Green Room

Ten Things You Should Do If You’re An “Anybody But Mitt” Republican, And One You Should Not

posted at 8:13 am on February 1, 2012 by

Let’s say, hypothetically, for just a moment here, that some of the pundits are right – that Romney’s landslide victory in Florida means he really might be inevitable.

I’ve heard more than a few of you Newt and Paul supporters out there; “If Romney wins, I’m staying home on election day”.

While I’m not especially passionate about Romney just yet, I’ll reiterate what an awful idea this is.  Don’t go there, people.

I’ve got ten suggestions for much more-productive responses.

  1. Keep things in perspective - Forget Gingrich’s Alinskiite rhetoric for a moment; Romney’s not a “liberal”.  Remember William F. Buckley’s advice – “Vote for the most conservative person who can win?”  Romney was the most conservative person who could win…in Massachusetts.  He was the most conservative person who could make any headway against a Massachusetts legislature that made Ted Kennedy look like Michele Bachmann.  Is he the most conservative candidate who could win in a nationwide general election?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  But if not?  We’ll come back to that.  The point being, he’s not just “not a liberal” – on economics, which is what really matters in this election, he’s conservative enough.  And for the rest?  Well, we’ll get back to that down the list a ways.
  2. Relax.  Take a deep breath.  The world doesn’t begin or end with this nomination.  Or even with this election. Even if Romney is as bad as some of you claim, this nation has survived worse.  Hell, we’re surviving worse right now.  Focus, people; getting Obama out of office is the key – and while some of you reject incrementalism (and I reject the idea that Romney is especially incremental, and even if he is – well, we’ll get back to that below), sometimes it’s all you got, and you gotta deal with it, and when you gotta deal with it, you want the increments to move in the right direction.  Romney’s not perfect, but he’s the right direction – and, I suggest, not just a little.
  3. Remember The Positive Influence You Do Have - The caucuses and primaries aren’t over.  We’re seven months away from the convention – and three months away from the state conventions that will empanel the delegates.  This isn’t a done deal yet.  I can live with Romney – maybe even better – but I’m caucusing for…I dunno, probably Santorum on Tuesday.  Not that I’m thrilled with Santorum, either, but I want Mitt and his supporters to know that to win me (and, I hope, millions like me) that he’s going to have to be more aggressively conservative than he has been acting.
  4. Go Shooting. It’s great stress relief.  It focuses the mind.  And it shows Romney – and Obama – that you can’t whiz on the Second Amendment.  It’s a threefer.
  5. Remember The Alternative - You think four more years of Obama would be better than four to eight of Romney?  There’s a caveat to this, of course – more below.
  6. No, Remember The Real Alternative  - I hear those among you who say you’ll sit this election out.  ”If the party loses because they didn’t go conservative enough for me, it’ll teach them a lesson”.   That’s not only groaningly solipsistic – it’s not, after all, all about you – it’s also just not the way political parties and organizations work.  I’ve said it a few times in the past few weeks, and I’m going to keep saying it until y’all get it right; Political parties don’t “learn lessons” – they reflect the will of those who show up.  And if conservatives – and all you libertarian Ron Paul supporters – don’t show up, then the “establishment wins.  And don’t be yapping about “voting Libertarian”, because…
  7. Third Parties Are to “Parties” What Near Beer Is To Beer. Let’s be honest; if you are a conservative or a libertarian, the GOP is the only chance you have to actually affect policy for real.  The Libertarian, Constitution and Conservative parties are futile, vote-wasting protest actions at best,  intellectual onanism at worst.  None of them will ever, ever, ever, ever affect the way policy is enacted in this country.  Ever.  And I say that as someone who not only sincerely wishes they could, but worked for it as a Libertarian Party member.  And remember – you, the conservative and libertarian and Tea Partier, have had a huge effect already; four years ago, Romney was defending himself against charges he was “too conservative”; today, it’s the opposite.  This is a good thing.  You – we – have moved the needle in the GOP.  ”But it hasn’t moved far enough and fast enough!”, you say?  Suck it up, little camper, and put down the TV remote; political parties don’t change like one of those jump cuts in an NFL game of the week.  It takes time, patience and effort.  Hell, it took Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater close to 20 years to change the GOP, and even that didn’t stick.
  8. Be Honest: Campaign rhetoric is one thing – real records, and their context, are much more useful.  Romney needs to be kept honest – i.e, conservative – and we have the power to do that (see, again, below), but it’s not like we’re trying to reform Che Guevara, here.
  9. Numbers Count:  Remember Buckley’s Commandment from earlier in the post?  ”Elect the most conservative candidate who can win?”  Newt’s negatives shouldn’t be the dispositive factor in this nomination, but you might wanna be mindful of the fact that 60% of the American people would rather have Slobodan Milosevic for President.  And Ron Paul is a shoe-in in the4 general – so say his supporters.  Who are, so far, 1/6-1/10 of the GOP.  If he can’t win the GOP, I’m at a loss for how he has even a faint shot at the general.  I’d love to hear a Ronulan spell out a case that leads Paul to the White House that doesn’t include the phrase “and then Ron Paul convinces everyone that he’s ideal”.  Honestly – I’d love to hear it.  Rand Paul might be another story, and there, I’m all ears - but that’s the future.  As far as I”m concerned, for right now the electoral world ends in November.  Focus.
  10. Checks, Balances. So what if the GOP had no candidate at all, and we were looking at a victory for Obama by default today?  What would you be doing now, all you good conservatives?  Working to make sure the conservatives hold the House and take the Senate?  OK – so let’s say Romney really is as bad as  you all want us to believe he is.  And let’s say he’s inevitable.  Your choices then are “stay home” or “do what you’d do if Obama was going to win – try to negate his power and influence by taking control of Congress”.  Why, precisely, should you not then be working to flip the Senate and extend our lead in the House/  Because the opportunity is there, folks, to not just flip Congress completely against either Obama or a hypothetical “moderate” Romney, but flip it to a version of the GOP that, so far, has been pretty Beltway-proof, and fairly dedicated to the mission for which they were sent to GOP by the Tea Party and a newly-resurgent conservative movement in the first place; togovern like conservatives.  Keeping them that way is our job.  Provided we don’t “stay home” and “teach everyone a lesson”.  Because the only “lesson” you “teach” by staying home is that you’re unreliable and marginal.  Don’t be that.
Or you can stay home.  Your call.
Cross-posted at Shot In The Dark

