Would Conservatives Be Better Off under Romney or Obama?

It’s not about Democrats and Republicans anymore.  Both parties are loaded up with liberals, the most dangerous ones being in the GOP.  Why?  Because common people still think that Republicans are greater champions of social conservativism, national defense, Judeo-Christianity, and loyalty to Western Civilization.

     A closer look, however, reveals that politicians in either party who claim to be conservatives limit the definition to fiscal matters.  At best, it’s really just about money management, their own first.

     But even more than politicians in both parties being liberals, it goes without saying that they’re wealthy, including Romney and Obama.  This is truly democratic in that common folk idolize the rich and other celebrities, including limousine liberals of any political ilk.  In a Darwin-ordered world, the wealthy are the fittest, who have played the same game others have, but have become the winning few.  They’ve risen to the top, outdistanced the losers, and should be leaders in any evolutionary view of nature.  All male animals know about this, and so do the females.  Isn’t it the way God set up His Creation?

    No question, the rich may be smarter, work harder, and take more risks.  Almost all of them make their money in business and stocks, not from salaries.  Benjamin Franklin would certainly have agreed.  The poor and “needy” have undoubtedly goofed off, while squandering their chances.  They’ve asked to be bottom feeders.  But, then again, how much “work” can some wealthy people claim whose portfolio just doubled in the time you take to read this post?

    After all, it’s the American “People” who have designed and promoted our plutocracy-based democracy, guaranteeing that the race is to the rich.  Simply put, the candidate who can raise the most money is the fittest, being able to then shape public opinion through television-commercial saturation and other power-wielding advantages that more money brings.  Local political machines in both parties are the same.

     So, should conservatives support the liberal Romney over the socialist Obama?  Should conservatives care which party wins if both are run by liberal and wealthy politicians?  It’s a bit like asking minorities concerned about racism if they would prefer the racism to be upfront or hidden, direct or indirect, offered by an obvious enemy or by a seeming “friend.”

    If Romney becomes president, he could very well set back the conservative cause for decades.  As his liberal management policies fail to energize the economy, critics will be quick to chide  conservatives about how  “your man messed things up” and how “you’ve had your chance, and blew it.”  This is inevitable when liberal GOP pose as conservatives.  At least Obama honestly presents himself as a liberal and socialist.

     Why allow the media to push the “electability” issue, when what conservatives really want is to get Santorum and Bachmann into the White House, even if next time they have to switch parties and run as Democrats or turn to a third party?  Do you really want to choose between socialists Hitler and Mussolini when your heart is set on electing Dietrich Bonhoeffer?