Skip to comments.The Romney presidency: The worst-case scenario (Women & children hardest hit, blah, blah, blah)
Posted on 10/30/2012 1:51:46 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A few moderates and liberals have lately taken to arguing that, you know, maybe a Romney presidency wouldnt be too bad. He might turn out to be more moderate, or at least pragmatic, than hes acted in the campaign so far. He might make a point of reaching out to Democrats in Congress. Republicans might regain their trust of Keynesian economics and actually do things to boost the economy out of naked political self-interest, instead of sabotaging the economy out of same.
I am not really convinced! Mitt Romney will be working with a Congress full of Republicans and his Cabinet and administration will be full of Republican political appointees, and that adds up to disaster, especially with the current, insane Republican Party.
As its the spooookiest time of the year, it seems appropriate to ask: Whats the Romney presidency worst-case scenario? If Mitt Romney turns out to be exactly the severe conservative he says he is, what can we expect?
Obviously were bombing Iran. They might be spinning some uranium around in a mountain, and we cant let that continue. As Wired recently reported, bombing Iran isnt actually as easy as it sounds. If we want to do it right, itll take a massive strike against Irans ability to launch a counterattack on Israel or Kuwait, followed by the much more massive strike on Irans nuclear facilities.
And of course war with Iran leads to a worldwide oil shock, probably.
But why stop with a preemptive airstrike? The actual worst-case scenario, in terms of loss of life and possibly world-destroying consequences, would be a nuclear strike on Iran. Id hope that would be off the table even in the event of Defense Secretary John Bolton. But you never know, regime change might become popular again. A ground force in Iran might suddenly become urgently necessary! The idiot Bush-era foreign policy experts might suddenly decide that it wouldnt be that hard to invade and occupy. The Iranian people would probably greet us as liberators! That same weird bloodthirsty hysteria that gripped the political elite in 2002-2003 might return, especially if Iran successfully sinks an American ship or blows up a plane or a helicopter during our totally righteous strike on their nuclear facilities or, god forbid, if theres a terrorist attack in the U.S. that can be credibly blamed on Hezbollah. Under the standard proposed for an invasion by Gen. Shinseki prior to the Iraq war, wed need a good 1.4 million troops to properly invade Iran. Of course, Romneys Pentagon and White House will be stocked with exactly the sort of people who ignored Gen. Shinseki prior to Iraq, so itd probably only be a couple hundred thousand. But basically mass, widespread death and terror would result, just like Iraq only much, much more so.
Remember: John Bolton isnt just being kept around for show. Romney actually listens to the guy. Romneys selection of moderate Robert Zoellick for his transition team led to so much howling from the hawks that his mouthpiece is basically promising Zoellick wont have an important role in a Romney administration. But we can expect a big job for Dan Senor, the man who instantly went from unqualified idiot political hack appointee to Respected Foreign Policy Expert the day Bush sent him to lie on behalf of the disastrously incompetent provisional government in post-invasion Iraq.
Lets also not forget that former longtime CIA spook Cofer Black who was vice chairman of Blackwater for three years is Romneys envoy to the dark side. Black was at the CIA while plans for extraordinary rendition were drawn up and the fact that he was at Blackwater at all should tell you what sort of principles the guy has.
The National Journal also says Michael Warrantless Surveillance Hayden could be the director of national intelligence or homeland security secretary in a Romney administration, so we have that to look forward to, too. (Also, Mitt will bring back torture. He will bring it back so hard.)
Also, from Jennifer Rubin: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats, is frequently mentioned for the secretary of state job. Ah yes, a wonderful option if you want some bipartisan credibility for your plan to wage endless global war forever.
Jonathan Bernstein sums it up:
If Romney wins the presidency and holds it for eight years, he very likely would replace not only moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy (born in 1936) with someone closer to Alito, but he also would probably have the chance to replace either Ginsburg (born in 1933) or Stephen Breyer (1938). On the other hand, if Obama wins, its possible that he could wind up replacing at least one conservative justice, perhaps Kennedy or Antonin Scalia (also 1936).
Scalia is obviously not going to purposefully allow a Democrat to replace him, but hes quite old, and he may not have a choice. (Not that Im wishing Antonin Scalia anything but the best!) Ginsburg is even older, and its extremely unlikely that shed remain in place through two terms of Mitt Romney.
Basically one more conservative vote means the effective end of Roe v. Wade and the Commerce Clause. Replacing Breyer and Ginsburg with conservatives would possibly mean the end of the entire New Deal regulatory state. Three Romney appointees would mean conservative control of the Court for decades.
And there is every reason to suspect that Romney will pick judges wholl vote like Scalia. That is the sort of person Republicans appoint now, while Democrats appoint squishy mainstream moderate liberals that they imagine everyone will be fine with. (And if Republicans control the Senate during a Romney presidency, haha, sorry, were going back to 1896.)
Thats just the Supreme Court. Reagans lower court judges profoundly changed American politics, and they continue to do so today. George W. Bush appointed more circuit and appeals court judges than Clinton, and so far Obama is on track to have appointed the fewest since Ford. These judges have a tremendous amount of power, and they will use it to strengthen the power of corporations at the expense of individuals, the environment, and communities every step of the way. (Plus, obviously, on criminal justice they will be universally pro-prosecutor and basically ensure that our horribly broken system keeps systematically locking up as many young black men as possible.)
Its not like President Obama will actually manage to avert catastrophic climate change in his second term, considering the many barriers to the sort of action required to actually help the problem, but it is safe to say that Romney will do less.
The EPAs new fuel efficiency standards probably wouldnt end up surviving. And the EPA certainly wont be regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act in a Romney administration. And no more investment in clean, renewable energy sources. And Keystones getting built (probably either way, actually). Basically instead of half-measures that wont come close to addressing the problem, we will get actively harmful policies, most likely.
The Federal Budget
If you hate the deficit, you will probably ignore those professed beliefs as you defend a president who spends ever more on defense and also slashes taxes, primarily on rich people. Just like the last Republican president! And their Messiah, Ronald Reagan.
If you hate government spending on social programs, youll find stuff to like: Unlike Bush, with his squishy compassionate conservative aisle-crossing education and healthcare initiatives, Romney will cheerfully eliminate Obamacare and destroy Medicaid by handing it to states that plan to spend as little money on it as possible.
And of course there will be this fiscal cliff issue. The can will be kicked, in the event of a Romney victory, to the next Congress, so that the Romney administration can implement its grand deficit reduction plan. Its plausible that a Romney victory would lead to Senate Democrats showing more spine on entitlements than they are willing to while a Democrat is in the White House, but its also possible that theyll be desperate to appear bipartisan. So: Social Security retirement age raised, most definitely, and lord only knows what happens to Medicare.
Eventually the new equivalent of the Ryan plan will pass. It will just be a matter of time.
It will continue to suck! Horribly! For everyone!
In conclusion: Well be at war and pretty soon there wont be any more Medicare or Social Security plus the rich will keep getting richer and abortion will be illegal in most of the country. Happy Halloween!
He looks exactly the way he sounds like he would look
“When a nation is ruled by youth, the people mourn.”
Does this guy live in his parent’s basement?
>> He looks exactly the way he sounds like he would look
I bet he stinks as badly as his article does, too.
U guys are cracking me up
Worst case: Obama bites Romney on the shin. Romney needs shots.
Everyone talks about BO like a dog.
You lost me right there, Bunky. It's hard to think of a more totally fatuous and inane comment since Charlie Pierce stopped writing for the Boston Globe.
No doubt has opinions of equal validity.
This jackass’ “worst case scenario” is exactly what I am hoping for.
You just know that this twit not only never wore a uniform, but doesn’t know that first thing about the military. And John Bolton would never be appointed Secretary of Defense, that’s not his line of work, which Alex has no clue about. Any 20 year old fry cook who doesn’t watch the news could write a more reasoned analysis of current events. Who gave this kid a spot writing about politics? Is he someone’s grandson or nephew? Is this Anderson Cooper syndrome?
Preach it, brother!
A Romney presidency WILL be the worst case scenario, for dim-0s.
What Romney will have is a clear case to demonstrate the difference in the way that dim-0s and Republicans handle an economy. 4 years of absolute incompetence, and then 4 years of Romneynomics.Its going to be GREAT!!
I fully expect Romney to set a new all time record for job creation.
He needs trice daily testosterone injections.
(can't even comment on that pasty faced nancy boy .. way too early for rofl)
Based on the way he looks, I’d say he’s a liberal because he couldn’t get laid, otherwise.
He slings words he doesn’t understand because he’d look even worse in that little paper hat those “Fry guys” at McDonalds wear.......
He might turn out to be more moderate, or at least pragmatic, than hes acted in the campaign so far.
Idiots.. We need a leader not a reader.
No liberals or moderates need apply........
Now do you see why the founding fathers didn’t want anyone under 35 becoming president?
In reality, Romney will probably govern too far to the left fo this guy?
This guy has not just drunk the koolade, he has marinated in it.
I stop reading at the word “continue” in the line I cited.
I’ve never trusted Keynesians therefore I have nothing to regain.
Why do commies always try to look like Trotsky?
Pray for America
Heck, if I was Mitt Romney, I’d eliminate 95% of the jobs at EPA, Agriculture, Labor, and HHS. . . .
What? Moderates and liberals actually want that? Sorry, the 47% do not even know what Keynesian economics is. They completely lack all knowledge of macro-economics and anything dealing with money. Er, well not completely, the 47% do understand one thing; checks that they sign on the back that have our signature on the front.
Sounds good to me.
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.