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Third Parties Are to “Parties” What Near American Beer Is To Beer.

Fixed it.

The_Livewire on February 1, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Nope, I will not vote for Romney in the general. I’ll vote downticket, but will abstain from voting for the presidential race.

Vancomycin on February 1, 2012 at 8:31 AM

I’ve heard more than a few of you Newt and Paul supporters out there; “If Romney wins, I’m staying home on election day”.

I’ve seen that too. I think they are actually Obama supporters.

The hardest about supporting Romney is some of his supporters.

cozmo on February 1, 2012 at 8:32 AM

But the Mittbots on this site have told me my one vote doesn’t matter. So I’ll vote third party, thank you very much. At least I’ll be able to look myself in the mirror on the morning of November 7 without feeling like a sellout and a whore. I want no part of an Obamney ticket.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Some people are too self righteous to care if sitting it out or voting 3rd party is a vote for Obama.
They can’t be reasoned with.
Write them off.

Mimzey on February 1, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Some people are too self righteous to care if sitting it out or voting 3rd party is a vote for Obama.
They can’t be reasoned with.
Write them off.

Mimzey on February 1, 2012 at 8:43 AM

And some people are proud to whore their vote out to anyone and anybody. Pander to them.

Vancomycin on February 1, 2012 at 8:44 AM

I will not vote for a liberal. No matter which party he is from. Simple.

unseen on February 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Just so I can understand something that makes little sense…if Mitt is the nominee, all of you Newt, Santorum and Luap Nor supporters would rather see Obama as president for four more years, thinking that he will be better for America than Romney?

Seriously? That’s your train of thought?

MunDane68 on February 1, 2012 at 8:50 AM

See… here’s what I see as worst-case scenario. Romney wins, but lacks the conviction/policy chops/whatever to make any real improvement in the economy (because I disagree with #8 – I don’t believe we have the power to keep him honest. He’ll play the same game as McConnell and frustrate us all – and I think that in a showdown with Reid, Romney will fold). If after four years of Romney, the economy is no better, the GOP will own this mess and we’ll have an even more difficult battle to get someone good in office (12-16 years perhaps?)

