Why Voting For Mitt Romney Should Be a No-Brainer For Conservatives

Political Realities ^ | 08/15/12 | LD Jackson

[LD Jackson]

This is something I have mulled over a long time. I touched on it in a comment on Country Thinker's post yesterday, but I would like to elaborate just a bit.

I know Mitt Romney has many detractors. Many conservatives and libertarians question his conservative credentials, myself included. I questioned them in 2007 and I questioned them during the GOP primary. I still have reservations about how conservative he would be as President of the United States. I contend there are other things to consider, besides his fiscal conservatism.

There are many people who are going to refuse to vote for Mitt Romney, based on his record in Massachusetts. That is their privilege and I would not dare to denigrate their choice. There are also those who will refuse to vote for him on the basis of the theory that he would be worse for our country than Barack Obama. One of the co-authors on Political Realities holds that opinion, but I have seen many other commentators put the same sentiment in writing. This post is not an attack on their position, and certainly not an attack on Ted, but I want to explain why I disagree so strongly with that belief.

Since Barack Obama took office, it has been one disaster after another. He made a promise to bring the nation together while he was campaigning, but he has done just the opposite. Remember how he interjected himself into the issue of racism over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.? He couldn't help himself and said the police acted stupidly. Instead of allowing local authorities to handle the situation, he just had to get involved. Did this help our country or did it just stoke Obama's ego? Would Mitt Romney have responded in such a brash manner?

Remember the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? One of the things Barack Obama did in response to the BP oil spill was to declare a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. Safety concerns were slighted. When the moratorium was challenged in court, it was thrown out. Obama was ordered to lift the ban, yet he ignored the court order. The challenge was brought forth because the ban was hurting a lot of people. Jobs and incomes were lost. The court ruled Obama had insufficient cause to issue the moratorium and struck it down. The President didn't agree with the order, so he refused to comply. It was done in accordance with our judicial system, but the President simply wouldn't go along. Ask yourself how Mitt Romney would have reacted.

Moving on to health care, Barack Obama has issued new requirements that call for birth control to be available to all women as part of their health insurance. Disregarding that birth control is available for very little cost, the President did his part for the women of America. Using authority that was buried deep inside Obamacare, he is now forcing religious organizations that believe birth control is a sin to provide it as part of the health insurance they provide for their employees. In doing so, religious freedom was severely damaged. Is it not safe to say Mitt Romney would have not issued such a policy directive?

Let's look at the President's liberal use of executive orders to change existing law, or to create new law. Immigration anyone? Barack Obama has completely changed the way illegal immigration is handled on the federal level. Because of the policy changes he has affected by executive order, many illegal immigrants no longer have to worry about being deported.

The President did the same thing with welfare reform. Our current law on welfare reform was crafted and passed during the Clinton years and it has worked since then to lower the number of people on welfare. It was widely declared to be a success, due in large part because of the work requirement built into the law. That requirement was strict because Congress made it thus. They wrote the law in such a way that it prevented waivers from granted for the work requirement. Barack Obama must have disagreed with that part of the law, because he magically found a way he could change the law. He issued a new policy directive that allows states to apply for waivers to the very requirement that made the law such a success.

Both of these examples show one of the main reasons why I believe Barack Obama is so dangerous for America. In using the principles of conduct he has applied to both issues, he has shown a complete and total disregard for the American system of government. Instead of working with Congress to affect any changes he may want, he simply took it upon himself to make those changes. In other words, he bypassed Congress and did what he wanted to do, and never mind the Constitution.

Ask yourself a simple question. Would Mitt Romney have done the same thing, or would he have worked within our system of government to change the laws he wanted to change?

As you can see, there are many things to consider, other than Mitt Romney and his lack of fiscal conservatism. I believe there is a large gap between how Romney would conduct himself as President, when compared to how Barack Obama has used his office. That difference is more than enough to convince me to vote for Mitt Romney.

I am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a second term for Barack Obama would be a complete and total disaster for America. Much worse than his first four years. He has shown himself to be willing to bypass the Constitution and do things his own way. That being the case, how will he conduct himself in his second term, knowing he has no worries about reelection?

For all the reasons I have stated, and then some, the theory that somehow Mitt Romney would be worse than Barack Obama simply does not work for me.

[Kevmo]

So what is the plan to nominate and elect a Christian T.E.A. Party Constitutionalist to the presidency in 2016 if Obama should win in Nov.?
***Nominate one, elect them and win the presidency in 2016. What is your plan should Romney win in November — unseat a sitting republican president?

[Kevmo]

If for no other reason, I would prefer Romney’s Supreme Court picks over obama’s.
***Romney’s record shows that he appoints libruls to the courts. No matter who wins the next election, conservatism loses.

[Nervous Tick]

>> ***Nominate one, elect them and win the presidency in 2016.

It all sounds so *easy* when you say it like that.

So...

1) If it’s so simple, why the epic **FAIL** to pull it off this year? and
2) precisely how can you guarantee — or even so glibly predict — there won’t be a similar (or worse) EPIC FAIL in 2016?

[Kevmo]

It all sounds so *easy* when you say it like that. So...
1) If it’s so simple, why the epic **FAIL** to pull it off this year? and
***The epic FAIL happened in 2006. One of the roles of the VP is to represent the future of the GOP. Bush knew Cheney wasn’t going to run, but did nothing about it. He should have replaced Cheney with an heir apparent. Then we wouldn’t have had McLame last time, Romney this time. Bush handed it over to the GOP, and those are the kinds of guys the GOP will give you.

