In response to:

The Media That Ignored Obama’s Beliefs Goes After Mitt’s Mormonism

RNB Wrote: Apr 15, 2012 4:54 AM
To clarify. I will always vote for the least liberal candidate no matter which party runs him or her. I will not vote for a third party candidate because we currently do not have a realistic chance to elect one. If circumstances change I will always vote for the most realistic conservative candidate. If circumstances stay they way they are now I will always vote for the most realistic conservative candidate. This is a conservative stance. This is dealing in reality. This is how it's done whether I like the process or not. Small steps, but realistic steps. Work at the grassroots, make a difference, but above all be realistic and keep your eye on the prize.
TNconservative Wrote: Apr 15, 2012 4:56 AM
seeing a RINO that ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in the WH is no prize to me.

Can't happen anyways.
RNB Wrote: Apr 15, 2012 5:00 AM
Again and for the last time tonight. What is left is relative. Ted Kennedy is not running. Romney is, Obama is. Those are my realistic choices. Why is that so hard to understand?
TNconservative Wrote: Apr 15, 2012 5:03 AM
because it isn't really realistic. Romney has no chance and no path to 270.

When the former junior state senator from Chicago, one Barack Obama—a man no one knew diddly about—decided, “Hey, I’m gonna run for president!” people were eager to learn more about this promising upstart. Uncle Joe Biden was curious about Barack. Joe said at first blush that Obama seemed “clean” and “articulate,” which, I think, would be a hate crime if a conservative said that about him.

Anyhoo, Obama impressed many chiefly because he could enthusiastically read vague, cliché-riddled speeches off a teleprompter that included lots of big words like nobody’s business! This ability to read hazy political speeches in...