I hope not… but I’m not optimistic.

firegnome on February 1, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Just so I can understand something that makes little sense…if Mitt is the nominee, all of you Newt, Santorum and Luap Nor supporters would rather see Obama as president for four more years, thinking that he will be better for America than Romney?

Seriously? That’s your train of thought?

MunDane68 on February 1, 2012 at 8:50 AM

I agree, I would rather have someone in office who sees it my way 50% of the time rather than someone who sees it my way 0% of the time. Cut off your nose to spite your face much?

Stay home and your basically voting for 4 more years of Obama. Thanks in advance.

bsinc1962 on February 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Some people are too self righteous to care if sitting it out or voting 3rd party is a vote for Obama.
They can’t be reasoned with.
Write them off.

Mimzey on February 1, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Sure, insult people who don’t agree with you. That’ll help pursuade them.

Why don’t you blame the liberal arm of the Republican party that raises up candidates who violate the princplas of their rank and file?

LilyBart on February 1, 2012 at 9:04 AM

I agree, I would rather have someone in office who sees it my way 50% of the time rather than someone who sees it my way 0% of the time. Cut off your nose to spite your face much?

The slowboat to hell is still a boat to hell.

I love liberty and believe small government is the way to liberty. If we have a president working to destroy liberty – I’d actually rather it be a Democrat. Then my party will have some credibility left when its time to do the clean up.

LilyBart on February 1, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Great advice! Now we’ll see how many have the intellectual honesty, maturity and discipline to act on it.

cicerone on February 1, 2012 at 9:11 AM

The slowboat to hell is still a boat to hell.

LilyBart on February 1, 2012 at 9:06 AM

And that boat won’t turn on a dime.

cozmo on February 1, 2012 at 9:11 AM

I will not vote for a liberal. No matter which party he is from. Simple. Simple-minded.

unseen on February 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Now it’s correct. Romney is not liberal.

cicerone on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Here’s the thing: For a lot of ABRs, it’s not going to matter how we vote in the Fall. RINOmney’s appeal to “moderates and independents” is overrated. We could all show up, vote for Romney, and it won’t matter.

Sekhmet on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Mitch, you break at 6.

Conservatives followed your train of thought in 2010, and got the House back for the GOP. The GOP then systematically lied to their constituency and caved on all of their promises.

So, no, the GOP does NOT (and, IMO, will never) reflect the will of the people who show up. Quite clearly, they do not, represented by the large drop in their approval ratings over the last year.

I view the political system as a form of psychological conditioning. The problem is that the feedback loop is incredibly warped. Right now, the GOP’s feedback loop is set as follows:

Lose election – Conservatives didn’t support us enough
Win election – The conservatives want what we can give them

In neither case do conservatives get what they want, because the GOP would rather kill us slowly than kill us quickly.

I think conservatives would rather live.

Until the GOP shows that they actually will govern as conservatives want them to govern, why should conservatives vote for them? ‘I’m better than the opposition’ is a reason not to vote for the other guy. It is NOT a reason to vote for the one saying it.

In conclusion, I think that pundits and others here need to stop looking at the political realm as a zero-sum game.

Scott H on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

And that boat won’t turn on a dime.

True – especially if we continue to elect people who believe in things like Big Government Health Care and are ‘open’ to a VAT tax.

You will hate a Romney presidency. He all about Romney – not conservative princpals. He won’t spend his time trying to roll back big government, he’ll spend the next four years pandering in an effort to win a 2nd term. And, I believe, nominate ‘moderate’ supreme court justices that will tend to side with the progressives on hard issues.

LilyBart on February 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM

cozmo: I’ve seen nothing from the GOP in the last two years that has even appreciably slowed the boat down.

Scott H on February 1, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Romney is not liberal.

cicerone on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

That depends on how you define “liberal.” I think he does have more in common with Obama than not. But then again, you don’t have to take my word for it.

gryphon202 on February 1, 2012 at 9:23 AM

I think that this year’s election is one where honest conservatives with integrity can on good conscience disagree on the best choice. I’m firmly in the “no vote is a vote for Obama” camp, so I will vote for whomever ends up as the GOP candidate, even if it is Romney. Or Ron Paul for that matter.

