Why Voting For Mitt Romney Should Be a No-Brainer For Conservatives

Political Realities ^ | 08/15/12 | LD Jackson

[LD Jackson]

This is something I have mulled over a long time. I touched on it in a comment on Country Thinker's post yesterday, but I would like to elaborate just a bit.

I know Mitt Romney has many detractors. Many conservatives and libertarians question his conservative credentials, myself included. I questioned them in 2007 and I questioned them during the GOP primary. I still have reservations about how conservative he would be as President of the United States. I contend there are other things to consider, besides his fiscal conservatism.

There are many people who are going to refuse to vote for Mitt Romney, based on his record in Massachusetts. That is their privilege and I would not dare to denigrate their choice. There are also those who will refuse to vote for him on the basis of the theory that he would be worse for our country than Barack Obama. One of the co-authors on Political Realities holds that opinion, but I have seen many other commentators put the same sentiment in writing. This post is not an attack on their position, and certainly not an attack on Ted, but I want to explain why I disagree so strongly with that belief.

Since Barack Obama took office, it has been one disaster after another. He made a promise to bring the nation together while he was campaigning, but he has done just the opposite. Remember how he interjected himself into the issue of racism over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.? He couldn't help himself and said the police acted stupidly. Instead of allowing local authorities to handle the situation, he just had to get involved. Did this help our country or did it just stoke Obama's ego? Would Mitt Romney have responded in such a brash manner?

Remember the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? One of the things Barack Obama did in response to the BP oil spill was to declare a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. Safety concerns were slighted. When the moratorium was challenged in court, it was thrown out. Obama was ordered to lift the ban, yet he ignored the court order. The challenge was brought forth because the ban was hurting a lot of people. Jobs and incomes were lost. The court ruled Obama had insufficient cause to issue the moratorium and struck it down. The President didn't agree with the order, so he refused to comply. It was done in accordance with our judicial system, but the President simply wouldn't go along. Ask yourself how Mitt Romney would have reacted.

Moving on to health care, Barack Obama has issued new requirements that call for birth control to be available to all women as part of their health insurance. Disregarding that birth control is available for very little cost, the President did his part for the women of America. Using authority that was buried deep inside Obamacare, he is now forcing religious organizations that believe birth control is a sin to provide it as part of the health insurance they provide for their employees. In doing so, religious freedom was severely damaged. Is it not safe to say Mitt Romney would have not issued such a policy directive?

Let's look at the President's liberal use of executive orders to change existing law, or to create new law. Immigration anyone? Barack Obama has completely changed the way illegal immigration is handled on the federal level. Because of the policy changes he has affected by executive order, many illegal immigrants no longer have to worry about being deported.

The President did the same thing with welfare reform. Our current law on welfare reform was crafted and passed during the Clinton years and it has worked since then to lower the number of people on welfare. It was widely declared to be a success, due in large part because of the work requirement built into the law. That requirement was strict because Congress made it thus. They wrote the law in such a way that it prevented waivers from granted for the work requirement. Barack Obama must have disagreed with that part of the law, because he magically found a way he could change the law. He issued a new policy directive that allows states to apply for waivers to the very requirement that made the law such a success.

Both of these examples show one of the main reasons why I believe Barack Obama is so dangerous for America. In using the principles of conduct he has applied to both issues, he has shown a complete and total disregard for the American system of government. Instead of working with Congress to affect any changes he may want, he simply took it upon himself to make those changes. In other words, he bypassed Congress and did what he wanted to do, and never mind the Constitution.

Ask yourself a simple question. Would Mitt Romney have done the same thing, or would he have worked within our system of government to change the laws he wanted to change?

As you can see, there are many things to consider, other than Mitt Romney and his lack of fiscal conservatism. I believe there is a large gap between how Romney would conduct himself as President, when compared to how Barack Obama has used his office. That difference is more than enough to convince me to vote for Mitt Romney.

I am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a second term for Barack Obama would be a complete and total disaster for America. Much worse than his first four years. He has shown himself to be willing to bypass the Constitution and do things his own way. That being the case, how will he conduct himself in his second term, knowing he has no worries about reelection?

For all the reasons I have stated, and then some, the theory that somehow Mitt Romney would be worse than Barack Obama simply does not work for me.

[John W]

The premise you are sick of many of us firmly believe.

[windsorknot]

Romney is 10 times more dangerous than Obama.

You lost me right there.

[John W]

Dufflepuds. I like that.

[arrdon]

All too true, but you have to remember how many rotten, panty-peeing, brat Repubs. are out there still furious that they didn’t get their way. Probably the most spoiled, self-indulged conglomerate of people on the planet other than that ‘other’ group.

[Leep]

I am sure they won’t compromise with anyone that would emasculate them. Or, redefine conservatism while giving it lip service.
Or, take a strong position and then at the moment of truth breakdown and cry and just give in to the enememy?
Otherwise, we’re all rinos, now!

