Posted on 02/02/2012 9:22:28 AM PST by libertarian neocon
If Romney is the nominee and the FReeper establishment helps reelect Obama, will there be FR threads about how we "stuck it to the RINOs"? Probably.
Why would a Conservative move up the food chain when a Romney victory would prove that liberals get elected.
I am not real excited about Romney appointments to the court, but it would clearly be better than Obama. Secondly, a Republican Senate will have the impact of pushing Romney's picks a little to the right. As we saw with the GOP Senate rejection of Harriet Miers, we can influence his picks much better than Obama's far left picks. I'll take a Sandra Day O'Conner moderate over a Ginsberg/Kagan leftist.
I understand the question is about what is best for the “Conservative cause,” but I would ask instead, “What is best for America?” The thought of a second term for Obama scares the daylights out of me. To suggest that there’s not much difference between Obama and Romney seems remarkable to me. Really? I personally am in the Santorum camp at this time, but I would take Romney over Obama for several reasons: Supreme Court appoints, a Republican Congress and Senate will pull him to a more conservative side, and I do think Romney has become more conservative over time. It’s not just flip-flopping, it’s growth, as has happened to all of us!
Now, regarding a win for Obama is a win for conservatism, I think is making a big assumption. It suggests that America will finally wake up and see the light of conservative principles. I don’t think that will happen in such a short period of time because American education and media inundate us with the evils of conservatism. If people did vote in a Tea Party candidate in 2016 it will likely be a result of simply wanting change, not because they’ve converted to a conservative view of life. Most American’s simply are not conversant enough with political philosophy to see the ramifications of their vote. Seeking political office has become a PR scheme and with the media calling the shots a third-party conservative is many years away from the Presidency (as much as I’d like that option). The longer we fail to support whoever is running against liberalism the harder it will be to turn back the behemoth of socialistic, statist, trends in America. Having said that, I can hear the objection that Republicans are simply becoming more and more liberal and it requires a radical rebellion to put an end to it once and for all. That point is valid and many will embrace that. I just don’t think it will happen in my lifetime.
Think of it this way: a Romney nomination surrenders to the GOP-E all the gains of the Tea Party. The Tea Party did not take to the streets to nominate an elitist, Rockefeller Republican. Romney is not nor ever has been an ally of the Tea Party Movement or Reaganism.
Exactly/ You know that the “socially acceptable” Romney would promote “socially acceptable” justices (think Souter and Kennedy).
Does the name David Souter ring a bell? Harriet Miers would be there today if conservatives had not stood up. A Romney president is no guarantee at all of a conservative SCOTUS appointment. Odds are it would be a squish who would go full-blown lib after a year on the bench.
IMO, a regional non-union party with strong ant FedGov underpinnings and a return to the old republic vis a vis the US Constitution would be the way to go....
Palin was right, we really need to concentrate on house and senate. The GOP is not ‘large’ enough to control/manipulate every election.
I’m not going to argue anything for Romney, nor even consider that as a calculation at this point. However, I will address these disaster points if he is re-elected.
1. People do not ‘learn how bad liberals are’. Liberals create greater and greater dependency classes that is almost impossible to move out of their ‘comfort zone’ where they are taken care of by big brother. It is easier to win someone over by giving someone something than it is telling them to be independent.
2. Winners control the message.
3. Turn-out. If more people get out to vote for Obama, that most likely will also mean there will be a greater turn out for “D” voters in general, potentially harming or eliminating the House lead and eliminating any chance of taking the Senate.
4. Supreme court judges (and other lifetime judge positions) At least 4 SCOTUS judges are over-due to retire. Whoever is the next President will basically set control of the judicial system for the next decade or more.
5. Mandate. Obama and his people will see a re-election as a stamp of approval on what they have done the past four years.
6. Ego. Imagine Obama with the knowledge he was re-elected and frame what he will look like in history books.
7. Power. Imagine Obama knowing he has just four more years to fundamentally change the Country with no other opportunity after that. He also will have no more elections to face to account for his actions over the next four years. (Thinking about this one, this is actually the most frightening.)
I’m sure there are a lot of other reasons, but be it through a Republican candidate or a new party, Obama must not be re-elected.
No matter who is elected, if the course of our country doesn’t change soon, we will see a catastrophe.
The 2008 financial crisis has shown that the American people are not interested in “why” a catastrophe happens or “who” caused it, they’re only interested in removing whoever was in charge when it happened.
My big fear is that Romney gets elected and does very little to correct our course. Then when catastrophe hits all of us will be blamed. Republicans will be decimated.
If we’re not going to change course, I’d rather see them blamed for the inevitable than us.
True. However, an 0bama president IS a guarantee of a liberal SCOTUS appointment.
“CA would’ve been better off had RINO Arnold Schwarzenegger lost the governorship to Cruz Bustamonte.
He didn’t do a damn thing to change the state’s destructive glide path. What he did do was quiet the popular outcry against the state careening leftward, because now we had a republican in charge.”
Yes! Yes! A thousand times Yes! Arnold made the GOP appear as bad as the dems and as a result, the GOP is nearly dead in CA. Why vote for 3/4 of a socialist when you can get the real deal?
Look, Romney just came out and said that he supports automatic increases in the minimum wage and that he has always supported it.
Romney might win the nomination, but he won’t win the election because he is not giving the independents any reason to support him. There is NO difference between Romney and Obama.
I would NOT vote for a republican just because that person calls him or her-self one. Conservative priciples and policies carry more weight. Bye bye Mitt.
Doesn’t mean anyone else has that vote yet either.
No difference except for the crowd that they bring with them???? Are you kidding, Romney’s advisors ARE NOW Obama’s advisors!
Listen to Levin’s thoughts on the matter from yesterday. The same radical guy (forget his name) that helped design the Massachusett’s plan helped design Obamacare.
I think FUBO in his 2nd term would push harder for socialism that Mittens in his 1st term.
I know, I think that there are three of them from the Romney administration in Mass that are now part of the Obamacare plan. I think that Sunstein is the guy that you’re thinking about.
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.