Skip to comments.Romney has given us reasons to vote against Obama, but what are his reasons to vote for him?
Posted on 06/03/2012 1:05:25 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Is being AGAINST Obama enough reason to vote FOR Romney? (Caps for emphasis only). Obama's policies are to be loathed, but a emotional reaction that is fueling many to vote against Obama isn't enough reason to vote for Romney. Sound, cogent reasons are needed to vote FOR Romney:
Romney has repeated enough what Obama policies he is against, but has he given enough detail as to what polices he is for and spelled out line by line what exactly he will do as president and how?
1.) Romney will cut spending? Will Romney cut spending by $1.3 trillion per year - where Obama is right now above that taken in via taxes? Will Romney support any borrow and spend - ANY - or will he follow what was proposed by many Tea Partiers (among whom was Michelle Bachmann), that we should only spend what is taken in with taxes - with no borrow and spend at all? Will we continue to get the same old, same old?
2.) If Romney will end burdensome regulations that stifle business, will he couple this with a pledge that there will never be another banker bailout under his watch?
3.) He will enact Keystone XL legislation? How? Would he control all three branches all by his lonesome self? Does anyone honestly believe that Dems will be driven below 40 Senate seats, much less 43-44, if the remaining so-called "centrist" Senate Dems are ran out of office? What will Romney do when this is tied up in court for 10-20 years?
4.) Will there be no more Solyndra's under Romney's watch? But what about his support for the Massachusetts Green Energy Fund whereby when he was governor of Massachusetts tens of millions of dollars went to several "Solyndra's" that went belly up? Has he changed his spots?
5.) Will Romney keep to the Norquist pledge? If so, how could he support ANY federal subsidies going to oil companies much less "green energy" companies? The giving away of any federal handout/subsidies collectively shifts the burden to the taxpayer. Just as Stossel has reported many times, tens of billions of dollars (even hundreds) goes out in federal subsidies to a host of businesses (taking place for some time now under both Republican and Democrat administrations), thus violating the Norquist pledge.
That was just a quick photoshop job. I’ll have to come up with a better one.
As far as Romney is concerned, I don’t have any issues with those who vote for him but I don’t want to hear any crap about him being some kind of great conservative savior.
No doubt... Romney is no conservative savior by any stretch of the imagination.
Just my two cents, even though this post wasn’t directed to me.
“Ok, Ill say it, He is not Obama.”
What else can we say?
If the past 4 years of Obama were as bad as we said, then you have only the option of replacing him.
If you got to defeat Hitler, you are going to have to make Stalin your BFF.
Problem is, is that Romney is one of the two Tweedle’s.
90% bad versus 100% bad.
The way I see it, we have three options: vote for arsenic (Obama), vote for cyanide because it's not arsenic (ABO Romney vote), or vote to dilute whichever poison wins.
LF Capitalist asks: Would it be better to have more Tea Partiers elected along with Romney being elected? In this scenario, would we see fighting between Romney and the Tea Partiers ....?
If Romney lost because 25% voted third party, enough to give it to Obama on a 38% plurality, where a full 62% of Americans voted AGAINST him (and effectively 63% voted AGAINST Romney), conservatives will have have won a MAJOR victory.
If Romney wins, WORSE if he wins with a majority, he, the GOP elite, and Republican moderates (not to mention the liberal MSM) would dominate, saying, "Moderate won with a mandate! Sit down and shut up, conservatives -- we're the only reason the Republican party even has the White House." A liberal Republican president, the defacto head of the Republican party, especially one with a demonstrable record of playing political HARDBALL, would bulldoze conservatives, and Democrats would look noble "reaching across the aisl" to enact "bipartisan" leglislation advancing cap-and-trade environmental regulation on energy and food production, the homosexual agenda, government-run health care, and on-demand abortion, all things Romney ADVANCED while Governor.
When supreme court nominations came up and Romney proceeded to nominate a liberal activist judge of the type he appointed about 75% of the time in Massachusetts, and we saw our embattled conservatives in Congress frustratingly mute ... we'd be seeing a form of hardball in action. Romney is organized and financed.
I'm washing my hands of deciding whether arsenic or cyanide is better -- the vote I cast will be NEUTRAL as to that outcome, but it WILL be active in helping make it so whichever poison wins, is as diluted and weakened as possible.
Romney will say whatever he thinks is appropriate for his audience at a given moment.
But hey, at least he likes grits.
LOL. Abdul Alhazred for veep?
Ahb, so that Obama won’t be relected? So that Paul won’t be nominated?
Supreme court justice Janet Napalitano
Supreme court justice Eric Holder
Supreme court justice Kathleen Sebelius
Agreed. But at least Mittens is an American. He believes in American values. He (mostly) believes in capitalism.
0bama is actively working to destroy America. In 0bama's own words, "fundamentally change" America.
I believe(hope) Mittens can learn conservative values. But even if I'm wrong, the trainwreck will be slowed, and give us time replace all the RINOs. It is already happening.
