Posted on 04/10/2012 9:55:58 AM PDT by xzins
The basic reason Romney should be opposed by conservatives is that Romney is not a conservative. More specifically, Romney is the author of the $50 abortion, the originator of the gay marriage license, and the founder of big government-forced health care.
Those 3 are a mix of social and fiscal issues. The conclusion is that Romney is neither a fiscal conservative nor a social conservative. His tenure as governor of Massachusetts proves that point.
Now, as Romney is touted as the “etch-a-sketch” candidate who will shortly begin his tack to the left, principled conservatives will do well to begin listing their reasons for not ever supporting Mitt Romney for anything other than Citizen Mitt.
1. Abortion: Romney is the author of the $50 abortion.
2. Gay Marriage: Romney signed legislation requiring the issuing of gay marriage licenses. Romney has tried to “moderate” his position by becoming pro-gay union....big deal. He once told gay operatives that he was the gay lobby's best hope for getting their agenda into the republican party. (Look at that, too, in terms of abortion and judicial selections.)
3. RomneyCare: Sadly, Mitt thinks it's just fine to have state governments force you to buy health insurance. I suppose he finds the power to do that in the US Constitution. Oh...I remember...the place where the Constitution says “states can force the people to buy things they don't want to buy and enter into contracts they don't want to enter into.”
4. Give notice to the GOP-Establishment: It probably is very wise to shove down their throat what they are trying to shove down ours. They are not the masters of the conservative universe. Allowing them to think they are will simply encourage more of the same in the future. I'm sure the romney-bots and the romney-enablers will want their say about Romney opponents handing the election to Obama, but the manipulation by the GOP-E is what will lead to that.
5. Romney's “Scorched Earth” Campaign: Romney has divided conservatives and seriously weakened voter turnout. His strategy, liberal that he is, was to run ads via his SuperPac pigeonholing the conservative purity of his opponents. That kind of outrageous hypocrisy deserves punishment and not reward.
6. Conservative Resignation to supporting Romney appears to be surrender of conservative principle. The results of that could be far-reaching. It could mean that the republican movement is totally abandoned to the liberal establishment.
7. Judicial Appointments: "Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romney’s appointments were constitutional “living document” poster children.
“Many of Romney’s appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different?” Barber asked rhetorically."
8. Other reasons "Conservatives Should Continue to Oppose Romney after the Nomination" are welcome. Please post them below.
By a lot of posters, I agree. But JimRob stuck with him to the end. I remember JR saying that he was a “Bush-bot” to clarify his support for GW. (Not to say he supported Bush’s mistakes.)
Bush was wrong on amnesty, wrong on Dubai ports, and wrong on Gonzalez/Harriet M for Scotus.
I wish he had just performed both Iraq and Afghan as relentless retaliation missions, removing governments/military capability/mass weapons, but he didn’t. That would have taken anyplace from 6 months to a year to accomplish in each case.
There was nothing unethical in his deciding to build nations, but it clearly had little chance of success. We see that now.
The devil or the deep blue sea.
Those will not be our only choices.
There will be at least one candidate who is a rational conservative. He will be the other choice. He will be either a pro-life libertarian or he will be the Constitution Party candidate.
I’d far rather have an isolationist conservative than a baby-killing socialist. The first is merely a policy error while the second is grossly immoral.
Great point, it can't be said enough!
Looking back it's clear Perry was the best conservative candidate of the bunch, but he stumbled badly early on. I don't know if it was from the pain killers for his back, or if he's just a bad debater. Either way it doesn't matter. He had the best conservative record.
Once Perry was out I figured I would support Gingrich or Santorum. They are both gone. Now the Pubs have a candidate with a very liberal record from when he actually held office. I could vote for McCain because he at least had been in the military and had a good history on social issues. Romney has none of it.
My efforts here on out are to help conservatives get elected in the House, Senate and State govt. If the SCOTUS stops obamacare I think everything else can be fixed.
I think Romney as the nominee will lead to a significantly diminished voting turnout from a frustrated conservative base.