But I can understand and sympathize with those who choose to not vote because they’re concerned that Romney would preside as a liberal Republican and would damage the message.

I have one question for that group, however: did you also support Christine O’Donnell? If so, then you’re at least being consistent. Castle was probably as liberal as Romney, if not moreso, and so by the “no liberals” standard you couldn’t have accepted him as the candidate. If, however, you were one of those in the “Castle is better than a Democrat” crowd, then sitting out this election doesn’t make sense to me.

AJsDaddie on February 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I’m ABRITP. If I need to, I will be voting AGAINST OBAMA in the general election. I would encourage my fellow ABRs to do the same.

gryphon202 on February 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM

did you also support Christine O’Donnell

Not from that state. But for the record, I though she was a dufus.

What are we doing wrong that we don’t have better choices on the “R” side? We need to figure this out, and change our approach so we have better choices.

LilyBart on February 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM

The Problem Mitt Romney has is George Soros. George Soros said there’s no difference between Mitt and Obama.

So the question a true Republican, Conservative voter has – do I further ruin the Republican brand with a vote for Mitt or do I plan for the future and protect that brand, tattered as it is.

And – Mitt better get his supporters in line. The best way characterize a Romney political operative, and I have met several in a variety off settings, is this: They pee on your leg and call it rain, slap you on the back a wee bit too hard and say get in line X candidate is a joke and can’t win.

However, X candidate ran and won election 3 x – NOT MITT who could not even muster 50% in 1 win; x candidate has been consistently pro-life and always pro-life and can be counted on to protect Catholics; NOT MITT, x candidate balanced a budget changed the establishment while serially cheating on his wives, lord knows what he could do by not cheating and work full time from the President’s office; NOT MITT (and for those who discuss tax cutter Mitt – not so fast – he transferred the tax burden from the state to the localities – net tax INCREASE!) x candidate built a business and turned around a business and worked in the Federal reserve system. NOT MITT, who used predatory financing, leveraged government bailouts to transfer the remaining wealth in companies overseas while skimming off the top. And while blue collar folks don’t have sophisticated financing degrees, they measure results with their lost livelihoods thanks to Mitt-like business practices. I’m sure they will enthusiastically come out for Mitt and down ballot Republicans.

So voting for Mitt good for America why? Romney-care that Pam Bondi and Norm Coleman say will replace Obamacare – I feel better now.\sarc Is it the scorched earth tactics used on conservatives that he will use on his Democratic friends (collaborators in Mitt’s words). Is it the 59 Point Plan that changes nothing vs. people who have cut the government or proposed the $1 trillion in cuts.

So finding a way to vote for Mitt is as difficult as voting **For** obama – There’s not enough difference to overcome his supporters and his bad policy.

NVA Patriot on February 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

And some people are proud to whore their vote out to anyone and anybody. Pander to them.

Vancomycin on February 1, 2012 at 8:44 AM

You prove my point. Its all about self righteousness and the purity of “ME”.

Mimzey on February 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Sure, insult people who don’t agree with you. That’ll help pursuade them.

Why don’t you blame the liberal arm of the Republican party that raises up candidates who violate the princplas of their rank and file?

LilyBart on February 1, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Who did I insult? My point was in reference to..what to me..is a self absorbed and self righteous thought process.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Mimzey on February 1, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Until the GOP shows that they actually will govern as conservatives want them to govern, why should conservatives vote for them?
Scott H on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Then you must not believe that the Republic is at a crossroads of live or die imo. How else can you play the politics as usual..I’ll sit it out to make a point shtick?

Mimzey on February 1, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Mittens is most likely a liberal. The problem is, we have a marxist in the White House. We need to get the marxist out now, and work on building a more conservative Congress.

rbj on February 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I don’t believe we have the power to keep him honest

Which is why it’s important that we win the Senate, so he doesn’t have to have a showdown with Reid.

Although I disagree; I think Romney can stare down Dingy Harry.

