United Liberty
An Open Letter to GOP Primary Voters From a Libertarian
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:08pm | posted by Nate Nelson
Dear Republican primary voters and caucusgoers:
Yesterday, some of you in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri delivered stunning victories for former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. You may have thought in caucusing and voting for Santorum that you were dealing a blow to the big government establishment. Unfortunately, you weren’t. Santorum is and has always been a card-carrying member of the Beltway GOP. Santorum’s record in the U.S. Senate reveals consistent opposition to the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty. That’s why libertarians can’t support him now or in the general election and why you shouldn’t either.
Rick Santorum has consistently voted in favor of big government, budget-busting programs. He has slammed former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) for signing RomneyCare into law, but RomneyCare and ObamaCare are hardly the first examples of big government intervention in the health care market. Another recent example was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 establishing the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. While libertarians and limited government conservatives were busy arguing for the reduction of government health care entitlements, former President George W. Bush was busy expanding them — and Rick Santorum was happy to vote in favor of Medicare Part D along with other big government establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate.
Many libertarians and limited government conservatives have targeted federal education policy as one area that should see significant reduction. Some have even suggested that the Department of Education should be abolished and most if not all of its functions eliminated. But reducing the role of the federal government in American children’s education wasn’t on Rick Santorum’s agenda in the U.S. Senate. Santorum voted for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, described by the Associated Press as “a symbol to many of federal overreach and Congress’ inability to fix something that’s clearly flawed.” Nothing says big government GOP establishment like voting for an expansion of federal education policy backed by Bush and coauthored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Santorum has also been a consistent opponent of individual liberty. Although some do not, many Republican primary voters may agree with Santorum’s proposals to amend the constitution to prohibit abortion and same-sex marriage. But what about birth control? In October 2011, Santorum went on the record about “the dangers of contraception in this country,” arguing that birth control is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” These far outside the mainstream views may be excusable if they were just his personal opinions, but they’re not. Santorum told ABC News’ Jake Tapper late last year that he opposed Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that overturned state bans on discussing birth control with and providing it to married couples. President Santorum would favor letting states dictate what legally married heterosexual couples can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. How’s that for big government?
In April 2011, Rick Santorum said that he was “Tea Party before there was a Tea Party.” It looks like caucusgoers and primary voters in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri believed him. But future caucusgoers and primary voters shouldn’t be fooled; Rick Santorum has made a litany of proposals that are questionable at best from a constitutionalist point of view. He wants to use taxpayer dollars to support adoptions; “to incentivize the states to promote parental choice and quality educational options”; to create a public-private partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services and private organizations “for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood”; to reinstate “2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education Program”; and “to advance adult stem cell research.”
Those may all be worthy goals, but a Tea Party activist might well ask: Where does the constitution give the federal government the authority to undertake these tasks? Santorum’s proposals paint a picture of a candidate who isn’t so much opposed to big government but merely opposed to the aims of big government under a Democratic administration. Tea Party activists claim to believe that the size of government should be reduced. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, seems to believe that big government is fine as long as he’s the guy controlling it.
Now, more conservative caucusgoers and primary voters might be saying to themselves: Why should I listen to this guy? He’s a libertarian, not a conservative. That’s true, but you don’t have to take my word for it. In January, leading conservative blogger Erick Erickson, the editor-in-chief of RedState.com, also made the case that Santorum is “a big government conservative.” He brought up many of the same points I’ve mentioned and a few that I haven’t. If you’re a conservative and can’t trust Erick Erickson, who can you trust?
If you’re a Republican caucusgoer or primary voter interested in beating President Obama in November, you should know that you’ll need every vote you can muster. The truth of the matter is that you will need libertarians, including supporters of Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.). Yet at this very moment former two-term Governor Gary Johnson (R-N.M.) is seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination. What I’m saying, and not very subtly, is that we libertarians have other options and I can assure you, dear Republican caucusgoers and primary voters, that we will pursue those other options this November if you nominate big government conservative Rick Santorum. He is the line we will not cross in the name of compromise. Consider yourselves warned.
You know who else was happy to go along with Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind? That statist loving, government beast feeding Congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. Oh. Wait.