I believe Obama will win re-election.
The question then becomes, “how can we make the most out of this loss?”
... and I think the answer is “show the RNC that we would rather LOSE and election and try again in 4 years than elect a RINO with no conservative credentials.”
I’m a conservative first and republican second. I won’t forget that.
“There will be at least one candidate who is a rational conservative. He will be the other choice. He will be either a pro-life libertarian or he will be the Constitution Party candidate.
I’d far rather have an isolationist conservative than a baby-killing socialist. The first is merely a policy error while the second is grossly immoral.”
Standing idly-by while Iran gives nuclear weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah for the purpose of wiping out innocent people IS GROSSLY IMMORAL AS WELL.
I said “at least one...rational conservative” in either of those parties. If a candidate isn’t a rational conservative, then don’t vote for him.
Any rational conservative will not desert Israel.
Yes! We should let Romney know right after he is inaugurated that he could be opposed in the GOP primaries for 2016 if he steers left. Sometimes, often in fact, we have to elect the wrong person to do the right thing.
Obama, without any need to get re-elected, is far more dangerous than Romney, who will need our help!
Thanks. One would hope. :-) Some people ya gotta yell at.
You dance with the Devil (moderate RINO’s) then don't whine when you are eventually burned.
I could have bought that crap as a younger man but I've been around the block a few times and I'm no longer settling for the prettiest girl in the bar at 2 am.
Where do you get the idea there will ever be a “next time”, for anybody to learn from.
If Obama has another term he will destroy America, and Republicans, Hot, Cold, or Mild won’t ever have a voice.
In another term he’ll have a compliant majority on the Supreme Court, and nobody to stop him from ignoring Congress or the people.
Now, if you’ve got some clever plan to win a 2nd civil war, maybe you’ve got a point.
I disagree. If conservatives keep focusing on the Congress, governorships and state legislatures (which the Dems lost in droves in 2010) then O can’t do anything even if he does get reelected.
This is the real power. Marxist can play dictator all they want but if conservatives control Congress (not wimps like Boehner and McConnell) they won’t get the funds to do so. True oversight can get rid of more of the unionized civil servant bureaucracy than Mitt Romney would on his own.
Obama can’t do anything, that’s why he’s whining and projecting and playing the same old Dem playbook going back to 1932.
But you put in another RINO like Romney, he’ll just water down Dem ideas and say “I can make a better ponzi scheme” like GW did. Or his daddy. For god’s sake man, GHW Bush got beat by the Dems in Congress over cable bills.
Push the so-called independents far enough (most today aren’t of the age to really know bad times no matter how it looks today) out of their jobs and even they’ll wake up and pay attention.
Why keep settling for Charlie Brown thinking he will finally kick Lucy’s football. America is already destroyed as we know it, so let’s fight now and stop, as usual, looking four years down the road.
And Romney ain’t the one to lead the charge. As to the 2nd civil war, no need. Just more real conservatives in states and with governors that will stand up to the feds and say “NO”! This fight cannot be won in Washington.
Which Supreme Court justice do you expect to die or retire while Obama is president: Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, or Alito?
Have they said so?
You deserve 4 more years of Obama...
Ginsberg and Stevens, both liberals, though old and/or ill, persevered through the Bush years so that their seats would not be nominated by Bush but perhaps by a Democrat. They waited long enough. (Sadly, Stevens was a republican nomination by a soul-mate of Romney’s, Gerald (rockefeller) Ford.)
What makes you think one of our conscientious justices would do anything less than what those 2 did? What makes you think they wouldn’t wait to retire until a conservative was appointed?
In fact, since Romney’s record is as an appointer of LIBERAL justices, what makes you think that isn’t part of the GOP-e’s game plan — pressure the older scotus justices to retire so romney can appoint a liberal court?
That would be just like an elitest.
And what about the above post or my previous one was rude to you?
We have to keep Hussein and Pelosi out of power. Unfortunately, that sticks us with Boner and Mittens.
Thank you for that. I thought I was just one of the few who held that belief.....
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.