Help me decide for Super Tuesday

The state where I now live, Virginia, has its presidential primary on Tuesday, joining nine other states in a delegate extravaganza that constitutes Super Tuesday.   As I’ve complained earlier, the only candidates to get their act together so as to come up with enough names on petitions to get on the ballot here in the state that has provided more presidents than any other are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Now I wasn’t going to vote at all, since, as I have also complained, the state Republican party was going to try to keep Democrats from voting in this open primary by requiring a loyalty oath, making voters promise to cast their ballot for the Republican nominee in the general election no matter what.  I oppose that on principle.  But, I’m happy to report, the loyalty oath will not be required after all.  So I feel my patriotic duty to cast my vote.

But for whom?  Another of my numerous complaints has been with the Republican field as a whole.  I’m uncertain anyway, but now I only have two choices.  Write-ins are forbidden by law and will not be counted.  So should I vote for Romney or Paul?  The Mormon or the Libertarian?  Which is the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods?

I am very much open to persuasion and I will take your recommendations very seriously.   Who knows?  A number of these primary elections have been ridiculously close, and my vote may tip the balance to one candidate or another, which in turn may have national implications!

So who shall it be?  Mitt Romney or Ron Paul?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    Romney. Electable.

  • Pete

    Romney. Electable.

  • Tony

    Paul. Constitutional.

  • Tony

    Paul. Constitutional.

  • Susan

    I would favor Ron Paul because he is committed to repealing ObamaCare and Romney is not.

    The HHS still has over 1000 more rules to create (without any Congressional oversight) and the HHS mandate for abortifacients, sterilizations, and contraceptives is only the beginning of the government’s overreach in taking away our first amendment rights and regulating our personal lives.

  • Susan

    I would favor Ron Paul because he is committed to repealing ObamaCare and Romney is not.

    The HHS still has over 1000 more rules to create (without any Congressional oversight) and the HHS mandate for abortifacients, sterilizations, and contraceptives is only the beginning of the government’s overreach in taking away our first amendment rights and regulating our personal lives.

  • Danny

    …..and the Republicans are gonna “steal our lady parts”????

  • Danny

    …..and the Republicans are gonna “steal our lady parts”????

  • Susan

    P.S. It’s my understanding that repealing ObamaCare alone, will do much to alleviate unemployment because businesses wouldn’t have to be in limbo over the unknown costs of employee healthcare costs and thus free to begin planning and hiring again.

  • Susan

    P.S. It’s my understanding that repealing ObamaCare alone, will do much to alleviate unemployment because businesses wouldn’t have to be in limbo over the unknown costs of employee healthcare costs and thus free to begin planning and hiring again.

  • Michael B.

    If one takes his vote seriously, I’d say it’d more of a question between Romney and Obama than it is between Romney or Ron Paul. There’s not too much of a practical difference between selecting an unelectable Republican nominee and voting for Obama.

  • Michael B.

    If one takes his vote seriously, I’d say it’d more of a question between Romney and Obama than it is between Romney or Ron Paul. There’s not too much of a practical difference between selecting an unelectable Republican nominee and voting for Obama.

  • Carl Vehse

    A Mormon, a RINO, and a Massachusetts politician – three strikes against the flip-flopping Romney, and such a GOP nominee would be one of the reasons for the re-election of a lying, murdering traitor.

  • Carl Vehse

    A Mormon, a RINO, and a Massachusetts politician – three strikes against the flip-flopping Romney, and such a GOP nominee would be one of the reasons for the re-election of a lying, murdering traitor.

  • Rich Shipe

    Why is it a patriotic duty to vote in a primary? Particularly this one? I’m going to skip it. Last I saw Romney is leading by a significant margin so what’s the point? Also, you might get fewer “robo-calls” in the fall because your name won’t appear on the primary list that is a publicly available list. Obviously they can get your name and number in other ways but just maybe they’d not feed your name to the phone calling machine.

  • Rich Shipe

    Why is it a patriotic duty to vote in a primary? Particularly this one? I’m going to skip it. Last I saw Romney is leading by a significant margin so what’s the point? Also, you might get fewer “robo-calls” in the fall because your name won’t appear on the primary list that is a publicly available list. Obviously they can get your name and number in other ways but just maybe they’d not feed your name to the phone calling machine.