So whatever you want to say about Rick Santorum on those points applies to Paul Ryan.
Don’t get me wrong I love Paul Ryan, but no one treats him like an apostate and dismisses him because he once supported those bills.
Sorry…but no matter how cogent your points are, no matter how shattering your logic is, I will not take you seriously because you’re “anonymous”. If you have something important to say put your damn name on it and own it.
Anonymous can say anything…but it means nothing without your face/name.
Rich,
“anonymous” is not asking us to accept anything on his word. He’s reminding us of things that are already in the public record, and drawing logical conclusions. His credibility simply isn’t an issue with his posting.
In other words, yours is a classical ad hominem.
So, I take it, you have issues with Ben Franklin sending out Poor Richard’s Almanac anonymously?
I would say that Ryan was equally wrong to support those bills, but he has at least redeemed himself by making bold proposals that would greatly improve our fiscal health. Santorum really hasn’t. Ryan also isn’t running for president and I would add that those two bills aren’t Santorum’s only issues (see the rest of my post and Erick Erickson’s at RedState).
Another point about Santorum: He still supports the No Child Left Behind Act. On his campaign website, he says that NCLB took “baby steps” in the right direction. That’s a real problem for everyone who believes it took giant leaps in the wrong direction.
Nate my third daughter is a school teacher and she has said on several occasions that NCLB is the bane of teachers. Ambitious administrators use it like a club to intimidate teachers and it works because the teacher’s union backs down every time.
NCLB is an overreach of the gubbmint and you are correct that Rick Santorum is not a conservative except maybe on social issues.
Santorum’s stand on social issues is NOT conservative… it’s dictatorial. Santorum is a control freak. He wants everyone to be just like him. He thinks anyone not like him is somehow flawed. He would be Mayor Bloomberg on steroids.
If we nominate Santorum we lose, period
I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. Thanks…
free credit reports and score
Wow! This could be one of the most useful blogs we have ever come across on thesubject. Actually excellent info! I’m also an expert in this topic so I can understand your effort.
birthday slideshow maker
I wish the thoughtful libertarian had also made a case for an alternative GOP candidate who’s still in the running. Given that the likelihood of Paul being the nominee is nil, who has better credentials than Santorum? Remember that in the real world it’s going to be either the GOP nominee or Obama, and Obama is out of the question.
Anonymous: “I wish the thoughtful libertarian had also made a case for an alternative GOP candidate who’s still in the running.”
I have previously made the case that libertarians should support former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass.). You can check my previous posts for that. But I should add that libertarians are by no means obligated to vote for the GOP candidate if Republicans decide to nominate someone whose views are so different from our own that we can’t support him. You say “Obama is out of the question,” but so to many libertarians is Santorum — and at least some of us think he’s as bad as Obama, if not worse.
Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Obama all support bailing out the criminal banking cartel, permanent global war against everyone, detention without charge or due process and execution without trial. No libertarian with a functioning brain can vote for any of those folks, ever. It is Ron Paul until he’s done, then Gary Johnson, then flee the sinking ship. What a mess.
A Libertarian supporting mandated healthcare.
Now I’ve seen everything.
Despite what you hear in our media, Dr. Paul is emerging as the lead challenger to Romney. While Santorum got the publicity, Paul likely got a lot more delegates.
Although the game is stacked against him, Ron Paul and his supporters know this game. “Here, read this stack of history, philosophy and economic textbooks” rather then telling people what they want to hear isn’t a way to win over the passive masses, but it’s sure a good way to get tactically sharp men and women to emerge as delegates.
Going forward, in the latest national poll from Reuters, Ron Paul places a strong second with 21 percent, gaining ground on his main competitor nationally, Mitt Romney, whose support seems to be fading at 29 percent. Fading Romney now trails Obama by 9 in head to head polls.
Only Ron has the Independent and Blue Democrats crossover to beat Obama in the general. Liberty is wonderful. When we let go of the need to control others we find we are not controlled. Come join the revolution, it’s a big tent with room for us all.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/02/08/ron_paul_secretly_won_the_c…
“What I’m saying, and not very subtly, is that we libertarians have other options”
The only options are
1) GOP Nom
2) Obama
I’m not happy with ANY of the GOP candidates, but I’ll hold my nose just to get rid of Obama.
