1. Carl is right that we aren’t talking enough about the courts and that a second Obama term would make it very likely that we will have a decisive liberal Supreme Court majority with who-knows-what ability to make future conservative electoral victories fruitless to a large degree.
2. Peter is right that I’m right that the Paul budget is inadvisable policy and political suicide.
3. Dr Ceaser is right that a stronger conservative presence in Congress/an active conservative movement/a prudent conservative policy agenda would make it easier for Romney to govern as a conservative/make it harder for Romney to sell conservatives out. So conservatives should get on those things.
4. But while the Paul supporters are mistaken in seeing little difference between Romney and Obama, they are right in having worries. Even if the Republicans win control of the Senate, the Republican majority will not be filibuster proof. No matter how organized and energized conservative voters are, there will still be a huge center-left mobilization against either constitutionalist Supreme Court judges or reform of entitlements. The liberal-leaning (but not formally left-aligned) media will make sure that the center-left message gets out to persuadable voters. Even if conservatives settle on the most prudent entitlement reform policy possible, such a policy will never really be popular on any but a lesser evil basis. At some point, the struggle will come down to the person in the White House. The incentives will seem equally balanced or maybe even seem to lean in the direction of capitulating to the center-left. Is Romney one of those politicians to stand by his principles? Can we be sure that he has principles on issues like health care or entitlement reform, and that we know what those principles are?
5. So . . . .see above post