TexasCHLforum.com

PracticalTactical wrote:In war it is possible to "win" a battle, but suffer a strategic loss.
...........
Rest of this snipped.. read above for details

I still would argue that your idealism, while admirable, is misplaced here.

Either Romney or Obama will be elected. Ron Paul hasn't a chance.
Back in 1992, Ross Perot "had a chance". Voting for him (before he lost his cool) might have propelled him on to victory.
Certainly not the case with Ron Paul today.

Now.. Let's look at Mitt from another angle..
Mitt was Governor of Massachusetts. Can you get more Blue State than that?
I'm inclined to view all of his actions as Governor of Massachusetts through the filter that is the political makeup of his state.
Maybe that's misguided.... I'll agree that it could be. I don't "know" Mitt's heart.

Fast forward to today...
Mitt is running as a Right-of-Center candidate. Granted, he's terribly flawed and impacted by position reversals. But, he's running as a Republican, backed by what will surely be a Republican House and possibly a Republican Senate (I'll not wager on the balance in the Senate). He will not have a Massachusetts-minded constituency to deal with. I am not worried about him bringing WH Resolutions to kill the NRA or 2A or re-institute the AWB. It just won't happen. He's firmly committed to extinguishing Obamacare, regardless of his healthcare record in Massachusetts.

It is a FACT that our next election will give us either Obama or Romney.
Voting for anyone else is just sticking your head in the sand.

Toorop wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.

Why? He seems to be more liked than Mitt by your party? Isn't he the handpicked candidate of Jesus?

If you're not going to say anything that actually contributes constructively to the discussion perhaps you should remain on the sideline?

GeekDad wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.

The goal is not to go from one socialistic president to another lying scumbag, Vote with your heart not your party... believe in something, something actually voting for. This is why its Ron Paul or nothing for me... cause if he is not the next POTUS then their will be no other election by my economic calculations.

I'll see your idealistic viewpoint and raise you my reality..

[Below is paraphrased from a post I made in an earlier thread]

I, too, want a candidate I can vote FOR. In November 2012, I'm not going to get one.

Unfortunately, to vote for a candidate with no serious chance of winning is like buying a lottery ticket and quitting your job before the numbers are drawn. When your mom served you peas and broccoli you might get away with asking for ice cream. Today's election menu is Snake or Skunk. You can still vote for ice cream, but you're gonna get Snake or Skunk regardless. If you have a preference between those two, even a slight preference, even though neither one is what you actually want, you'd be wise to not waste your vote on ice cream.

The place to "fix" this is by demanding that your party (and maybe even volunteering for your candidate directly) put forward a primary candidate you favor and set a platform you can support. But, when it comes down to the final vote count, it's an irrefutable fact that you're gonna get Obama or Romney as the next POTUS. Holding on to your wish for something better ignores reality. If you have a preference among the two people with an actual chance to win, that's who you should vote for. To do otherwise might make you feel good, but it's equivalent to a child stomping their feet, it'll get them nothing but punished.

While I understand the disappointment, Santorum had less than a snowballs' chance in hades of beating BHO.

Let's get focused on the goal. Bye, Bye, Barackie.