To set the stage, the post in question was last week's Santorum's Out, Now What?. One of the very type of people I called out in that post (in this case, a DelusiNewt) left this comment:
YOU ARE AS DELUSIONAL AS YOU CLAIM OTHERS (DelusiNewts) TO BE. Yet,...ONLY the time will help me to help you understand what I mean by that...
I'm sure you're thinking what I was thinking: There must be another comment, some kind of point...some kind of well worded argument...something. Two days later, nothing. Of course, you need a name before I write your response, so I'm going to call you Balrog.
Dear Balrog:
Yes...I'm the one who is delusional. The definition of delusional is a person who DOESN'T believe that Newt can somehow win 90% of the remaining primary delegates to miraculously defeat Romney. Delusional also apparently means not believing the irrational, viceral trouncing of Romney as just as liberal as Obama. I especially really appreciated your thorough and well thought out arguments to prove your point.
Dear Balrog:
Yes...I'm the one who is delusional. The definition of delusional is a person who DOESN'T believe that Newt can somehow win 90% of the remaining primary delegates to miraculously defeat Romney. Delusional also apparently means not believing the irrational, viceral trouncing of Romney as just as liberal as Obama. I especially really appreciated your thorough and well thought out arguments to prove your point.
In opposite land.
Look, Balrog, I know we've all been kicked a few times by the GOP when it comes to "establishment candidates." I too lived through Bob Dole and John McCain. Here's the thing, Balrog: I actually look at each candidate and don't presume they're absolutely McCain or Dole because the Establishment backs them.
The reality which our friend Balrog ignores is that the Tea Party already has begun to push the Republican Party to the right. The simple fact that Mittens was the Establishment Candidate this time proves it.
Balrog may have forgotten, but I haven't: in 2008 Romney was the Conservative Alternative candidate. Because he was significantly more conservative than John McCain. In 2012, we had people that were even more conservative than Mitt, but that doesn't change the fact that THIS establishment candidate is farther to the right that at least three of the last four (if not all four) "establishment candidates."
The reality which our friend Balrog ignores is that the Tea Party already has begun to push the Republican Party to the right. The simple fact that Mittens was the Establishment Candidate this time proves it.
Balrog may have forgotten, but I haven't: in 2008 Romney was the Conservative Alternative candidate. Because he was significantly more conservative than John McCain. In 2012, we had people that were even more conservative than Mitt, but that doesn't change the fact that THIS establishment candidate is farther to the right that at least three of the last four (if not all four) "establishment candidates."
So no, Balrog, I'm not being delusional. I would've preferred Newt too. I endorsed him, remember? But I also recognize that Priority One is defeating Obama. If that means settling for less conservative (but not socialist) then so be it. That's being realistic. Still dogmatically insisting Newt can win is the delusional position.
Say hi to E. Honda for me!
Say hi to E. Honda for me!
-Chris
