Another thought, "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness."  So, how much money and how much time have you devoted to Gingrich, Santorum or Paul?  Be the change you want to see.

As attractive as this sounds, it is the strategy of a fool.  Read this,Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Egypt: US Constitution Not That Great , and recognize that another Obama term means the appointment of two or three more Constitution-denying Justices.  That is simply unacceptable.  Even if Romney were an utter failure with respect to actually turning around the ship of state, giving Obama four more years to solidify the socialist trends he's begun by reinforcing the Supreme court would prove a long term disaster.

And I'd rather see anybody but Romney nominated.

Leveret, that is very good and you hit the point that seemed to me to be out there but that I was having a hard time crystalizing,  I think your contrasting of moral relativism vs. traditional customs and mores; un-restrained personal freedom vs. socially restrained personal freedom is the idea that I was looking for.  Obviously those both exist on a continuum.  But it was trying to get a grip on exactly what that continuum was that I was searching for.  Thanks.  It seems to me that throughout the vast majority of human societies human cultures have tended to the "conservative" position rather than the "libertarian" position.  I wonder if there is a lesson there?

Guru and Casey, thanks for your thoughts, too.  And, Casey, if you get condescension from what I wrote, I apologize.  It was not at all what I intended.

The biggest problem with the Transactional Argument is that, IMO, the Presidency is not a transactional position.  Congress is transactional.  The Presidency is visionary.  And I don't see anyone arguing that Mitt is a man of vision and big ideas.

Need everyone to root for the Giants this Sunday. A market-forecasting indicator using the Super Bowl has had an 80% success rate historically. Looking back at the 45 previous Super Bowls, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has usually finished up for the year after a win by an "original" National Football League team (before the merger with the American Football League), while the market's gone down when the AFL side has won. Go Giants!!!  I don't really care all that much about the game. But it's such a great excuse to have a party with friends.

Since nobody else has mentioned the obvious, allow me.  Utterly unsurprising as this is, it is precisely the reason why this election is important.  With good fortune smiling, the next President may have the opportunity to replace Justice Ginsburg.  Wouldn't it be nice to have someone with an appreciation for the document that is supposed to guide the court's deliberations?

Let me offer another slant: the distinction between hatred and anger.  Ephesians 4:26-27, says, "“In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry,  and do not give the devil a foothold."  I take this to mean that we have "permission" to experience our emotions.  God created them, after all.  But we are supposed to control our emotional response (through exercise of our mind and will) as to their extent and duration, and to prevent giving the devil a foothold in our lives.
So what might that foothold be?  Well, I think one possibility would be the kind of self-digesting acidic perspective that accompanies hatred when we humans engage in it.  (God is apparently holy enough to avoid this.  And certainly, since it is His creation and not ours, He has a different level of prerogative than we.)
Re your #5 question; I think we do that in whatever sphere we have by standing FOR the oppressed and downtrodden.  If you are an average citizen you treat others as Jesus would.  If you have a larger platform you speak out, and act, against injustice.

Particularly since the Framers were born British subjects.

Don't mistake the "most important election everr" for the "most important election in a long time."  The 2012 election will easily be the latter, if it is not the former, because we have higher, more clearly defined stakes than we have before.  Obama's vision is clearly a more drastic one than was Algore's or even Hillary's or Bill's.
If you could set the Way Back Machine for 1936, and intervene effectively to defeat and undo Roosevelt's agenda (knowing what has grown therefrom) would that be important?  I suggest that we are at one of those kinds of times. 
There is a host of things that need to be undone.  Newt rattled off a bunch of them off the top of his head last night.  It truely isn't all about the Presidency.  But the Presidency is a totem for all the rest of that.

I'm inclined to wonder if the reason that we so often get hammered in recent elections is precisely BECAUSE we throw up these mild-mannered people who really aren't all that different from the alternative.  It might be that, given the choice between a Dole or a Bush 43 or a McCain, voters think, "They don't even believe in Conservatism enough to give us a real choice.  At least the Democrats will offer us a real Liberal.  They really believe in their prescription.  the Republicans obviously do not because they aren't offering us that choice.  So we might as well go with the party that at least believes in what they're selling."

Who knows?  It certainly is high time to give the alternative a chance.  Can't do any worse.

Correction: He attempted to BUY your vote without first earning your trust. And that is exactly my own major misgiving. The focus is OBAMA not Newt. The focus is Conservative values, not Newt. The focus is on why you're the best, not why the other guy is the worst.

Hey, Philistine. Welcome to the club.

DocJay, Richard, not only an advocate for socialized medicine, but a strong advocate of rationing and death panels.

So, Emily, how do you feel, what do you think, about Jan Brewer's recent faace off with Obama in Arizona?  Was she out of line?  Was she tiptoeing around?  Did she come across as weaker or less competent?  And what about Obama?  Did he back down rather than get in a fight with a woman, as James says in #6, above?  Or did he show distain for her weakness?  Apply your point to this real world news story.

Contra Rex, in good reason, I question that any of it is necessarily true.  So, I ask the same question that Rex asks.

Like Fricosis Guy, I am appalled that Ricochet is opening it's forum to canned political speeches.  If the Senator wants to build relationships here, let him do it the way everyone else does, not dump his truck-load and speed off down the information highway.