Skip to comments.Nine horrendous Obama decisions Mitt Romney would never have made
Posted on 04/30/2012 10:08:43 AM PDT by sthguard
As we move into the general election campaign, with Mitt Romney facing Barack Obama in the presidential race, its important not to lose perspective on the very real differences between the two. That starts with the recognition that Obama has made some astonishingly ill-conceived decisions as president, and that Romney would never have done these things.
During a partys nominating process for president of which I was a part on the Republican side in this cycle candidates do everything they can to differentiate themselves from each other. As the candidates focus on these differences and the media plays up the resulting conflicts, you could almost get the impression that some of us would have preferred Obama to some of our fellow Republicans.
Not only do I prefer Romney over Obama, its not even close. This is not to say that every proposed policy of Romneys is exactly what I would propose. But in stepping back and looking at the big picture, you have to recognize that the next presidents task will be to fix enormous problems. You would want the new president, above all else, to be someone who would never have been so foolish as to make the decisions that a) created the problems; or b) made them worse.
Here are nine examples:
Mitt Romney would never have thrown $862 billion down a rat hole, claiming it to be economic stimulus that would keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. Then, three years later when unemployment was still struggling to get back down below 8 percent, he would never be so brazen as to claim such a move had actually been successful.
Mitt Romney would never have signed ObamaCare into law. I know some think otherwise because the plan he implemented as governor of Massachusetts had some similar elements. But ObamaCare was sold to the public with blatantly dishonest numbers and hidden taxes, and rammed through Congress via a series of political giveaways that would embarrass the most shameless of con artists. Whatever your disagreements with the structure of MassCare, Romney would never have done any of that. And if an ObamaCare repeal reaches Romneys desk, he will sign it.
Mitt Romney would never have exploded the deficit to more than $1 trillion a year, then allowed his Treasury Secretary tell the chairman of the House Budget Committee, regarding plans to fix the problem, We dont have a definitive solution, but we know we dont like yours.
Mitt Romney would not be running around claiming that businesses need to pay more in taxes. He would not try to tell CEOs what to do with their cash reserves (although he could do so much more competently than Obama, since unlike the president he actually knows a lot about business), because he knows that is not the presidents job. He understands that businesses are the ones who create jobs, and the last thing we need when the economy is struggling to create jobs is to increase the tax burden on businesses.
Mitt Romney would not attack people for being successful. He would not encourage the middle class to resent successful people, but instead would encourage them to learn from those who have been successful, and to seek opportunities from them.
Mitt Romney would never have promised the Russians he would give them what they want on missile defense as soon as he didnt have to worry about those pesky voters anymore.
Mitt Romney would never have stonewalled efforts to make crucial energy supplies available to Americans, as Obama has done on everything from the Keystone XL pipeline to the opening of domestic oil supplies in offshore locations and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Mitt Romney would never have let Congress get away with not passing a budget at all for three years, while running up the nations credit card at unprecedented levels through a series of continuing resolutions that escape the light of public scrutiny.
Mitt Romney would never have blamed someone else for the continued impact of problems he was elected to fix as Obama does endlessly.
This list could go on, but these nine are the some of the biggest things and the big things matter most of all. Everyone involved with a primary campaign hopes their party will nominate the absolute perfect candidate, and when your guy doesnt make it (or for some of us like me, when you dont make it), you can fall into thinking that all is lost. There are actually people running around saying there is no difference between Romney and Obama.
People. Get a grip. The differences are huge. And it starts with understanding how many truly horrendous decisions Barack Obama has made since he took office, and recognizing that Mitt Romney is a man with solid experience and good judgment and that he would never have made any of them.
That alone offers a compelling argument for sending President Obama an invitation to the inauguration of Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013. I trust he will attend.
So? Obama's going to keep doing that whether he's President or whether he's out of office on his multi-million dollar worldwide speaking tour or starting his own new talk show as the male Oprah.
Most of Cain’s arguments claim Romney won’t do the very same things Bush did...stimulus spending, new entitlement programs, deficits. It’s nice and all not to raise taxes, but not when you’re the “cut taxes and spend” party, the same attitude that started driving us into debt after Newt’s balanced budgets were abandoned. Besides, Romney “closed tax loopholes” and “raised fees” in Massachusetts, so he raised taxes any way he could as long as he could find a way not to call it “raising taxes.” Sorry, Herman, it’s just not plausible that Romney wouldn’t do every one of those things. It’s what the Republican party wants and Romney showed in Massachusetts that he has no core values of his own to get in the way.
I think you’re wrong about that.
I don’t remember anyone here being for Romney in the primaries.
I was for Sarah Palin; then I switched to Rick Perry (who would have been the best of all - but he was viciously attacked on this site) - then I switched to Newt who couldn’t get a foothold.
Then I somewhat reluctantly was for Santorum.
I think my history is similar to that of most of us here.
I simply don’t intend to vote for Obama and that means voting for the Republican candidate.
A, it only takes a bit of looking and you will find on this site months back the cry:
“Romney is the only one who can beat BHO”,
“Romney may not be as conservative as we like but he can beat BHO”,
“the others don’t have a chance we must get behind Romney”.....and on and on....
Romney is a fraud.
He has not now or has he ever been a conservative.
His history both public and private is liberalism.
I will not vote for a liberal, regardless if they have an R by their name or not.
All candidates have their flaws, I understand that, I would vote for a flawed conservative over one who pretends to have no flaws and is a liberal.
I've got a lot of respect for your position, Jim. And I appreciate your thoughtful response; do you not think these people sincerely believe Romney would be better than Obama? I do. Cain's response wasn't a shuck and jive routine, it was a thoughtful response to the notion that we should continue to disdain the likely nominate, don't you think? I sincerely do, and it isn't because I hate conservatism or the Republic or because I am a party "hack"...and while I don't think Romney will be our Savior (there was only one of those!), it is because I remember the days of Nixon's wage-freezing and Carter's inflation and foreign policy failures and I see Obama doing a worse job than both of those guys times ten! :)
Reagan worked within the party structure to affect change, and I appreciate that notion and example.
I agree 100% with you that we should change things from the bottom up...but we also have a 2012 election coming in less than 200 days, and we'll probably have an electable choice between two men.
Staying out of the game hardly makes us players, doesn't it?
Just thought I'd respond, and thanks again for what you said...I know your words are expressed with passion.
Who said I’m staying out of the game? I outlined what we can do as TEA PARTY REBELS in my post. Vote straight conservative, retake our government, restore the balance of powers, impeach, recall, indict, convict the corrupt usurpers and traitors!!
We are not afraid of a political or constitutional fight!!
We do not surrender! We do not retreat! We reload!!
And also stated in no uncertain terms that I absolutely will not vote for an abortionist/homosexualist/liberal/progressive/statist. And there’s a period on the end of that statement. That position is non-negotiable and not open to debate. It is what it is.
Isn't Cain the idiot who proposed a national sales tax on top of the income tax?
Glad he took time out of his busy schedule of chasing after strange broads to tell us what a great guy the KOLOBIAN COWARD is.
I loathe Romney but I refuse sit this election out just as I refused to stay home in 2008. Too much is on the line.
We cannot survive 4 more years of Obama.
I am not thrilled about Romney in the WH. There will be no donations, no bumper stickers, no yard signs, no rallies. I shall only cast my ballot.
If I am ever asked for whom I am voting for and why I will tell them the truth. I will vote for the Republican nominee because he is not Obama. I could not live with myself if my actions (or inactions) contributed to a second term for O.
"Doing nothing" (i.e. those who stayed home in 2008 to teach a lesson) made that coronation possible.
We’re on the same page, then. I went to one McCain rally in 2008, which happened to be the one where he formally introduced Palin, but that was mainly because I already knew how damaging Obama would be.
Incremental progress toward conservatism isn’t pretty, but it’s necessary. Four years of WH and media venom have damaged the conservative brand too much to hope for a dramatic reversal, but we can make progress for 2016 and 2020.
What utter bullsh#t. I doubt 1% of existing Freepers voted for Romney.....and I sure haven't seen many new ones.
In fact, we did a wonderful job of splitting our votes between Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum and Nut Job while Romney kept getting the moderate vote.
We are the ones responsible for Romney getting the nomination.....you just can't deal with it.
Now, you keep insulting Freepers that absolutely cannot sit by and let the worst Present in the history of our nation get another four years to screw us, even if his opponent isn't conservative.
BTW, I'll bet a $200 contribution to Jim that Romney beats Obama handily in the election.
Really have you just joined FR or seen this current thread?
Well, other than the fact more than two decades of history teach us beyond a shadow of a doubt that it just doesn't work.
We've learned that if a politician tells you that he will do the right thing somewhere over the rainbow he's lying. Oz is fiction.
seen this current thread?
What, did I miss a bunch of new sign ups pushing Romney? I believe there is only one that signed up this year on this thread...and certainly not a Romney supporter.
Sweetie, it would take hours of looking. I’ve been on this site pretty faithfully and I never saw a comment like that.
I’m not saying there were not one or two comments along that line, but, really. One or two among thousands of comments condemning Romney.
You are really reaching to try and convince anyone that people here were pro-Romney during the primary.
OoooKay. Even reading this thread that’s what is coming across.
From what I remember, he wanted the 9% enacted soon after election, and then the 16th Amendment was going to be “worked on” or something to that effect. I never liked the guy because of his pizza-style tax plan. Success should never, never ever be taxed.
Did you see any far-right conservatives getting convincing percentages of the primary votes?
I don’t care. The whole Republican nominating process is a joke.
How refreshing to read some common sense here! And from a person of unquestioned conservative principles.