Mitch Berg on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I will not vote for a liberal. No matter which party he is from. Simple.

unseen on February 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM

this describes how i feel.

i will only vote for someone who EARNS my vote because they say or do a lot of good things. i won’t vote for someone because of who they AREN’T, i will vote because of who they ARE. i’m not voting for some liberal-lite who wants the tea party base to fall in line behind him like good little sheep. if the nominee wants my vote, he’s going to have to actually be conservative and say things i like. if not, i’m not going to reward him by giving him a vote he didn’t earn. if he beats obama, cool. but he should not expect my help.

Sachiko on February 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Florida saw a drop in voter turnout of 14%. No nominee is winning the general with that much of the base sitting it out. Does that tell you anything or are you just going to stand there screaming at us that we “have to come play with you.” Your “guy” doesn’t represent me enough for my vote. That means I find him/her objectionable. I also see so little difference in how they will govern and how the “opponent” will govern to merit making an effort. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

I know you want me to come play. I hear you and I’ve thought about coming and playing. Now it is your turn take a moment and think about what I just said.

Bear on February 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM

“Conservatives” waiting for the next Reagan (who really wasn’t all that conservative), are akin to utopian liberals.

If we can just get the right guy in there, we can achieve all of our goals.

Bull. Not going to happen with one guy and even if you think that, Gingrich is NOT that guy, even if the media-whore could get himself elected.

NoDonkey on February 1, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Keep things in perspective

Relax.

Remember The Positive Influence You Do Have

Go Shooting.

Remember The Alternative

No, Remember The Real Alternative

Third Parties Are to “Parties” What Near Beer Is To Beer.

Be Honest:

Numbers Count:

Checks, Balances.

So, let’s see if I have this straight: you are trying to recruit people to help support your cause by implying that we are all, respectively: narrow-minded; nervous; insecure; irate; forgetful, no, really forgetful; finnicky; dishonest; innumerate and unbalanced?

Or you can stay home. Your call

Granted, you have certainly provided a strong argument in favor of your suggestion. But the choice you offer is a false one. Because nothing you say will stop conservatives from, as always, taking a few minutes out of our busy year to do our civic duty and vote against whoever happens to be the more Communistic candidate in any given election.

On the other hand – although it’s impossible to tell from what you’ve written – if you want to rally support BEYOND that, you and Mitt Romney are doing an extraordinarily bad job of trying to generate enthusiasm.

When the strongest argument you can possibly make is that people should either get excited about you or not you’d have to be kind of an idiot to assume the vast majority of people won’t pick that second option.

Just like John McCain, Mitt Romney has chosen to rely on the tireless enthusiasm of all those “hardcore moderates” out there to fight for him. And I see no reason to suspect that Romney will repeat the “mistake” that McCain made in nominating a rabble rouser who might draw an unwanted element into his ever-so-very sedate campaign.

logis on February 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Although I disagree; I think Romney can stare down Dingy Harry.

Mitch Berg on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

What makes you think that he would, Mitch? What policy positions has Mitt Romney EVER held that makes you think he’d go toe-to-toe with Reid? For that matter, what makes you think that ANY Republican would?

gryphon202 on February 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM

So, let’s see if I have this straight

You do not.

I am telling the “anyone but Mitt” crowd, some of whom are using some very scorched-earthy rhetoric, that the real priority is getting Obama out of office and getting GOP majorities in Congress.

Bad job of creating enthusiasm

I’m no cheerleader. If the notion of your grandchildren paying trillions in debt doesn’t get you excited to turn out for a conservative Congress and a conservative-enough, much-better-than-Obama president, I’m afraid one might be beyond cheerleading.

Mitch Berg on February 1, 2012 at 10:59 AM

People who keep pulling the R lever whoever the nominee because “he’s better than the other guy” are the reason we keep getting Bushes, Doles, McCains, and Romneys as nominees.

The sad part is, even when they lose (as they usually do), they blame the grass roots for “staying home.” It’s always our fault, never theirs. Out of touch doesn’t even begin to describe them.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 11:01 AM

What makes you think that he would, Mitch? What policy positions has Mitt Romney EVER held that makes you think he’d go toe-to-toe with Reid?