  • Drake

    Do you want the product that the Republican party has claimed to be selling for the last 3 decades? That is, does the Republican party need to get the message that its members want really do want smaller, more decentralized, more fiscally responsible, more constitutionally limited government? Then vote for Paul. Michael B’s point might be valid in a general election, but definitely not in a primary.

  • Drake

    Do you want the product that the Republican party has claimed to be selling for the last 3 decades? That is, does the Republican party need to get the message that its members want really do want smaller, more decentralized, more fiscally responsible, more constitutionally limited government? Then vote for Paul. Michael B’s point might be valid in a general election, but definitely not in a primary.

  • Cincinnatus

    Statistically, it literally doesn’t matter whom you vote for. Not even a little bit. Therefore, if you feel that it is your patriotic duty to select someone, vote for the one who is right in principle. I won’t specify my recommendation any further except to say that Romney doesn’t actually have any principles, so the choice should be easy.

    But if you want my real advice, don’t vote. Voting in a mass democracy is a sham ritual designed to placate the mostly-apathetic masses while the banksters and politicos run away with the country.

  • Cincinnatus

    Statistically, it literally doesn’t matter whom you vote for. Not even a little bit. Therefore, if you feel that it is your patriotic duty to select someone, vote for the one who is right in principle. I won’t specify my recommendation any further except to say that Romney doesn’t actually have any principles, so the choice should be easy.

    But if you want my real advice, don’t vote. Voting in a mass democracy is a sham ritual designed to placate the mostly-apathetic masses while the banksters and politicos run away with the country.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Screw electability, vote Ron Paul. Even if he can’t win we can start sending a message we are tired of business as usual. Maybe the party bigwigs will finally figure out that there are people who do want a leaner, smaller, less intrusive government.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Screw electability, vote Ron Paul. Even if he can’t win we can start sending a message we are tired of business as usual. Maybe the party bigwigs will finally figure out that there are people who do want a leaner, smaller, less intrusive government.

  • http://pastordbeck.wordpress.com Rev. Dustin Beck

    The only reason anyone ever gives for Romney is “electability,” but is that really the gist of his platform? “I’m electable?” Or, of course, there’s Ann Coulter’s endorsement: “He has proven that he can trick liberals into voting for him.” Well, All Hail the Chief, indeed…that’s what I look for in a president. Could we just try four years without a president? Please?

  • http://pastordbeck.wordpress.com Rev. Dustin Beck

    The only reason anyone ever gives for Romney is “electability,” but is that really the gist of his platform? “I’m electable?” Or, of course, there’s Ann Coulter’s endorsement: “He has proven that he can trick liberals into voting for him.” Well, All Hail the Chief, indeed…that’s what I look for in a president. Could we just try four years without a president? Please?

  • WebMonk

    Rich, you’re such a tool. :-) I haven’t handed out a valid phone number to them in years. I take a point of pride in never giving them the same one twice. Never gotten a robocall from them.

  • WebMonk

    Rich, you’re such a tool. :-) I haven’t handed out a valid phone number to them in years. I take a point of pride in never giving them the same one twice. Never gotten a robocall from them.

  • Peter S.

    My recommendation is to vote for Ron Paul in the primary with the expectation that one will be voting in any case for Mitt Romney in the general election. Although there’s no way I agree with Ron Paul on everything, particularly his more libertarian tendencies, his positions seem to evince a really sincere desire for a smaller and narrower-reaching government–ideas that deserve a more prominent place in the GOP mind.

  • Peter S.

    My recommendation is to vote for Ron Paul in the primary with the expectation that one will be voting in any case for Mitt Romney in the general election. Although there’s no way I agree with Ron Paul on everything, particularly his more libertarian tendencies, his positions seem to evince a really sincere desire for a smaller and narrower-reaching government–ideas that deserve a more prominent place in the GOP mind.

  • Adrienne

    I see little difference in mainstream Republicans like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Just look at the last administration’s policies vs. the current one’s . . . and on back if you want even more examples. If you want business as usual, vote for Mitt Romney. If you want to send a message that you want a principled change in the way government is done, then vote for Ron Paul.

  • Adrienne

    I see little difference in mainstream Republicans like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Just look at the last administration’s policies vs. the current one’s . . . and on back if you want even more examples. If you want business as usual, vote for Mitt Romney. If you want to send a message that you want a principled change in the way government is done, then vote for Ron Paul.

