Reagan of course did get elected but made the big mistake of hiring a Massachusetts liberal (not named Dukakis or Kennedy) to be his vice-president. When Reagan's VP took over in 1989 he told everyone (with Reagan two feet away) that he wanted a "kinder, gentler America." This meant huge increases in regulations, taxes and spending. This is what kindness looks like to a liberal Republican I suppose.
Eight years later George H.W. Bush saw his "compassionate conservative" son, George W. ride into the White House with his veto pen left behind in Texas. Eight years later, another socialist Republican (see video below) left us in an economic wreck and sowed the seeds for our current FDR reincarnation festival.
Please watch this speech and tell me, how do you Republicans stand it? How do you claim that Mr. Obama has ruined America when your party has been so horribly Socialist that Bill Clinton looks like Goldwater and Reagan compared to the guys you have put in the White House recently?
And now, Mitt Romney is supposed to restore conservative values?
Come on, Man.
Dear Lord. Why did any liberals have a problem with "Dubya", again? He is their man. He just had the wrong team's jersey on at the time (kind of). He spoke such economic 'truth' and virtue when he was talking about the American Dream Down payment Act (or whatever it was called) and said, "...this will use, uhh, money... taxpayer's money, to help a qualified, low-income buyer, make a down payment." That is flagrant disregard right there. Or so I would think.
ReplyDeleteAs a card-carrying Republican, we "stand" it because at this point we are voting for the lesser of two nuisances / evils and hoping for the best in Romney. Is he perfect? Hell no, but he's a better choice than Obama at this stage.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice to have another Republican in the Goldwater/Reagan mold make some actual headway in the Presidential race but remember that the Electoral College selects our President, not the popular vote.
On that note, what would need to happen or change in order for the Electoral College to start casting their votes for a third party (preferably New Whig or Libertarian as opposed to Socialist or Communist) candidate?
BTW, love your blog and wish you would offer your services as a guest show on Neal Boortz's show from time to time.
Regards,
Scott
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.
DeleteIs it still considered evil to vote for the lesser of two evils and at least take a chance that some good changes could come out of it?
DeleteWould a better and non-evil alternative be to vote for a third person that stands no realistic chance of being voted into office?
Would an even better, and possibly non-evil alternative, be to stay home and not vote at all? After all, if you stay home and not vote, you're not voting for any form of evil and therefore you stand a chance of staying or becoming of our moral betters.