Posted on 02/02/2012 9:22:28 AM PST by libertarian neocon
Well, look, either you'll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in. If it's between Obama and Romney, there isn't all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them. --George Soros
Since what I am writing is probably blasphemy to a lot of Republicans, let me just begin by saying that I have considered myself a Republican since I was 6 years old (when I first saw a Reagan press conference) and would never ever vote for a radical anti-American socialist like Obama. The purpose of this post is just to think about the future, past the 2012 election to what might happen in 2014 and beyond. It just seems that so many people are focused on "how do we win" instead of focusing on "what do we win?". With Mitt Romney, the answer is clearly "not much" and I would suggest that longer term, conservatives will be the losers with a Romney presidency.
Romney is what they used to call an 80%-er. A Republican who essentially agrees with the Democrats, but will only do about 80% of what they will do. Think about it, how exactly would a President Romney be that different than a President Obama for another 4 years (especially if Obama doesn't have a filibuster proof majority)? In both cases, Obamacare will still be intact as it has been clear that Romney will not repeal it. His 59 point plan uses the same kinds of class warfare oriented targeted tax cuts as Obama, and that is even before having to give up anything in negotiations with the Democrats. His big argument with Obama on Afghanistan is that Obama wants to remove surge troops in September 2012 instead of December, as Romney would prefer, a whopping 3 month difference. No talk of victory, just fine tuning the timing of withdrawal. His big argument with Obama on Israel is that he doesn't think he should have criticized him publicly. Big whoop. Most conservatives want to elect someone who actually agrees with Israel, not someone who will turn the screws on them. If Israel is being pressured to give in to terrorists, how does it matter exactly if it is public or private? Worst of all, because Romney won Florida and all his yes men seem to have told him that he has the nomination in the bag, he has already started veering left for the general. Just yesterday, he said he supported increasing the minimum wage despite the fact that most conservative economists believe this will be a "job killer" (which is what the Club for Growth said would happen if his plan were enacted). Essentially, he is a guy who only believes in the free market if he and his friends can make money, but not for the rest of us. No, we have to be taken care of by the government. He just doesn't see anything wrong with saying "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
Now just think about what having a Republican like that will do to the conservative cause in 2014 and beyond. Time and again, when Republicans start acting like 80%-ers (or RINO's, Democrat-Lites, etc.) the base stays home and the Republicans get decimated at the ballot box. After all, what is the point of voting for Republicans if they act like Democrats? Just look at history. In 1952, after betraying the true conservative Robert Taft, the GOP nominated Eisenhower, who was by definition a RINO (he only decided on being a Republican instead of a Democrat not long before the election). This helped them in that election where they took control of both the House and the Senate but that didn't last long at all. Thanks to Eisenhower's Democrat-lite policies, the GOP lost control of both houses in the 1954 election. In fact, in the 1958 election the Democrats ended up with a whopping 64 seats in the Senate (vs. 34 for the GOP) and 283 in the House (vs. a paltry 153 for the GOP). The Nixon/Ford years were even worse as we never got even close to having a majority in either House of Congress. The high water mark seems to have been only 44 Senate seats after the 1970 elections and 192 House seats after the 1972 elections (which is pretty amazing given that Nixon carried 49 states that year!). That is not so surprising given that Nixon was soft on the Soviets, surrendered to the North Vietnamese and even implemented socialist wage and price controls! After the 1976 election, the GOP was down to only 38 seats in the Senate and an embarrassing 143 in the House (the equivalent of only having 33 Senate seats)! That was a pretty big hole, but thanks to Reagan and then later Newt Gingrich, the GOP was finally able to take control of both Houses of Congress for multiple elections, only losing control in 2006 after Bush started tacking to the center (though the ongoing Iraq war didn't help).