If Libertarians are selfish and stupid enough to sit this one out, then America is not worth saving.
Agree 100% with Fen.
This time, the election is about getting rid of Obama. There’s no point in threatening the GOP over big or small government.
The choice this time is massive government intrusion and the leftist agenda forced down your throat (remember Obamacare)and any Republican who will do something, anything to stop the Democrats.
Agreed. We must keep our priorities in order. First things first. First, we must get Obama out of office. I don’t like any of the remaining R candidates, but any of them are preferable to The Won. If Big L libertarians take their toys and go home or vote 3rd party they’ll doom us to another Obama term. And that is just not tolerable.
It is the Syphilitic Camel principle. I’d vote for a syphilitic camel if he were running against The Won. It isn’t how good the camel is, it is how awful Obama is.
gb_in_tx: “It is the Syphilitic Camel principle. I’d vote for a syphilitic camel if he were running against The Won. It isn’t how good the camel is, it is how awful Obama is.”
I think what you’re all failing to understand is that for many libertarians, Santorum is as bad as Obama if not worse. It’s not a matter of how good he is, it’s a matter of how bad he is. A libertarian would find it very problematic to vote for a candidate who…
- Voted for Medicare Part D
- Voted for No Child Left Behind
- Voted twice to amend the constitution to restrict free speech
- Would amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage
- Would reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
- Would amend the constitution to prohibit abortion at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason
- Would enable states to ban birth control
- Prefers to redirect unnecessary federal spending to his own agenda rather than reducing and eliminating it
- Wants to pursue a foreign policy that would at a minimum see us engaged in a war with Iran
It’s one thing for a libertarian to hold his nose and vote for Mitt Romney or perhaps even Newt Gingrich. It’s quite another for us to vote for Santorum. Santorum is the type of social conservative who sees himself as an opponent of libertarianism. It’s just that simple. He doesn’t care about small government; he’s fine with keeping it big as long as he’s in charge.
Nate, you had me until the last paragraph. I’ll just vote Paul or Johnson because ALL the rest are “Syphilitic Camels”-that way I don’t have to hold my nose at all. At some point we have to take a stand and quit eating the Elephant crap only because it’s more palatable than the Donkey crap.
Fen: “If Libertarians are selfish and stupid enough to sit this one out, then America is not worth saving.”
If Republican primary voters are selfish and stupid enough to nominate someone who has been a big government conservative nanny stater whom libertarians can’t support, that’s not our problem. If you want libertarians to support your nominee perhaps you should consider nominating someone who doesn’t suck.
You think Libertarians are “selfish and stupid”? Why? Because we won’t compromise our principles to vote for someone that would be as equally abysmal as Obama? Other than Ron Paul, none of the GOP nominees want to really cut spending. They just want to spend the money on their boondoggles. And just because someone with an “R” behind their name is in control of all the big government spending won’t make things magically better. The “anyone other than Obama” mentality is very short-sighted. Even George Soros said he didn’t care of Romney won since, in Soros’ opinion, he’s just the same as Obama. I think everyone is missing the bigger picture here. If we don’t drastically change the direction of our country, and right now, it’s not going to matter who has the reins. We’re still going over the cliff.
This attitude is counter productive to the liberty movement as a whole. Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, and Obama are all big government supporters. If any of them win this election we are going to get screwed for the next four years. The only option is what position we’ll be in while that’s happening.
We have to look beyond the next four years. To me that means that unless Paul becomes the Republican nominee, all liberty lovers should switch their support to Gary Johnson who will likely be the Libertarian Party nominee. Johnson may not be able to win either but if he has enough support to be include in the fall debates and be the balance of power in the election we will have the best chance for real change next election.
As long as we are willing to accept the crap that the Republican Party is dishing out, it is we, the voters, that will end up in the toilet.
If we allow Obama to be reelected there won’t be anything left in four years.
I agree June. If Paul isn’t the GOP nom. then I’ll vote for Johnson, I’ll not “hold my nose and vote for anyone.”