For starters, did you check the link? The GOP has better odds of taking the Senate than Romney does of winning the White House (and I think Romney’s odds aren’t bad). If the GOP doesn’t shoot itself in the face, Reid is done.

For that matter, what makes you think that ANY Republican would?

Because I and a whole lot of pissed-off conservatives are going to make sure they do.

Right?

I mean, what other option is there? We fight like hell to get conservatives nominated; then, we fight like hell to make sure they either stay that way, or become that way in office.

Either way, you fight like hell. All the time. No rest, no breaks, no getting bored and walking away. You fight like hell, or you resign yourself to being a slave forever, or you take the middle ground of holding out for Mr. Perfect, and boy-oh-boy, THEN you’ll show everyone!

For myself? I’ll just fight like hell.

Mitch Berg on February 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I’m no cheerleader. If the notion of your grandchildren paying trillions in debt doesn’t get you excited to turn out for a conservative Congress and a conservative-enough, much-better-than-Obama president, I’m afraid one might be beyond cheerleading.

Mitch Berg on February 1, 2012 at 10:59 AM

If we’d have had another eight years of George W. Bush, the debt would have kept right on piling on — just slower. Pardon my lack of enthusiasm, Mitch. But I am going to vote AGAINST Obama if need be. Let’s not labor under any illusion that “much better than Obama” is going to move us anywhere closer to a true constitutional revival. At this point, I can safely say it won’t.

gryphon202 on February 1, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Although I disagree; I think Romney can stare down Dingy Harry.

Mitch Berg on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I think he can - certainly he’s gone to the mattresses against Newt, so it’s clear that he’s capable of it – but I don’t think he will. If there was ever an election to prove Friedman’s concept that we need to make it politically profitable for bad politicians to do the right thing, this is it.

I’m voting Not-Obama, even if that means I have to press the button for Romney. I think it will be moot, though, because I still believe that Obama’s going to beat Romney like a rented mule.

Laura Curtis on February 1, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Because I and a whole lot of pissed-off conservatives are going to make sure they do.

Right?

I mean, what other option is there? We fight like hell to get conservatives nominated; then, we fight like hell to make sure they either stay that way, or become that way in office.

Either way, you fight like hell. All the time. No rest, no breaks, no getting bored and walking away. You fight like hell, or you resign yourself to being a slave forever, or you take the middle ground of holding out for Mr. Perfect, and boy-oh-boy, THEN you’ll show everyone!

For myself? I’ll just fight like hell.

Mitch Berg on February 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM

We had so much success from 2000-2006, didn’t we? I mean, No Child Left Behind. Medicare Part D. And I could go on. All that spending under a SOLIDLY REPUBLICAN government. I’ll say it again: “Better than Obama” doesn’t mean shit to me. If that’s your best sales pitch, you’re probably better off as a Fuller Brush man than a conservative political pundit.

gryphon202 on February 1, 2012 at 11:07 AM

And before you jump on me, Mitch, I have no intention of staying home. I am voting in the primaries and I am voting in the general. But if it’s “be honest” you want, then I will spare no pol OR pundit in my honesty.

gryphon202 on February 1, 2012 at 11:10 AM

For that matter, what makes you think that ANY Republican would?

Because I and a whole lot of pissed-off conservatives are going to make sure they do.

Right?

Mitch Berg on February 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I’m not being sarcastic when I ask this, I’m being serious. A whole lot of pissed-off conservatives took to the streets and protested, we supported candidates, and we gave the GOP a historic blowout in 2010. And they still spit in our faces, and are increasingly making it clear that they won’t fight to reduce government and they won’t fight to kill Obamacare. How can we “make sure they do”?

Laura Curtis on February 1, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Deja vu. They push the rino on us and then write articles like this to make us vote for the rino. Well, I’m going to support Romney as much as the Republicans supported Joe Miller, Christine O’Donnel, and Sharon Angle.

Hey, maybe we can support a write-in campaign like Murkowski did in Alaska. The republicans helped her with that one against Joe Miller.

Kaffa on February 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I’m not being sarcastic when I ask this, I’m being serious. A whole lot of pissed-off conservatives took to the streets and protested, we supported candidates, and we gave the GOP a historic blowout in 2010. And they still spit in our faces, and are increasingly making it clear that they won’t fight to reduce government and they won’t fight to kill Obamacare. How can we “make sure they do”?