In 2014, after two years of Romney, Obamacare will have been implemented, costing much more than advertised and being a major drag on the economy, and none of his 59 point fine tuning will have done anything to help us solve either our short or long term problems. He will prove a squish who will use moderate GOP and Democratic support to pass big government programs in order to "alleviate the suffering of the middle class". I would expect no major changes on taxes or regulations and nothing that you can hang your hat on foreign policy wise. Midterm elections are usually bad for Presidents and I would expect 2014 to be unusually so as most of the Tea Party simply stays home, if they haven't started a third party by then. Plus, as he would have reneged on his promise to repeal Obamacare, he will probably be blamed for many of its failings (the fact that he implemented the model for it in Massachusetts won't help matters either). As primary challenges pretty much never work, we'd be stuck with Romney again for 2016 in which case we probably get a full fledged liberal democrat at the helm, potentially with a filibuster proof majority. Any benefit we will have gained in terms of judicial appointments from 2012-2016 will immediately be reversed. In other words, under Romney, we'd probably be almost guaranteed to have malaise until 2020 or even beyond as our long term problems will continue to get worse.
If Obama wins in 2012, as long as the GOP still has enough members of Congress to block most of his legislation, the situation won't be that different in the short term. Obamacare will be implemented, dragging on the economy and Obama will continue to mismanage everything under the sun. But by 2014, he will have to answer for that 2,000 page monstrosity he jammed down our throats without any Republican support, hopefully opening the way for another watershed year like 1994 or 2010. By 2014, the negative impact of Obamacare will no longer be theoretical, but real, felt by almost every American. By 2016, hopefully the Tea Party will have been able to get more influence within the GOP so that people like Romney and McCain aren't even considered for the nomination and we end up having a real conservative as President.
Now I do realize that this was an argument some were making in 2008, that it might be better for Obama to win as one term of someone like Carter will get us someone like Reagan. The difference in this case though is that Obama will not likely have a filibuster proof majority, so the dangers of him passing another Obamacare (as Cap and Trade would be) are minimal, if not almost nonexistent. Also, the Tea Party is still relatively new and wasn't able to get very close to the levers of power in the year since taking over the House. Given additional time, it is possible that the Tea Party will have the power within the GOP that they deserve.
Anyway, hopefully this argument turns out to be purely academic and Newt is able to be our Reagan, win the nomination and help save America. As I wrote before, this is very possible.
“With Obama in, Republicans in Congress would be more united in opposing him.
With Romney in, Republicans in Congress would be divided in opposing any pro-socialism initiatives from him. Romney+RINOs+Democrats beats conservatives.”
That is exactly right. I 100% agree.
Romney would also destroy the Republican Party. I am still undecided on whether that is bad or good.
“Whomever the candidate is, fully support him and get rid of the democrat party enemy.”
The point of the post was that, yes in the short term things will be at least marginally better but I would argue that in 2016 and beyond things will definitely be worse for America as there will be larger Democratic majorities and a fractured GOP.
“Is 4 more years of the same with republicans to blame worse than 4 more years of the same with democrats to blame?”
Longer term it is better if people blame Democrats. They are complete socialists.
I could easily see them getting "postponed". Or, so flooded by Acorn-type voting as to be useless.
Here is the record, 100% of his many appointments were liberal, only 25% of them were even Republicans.
Are you sure that this link should be part of your arsenal?
From your link:
“Early last month I wrote an article called Rising Christian Imperialism Fueled by Dominion Theology. The article is mainly about the danger of Far Right Christian dominionists gaining control after the Obama failure brings about a Far Right backlash in America.”
Romney winning as Governor in Mass. was not unusual at all, he was the fourth Republican Governor in a row, the state usually elects Rep Govs.
Romney’s effect on the state was to devastate the state GOP, leave with 34% approval, and the Democrats have owned his seat ever since.
Yes, we did. But remember, he was the candidate selected via the primaries/caucuses. I wasn't happy about it either, but he's who we had. Going third party wouldn't have changed the outcome.
And as a result, did we move up in the “food chain” so to speak?
When I made this comment, I was talking about getting people elected locally (i.e. state senate) then would later move into national offices (i.e. Congress or President). McCain had nothing to do with local offices, so of course, he would have nothing to do with moving local people up the "food chain". I can't speak for your state, but we got several pretty conservative people into our state senate last election.
Yeah, I know that a write in vote for Palin, a third party vote for whoever, or not voting at all is the same as voting for Obama, but so what?
I really don't see how getting Obama re-elected will help us make the conservative case. As more and more people get free stuff from the government, there will be more and more of them voting liberal. We each have to do what our conscience tells us, but I could not in good conscience do anything that might give us another 4 years of Obama.
