Alright, this is a fair question, BUT misses my point completely. My answer to your question is Romney will NOT reduce the size of gov't. But, that's not what matters at THIS POINT! Although, I believe Romney most certainly will try to repeal Obamacare.
Let's agree on one thing: We will either have Obama another 4 years or Romney. Those are the ONLY two realistic choices for POTUS.
And my point is Romney is not an anti-capitalist, American Idea hater. Among my choice for POTUS I have to do what I can legally to remove a person who is trying to destroy the greatest way of life and political system on the face of this earth and in the history of the world. Voting for Romney, even though it pains me so is the ONLY alternative.
The POTUS is, let's be honest, irrelevant in a system where the Congress would constrain his actions. Further, the POTUS will not be held to account by the current Government, such is already proven beyond reasonable doubt. Question: Would a Republican congress hold Romney in check when it is proven not to do so for Obama? If so, why?
My argument: It would be better to get honest, just, people of integrity into the Congress and cede the presidency as a lost cause. (It is, even if we put G. Washington in office he would be blocked from doing right by this statist government; we need to cut out the idea that position-of-authority = right-and-just; ie that those in a position of authority should be always deferred to because of that position of authority. Ref the USSC in their recent decisions.)
And my point is Romney is not an anti-capitalist, American Idea hater.
He is a statist, and will do nothing of significance to reduce the size and scope of the government. Therefore, he is not a friend of freedom and liberty, but by his actions would show if not a hatred for America then at least indifference.
Among my choice for POTUS I have to do what I can legally to remove a person who is trying to destroy the greatest way of life and political system on the face of this earth and in the history of the world. Voting for Romney, even though it pains me so is the ONLY alternative.
And I refuse to give in on this point. Just because he'll keep things the same is no justification to vote for him: things are, in my mind, utterly intolerable. To [vote to] keep them that way is folly and would only prompt my conscience to condemn me; therefore I will not, and cannot, vote for Romney.
But I do wonder: what would it take for people to get fighting mad? Bloody angry. Worked up enough to right the evils to which we have become accustomed.