"the bottom line"

(I repeat myself here. Well, so what? Wont be the first time.)

(24 Oct 2010 -This post was originally published 07 Jul 2010. By temporarily altering the date, I am sticking this one at or near the top of the page, until after the election when I will restore it to its rightful slot. The only other alteration is using Red to further emphasize some points.)

(03 Nov 2010 - Restored original publishing date, putting this post back where it belongs.)

The election this November will be nothing less than a fight for our very lives; this is absolutely no time for any conservative to throw a hissy fit (because his candidate may be less than perfect), and just decide to sit it out.

That’s already happened, and just look where that got us.

Blogger Robin of Berkeley, on the American Thinker blog site, nailed it in A Shrink Asks: What's Wrong with Obama?...

(The words are hers, the emphasis is mine; the first emphasized paragraph is really "the bottom line" about what needs to be done.)

"If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?"

"It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid...and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible."

"Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today."

"Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama's fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers."

"Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:"

"He is not capable of it."

Indeed, as he’s almost promised to use the 2 and 1/2 month lame duck session to ramrod his agenda down our throats (one promise you can count on him keeping), we’ll need not just enough conservatives to begin repealing things; but also enough to override vetoes that are guaranteed in those circumstances.

I've been seeing, in a few comments here and there, utter despair of ever getting enough Republicans to have a "veto-proof" congress. Well, just how would you define that? You could have 61 Republicans and fail to override a veto because a few voted with the enemy. Conversely, you could have less than 60 and succeed because a few Democrats weren't too happy with the situation. In fact, if there become enough Republicans to even pass legislation that Obama would veto, that last possibility greatly increases.

Don't forget that our very country was seen, by some at the time, as a doomed enterprise from the start; I mean, "Really! Taking on the premier military power of the time?!! Come on, now!"

So, DON'T defeat yourselves before you even start. If all you can envision is futility and hopelessness, please go somewhere else to psych yourself down. The rest of us have a lot of work to do, and it damned well wont be accomplished by those who believe it impossible in the first place.

And, do not excuse yourself with George Wallace’s 1968 assertion that, of the two parties, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them!”

There truly is a difference; the type of arrogant snots who feel they must control every aspect of our lives (because we’re too damned stupid to do so ourselves) seem to infest the Democratic party far more than they do the Republican party.

That difference is worth preserving, worth fighting for. Always!

But especially during the Nov 2010 elections.

(Originally published July 7, 2010)
-