  • WebMonk

    Cinn, I agree with you, but there are ancillary effects to voting – it gives a much greater platform from which to influence others’ voting habits.

    My vote doesn’t affect anything, but if I can convince a couple dozen friends to vote a certain way with enough fervor that they convince some of their friends to vote, pretty soon there is an appreciable effect.

    Some places that won’t make any difference at all – if the vote is likely going to be a 70/30 split with a 10,000 vote difference, then there’s nothing any individual’s vote can do, and even a hundred influenced votes won’t make a difference.

    But, if there is a possibility of a close run or a small number of votes total, then a hundred votes can change a precinct’s result.

    Unfortunately my current location isn’t a close call – it’s the 70/30 split situation with tens of thousands of votes difference. I might still vote, but only if it is convenient. I have some people I want to open up some conversations with on the topic, and I think having voted in the primary will help.

  • WebMonk

    Cinn, I agree with you, but there are ancillary effects to voting – it gives a much greater platform from which to influence others’ voting habits.

    My vote doesn’t affect anything, but if I can convince a couple dozen friends to vote a certain way with enough fervor that they convince some of their friends to vote, pretty soon there is an appreciable effect.

    Some places that won’t make any difference at all – if the vote is likely going to be a 70/30 split with a 10,000 vote difference, then there’s nothing any individual’s vote can do, and even a hundred influenced votes won’t make a difference.

    But, if there is a possibility of a close run or a small number of votes total, then a hundred votes can change a precinct’s result.

    Unfortunately my current location isn’t a close call – it’s the 70/30 split situation with tens of thousands of votes difference. I might still vote, but only if it is convenient. I have some people I want to open up some conversations with on the topic, and I think having voted in the primary will help.

  • WebMonk

    Oh, and if I wind up voting, it’ll be for Ron Paul.

    I want the prostitution and drugs that certain morons on here keep telling me that Ron Paul is going to bring! :-D

    (and because those people are morons, I’m making it clear that was a joke at their stupidity, not what Ron Paul actually supports)

  • WebMonk

    Oh, and if I wind up voting, it’ll be for Ron Paul.

    I want the prostitution and drugs that certain morons on here keep telling me that Ron Paul is going to bring! :-D

    (and because those people are morons, I’m making it clear that was a joke at their stupidity, not what Ron Paul actually supports)

  • http://homewardbound-cb.blogspot.com ChrisB

    I think you’d find you have more in common with the Mormon than the Libertarian. Paul’s foreign policy position seems completely unworkable to me. Other than that, any of them would be a better president than the current one.

  • http://homewardbound-cb.blogspot.com ChrisB

    I think you’d find you have more in common with the Mormon than the Libertarian. Paul’s foreign policy position seems completely unworkable to me. Other than that, any of them would be a better president than the current one.

  • Jon

    Vote Paul, make a statement against the inevitable.

  • Jon

    Vote Paul, make a statement against the inevitable.

  • SKPeterson

    What?!? Ron Paul supports prostitution and drugs?!? At the local mall?!? I suppose he gives that tired. old excuse that prostitution and drug legalization should be decided at the local level. Outrageous! There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that the federal government should not concern itself with for the sake of the children. So vote for Mitt Santorum or Rick Romney. Either one is better than Paul and his anti-imperialism! America is God’s gift to the world. Who else could possibly save it according to His will?

  • SKPeterson

    What?!? Ron Paul supports prostitution and drugs?!? At the local mall?!? I suppose he gives that tired. old excuse that prostitution and drug legalization should be decided at the local level. Outrageous! There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that the federal government should not concern itself with for the sake of the children. So vote for Mitt Santorum or Rick Romney. Either one is better than Paul and his anti-imperialism! America is God’s gift to the world. Who else could possibly save it according to His will?

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Vote Paul, simply because he is not the one anointed by the party.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Vote Paul, simply because he is not the one anointed by the party.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Go for the one you feel will do the least harm.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Go for the one you feel will do the least harm.

  • Rose

    Vote Romney. He knows waste when he sees it. He has downsized and eliminated large inefficient organizations.
    He will bring a whole new vocabulary and metric to government agencies. He has a palpable core integrity probably ingrained by the Mormon church. (We Lutherans need Family Life family-centered Christian education ASAP.)

