Those who remember the 2008 Democrat Primary will remember this advertisement from the Clinton campaign:
At 3:00 a.m. on September 12th, 2012, there must have been some trouble at the switchboard for the State Department. Ironically, the same trouble appears to have affected the White House.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
With good reason, many principled conservatives are now warming up to Mr. Romney. However, significant numbers remain who view his record, and the circumstances of his nomination, and cannot embrace his candidacy with enthusiasm. They are presented with what is for them a choice between two evils, and they are reluctantly preparing to vote for the lesser evil. Bill Whittle at PJTV has spoken on this point. Whittle encourages such principled conservatives to go ahead and vote for Romney—to embrace the lesser evil. He asserts that a vote for any third party candidate is, in reality, a vote for Barack Obama. While the assertion has some merit in Florida, or Ohio, or any other close state, it is rather obviously untrue for conservatives in California, New York, or Texas. In California, even if every conservative in the state voted for Mitt Romney, the president would still take all of California’s 55 electoral votes. Likewise, even if a great many Texan conservatives voted for third party candidates, Mr. Romney would still take all 38 electoral votes at stake. On this issue, Mr. Whittle’s usually excellent logic does not hold in all places. Principled conservatives in any safely blue or red state really are free to support third party candidates. A conservative in a safe state has the luxury of voting his or her conscience and need not feel wedged into a partisan straitjacket.