2) precisely how can you guarantee — or even so glibly predict — there won’t be a similar (or worse) EPIC FAIL in 2016?
***You’re a conservative, right? So if we nominate a conservative, do you have some reservations about that? You want a guarantee? Okay, I’ll give you a guarantee — no matter who wins in this current election, conservatism loses.

[bkepley]

I’ve got nothing at all against any of those stands but that still does not mean I must march in lock step with Jim Robinson or anyone else. Isn’t that called being a “bot”?

[swpa_mom]

the question I have for everyone who’s anti Romney.......who did you work for during the primary election we held this year? No matter who it is, do you feel bad that you didn’t work hard enough to nominate him or her? Does your mythical candidate have perfect positions on every single issue? You can’t go back and find a vote on an amendment that can be turned into some kind of anti conservative vote? Will your candidate be able to withstand the criticism of other conservatives who don’t agree that your candidate is the perfect conservative?

[Nervous Tick]

Oh yeah, my bad, I forgot you’re the cold fusion dude.

You’ll believe pretty much any goofy thing without critical analysis, and you sling around vacuous “arguments” like a short order cook slings hash.

Carry on.

[xzins]

Bush was pro-life, even over stem cells. He was pro-natural marriage. He was pro-gun. Bush’s problems were on the fiscal side. He, too, was an advocate of borrow and spend economies.

[going hot]

If this wasn't such a serious moment, it would be funny......

The beauty of clicking on 'everything' on the main board, I get to see sentances such as this.

In actuality, it is funny, damn funny, and sometimes quite hilarious!

Check on this particular thread as it gets swarmed. There will be abo's, abr's, and especially funny will be the goode/hofeling supporters, and their sure to succeed plan for take over the US in the name of conservatism, and then to implement their thoughts on the rest of the country, for their own good and saving, don't you see.

So, all in all, a fairly entertaining situation.

[xzins]

The republican party does need to become more conservative at the national level.

Here in southern Ohio, we should be able to string Obama up by his thumbs over coal.

But, what was on the radio this morning? An ad by Obama simply allowing Romney to speak about how coal kills people.

He is a gift that just keeps giving.....to the liberals.

[GlockThe Vote]

So you were ok w a fiscal socialist but not a moral socialist?

[ex-snook]

"Bush was pro-life, even over stem cells. He was pro-natural marriage. He was pro-gun. Bush’s problems were on the fiscal side. He, too, was an advocate of borrow and spend economies."

Bush also conjured up mushroom clouds to justify a war. Making China a permanent favored trading nation enhanced job exporting. Are we better off than we were 12 years ago? Hell no.

[xzins]

Pro-Life is the key, Glock. God says, “thou shalt not murder”.

Pro-Gun is also a part of pro-life, since self-protection is about preserving one’s own life and freedom.

Pro-Natural Family is God’s law. Homosexuality is an abomination to Him and it results from idolatry.

While God advises wisdom in financial matters, the Bible is clear that “it is God who gives the ability to create wealth.”

So, a pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-gun Romney will not bring prosperity.

[xzins]

I am not an advocate of any of the so-called “free trade” agreements.

Any agreement that makes an American car in China begin at about 100 grand is not just a sucker’s deal, but it’s a non-patriot’s deal.

[GlockThe Vote]

Ryan does not satisfy you?

What if he picked Sarah?

[xzins]

I absolutely support Paul Ryan. He’s everything I wish our nominee were.

Sarah, of course, would have been great, too. But, no conservative should bash Ryan. With very few exceptions he has held to a strict conservative line throughout his time in government.

[Diogenesis]

Moral socialist?

Mr. RomneyCARE is a tyrant who imposed BOTH
gay marriage (at his whim and against the Constitution)
and DEATH Panels with RomneyCARE.

AMERICA DOES NOT NEED ANOTHER TYRANT ABOVE THE LAW.

[Diogenesis]

Moral socialist?

Mr. RomneyCARE is a tyrant who imposed BOTH
gay marriage (at his whim and against the Constitution)
and DEATH Panels with RomneyCARE.

AMERICA DOES NOT NEED ANOTHER TYRANT ABOVE THE LAW.

[mlizzy]

Obama is very frightening. I see the evil in him. I dont understand how so many on this site cant see it and view Mitt as more of the threat. It’s insane.

I agree Obama is frightening. Have you seen this video from Mass Resistance? (Click video to view.)

And this is what Steve Stone, former LDS member and president of RenewAmerica had to say on the same topic:

To vote for Mitt is to assent to such a far-reaching, unconscionably evil deed as he committed by singlehandedly establishing gay marriage, as though it were nothing of consequence, when in reality it is arguably the most wicked and destructive discretionary action ever taken by an elected official in our nation's 230-year history — undermining the stability, and continuance, of Western Civilization itself.

And then there's the $50 abortions that are included in Romneycare.

More from Mass Resistance:

"Possibly the most enlightening speech you will hear on this subject [homosexuality]. So powerful that it was banned by YouTube".

"What same-sex 'marriage' has done to Massachusetts"

[ex-snook]

"I am not an advocate of any of the so-called “free trade” agreements. Any agreement that makes an American car in China begin at about 100 grand is not just a sucker’s deal, but it’s a non-patriot’s deal."

Amen. Pro-God, Pro-Family, Pro-American is what the country needs in a President but can't be found this time around.