I unfortunately must agree. Everyone of the Republican candidates have problems, issues and concerns. The Republican party has found itself to be a house divided. That is what Obama wants. He would very happily and smugly walk away with 40% of the popular vote if it put him back in the White House. If the conservative GOP sides with the Libertarians and give Ron Paul 30% and the Moderate (to be read Liberal) Republicans vote Romney or Santorum that could happen. The current mess is reminiscent of the 2008 Democratic processes when a little known and lesser qualified candidate emerged from the pack to become elected President. But Republicans are not like Democrats and do not think like them. If you follow the campaign contributions or Democrats they will contribute to the Democratic Party.. straight, across the board. “Don’t make me think, I’m not smart enough just take my money and tell me what to do.” The contributions of Republican are much more, I don’t know what to call it, ideology or research driven. Their contributions will cross lines and issues and will be given to the candidate or organization that espouses their view even contributing to a Democratic candidate if (s)he is more conservative, smaller government or inline with their particular ideology and beliefs. This could cause problems once the current bridges get crossed and candidates get sorted out……
I’m not a libertarian. I don’t believe in the murder of innocent babies, or the blasphemy against God’s order and man’s common sense that is same sex “marriage.” I like Rick Santorum, and would be happy to vote for him. Libertarians are not necessarily conservatives, and vice versa.
…And by your comment you assert that conservatives don’t need liberty? We can disagree about the propriety of abortion and whether states or the fed ought to hold the final word on who can marry; but if we are not free, none of it matters.
Let’s put out the fire in the kitchen, then we can debate how best to address the leaky roof.
Jim Nagle: “Libertarians are not necessarily conservatives, and vice versa.”
You’re right, Jim, but if conservatives want the votes of libertarians and libertarian-leaning independents — and you should, because you’ll lose otherwise — then it might be a good idea to actually take into consideration our views and preferences, rather than nominating your own guy and ordering us to vote for him like you have any actual say in the matter.
So we should compromise so you don’t have to do the same? Everyone has to make their own priorities, I suppose. I don’t think Ron Paul’s neo-isolationist foreign policy is better than libertarian descriptions (which, I feel, are overstated) of our current or “neocon” policy. I think gay rights and abortion rights are distractions and over time are being settled while the real issues of SPENDING are ignored. So Santorum is a big spender, as are most Republicans, but Obama blew the doors of the deficit. It’s unacceptable. So hold out for something better, more power to you, but in November, don’t cut off your nose despite your face.
I’ve always felt Libertarians should work harder locally and less nationally. Even working on the house/senate level would have more impact. The president, especially in our lifetime, has too much responsibility to lead effectively. We should be working to shrink government by changing the laws, not asking the president to do this or not that.
There’s the old “isolationist” canard, although diluted a bit with the “neo” prefix. What is isolationist about not wanting to shoot people and send drones over sovereign borders? Neither Paul nor most of his supporters intend to build a wall along the coasts and borders and hide out. Our influential media, our tourists, and our exports will be all over the world just as they are now — and they have been more influential, and more positive for us, than our military adventures. We’re isolationist because we disdain empire? The “Obushma” era deserves the name, as Bush (no conservative, and definitely no libertarian) began the bailouts after spending a gazillion bucks on education, prescription drugs, and other Big Government Goodies, and Obama gladly kept it up. Sure, spending is an important issue — and total, constant war is sort of expensive, you know?
I’ve been focused on financial issues regarding the GOP for decades and sometimes the party moves in an unfortunate direction. Rick is part of the problem and more so than Newt. Romney has so much liberal baggage that it’s hard for people to get their thoughts around him.
Well, who then?
This Republican is voting Gary Johnson, as long as he commits to constitutionalist judges like Scalia and Thomas. I can’t see any issue on which Johnson is worse than any of the remaining GOPers, from a conservative point of view, except abortion.
Well, worse in one very important way: Gary Johnson can’t win anything other than the consolation prize. If you want Obama gone, then voting for Johnson is just self-defeating.
That said, it’s your vote and I won’t insult you by telling you that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama. That simply isn’t true. But it sure won’t help in removing the current President from his office.
Except for abortion? You say that as if abortion isn’t important. It is the most important issue. We’re sacrficing our future for a lifestyle. Until abortion goes down, we’re no different, and no better, than worshippers of Baal sacrificing live children.
