BoatShoes;1044908 wrote:No, the democratic party is much more ideologically diverse than the modern Republican party. You can be an anti-gay marriage democrat, as President Obama is. You can be a pro-life democrat. You can support the death penalty as a democrat. You can believe in free trade as a democrat. You can be an advocate a more interventionist foreign policy as a democrat. The RINO"s acquiesce to hardcore conservatism more so than the Ben Nelson's and Joe Lieberman's of the world commit to more liberal ideas. The entire democratic party almost is surely more conservative than they were prior to Ronald Reagan.
The mainstream GOP is much more rigid these days. If a GOP president were to pass a healthcare plan proposed by Hillary Clinton in the 90's there would be a full on revolt against him/her. Despite their dissatisfaction with Obama, liberals are still with Obama although they may no longer hope for audacity from him.
I highly doubt Ron Paul would be very moderate as President. The man would use his veto pen with unbridled fury. The man is a crusader much more so than a politician. He's a perfect example of the ideological rigidity of the modern GOP echo chamber. Ron Paul is by far the most conservative on every domestic policy issue since Barry Goldwater. He is Tea Party patient zero. Yet, because he doesn't desire in his heart to go to war with Iran this one defect in his ideological composition makes him anathema to a large contingent of Conservatives.
And, also, how can you reconcile your claim that Obama became moderate and reasonable as President and the idea that he must be defeated at all costs in order to stop the ruining of America that many of your conservative brethren share? How can he be the worst president since WWII but also be a reasonable moderate...and if he's a reasonable moderate and so is Romney, why expect it to be any different just because he's got an R next to his name?
It's simple. If you're a principled conservative and believe this is the most important election of our time to save America as Michele Bachmann says, you'll vote Ron Paul. If that's all bs and you really just have an irrational hate of Obama and will vote Team Republican no matter what, you'll vote for his white doppleganger Mitt Romney.
1. You have to remember that you are painting all conservatives to be as far right as Bachmann, that's about as close to realistic as saying all liberals are like Karl Marx.
2. I will be voting for Ron Paul come primaries.
3. I did not say that Obama was a reasonable moderate, I said he quickly became SEMI moderate, he is still very liberal. His actions are much more moderate than his talking points both during the campaign and currently. No where did I say he was a REASONABLE moderate. Don't twist my words. I said Clinton became reasonably moderate once he lost the Congress after 2 years to the Rs.
4. Even Romney, who would be my last choice (after Bachmann) for the current Rs, is slightly more conservative than Obama. So yes, I would, in the general election, vote for Romney over Obama as the lesser of 2 evils. And it would NOT be because he was a white R instead of a black D as you insinuated (nice hint towards racism there, nice).