  • Rose

    Vote Romney. He knows waste when he sees it. He has downsized and eliminated large inefficient organizations.
    He will bring a whole new vocabulary and metric to government agencies. He has a palpable core integrity probably ingrained by the Mormon church. (We Lutherans need Family Life family-centered Christian education ASAP.)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Vote Romney. He knows waste when he sees it. He has downsized and eliminated large inefficient organizations.
    He will bring a whole new vocabulary and metric to government agencies.

    I would vote Paul, but these are pretty good arguments for Romney.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Vote Romney. He knows waste when he sees it. He has downsized and eliminated large inefficient organizations.
    He will bring a whole new vocabulary and metric to government agencies.

    I would vote Paul, but these are pretty good arguments for Romney.

  • Abby

    In Michigan, Romney was endorsed by Jay Sekulow — lawyer for the American Center of Law and Justice. He believes Romney will nominate Supreme Court judges in the line of Thomas, Alito, Roberts, etc. — especially for religious rights issues down the line. (He argues in front of the Supreme Court regularly.) I’m surprised I haven’t heard of this issue (judges) yet. Usually candiates are measured by this during campaigns.

  • Abby

    In Michigan, Romney was endorsed by Jay Sekulow — lawyer for the American Center of Law and Justice. He believes Romney will nominate Supreme Court judges in the line of Thomas, Alito, Roberts, etc. — especially for religious rights issues down the line. (He argues in front of the Supreme Court regularly.) I’m surprised I haven’t heard of this issue (judges) yet. Usually candiates are measured by this during campaigns.

  • http://www.quietedwaters.com Josh

    I’m only a temporary resident (student) of Virginia, but if I had a vote tomorrow I’d go with Ron Paul, for the same reasons Susan and Jon mentioned. Paul’s commitment to repealing HHS and the statement against the inevitable.

  • http://www.quietedwaters.com Josh

    I’m only a temporary resident (student) of Virginia, but if I had a vote tomorrow I’d go with Ron Paul, for the same reasons Susan and Jon mentioned. Paul’s commitment to repealing HHS and the statement against the inevitable.

  • Kyralessa

    If those are your only choices, I’d say vote for Ron Paul. Here in MO, those weren’t our only choices, and I still voted for Ron Paul.

    Romney is not a social conservative. See for yourself: Watch videos of him debating during the MA governor’s race.

  • Kyralessa

    If those are your only choices, I’d say vote for Ron Paul. Here in MO, those weren’t our only choices, and I still voted for Ron Paul.

    Romney is not a social conservative. See for yourself: Watch videos of him debating during the MA governor’s race.

  • P.C.

    Paul’s foreign policy is just to extreme for me. We need a President who has executive business experience. Santorum, although not eligible for the Virgina primary, is no better than President Obama who didn’t (and still doesn’t) have the business executive experience, qualifications, or prequisites (ie, less than two yrs an U. S. Senator who voted “present” most of the time, mediocre state government legislator, community organizer, unknown lawyer skills, etc). I’d go with the businessman Romney.

  • P.C.

    Paul’s foreign policy is just to extreme for me. We need a President who has executive business experience. Santorum, although not eligible for the Virgina primary, is no better than President Obama who didn’t (and still doesn’t) have the business executive experience, qualifications, or prequisites (ie, less than two yrs an U. S. Senator who voted “present” most of the time, mediocre state government legislator, community organizer, unknown lawyer skills, etc). I’d go with the businessman Romney.

  • Joe

    Abby – presents perhaps the best defense of Romney so far. But it begs the question, what kind of judges would Ron Paul appoint?

    Here is a list I have seen other places: I think I would okay with most of these choices.

    http://absurdresults.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/president-ron-pauls-judicial-nominations-five-for-the-supreme-court/

  • Joe

    Abby – presents perhaps the best defense of Romney so far. But it begs the question, what kind of judges would Ron Paul appoint?

    Here is a list I have seen other places: I think I would okay with most of these choices.

    http://absurdresults.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/president-ron-pauls-judicial-nominations-five-for-the-supreme-court/

  • Helen K.

    Well, Dr. Veith. AZ already had it’s primary. We voted for Santorium even though we were almost certain that Romney would take all. If you want a Republican in the White House next season, you may as well vote for Mitt even though he is not ideal. We will vote GOP in an attempt to unseat the current president. Pray God for wisdom.