Reformed Trombonist, what you and other social conservatives are going to have to try to wrap your head around is that not everyone agrees with you. I’m pro-choice and if I vote for the Republican candidate — and again, I won’t if it’s Santorum — it will be in spite of his views on abortion, not because of them. And a lot of younger Americans feel the same way about abortion, same-sex marriage, and a variety of other social issues. Time is not on your side and it’s time for social conservatives to learn to compromise.
My head is wrapped around that fact just fine, Nate. You’re going to have to wrap yours around this fact: some moral principles are non-negotiable. If I didn’t mind when someone kills babies, why should I start caring if they next want to start killing libertarians? Time is not on our side? Wow. Now there’s a moral principle we can all embrace. I’m wrong because it’s 9:45 PM.
You’re wrong because you’re wrong. You’ll fail because time isn’t on your side. I agree that some moral principles are non-negotiable, but I don’t share yours. I don’t think aborting a pre-viability fetus is “killing babies.”
That said, my support for reproductive choice is *not* the reason that I oppose Santorum. If it were, I would also have to oppose Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul, all of whom are anti-choice to one degree or another. I mentioned abortion in my post only in passing. You’re the one making it an issue and I’m done engaging with you on that issue. There are plenty of other good reasons to oppose Santorum’s candidacy.
> You’re wrong because you’re wrong. You’ll fail because time isn’t on your side.
I’m wrong because I’m wrong. I’ll fail because somehow the space-time continuum is against me. Did you make it through college with those powers of reasoning?
> I don’t think aborting a pre-viability fetus is “killing babies.”
How about a post-viability old person? What does “viability” have to do with anything?
Wow, you two are myopic and juvenile! I thought this was a well written piece of which I agreed with some points and didn’t with other, just as everything in life, but some of you are insane! The world isn’t all or nothing. The sooner you realize that the happier and healthier you will be!
Let’s see here. You think abortion is okay up until when? Until the baby can live outside the womb? Until then the baby, perfectly innocent, has no rights? Even if the only thing keeping it from being viable is the surgical procedure that destroys it?
It has always amazed me that so-called Libertarians can be so callous about the most sacrosanct of rights, that of life. Let me boil down your position so you can get your head around it: You believe it’s entirely appropriate for someone who created a child through a voluntary act to then destroy that child, as long as they do it quickly enough.
After that, any talk about “liberty” is pretty meaningless.
We get it. You’re pro-life and the other guy is pro-choice. I’m pro-life too; I think abortion is murder, but I didn’t jump on this thread to discuss abortion.
The Republicans need to find a candidate who is acceptable to the Libertarians and Independents they will need to win the general. A lot of Republicans say they will stay home if Ron Paul (my choice) is the nominee. Likewise, a lot of the Libertarians say they will go elsewhere if Santorum is the nominee- so why can’t we agree to scratch both those candidates and pick one of the remaining two?
There are plenty of ways to reduce abortions, and making them felonies is not the way to do it, unless you want to live in more of a police state than we already have. You are ignoring what has led to the dramatic reduction over the last 40 years. From Fox News yesterday, in a story about the Guttmacher Institute study delineating the free fall in pregnancy and abortion rates, we find:
- - - - - - - - - -
… The decline in teenage pregnancies resulted in fewer abortions, with 17.8 abortions per 1,000 teenage girls and women in 2008 — a 59 percent drop from its 1988 peak of 43.5 abortions per 1,000 teens.
“The declines in teen pregnancy have been nothing short of extraordinary,” Sarah Brown, CEO of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy said. “Make no mistake, the credit for this remarkable progress goes to teens themselves who have, over the past two decades, adopted a less sex, more contraception strategy — one that
is clearly working.” …
- - - - - - - - - -
If Santorum had his way, contraception would be illegal. If you apply your own principles — the ones you tried slapping others with — you should get on board with conservative groups like Sarah Brown’s and work to educate people. It is the best you can hope for in a (still somewhat) free country, as the alternative is unthinkable: police tracking every pregnancy until the baby is delivered. Sure, that comports with liberty real well!