Laura Curtis on February 1, 2012 at 11:11 AM

If I may be so bold as to chime in here, it would really help if conservative punditry writ-large dispensed with the rose-colored glasses.

gryphon202 on February 1, 2012 at 11:15 AM

When you start getting giddy with inevitability like Romney did this morning after the “landslide” there follows the inevitability of stupidity. It ain’t over till it’s over.

stukinIL4now on February 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Actually, Romney is the one who uses Alinskiite rhetoric and tactics. Not because it is what he chose to do, but because it is what he is. Progressive.
You are right, the world does not begin or end with this election. I will therefore do what I see is best long term, work to force Romney into a loss.
I do not have a positive influence that can be measured against the full onslaught of the no movement non conservative HotAir big government alternative media.
I plan to do just that. Got my first home defense weapon end of last year, plan to get more.
Four more years of Obama short term is worse than 4 years Romney, but no worse than 8 years of Romney, but what about the out years after Romney Bushifies the Republican party and ushers in another freebie run for the Democrats like 2006 and 2008 brought?
I will not sit it out, I will actively vote against Romney, I will vote for the conservative in the Senate and House. As for those who show up, that is BS, Romney will reflect center left voters, the Republican congress will do as it did right after the 2010 midterm elections and work to marginalize any sanity in congress.
You are right, I will not go third party, I will go for the throat and vote direct for Obama. Parties do not learn lessons, but the electorate does!
Romney’s record speaks plainly, he is a progressive, pure and simple.
Your number 9 is incoherent and I do not understand it.
Vote for Obama, vote for the conservative for congress. Got it.

astonerii on February 1, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I’m not being sarcastic when I ask this, I’m being serious. A whole lot of pissed-off conservatives took to the streets and protested, we supported candidates, and we gave the GOP a historic blowout in 2010. And they still spit in our faces, and are increasingly making it clear that they won’t fight to reduce government and they won’t fight to kill Obamacare. How can we “make sure they do”?

Laura Curtis on February 1, 2012 at 11:11 AM

There is no civil way to make them do what we want them to do. They are established with incumbency protection. Look at how Allen West responded once he got his imcumbency protection. Now watch how suddenly he reverses again now that his district has been wiped.

astonerii on February 1, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I don’t believe we have the power to keep him honest

Which is why it’s important that we win the Senate, so he doesn’t have to have a showdown with Reid.

Although I disagree; I think Romney can stare down Dingy Harry.

Mitch Berg on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

That is true. The president doesn’t write or pass legislation. Without the senate, we have what is happening now i.e. bills can get held up and never make it to the president, with the only difference being who is the president.

Mimzey on February 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Well put Mitch.

Full disclosure, I have chosen to support Romney in this election already.

I’ve spent a lifetime fighting liberals, but according to some people here, now I am a liberal. (I must be… I mean, look who I’m supporting!)

That’s more than a little annoying.

But, I know that emotions run a little wild sometimes. Especially when we are talking politics. I’m just hoping that people give in to the “better angels of their nature” and conservatives decide to go into November “with malice towards none (except Obama) and charity towards all (fellow Republicans and conservatives)”.

RightWay79 on February 1, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Nice list, very thoughtful.

I’ll start at #4, “Go Shooting”. Funny thing I just did that yesterday. Focused my mind and my aim. Reaffirmed that anything within 300 yards needs to be invisible.

The rest of the list, well “same shit different day”. Looking at the presidential elections starting in 1976, my first, and lets apply the thinking suggested by the rest of the list.

1976 – Jimmy Carter vs Gerald Ford
1980 – Jimmy Carter vs Ronald Reagan
1984 – Walter Mondale vs Ronald Reagan
1988 – Michael Dukakis vs George H W Bush
1992 – Bill Clinton vs George H W Bush
1996 – Bill Clinton vs Bob Dole
2000 – Al Gore vs George W Bush
2004 – John Kerry vs George W Bush

And let’s not forget the “Pièce de résistance”

2008 – Barack Obama vs John McCain

So tell me; “How’s numbers 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 working out for the country?”

Bogeyfre on February 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2