    Digressing…. Got your new book last Saturday. I have read through the notes in the back first. And actually began reading from back to front. I highly recommend it.

  • Helen K.

    Well, Dr. Veith. AZ already had it’s primary. We voted for Santorium even though we were almost certain that Romney would take all. If you want a Republican in the White House next season, you may as well vote for Mitt even though he is not ideal. We will vote GOP in an attempt to unseat the current president. Pray God for wisdom.

    Digressing…. Got your new book last Saturday. I have read through the notes in the back first. And actually began reading from back to front. I highly recommend it.

  • http://joewulf.wordpress.com joe

    @SKPeterson for your comment in #20: Thank you for single-commentedly making the case to Dr. Veith that he should add a “thumbs up” buttons to the comments on this site. Love it!

  • http://joewulf.wordpress.com joe

    @SKPeterson for your comment in #20: Thank you for single-commentedly making the case to Dr. Veith that he should add a “thumbs up” buttons to the comments on this site. Love it!

  • Kris

    My take on Romney is that he is against one big government, but for 50 big governments. That is, he wants to move all the big government programs to the state level rather than federal, without actually eliminating them. That’s a bad idea: In Illinois (my home state) and others like it, corruption is far more rampant than in the federal government. And in many states, things are essentially run by a single party, meaning all kinds of crazy stuff happens, and even good ideas don’t get the critical scrutiny they need to get the kinks out.

    On another point, Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate to understand that sometimes the protection of personal freedom means that the federal government needs to protect people from the states. For instance, he supports federal right-to-work laws, where Romney (and I believe Santorum) thinks these should be a state issue. While making it state over federal sounds like small, or at least localized, government, it’s a bad solution for individuals living in blue states. As a musician who used to live in New England, I know that the only way that someone working in CT, NY, MA, and many other blue states can be protected from unions seeking to steal their wages is through a federal law. Connecticut will never pass that law on their own!

  • Kris

    My take on Romney is that he is against one big government, but for 50 big governments. That is, he wants to move all the big government programs to the state level rather than federal, without actually eliminating them. That’s a bad idea: In Illinois (my home state) and others like it, corruption is far more rampant than in the federal government. And in many states, things are essentially run by a single party, meaning all kinds of crazy stuff happens, and even good ideas don’t get the critical scrutiny they need to get the kinks out.

    On another point, Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate to understand that sometimes the protection of personal freedom means that the federal government needs to protect people from the states. For instance, he supports federal right-to-work laws, where Romney (and I believe Santorum) thinks these should be a state issue. While making it state over federal sounds like small, or at least localized, government, it’s a bad solution for individuals living in blue states. As a musician who used to live in New England, I know that the only way that someone working in CT, NY, MA, and many other blue states can be protected from unions seeking to steal their wages is through a federal law. Connecticut will never pass that law on their own!

  • JunkerGeorg

    Romney is likely the most electable, that is, to the Republican nomination, although, even there, everything comes down to # of delegates. Things should be much more predictable after Super Tuesday. Yet as for Romney being more “electable” than Ron Paul to the presidency, that is highly debatable. A case has and can be made that Ron Paul has the best chance over/against Obama of all the Republican nominees, for the simple fact that he would draw the most “non-Republican” voters in a head-to-head with Obama. The problem for Ron Paul is not the swing voters. The problem ironically is the majority of Republican voters who, whether they fully comprehend it or not, will go with the establishment, will pragmatically go with “party over principle”. This was what Goldwater faced in his failed bid, and what Reagan had faced as well in the race for the Republican nomination in which he miraculously succeeded (when the parties’ “establishment” sided with George Bush Sr., and Ron Paul was one of only four to endorse Reagan.)

