Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 Keep thinking those happy thoughts, Tyler. I, too, was disappointed with Mitt Romney. Gingrich and Perry gave it their best shots but Romney ran the best campaign in the primaries. I didn't see anybody else. Ron Paul? Sorry. Not viable. Too old. Too kooky. Not enough testosterone. So in November, in the absence of a third party with viable candidates, I was left to choose between voting for Mitt or staying home. I voted for Mitt. Staying home doesn't accomplish anything.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-12-06 17:54||
#2 The question I've seen raised in the past few days is how the Democrats will fare once Barack Obama is no longer their candidate. After all, their previous two candidates -- Al Gore and John F. Kerry -- lost against George W. Bush, who was no Ronald Reagan. And certainly the Democrat's next candidate isn't likely to be groundbreaking, so he or she will have to run on his/her actual record, not the nobility of casting one's vote in his direction.
Posted by trailing wife 2012-12-06 21:03||
#3 The Mensheviks helped overthrow the Tsar, then got wiped out by the Bolsheviks, so why the surprise about RINOS + Fascists-for-Communism + Nationalists by the DemoLeft + Commies + Globalists???
The National Socialists by the Global Socialists???
But I digress ...
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-12-06 21:18||
#4 An unhappy divorce is definitely in the works between the Secular-happy Commies + Islamo-Socialists, + its not clear iff the former will be able to survive.
Made a deal wid the Devil but forgot that the Devil is Lord over his dominion/domain.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-12-06 21:21||
#5 Democrat's next candidate isn't likely to be groundbreaking
Samuel L. Jackson would disagree - he thinks Michelle Obama would be awesome.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-12-06 22:18||