Fantastic response, I’m pro-life and I believe the best way to reduce abortion (I believe abortion is necessary in some cases, incest, rape, mothers life)is to educate and win hearts and minds, not by force. If we go the route of force we may win the battle (make abortion illegal) but we’ll never win the war (make people appreciate and respect all life).
I believe you’re wrong about the younger generation. Most recent polling and statistics show that they are more and more against abortion, they are delaying sex and getting pregnant less. I believe that shows that the conservative social message is having an effect.
The irony of your argument is that you are asking (demanding) that social conservatives conform to your pro-choice (pro-abortion) beliefs to elect a fiscal conservative while arguing that it is not rationale for us to hold on to our beliefs. Hypocrisy? It looks like we are in a stalemate.
Derek: “I believe you’re wrong about the younger generation. Most recent polling and statistics show that they are more and more against abortion”
That may be. But there’s also polling that shows younger Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage.
Derek: “they are delaying sex and getting pregnant less”
Did I say they shouldn’t? I’m all about personal responsibility. And if abstinence until marriage is your thing, go for it.
Derek: “I believe that shows that the conservative social message is having an effect.”
That may be, too. I don’t have any problem with the conservative social message per se, although there are parts of it I disagree with. What I do have a problem with is legislating it.
Derek: “The irony of your argument is that you are asking (demanding) that social conservatives conform to your pro-choice (pro-abortion) beliefs to elect a fiscal conservative”
I never demanded that social conservatives conform to my pro-choice views. In fact, abortion received only a passing mention in my post. I do want a fiscal conservative — don’t you? — but I can compromise and support an anti-choice fiscal conservative. For example, Romney, Gingrich, and Paul are all anti-choice. I have supported Paul in the past and I’ve argued that libertarians should support Romney now for strategic reasons. What I won’t do is support a big government conservative who is both a big spender and anti-choice, and that’s what Santorum is. I am asking only that Republican primary voters choose a nominee who is at least *somewhat* appealing to libertarians.
Derek: “while arguing that it is not rationale for us to hold on to our beliefs.”
I didn’t argue that either. Your beliefs may well be rational. I believe they’re wrong, but that doesn’t mean they’re irrational. You’re free to hold your beliefs. My argument is that you shouldn’t impose them unwillingly on others. But that argument is really quite tangential to my post, in which I primarily discussed Santorum’s big government record on Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and his newer proposals to redirect federal spending to his own social agenda rather than reducing or eliminating it. And I also discussed his opposition to birth control, which has nothing to do with abortion.
“we libertarians have other options”
Depending on the hour of the day and the issue being argued, I’m a socio-con, theo-con, libertarian con, or neo-con.
You have other options?
Puh-leeze. You either get a Republican, a Democrat, or hope for a miracle.
Oh, I forgot. You don’t believe in miracles. The rugged individual and all that…
So take your marbles and go home.
Anonymous: “So take your marbles and go home.”
You seem to think that if libertarians refuse to vote for Santorum, we should take all the blame. Well, I’m not going to do that. If you nominate Santorum you’re nominating someone whom we can’t support. I’ve served Republican primary voters with ample notice that nominating Santorum risks the loss of libertarian voters in the general election. If they choose to do it anyway, they’re the ones saying they don’t care about libertarian and libertarian-leaning voters. They’re the ones taking their marbles and going home. Nobody should expect us to vote for a candidate like Santorum.
So if we nominate Santorum you’re going to vote for Obama?
This cuts two ways, Nate. Maybe, just maybe, you should have found a candidate that appeals to your values that Conservatives could support. Sorry, but Mitt ain’t it.
In November, you either vote for the Republican or you vote for Obama. Even if you vote for neither, you’re tacitly accepting the status quo.
Conservatives are serving notice that anyone who doesn’t actively vote against Obama doesn’t deserve any consideration. You can join us and make sure the conservative movement is more of an open tent, or you can go against us and you will see peole even more socially conservative than Santorum.
AJsDaddie: “You can join us and make sure the conservative movement is more of an open tent, or you can go against us and you will see peole even more socially conservative than Santorum.”
And then your party will become a regional party that can never even win majorities in Congress, let alone the presidency. Have fun with that.
Post new comment