He's done no such thing.
Obama has given us reasons to not vote for Obama.
General elections are a choice between viable candidates, not an affirmative endorsement of any particular politician.
We KNOW Obama will continue to be a terrible president - and one unshackled from having to run for re-election. Romney MIGHT be a bad president, but even if he does nothing at all during his entire term it would be better than 4 more years of Hussein.
1. Hates America. Check
2. Hates free enterprise. Check
3. Loves extremely stupid ideas. Check.
4. The dumbest president ever. Check.
5. The first gay endorsing president. Check.
6. The most job destroying president ever. Check
6. The most pro-muzzie president ever. Check.
7. The most pro-choice pro-culture of death president ever. Check
8. The most divisive president ever. Check
9. The biggest spending president ever. Check.
10. The most wealth devaluating president ever. Check.
11. The most incompetent president ever. Check.
12. The most unqualified president ever. Check.
And above all, let's make sure we don't vote for Romney...........:-)
Obama is more than enough reason to vote for Romney. I would much rather have Romney working with a Republican Congress than Obama. No matter which way this economy swings, Romney will do a better job than Obama is capable of doing. I think Romney will tear down Obama’s restrictions and barriers to drilling, to the pipeline, and he will stop squandering money on solar panel and windmill companies that go belly up when the tax dollars are all wasted. I think Romney will be better for defense. He might leave us with a nuclear deterrent, as opposed to Obama’s determination to disarm us. A Romney Attorney General will be better than Holder. Romney knows how to run things, and he won’t need a bunch of extra constitutional czars to run things for him. There might be a little truth in Romney’s conservative conversion, not enough to make conservatives feel all warm and fuzzy about him, but he won’t make Matthews’ leg tingle. ...The left believed they had turned the corner with Obama, and the direction they are going is not one America has gone before. Romney isn’t my first, second, third or any choice I would have made, if there were better choices to make, but there isn’t now, not even close. I can take my toys and go home, or go play where they won’t matter, or I can tough it out, knowing there is plenty of opportunity for the Tea Party to influence the Republican Party, and to continue turning things around. I wish we could have done it with the presidency this time around, but I also know it won’t be done at all, if Obama has another four years. That brings up another reason for voting for Romney, and that is Janet Napolitano. Remember the memo about right wing terrorists? It wasn’t a joke. It was the direction the left would love to take this country psychologically and institutionally. Romney won’t do that, and his pick for Janet’s position will maybe help turn some of that around. I don’t know who Romney’s Secretary of State will be, but whomever it is, he or she will be better than Hillary. Romney isn’t part of the Chicago criminal organization, and he will have better people around him than Obama has. When the Black Panthers put a bounty out on someone’s head, some Black Panthers will be prosecuted. Romney won’t be getting on TV to tell us some hip hop, gang bang wannabe, doper, street fighter is the kind of son he would want. Romney may be gay friendly, but he isn’t gay, and he may yet come to deeper understanding of how values work in culture, unlike being a dimwit like Hillary, telling us Democracy will bring Western values to Islam. Ann Romney will be a much better, less meddling, less expensive First Lady than Michelle, and she doesn’t look like a mean dyke. I don’t know what kind of president Romney will be, but I am certain the nation he leaves us with four years from now, or eight years from now will be better than what Obama will deliver to us.
As much as I’m not thrilled with Romney, another obama presidency will destroy America. We can not allow that, hold your nose and vote for Romney if that’s what it takes.
Its nice to talk about cutting taxes at the top but those top earners just invest elsewhere. (Not that I blame them) We need to cut taxes from top to bottom. We need tax and regulation elimination that will really spur on small business creation and self employment.
Along with the cuts we need serious spending cuts of virtually all nonessential services and projects. Stop skimming some 30% off highway funds to support public transportation and bike paths. We need to stop spending social security on other things and start weaning the new workers out of that system.
College should be for the fortunate few who can pay for it without help and those who get good enough grades to get corporate and philanthropist funded scholarships. We need diggers, drillers, drivers a builders. We need apprenticeships and trade schools.
I just don’t see Mitt Romney doing any heavy lifting. Instead I see him moving debt around.
If Romney wants a second term, he will have to do drastic measures to get spending under control, and be willing to deal with riots from the people who get cut off.
By the time of the election Romney will have a large portion of the democrat vote. Obama will have to seize it if he wants to keep it.
What you say is true, but we need to get a candidate to win a primary, first. Waiting till the election and and writing someone in or not voting helps defeat our cause, pure and simple. We did not put a candidate up that could win the primary. Perry was our most conservative, and with the help of the “no one is good enough” people plus the media, he was put aside pretty quickly.
IMHO, Romney getting elected may put the conservative movement at a standstill for 4 years. Obama getting re-elected and retaining those in his administration for 4 more years will set the conservative movement back all the way to the stone age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.