Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Florida primary tomorrow. The highly coveted Crush Liberalism endorsement goes to…

(drum roll)…Mitt Romney.

Admittedly, this is a lukewarm endorsement.  I wish there was a candidate that had the “Wow!” factor that W gave me in 2000 and that ObaMao gave the left four years ago.  But there isn’t.  There are candidates I would have liked to have seen jump in or, in the case of Tim Pawlenty, stick around.

But here’s the thing: This country may not survive another Barack The Terrible reign of economic and freedom terror.  And I’m afraid that Romney is the only guy in the race capable of ending it.  I do believe he has enough appeal to the independents, and that the conservatives won’t sit at home like they did when Juan McAmnesty ran in 2008 on account of recognition of how high the stakes are, that Romney can pull it off.

Do I have concerns about Romney?  Sure.  The same flip-flopping we skewered Kerry over in 2004 is, I think, fair game this time around.  The ignorant masses probably won’t recognize that Bain Capital has a good, not bad, role.  That said, though, I think that people who may not have strong leanings one way or the other will be less put off by Romney than by Newt, Santorum, or Paul.

I recognize the need for a solid conservative.  But I think that Romney is more conservative than he’s given credit for.  However, it’s beyond dispute that he’d govern far more conservatively than Chairman Zero.  You factor in a Republican House and a soon-to-be-Republican Senate, and I think he’ll probably rubber stamp any conservative legislation that lands on his desk.

Newt’s a brilliant speaker and a phenomenal debater.  But people just don’t like him.  And as sad as it is to say, our elections are largely a popularity contest, whether we like it or not.  It is for these reasons that I’m voting for Romney tomorrow in the Florida primary.  Your mileage may vary.

Advertisements

January 30, 2012 - Posted by | conservatism, Florida, Newt Gingrich, Romney

12 Comments »

  1. The only thing Newt has going for him is his ability to exude confidence while lying or ditching responsibility. So yes, I can live with Romney.

    Comment by Alli | January 30, 2012

  2. I agree that we must rally around whoever wins the primary. If people are so foolish as to not vote for the Republican candidate because it is not the candidate THEY prefer, they must, and again I say they MUST, ask themselves if OBAMA is their preferred candidate? The answer, obviously, is NO, and a choice NOT to vote against Obama will literally serve as a vote FOR him, as every vote against him functions as a check against every brain damaged person who would vote FOR Obama. If my house were on fire, I would do my level best to save my kids from the flames even IF I had to lay aside some principle that I might be clinging to.
    Illustration: Let’s say the fire department rolls up, and a fire fighter that has recently been accused of theft and is known in town for being an adulterer is the first one out of the rig. MY home is burning, my kids are trapped. Am I going to even CONSIDER not sending that guy in to rescue my kids from the inferno because I don’t personally approve of his character and because of yet-unproven allegations?
    %^$ NO I would not hesitate to send the guy in – there is clear and immediate danger and I stand to lose BIG.
    Come November, we have a chance send in a “fire fighter” so to speak. The nation is ablaze, and the kids in the illustration represent our future. Some principles must be set aside to make sure the fire is put out and the people are rescued!
    Even Romney, as a moderate, would support conservative legislation brought by a republican Congress, and he would know enough to predict that any liberal piece of legislation would likely die on the floor.
    People…we MUST send in the fireman, even if he isn’t our favorite fireman on the department!

    Comment by Kevin | January 30, 2012

  3. Impeccable analogy, sir. I couldn’t agree more!

    Comment by crushliberalism | January 30, 2012

  4. Gee, Kevin, put that way, it all makes sense now. The trick is going to be to get the Senate in conservative hands. Then Romney has no choice in the matter of legislation. A veto proof congress is a must for 2012.
    As for me, I still have this suspicion that there will be no election in 2012. Ovomit and the commies will manufacture a crisis (think OWS crowds and the near riots in Oakland lately) and declare Martial law to stop everything. Especially if it looks like a majority of the voters are gonna vote against him and the lefties.
    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Comment by J. Guidry, Battlefield, MO. | January 30, 2012

  5. JG, I doubt the election will be suspended. In order to institute martial law, the president would need the cooperation of the military. He’s about as popular as syphilis among the enlisted and officers. While they will (and should) take orders from the Commander-in-Chief, there would be too big a split among the military in going along with such a display of tyranny. These soldiers are sworn to defend the country, not one office.

    Comment by crushliberalism | January 30, 2012

  6. Kevin, you hit the nail square on the head with that post.

    I held my nose and voted for Romney in the 2008 primary and plan to do so again though probably not as tight since McCain isn’t in the race this time.

    Comment by Dux | January 30, 2012

  7. Excellent analogy Kevin. Crush, I too had to plug my nose to vote in this primary. I was a Perry girl, but when he dropped out, I was left without a clear choice. After weighing all the factors, I ultimately chose to go with Romney. (CM if you’re reading this, please accept this as my mea culpa). I’m not thrilled or excited by my vote, but I’ll be very excited to vote AGAINST Obama in November.

    Comment by Kanaka Girl | January 30, 2012

  8. Dissappointed in your selection! Dr. Ron Paul is the only choice if you truly want Fed. gubmint to shrink, for the Patriot Act and NDAA to be repealed (I am assuming you want social and economic freedom since your website is called CrushLiberalism (not the classic kind)), but it appears that I am wrong.

    Comment by Zaz | January 31, 2012

  9. Ron Paul would be an excellent choice for matters within the confines of the borders of the USofA………..Go beyond the three mile limit though and the man is a freaking idiot.

    Comment by Dux | January 31, 2012

  10. hey Zaz…the fire is raging. Send in the fireman!
    crush is right….Paul would likely pretend the outside world isn’t there until the Iranians start growing radioactive mushrooms on our soil. His foreign policy concepts are asinine.

    Comment by Kevin | January 31, 2012

  11. Zaz, my friend, we must agree to disagree. While I applaud Dr. Paul for his economic libertarianism, his foreign policy stances border on lunacy…in my view.

    Comment by crushliberalism | January 31, 2012

  12. Honestly, I’m comfortable with Romney and all the Republicans, except Paul. Obama must not win reelection or America, as we know it, will be doomed.

    Comment by Steve | February 2, 2012


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: