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.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

so many on this site cant see it and view Mitt as more of the threat.

Can you link to a single post that says Mitt is more of a threat?

[samtheman]

7 reasons why we must vote Obama out of office:

1. In his 2nd term, the gloves will come off and Obama will truly become Obamugavez

2. In his 2nd term, given the opportunity, Obama will appoint Eric Holder to the Supreme Court

3. In his 2nd term, Obama will accelerate the process of marginalizing both the Supreme Court and Congress and concentrating all political power in America in the executive agencies, such as the EPA, which will increasingly subject Americans to Rule by Fiat, rather than Rule of Law.

4. In his 2nd term Obama will accelerate his tear-down of the American defense establishment and effectively remove America from the world stage (a promise he’s already basically made to the Russians)

5. In his 2nd term, Obama will sign a deal with the Arabs to sell Israel down the river

6. In his 2nd term, Obama will take the gloves off on Global Warming and basically shut down what’s left of the US economy in order to make the very worst of the EnviroNazis happy.

7. In his 2nd term, Obama will step up his active, covert support for street gangs, flash mobs and New Black Panther voter intimidation, with the goal of staging and inciting civil unrest and marginalizing any kind of spontaneous dissent.

8. In his 2nd term, Obama will accelerate the process of ceding US sovereignty to the UN on all matters, particularly those involving the environment, gun control and “victims rights” (aka anti-home-schooling).

[Ditter]

You can take a look at post #20 on this thread for starters.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Hmm ... OK, so some argue that for tactical reasons Mitt is more of a threat than 0bama. I may not agree with that, but it's not - as mouse1 claimed - "insane." (If anyone claimed Mitt was further left than 0bama, that would be insane.)

[Kevmo]

Isn’t that called being a “bot”?
***True enough. I wouldn’t ask for someone to walk in lockstep. However, when someone votes for a guy as librul as Romnuts, who appears to me to be more liberal than Bill Clinton, they are no longer conservative. You drop your conservative principles too easily. Even then, that’s your vote and I have mine. What a good ‘conservative’ would do is post why they’re voting and leave it at that. They should not criticise conservatives who refuse to drop their conservative principles, especially on a conservative forum which is not republican. And then a good ‘conservative’ would focus on turning 0bots to mittbots rather than stirring up discord with conservatives on a conservative site. What I see from the ABO crowd is such a distinct lack of conservative actions that they no longer deserve to be treated as conservatives.

[Kevmo]

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.
***Fascinating. You’ve heard of National Instruments, haven’t you? They recently concluded that with so much evidence of anomalous heat generation...
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
• There is an unknown physical event and there
is a need of better measurements and control
tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
innovation and discovery.

Now, I don’t know much about you but it’s easy to guess that the guys who wrote that know more about science, test & measurement, and physical events than YOU do. They know more than I do. And these anamolous heat generation events have been examined by guys with Nobel Prizes. So, where is the lack of critical analysis?

You’re the one with vacuous arguments here.

[Ditter]

OK not “insane” enough for you? Look around you.

[Kevmo]

the question I have for everyone who’s anti Romney.......who did you work for during the primary election we held this year?
***I supported Sarah until she didn’t run. Lost a bunch of money on that one. Then I supported Santorum.

No matter who it is, do you feel bad that you didn’t work hard enough to nominate him or her?
***No.

Does your mythical candidate have perfect positions on every single issue?
***Nope. Right now I’m going to vote for Tom Hoefling, who is the freeper Eternal Vigilance. What I like about Tom is that he answers pings. Sarah never did that.

You can’t go back and find a vote on an amendment that can be turned into some kind of anti conservative vote?
***Actually, on a couple of things Tom is more conservative than I am.

Will your candidate be able to withstand the criticism of other conservatives who don’t agree that your candidate is the perfect conservative?
***Probably not. For me, there only a few rock-solid conservative planks. Guys like Romney and Giuliani throw out most of them.

___________________________________________________________________

I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1821435/posts?page=18455
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Folks such as Rudy or Romney flunk some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy or romney from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot and romneybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter or Palin, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy or romney. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.

___________________________________________________________________

[Kevmo]

Even at the end when Newt could have made a real difference, Santorum refused to step aside.
***You got that backwards. When Santorum was winning primaries and Mitt wasn’t, Newt refused to step aside. He was the spoiler.

[Kevmo]

You conveniently didn’t answer my question:

What is your plan should Romney win in November — unseat a sitting republican president?

[kevao]

No mention at all about foreign policy. Obama has established the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Libya and soon Syria. Does anyone really believe Romney would have done this?

And how about that Obama conversation with Medvedev? Who’s willing to find out the myriad way Obama will sell us out to our enemies during a second term? Would Romney diss our allies and align himself with our enemies they way Obama has?

[swpa_mom]

Im surprised you supported santorum. I did as well. He was regularly criticized by the core group of posters here for his previous support of specter.

Once he exited the race it was time to back the winning primary candidate. That is what I am doing

[Kevmo]

Once he exited the race it was time to back the winning primary candidate.
***Other than the fact that the winner is a lying, baby-killing statist I agree with you.

[swpa_mom]

This will be an interesting site on election night. Should obama win, why do I think some will be happy.......and if romney wins that same group would be livid.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Hmm ... OK, so some argue that for tactical reasons Mitt is more of a threat than 0bama. I may not agree with that, but it's not - as mouse1 claimed - "insane." (If anyone claimed Mitt was further left than 0bama, that would be insane.)

OK not “insane” enough for you? Look around you.

Look where exactly - and for what?

[Kevmo]

Regardless of who wins on election night, conservatism loses.

[Tennessee Nana]

[LD Jackson]

I would humbly suggest that it will not matter if the GOP is firmly positioned against Obama or not. He has shown himself to be more than willing to make laws by executive order and policy directive. He has no regard for Congress or what they want. Exactly how is giving him another four years supposed to be a good thing?

[Berlin_Freeper]

Either way, it is not a good thing because as soon as Liberal Romney is nominated - 2012 is lost. Then it is a matter of 4 or 8 years to make a comeback.

If Liberal Romney loses, then Conservative Ryan could be effectively running for president in only about two years.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Kevmo says only, "Romnuts [...] appears to me to be more liberal than Bill Clinton" (Clinton seems to be generally agreed to be significantly less liberal than 0bama) - and OldEarlGray hasn't posted on this thread at all, and in his brief posting history has never said Mitt is more liberal than 0bama (who he has called "the Marxist").

If anyone is "insane" around here, it's not them.