Jim DeMint is one of the people who helped steer the Romney run in the first place, they joined back when Mitt was still in office in 2006, DeMint was on his exploratory committee, and then Co-Chair of his Presidential campaign.
no I was just pointing out the Mormon cult agenda Sorry btw there are some interesting comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVmwS9msL_c
On this site? It sure does matter. You might want to re-read its purpose.
Former Mormon tells why he would never vote for Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney would put cult before State.
Why I, as a former Mormon, would not vote for Mitt Romney for President of United States. – CWN: “In terms of the secular effects upon government, the public should also be aware that Mormomism’s blood-oaths bind Mitt Romney to obey the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City above the Constitution, above US law, and, yes, above the Christian and Jewish understanding of God. We’ve heard Romney argue that this is all the same bum wrap they laid on Jack Kennedy in the sixties. But it’s not. It’s not the same at all. Here’s why.
A US president with no definite religious beliefs, or a membership in some mainstream Christian denomination, may not have influence that could effect the eternity of individuals, but a man with deep-rooted cultic beliefs would persuade millions of the credibility of Mormonism, especially when taking into consideration that the LDS Church has a nearly sixty thousand strong missionary force. They could and would use President Romney as ”bait” for an introduction into Mormonism, not only in the United States, but around the world. “
...just when I go thinking someone's a conservative....this happens :(
Per that comment, you assume much about Romney that is not supported by his public record.
Using your analogy, I would say that Romney as president, would only slow down the runaway train to 500 mph at BEST. That is what his record indicates he would do as president - all campaign rhetoric aside.
Given the dire state of the country, that's entirely unacceptable. We need a president who will apply the brakes with both feet, and slam that sucker into reverse, if we're to stave off certain destruction. Romney is NOT that guy.
The point is, if Romney becomes the nominee, then America's between a rock and a hard place. We're going to go off 'the cliff' no matter who wins the general election. The only question remaining is, do we want Romney to take the entire Republican center-right down with him, or would we prefer that Obama and the Democrats receive the rightful blame for what they've wrought?
If this is our choice, I'd rather see our side take over Congress, and tie Obama's hands for four years. A second flush in November will likely bring us a congressional majority in both houses, and the OPPOSITION to the tyranny residing in the White House will INCREASE exponentially.
Who knows what that increased opposition will lead to, but it'll never happen if Romney the liberal is president.
That same issue exists if Obama is re-elected.
As to moving up the "food chain". . .typically tomorrow's Congress critters and Presidents come from politicians that had been elected to local offices first. If we get good, conservatives elected to local positions, it stands to reason the "pool" of people available to move up the food chain will be more conservative.
Easy answer. No, it wouldn’t. But even if it was, it would still be better for the nation.
I'll bet that's dead on accurate. Romney's as phony as the day is long, and so are his claims to being a conservative and a Republican.
One could make a good argument for allowing Obama another term to fully implement his socialist agenda as an “object lesson”.
As bad as things now are, apparently two thirds of America senses no alarm. Maybe they need 25% jobless, societal collapse, exploding street crime and long lines for bread just to START paying attention to politics.
Freepers know the issues, we know the Founding Fathers insights, we know Saul Alinsky tactics... we cannot be easily led by liberal/socialist pied pipers. However, the average citizen is busy watching American Idol and Daily Show.
I hate to say it: the average citizen hasn’t YET seen the logic of limited government and conservatism , so probably needs things to COMPLETELY break down. Freepers should stop investing in gold and switch to lead.
Unfortunately, for Romney to win the votes of Christians what will first happen, is that conservative writers, radio hosts, columnists, social conservative leaders, all of our talking heads, thinkers, and millions of rank and file conservatives and Christians will be drawn into the largest collection of, the most diverse collection of, the most creative collection of Mormon apologists, in history.
Mormonism will be daily rationalized, ways to smooth over Christian concerns will be thought of and delivered on the air waves, just as Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved already do. Limbaugh and others will fall into a daily routine of countering and defeating Christian protests against Mormonism. New creative thoughts and reasoning will come from National Review, and Fox
The right will be sucked into becoming the foot soldiers of mainstreaming and rationalizing Mormonism.
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.