But first His Imperial Majesty must apologize for having missed June 6th. Pulling double shifts for a bit to make ends meet does tend to make awareness of dates blurry, but I still regret it very much as that date means a lot to me, seeing as if it hadn’t been for those brave young men I’d be speaking either German or Russian now.
As to Mittens? Everything that Jackboot said and then some.
I know full well that the Establishment RINOtarians (and I’ll graciously refrain from noting Allahpundit’s Weinerish man-crush on Mittens) would love nothing more than to make a re-enactment of 2008 by getting a candidate nominated that would be able to lose to Josef Stalin himself, just ask president McCain.
Just a friendly reminder about how well it works out when we let the likes of David Frum and the Make Believe Mediots pick our candidates for us.
On the other hand, I remember one time when we picked a candidate that the establishment RINOs and the MBM didn’t like, a dumb oaf who could never win a race against the incumbent NSDWP candidate because he was, well, both “extremist” and “dumb”, and he went on to take the election in a landslide. What was his name again? Damn, I’m getting old, but I think his first name was Ronald.
All of that being said, I don’t see a second coming of him. Yet. And I’m not wed to any particular candidate at this point either, whether they’ve announced or not, but I DO know that if we really want to guarantee four more years of Ogabellini, all we have to do is to give the nod to Mittens or, please don’t make me laugh, Huntsman. The latter is like having Tim Geithner run on the Republican ticket.
Seriously. Can you imagine the “debates” between Romney and Ogabe? I can, but I’d have to start using amphetamines to stay awake for them.
How the frack can you have a “debate” between two candidates who basically agree on everything?
“Hello, my name is Mitt Romney and I believe that nationalized healthcare is great, that we all need to start riding horse buggies to work and that subsidizing horribly inefficient industries such as ethanol is a wonderful idea, all of which my opponent completely agrees with, so you should vote for me to change things.”
Really, now? Aren’t debates between opposing candidates supposed to be, I don’t know, adversarial?
It’s somewhat difficult to slam an opponent down when you basically agree with every substantial point of his, or am I missing something here?
Are we really down to “you should vote for the candidate with better hair?”
I don’t know.
The only thing I DO know is that every problem corrects itself. It’s inevitable. Our current problem that we’re on the fast track to becoming Greece will correct itself too, unless we step in and correct it ourselves.
And believe you me: We WANT to correct it ourselves, because nature’s way of correcting it, which is the only alternative, is not pretty. Not pretty at ALL.
Sure, backing a candidate who “can’t win”, and I’m dead serious about the mock quotes there because, as I’ve always said: “Conventional wisdom — ISN’T”, might lose us the election.
Would you rather do nothing or try to save our nation from civil war by backing a candidate who MIGHT lose but, by the same token, might WIN?
The situation is going to correct either way, but at least if you’re true to yourself and do what needs to be done nobody can tell you later that you did nothing, no matter what the end result is.
We can fix it at the ballot box in 2012, or we will HAVE to face the cartridge box later when everything turns to shit in a quite unpleasant and spectacular fashion.
Backing candidates the like of Romney is the same as saying “damn, I don’t want part of this fight, let my kids and grandchildren figure it out.”
Is that how you want to be remembered?