    Why should you vote for Romney now, in terms of the Republican nomination? I have no idea why you would, that is, unless you honestly do agree with status-quo Rhino principles (or lack thereof), unless you do favor TARP, debt-increase, inflationary overprinting Federal Reserve notes, and universal healthcare mandates. (Notice, I didn’t mention an aggresssive, interventionist foreign policy, since there is little difference between Romney and Obama on that.) Just what is “conservative” about Romney in terms of social or fiscal policy? While Ron Paul is attacked for many policies, no one with any credibility dares to attack his FISCAL conservatism. Economists like Neil Cavuto and Lou Dobbs know this. He is the only candidate with a fiscal plan that actually will reduce the debt and put a halt to the yearly increase in spending, growth in beaurocracy, etc… I find it ludicrous that given the 15 trillion debt and counting, he is the only Republican candidate with an actual plan in place that will reduce the debt, curtail deficit spending. What does that tell about what the Republican establishment??? How much different are they from the Dems at the end of the day? But I rant….A vote cast for Romney in terms of the Republican nomination is inevitably a vote cast for Obama in terms of the presidential election. Hope I’m wrong though.

  • JunkerGeorg

    Romney is likely the most electable, that is, to the Republican nomination, although, even there, everything comes down to # of delegates. Things should be much more predictable after Super Tuesday. Yet as for Romney being more “electable” than Ron Paul to the presidency, that is highly debatable. A case has and can be made that Ron Paul has the best chance over/against Obama of all the Republican nominees, for the simple fact that he would draw the most “non-Republican” voters in a head-to-head with Obama. The problem for Ron Paul is not the swing voters. The problem ironically is the majority of Republican voters who, whether they fully comprehend it or not, will go with the establishment, will pragmatically go with “party over principle”. This was what Goldwater faced in his failed bid, and what Reagan had faced as well in the race for the Republican nomination in which he miraculously succeeded (when the parties’ “establishment” sided with George Bush Sr., and Ron Paul was one of only four to endorse Reagan.)

    Why should you vote for Romney now, in terms of the Republican nomination? I have no idea why you would, that is, unless you honestly do agree with status-quo Rhino principles (or lack thereof), unless you do favor TARP, debt-increase, inflationary overprinting Federal Reserve notes, and universal healthcare mandates. (Notice, I didn’t mention an aggresssive, interventionist foreign policy, since there is little difference between Romney and Obama on that.) Just what is “conservative” about Romney in terms of social or fiscal policy? While Ron Paul is attacked for many policies, no one with any credibility dares to attack his FISCAL conservatism. Economists like Neil Cavuto and Lou Dobbs know this. He is the only candidate with a fiscal plan that actually will reduce the debt and put a halt to the yearly increase in spending, growth in beaurocracy, etc… I find it ludicrous that given the 15 trillion debt and counting, he is the only Republican candidate with an actual plan in place that will reduce the debt, curtail deficit spending. What does that tell about what the Republican establishment??? How much different are they from the Dems at the end of the day? But I rant….A vote cast for Romney in terms of the Republican nomination is inevitably a vote cast for Obama in terms of the presidential election. Hope I’m wrong though.

  • formerly just steve

    For me, this time it’s definitely about voting for whoever would have the best chance in the general election. I’ve voted my conscience in the past but not this time. I’m so tired of the lies and the smug arrogance with which those lies are delivered that I can’t bear the thought of having to listen to them for another four years. I’m hoping Romney’s lies will be more palatable. At minimum, I won’t be labeled a racist when I disagree with him.

  • formerly just steve

    For me, this time it’s definitely about voting for whoever would have the best chance in the general election. I’ve voted my conscience in the past but not this time. I’m so tired of the lies and the smug arrogance with which those lies are delivered that I can’t bear the thought of having to listen to them for another four years. I’m hoping Romney’s lies will be more palatable. At minimum, I won’t be labeled a racist when I disagree with him.

  • formerly just steve

    ^^… on the other hand, I will be labeled a fundamentalist evangelical theonomist dominionist theocrat who just disagrees because he’s Mormon. I guess I can live with that. At least it will raise the level of dialogue even if most people don’t know what those terms really mean.

  • formerly just steve

    ^^… on the other hand, I will be labeled a fundamentalist evangelical theonomist dominionist theocrat who just disagrees because he’s Mormon. I guess I can live with that. At least it will raise the level of dialogue even if most people don’t know what those terms really mean.

  • S. Aleck

    formerly just steve, you’re a fundamentalist evangelical theonomist dominionist theocrat! heh heh, just kidding.

  • S. Aleck

    formerly just steve, you’re a fundamentalist evangelical theonomist dominionist theocrat! heh heh, just kidding.

  • Pingback: Logarchism » It’s Super Tuesday

  • Pingback: Logarchism » It’s Super Tuesday


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X