try to act in its best interests.
The number of freepers wanting 4 more years of Obama is simply mindboggling.
***The number of freepers who regularly try to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs is mindboggling. FR is not a republican website, it is a conservative website.
I don’t get it. Are you saying that if my opinion does not conform to Jim R’s than I’m not a conservative? I assure you that I am an American conservative patriotic veteran and the radicals I described whether on either side of political debate only causes noise! I hope I am 5x5 here. I am a libertarian who supports and defends the Constitution so that all Americans can pursue happiness not just the ones who agree with me.
Okay, that made me snort. Thanks for the laugh.
“Im still voting for him though. Not because he is going to lead us to a blessed and wonderous future as you derisively suggest, but because the man he is running against has committed traitorous acts against our country and needs to be replaced by someone who (whether right or wrong) will sincerely try to act in its best interests.”
IOW, you’re hooked on Hope and Change. As for “sincerity.” I’ve never met a sincere liar before. I do remember Mittens’ people sabotaging the McCain/Palin campaign before and up to the eve of the election so Obama would get in, though. That fits with what a pathological liar obsessed with gaining the Presidency would do.
Your second sentence conclusively proves your first one.
Baby steps, this time: define "radical conservative." Then define "religious zealot." Be specific.
Also working hard to get rid of the GOP-E types here in Texas. Dewhurst done pissed me off.
Matt Lewis needs to get out of DC and back to his Wolfsville roots. His father has to be rolling over in his grave with an opinion like that! 4 more years of Obama’s desecration of the US and there won’t be any US left!
You must really hate Reagan then.
NOT ONE of the anti MItt can answer this question:
Who do you suggest as an alternative to examine to Mitt?
YOU are quick to tell me Mitt is bad but cannot answer that very simple question.
You must hide behind “ I cant tell you how to vote for” yet the 7 or 8 Daily Kos/Ron Paul trolls appear on each and every Mitt thread telling us not to vote for Mitt.
Not one of the Daily Kos and Ron Paul trolls here has ever answered that question.