How could it be, with Obama's record of three years sitting there for all to see, that any of these men could possibly receive less votes than him? Which states would decide another four years of this - is the path for America? Even those who refuse to call him a "Socialist," can see that his solution to EVERYTHING, is more Government, more spending, more intrusion. He is a speechmaker, who needs a teleprompter, and that is all.
How could any one of these candidates lose to him at this time?
The first President warned of this.
George Washington wanted to retire (again) after his first term. He had James Madison write up notes for him to address the nation. He was then convinced otherwise. By the end of his second term, he had had enough. He gave the notes to Alexander Hamilton, and over several months of back and forth edits, in consultation with John Jay, his "Farewell Address" was completed. Created by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, lead by Washington, it summed up the state of the union after eight years under the Constitution, and twenty years of independence, freedom and self government.
"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
They were warning of political parties - "combinations and associations"..."faction"..."party"
They were warning of an "artificial and extraordinary force" that would push our government to "ill-concerted and incongruous projects...rather than...consistent and wholesome plans...modified by mutual interests."
They saw, they knew, the only way people would vote for a leader so void of leadership, so lacking of tangible accomplishment, so inconsistent with the concept of the individual - the only way, would be if the people were choosing a party, rather than a person.
If Mitt Romney is to win the nomination, is there any conceivable way the people would not choose him, over the alternative, to lead our nation? Yes - there are 'Democrats' who won't vote for a 'Republican' (artificial and extraordinary force)...and there are 'Republicans' who don't think he is 'Republican' enough (modified mutual interests).
Oh...and they also warned of those, while using a pretext (such as the slavery of the time), who would undermine the principles of the founding our our nation.
"Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts."