Posted on 12/15/2011 1:44:32 PM PST by libertarian neocon
This is really not a place I thought I'd be at. Up until very recently I didn't even think there was a Republican that could be nominated that would keep me home on election day or vote for a 3rd party. I think I have found that candidate and it is Mitt Romney. There are two main reasons for this, the first being that I really have no idea what he actually stands for. I don't think anybody does. And I think that chances are high that he doesn't really stand for much that is different than Obama's current policies. Let's take a quick look at his record:
Even in this primary season, in which his rhetoric is the most conservative you will probably see Mitt act in his lifetime (if he gets the nomination, expect him to move to the left for the general election), it's unclear how different he is. Take foreign policy. His biggest issue with Obama is that he is withdrawing the "surge troops" in September 2012 instead of December 2012. Really, a 3 month difference? Is that why I am supposed to vote for you? What about arguing that we keep the troops there until we win? Have we forgot about having actual victory as a goal? It seems Mitt has. Then, on Israel, his biggest issue with Obama's policies seem to be that he criticized Israel in public instead of in private. Big friggin deal. As a strong Israel supporter I am not for any US President who will turn the screws on the Jewish state whether it be out in the open or behind closed doors. I want someone who actually supports Israel, one of our closest allies, and will work together against common foes. Then of course there was the exchange with Newt in which Romney defended capital gains tax cut being limited to those making under $200,000 in language similar to Obama's. "I'm not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine."
So tell me again why I should be voting for Mitt? Have you noticed that most Mitt proponents seem to focus on the idea that he is the "most electable" as the reason to vote for him with almost no mention of his record? The most they can scrounge up are some quotes with promises from the Romney campaign. Yes, promises from a guy who changes his mind like you change your underwear. I think the real reason that much of the establishment Republicans support Romney is because of the same old Washington game. It really doesn't matter to them what the ideology of the candidate is, as long as he wins and you are friends with his close advisors. And since Romney has been the front runner for so long, each one of those establishment reporters have spent months, even years schmoozing with the campaign and have dreams of close access with a sitting President and possibly even an undersecretaryship. How else do you explain their visceral reaction to Gingrich, the first realistic challenger to Romney. Newt has issues, sure, but has it deserved the relentless negative attacks? Sure, he isn't a perfect conservative but very few are. Even Rick Santorum has favored pork projects, steel tariffs and medicare part D. You don't see the press attacking him for it. Or even Ron Paul who is polling as #2 in most Iowa polls. That's because the Romney supporters in the press don't feel either of them are a threat to them achieving the access/position they have been waiting for.
And this brings up the second big reason why I won't be voting for Mitt Romney if he wins the nomination. His treatment of his Republican opposition. This man acts just like Obama, someone who will do anything to be President. It is one thing to compete with a candidate for votes through a fair description of differences in record etc., but it's another thing to be out to destroy another candidate, especially another Republican. And that is exactly what Romney and his minions are trying to do with Newt, they are trying to destroy him. Even people who aren't in Newt's camp, like Mark Levin are seeing this happen before our eyes. Really, the temerity of Romney saying that Newt is an unreliable conservative after having a record as horrible as he had in Massachusetts? Referring to him as "zany"? Having surrogates character assassinate in the press on an almost daily basis? It's not like Newt did anything to deserve any of this. He didn't climb to the top of the polls through negative ads on Romney, he climbed to the top by appearing as an elder statesman in a weak candidate field and having the ability to actually explain why he believes what he believes. He also has a proven record of balancing budgets and passing entitlement reform under a Democratic President! Is that so wrong? And this isn't the first time Romney did this, as he also launched negative attacks on both Huckabee and McCain (though he didn't have the press in his pocket back then because Giuliani and Thompson were thought to have a greater chance at the nomination early on).
Things have become so bad that you face character assassination just for opposing Romney. Rudy Giuliani had a rant against Romney today focusing on his flip flops. Jennifer Rubin attacked him for this by tweeting "Romney will never win over the adulterers no matter how hard he tries". Really? That is all Rudy Giuliani is now? An adulterer? How about the NYC mayor who showed real leadership while his city was under attack by Al-Qaeda, with thousands dead, including many members of the local police and fire departments? He's a hero and doesn't deserve to be called an adulterer for voicing an opinion about a candidate.
And unfortunately, even Paul Ryan, who has become engulfed by the establishment, has come in on the act with a completely dishonest attack on Newt. Just yesterday (as in 1 day ago) he said "This is not the 1990s. The 'Mediscare' is not working and we should not back down from this fight. I, for one, believe the country is ready, they're hungry for it. They are ready to hear real solutions. We shouldn't wait around for the status quo to become popular. Leaders don't follow the polls, leaders change the polls." And what did he do today? He announced the Ryan-Wyden plan which waters down his reforms tremendously and possibly eliminates any actual benefit from medicare reform. The Washington Post has this choice line "Ryan and Wyden acknowledged that their plan might not bring in more savings than under the current law." Is this how leader's lead? Also, apparently Ryan and Wyden won't even write the proposed legislation any time in the near future, likely waiting until 2013 (I guess they have time as there will be no benefit coming until 2022).
And there you have it. Neither Romney's record nor his rhetoric are something that I would actually want to vote for. He is, in many ways, little different from the guy who Romney supporters claim Romney would be best at getting rid of. I am also very much turned off by his character, which is supposedly exemplary but is, in actuality, that of a calculating political operative only interested in himself. As I've mentioned before, he is the Dorian Grey of the GOP and I stick by that. I am also sick of the establishment thinking they can ram a candidate down our throats, without even a single vote being cast! Unlike normal people, they care more about which party is in office, than the ideology of the guy actually in office. They are the ones behind the Democrat-lite candidates that we had in almost every election since 1936. No wonder government has continued to expand at such a fantastic rate. If the Democrats win, they expand government. If the Republicans win, they also expand government. I'm tired of that cycle and I'm tired of having to vote between the lesser of two evils.
I also think those of us who believe in small government need to take a stand against MItt Romney in order to save the Tea Party movement. I think that if after all the effort to fight Obamacare and to win back the House ends up with us getting someone like Mitt Romney, many Tea Party supporters will just throw up their hands in disgust and walk away from caring any more. Focusing more on their jobs and family rather than politics. This will ensure both that the GOP will lose a large portion of their base for future elections (giving more victories to the Democrats) as well as giving GOP control squarely in the hands of the establishment so they can continue to nominate losers like McCain, Romney, Dole and George H.W. Bush.
So, I can see myself supporting every other GOP candidate if they are the nominee. Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, Paul and even Huntsman will get my vote (he might be a wayward conservative but at least he is honest about it. Plus, his record as Governor of Utah is much better than Romney's and his tax reform plan is actually ambitious). But not Romney. Not ever.
That ash heap will include this republic if the Kenyan get re-elected but you can be proud you sent a message.
And do youreally believe that any senate, however constituted in real terms would not find a way to affirm a Supreme Court nominee eventually? Do you want the Kenyan replacing Justice Kennedy? Really? Thatswhy the White House is important. Thought everyone knew that.
Seems to me, Supreme Court nominations need to be approved - by which branch of Congress?
We either lead or we follow, and from what I am presently witnessing from conservatives at the moment, the majority seem to be dancing to the Democrat's drum. They must be absolutely giddy they are setting the agenda for conservatives.
The presidency is critical because the SC is critical. We are living on a 5/4 split between freedom and fascism and we are one case of pneumonia away from another Kenyan nominee, that’s why the presidency is all important. We’ve probably got big gains in the congress coming.
My final point; I do not want the individual my fellow citizens forced on me out of office as much as I want him brought to justice. Also, Congress can, god willing, modify the terms of the Supreme Court - albeit with no little difficulty. Summation; concentrate on the Senate races!
No senate that is politically possible this time will deny the Kenyan forever. That's the issue, no circles involved. If you think this country will elect a stonewall senate in 2012, please put down the bong.
Everybody is worried about Obama gettig another four years to complete the destruction of the U.S. as if electing any of the present slate of Republicans would make a difference. Some of them might take us down the primrose path a bit more slowly than Obama but it’s still the same path and the same destination. As a matter of fact it’s the same path we’ve been treading since... oh, since 1784.
I remember talking to a woman who voted for JFK. I asked her why she chose him: “Because of the way he combs his hair.” So all this talk about records and principles can be equated with a good barber. Kinda makes you wonder why John Edwards isn’t the Prez, doesn’t it?
It ain’t supposed to be a horse race. We’re not supposed to vote for the guy we’re told has the best chance to win. We’re supposed to vote for the candidate we think is best qualified to run the country. None of those attending the debates fit that description and we all know it. Still we let the media tell us which one is “most electable” or which one can beat Obama or carry the Southern states.
If we all voted for the person (not “candidate”) we thought was best fitted for the job we’d probably elect someone that hasn’t made a headline in months. We’d probably apply the heel of our hand to our own forehead and say something like ‘of course, why didn’t I think of him/her.’
Unless someone really good shows up soon I know who I’ll vote for and it won’t be Mittens. Besides, he’s no better than Obama... or Newt or Perry or Bachman or...
“Your screen name marks you as a troll, but your post is mostly right on with regard to Romney.”
I wasnt trying to start any fights, just trying to say what I think.
Ok, please go ahead and ignore the Senate and go back to wasting time debating which DNC candidate, Gingrich or Romney, will be your presidential candidate (no sir, that is not a misprint). I'm afraid’ my advice is lost on our internet empowered intellectuals.
Good luck in what you do.
Still no response to the SC issue? When you’ve been trumped, you can stop bluffing, to mix my card games.
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.