[Ditter]

We have 2 choices in November, I will choose Romney. I already know what the other choice will bring.

[bkepley]

>Romney will spell the beginning of a liberal republican party

Oh right. Let the people elect and then re-elect a Marxist and the lesson will be to the Republican party that it needs to become more conservative at the national level.

[bkepley]

A true Freeper never develops blind faith in any man. We still need to keep our eyes open. The President is going to be a Progressive if Romeny gets elected. Blind faith belongs to an idiot.

It takes some special kinda blind faith to believe re-electing the Marxists will help create a more conservative Republican party or America.

[Tau Food]

There are many people who are going to refuse to vote for Mitt Romney, based on his record in Massachusetts. That is their privilege and I would not dare to denigrate their choice. There are also those who will refuse to vote for him on the basis of the theory that he would be worse for our country than Barack Obama. One of the co-authors on Political Realities holds that opinion, but I have seen many other commentators put the same sentiment in writing. This post is not an attack on their position, and certainly not an attack on Ted, but I want to explain why I disagree so strongly with that belief.

Thank you for those comments. If all of Romney's fans will take to heart this important admonition, the next several weeks will be much more pleasant around here. Romney has been a very divisive character, but he will be gone soon and we need to begin planning for a post-Romney forum based upon a renewed respect for one another. This forum will be stronger than ever.

[Lakeshark]

If this wasn't such a serious moment, it would be funny......

:-)

[swpa_mom]

In 2008, after the McCain/Palin ticket lost, due in large part to conservatives convincing other conservatives to NOT vote for that ticket, the refrain was......wait unti 2012, we’ll see a “real conservative” receive the nomination. A bunch of conservatives ran for president and all during the primary process, the same people who convinced conservatives to not vote for McCain/Palin were trashing all of the conservatives, of course, one at a time.

Now, the same group is saying “wait until 2016 when a real conservative runs”.

In 2016, we’ll hear, ‘wait until 2020”....and on and on it will go.

Meanwhile, the liberals have circled the wagons, we’re still in the circular firing squad.

[John W]

Hate to break this to you, but, Romney/Ryan is going to win in what will essentially be a landslide.

[Bikkuri]

[gusty]

My reading of the ABR’s are that they are not concerned about the horrors you have related. Many of them are probably on fixed incomes, govt checks. They do not have the responsibilities of running businesses, making payrolls, etc. It frees them to become holier than thou. But for us who have real world responsibilities, we know what is required this November.

[TexasCajun]

America needs a CONSERVATIVE POTUS to remove the evil installed by Mr. Romney and Obama.

What's the plan? I'm all ears.

I know Jim, you and others believe in your hearts that Romney is pure evil. ...more so than Obama even which I find unbelievable.

So what is the plan to nominate and elect a Christian T.E.A. Party Constitutionalist to the presidency in 2016 if Obama should win in Nov.?

[jaydee770]

America needs a CONSERVATIVE POTUS...

Agreed! Now for the difficult part (for you, at least): Name a sufficiently-conservative (to you) candidate that stands a snowball's chance of winning in 2012. If you can't do that, try naming a candidate that conservatives *would* all align behind and push to the top for 2016 (or later, if it takes that long). Surely, you have a candidate in mind...

[bkepley]

So what is the plan to nominate and elect a Christian T.E.A. Party Constitutionalist to the presidency in 2016 if Obama should win in Nov.?

They don't have a plan except a plan to be perpetually outraged. They'll back a clown of the week who can't even win over the conservative leaning Republican party and has zero chance of winning a general election. They'll split their primary votes between various losers because let's face it, no one can please them.

[GlockThe Vote]

Bingo - meeting payroll the last 4 years has become a nightmare, my AR is harder then ever to collect, the economic environment is a disaster.

I drive around and see so many vacancies and commercial space open and empty, and ask myself - why would anyone on earth want to continue down this path?

And all of the people who claim they can’t vote for Mittens in November - they should come clean about their voting record from 1988 on so we can see how consistent they have been and whether Mittens is being held to a different standard than others.

I have voted for the GOP nominee for office since 1994 which was my first election and never looked at is a test of my conscience.

Sometimes you make the best of two bad options, thats life.

[GlockThe Vote]

Had Myth picked Sarah to be the VP you and I both know what the reaction would have been by many of these people.

[deport]

One could expect Romney will seek to build political clout with the dems by appointing leftist judges. Which is exactly what he did in Massachusetts.

---

What are the rules/procedures for selecting and appointing state judges in MA? How much freedom does the Gov. have to select at random anyone he wants as a judge? Or is the Gov. mandated to select from a list provided by some committee/panel?

Do you know the procedures in MA? If you do please share with us. Thanks.