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.
Romney has given us reasons to vote against Obama, but what are his reasons to vote for him?...
Ok, I’ll say it, “He is not Obama.”
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 over the direction of this country as we have seen with McCain and the Tea Partiers when McCain compared them to Hobbits?
Whom would the LMSM side with, Romney or the Tea Party?
Or was Reagan right that it is better to stick to basically stick to bold colors versus losing the message among pale pastels?
I will not vote for Romney or the Kenyan bastard if a gun were put to my head.
IOW, he is one of the two Tweedle’s, thereby making a distinction without making a difference?
I would have been against FDR, but for him in the fight against Hitler.
While I certainly despise Obama’s regressive policies, I do think that you have made an apples to oranges argument there. I don’t think a comparison of Obama and Hitler can be made.
Dems comparing Bush to Hitler is no better, and gets us no further than comparing Obama to Hitler.
I can't believe I just said something positive about mitt.
Don’t need one. He’s not Obama. For now that has to do.
But....But... Romney is following the model of “I will do this and that” if elected, while he focuses on what Obama HAS done. He does this, while not wanting us to focus on what Romney HAS Done as governor.
We need what Romney has done and will do to BOTH be focused on, just like we need to also focus on what Obama has done and what he says that he will do.
Both for both candidates...
Do you support focusing on what BOTH canadidates have done and what BOTH candidates say they will do?
Laughing loudly at your MEH poster!!!
MEH trumps foreign commie usurper though.
I’ll repeat that:
“He is not obama”.
Then you will continue to get the following:
Liberal Dems (Clinton) versus RINOcrat (Bush Sr.)
Liberal Dems (Clinton) versus RINOcrat (Dole)
Liberal Dem (Obama) versus RINOcrat (McCain)
Liberal Dem (Obama) versus RINOcrat (Romney)
And next election the Dems will say “throw the bums out” followed by the GOP saying the same next time after that - all based upon emotion...Thus leading to more Liberal Dem versus RINOcrat.
Palin is right that the Establishment pretty much controls the things from top to bottom.
I didn't compare 0bama to Hitler.
Let's say FDR was running against a Rand Paul type, who vowed to get us out of WWII. FDR - whom I despise - whould have had my support to defeat an evil force. The evil of Hitler was greater than the evil of FDR's socialist agenda.
I believe Romney - lower than my last choice of any candidate - will fight to overcome the evil of 0bama.
You have just explained two things clearly:
1) Why it is important that Mitt Romney win.
2) Why is it important that Sarah Palin win.
Yet more of choosing between one of the two Tweedle’s...
Same old same old.
Yet another Liberal Dem versus a RINOcrat.
Fast train to socialism versus the slow train. Both headed in the same direction.
And yet we are told that we must always stay within the two party paradigm and never stray out of it and vote fore someone like Virgil Goode. Thus getting the same old same old every time.
If we keep voting for the same, we will continue to keep getting the same.
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.