Posted on 04/30/2012 10:08:43 AM PDT by sthguard
As we move into the general election campaign, with Mitt Romney facing Barack Obama in the presidential race, it’s important not to lose perspective on the very real differences between the two. That starts with the recognition that Obama has made some astonishingly ill-conceived decisions as president, and that Romney would never have done these things.
During a party’s nominating process for president – of which I was a part on the Republican side in this cycle – candidates do everything they can to differentiate themselves from each other. As the candidates focus on these differences and the media plays up the resulting conflicts, you could almost get the impression that some of us would have preferred Obama to some of our fellow Republicans.
Please!
Not only do I prefer Romney over Obama, it’s not even close. This is not to say that every proposed policy of Romney’s is exactly what I would propose. But in stepping back and looking at the big picture, you have to recognize that the next president’s task will be to fix enormous problems. You would want the new president, above all else, to be someone who would never have been so foolish as to make the decisions that a) created the problems; or b) made them worse.
Here are nine examples:
Mitt Romney would never have thrown $862 billion down a rat hole, claiming it to be “economic stimulus” that would keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. Then, three years later when unemployment was still struggling to get back down below 8 percent, he would never be so brazen as to claim such a move had actually been successful.
Mitt Romney would never have signed ObamaCare into law. I know some think otherwise because the plan he implemented as governor of Massachusetts had some similar elements. But ObamaCare was sold to the public with blatantly dishonest numbers and hidden taxes, and rammed through Congress via a series of political giveaways that would embarrass the most shameless of con artists. Whatever your disagreements with the structure of MassCare, Romney would never have done any of that. And if an ObamaCare repeal reaches Romney’s desk, he will sign it.
Mitt Romney would never have exploded the deficit to more than $1 trillion a year, then allowed his Treasury Secretary tell the chairman of the House Budget Committee, regarding plans to fix the problem, “We don’t have a definitive solution, but we know we don’t like yours.”
Mitt Romney would not be running around claiming that businesses need to pay more in taxes. He would not try to tell CEOs what to do with their cash reserves (although he could do so much more competently than Obama, since unlike the president he actually knows a lot about business), because he knows that is not the president’s job. He understands that businesses are the ones who create jobs, and the last thing we need when the economy is struggling to create jobs is to increase the tax burden on businesses.
Mitt Romney would not attack people for being successful. He would not encourage the middle class to resent successful people, but instead would encourage them to learn from those who have been successful, and to seek opportunities from them.
Mitt Romney would never have promised the Russians he would give them what they want on missile defense as soon as he didn’t have to worry about those pesky voters anymore.
Mitt Romney would never have stonewalled efforts to make crucial energy supplies available to Americans, as Obama has done on everything from the Keystone XL pipeline to the opening of domestic oil supplies in offshore locations and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Mitt Romney would never have let Congress get away with not passing a budget at all for three years, while running up the nation’s credit card at unprecedented levels through a series of continuing resolutions that escape the light of public scrutiny.
Mitt Romney would never have blamed someone else for the continued impact of problems he was elected to fix – as Obama does endlessly.
This list could go on, but these nine are the some of the biggest things – and the big things matter most of all. Everyone involved with a primary campaign hopes their party will nominate the absolute perfect candidate, and when your guy doesn’t make it (or for some of us like me, when you don’t make it), you can fall into thinking that all is lost. There are actually people running around saying there is no difference between Romney and Obama.
People. Get a grip. The differences are huge. And it starts with understanding how many truly horrendous decisions Barack Obama has made since he took office, and recognizing that Mitt Romney is a man with solid experience and good judgment – and that he would never have made any of them.
That alone offers a compelling argument for sending President Obama an invitation – to the inauguration of Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013. I trust he will attend.
Why did I ever donate money to Cain? I’ve removed myself from his mailing list. It’s the least I could do.
Please keep your angry, name-calling six year old off the computer when logged into FR...
Somehow, I expected that there would be discussion and not ad hominem attacks under the guise of disagreement.
Cain is not my definition of rebellion as he picks through nine shades of lipstick to put on this piglit, Rommell.
Would rather he focus on Rommell’s record of damage to capitalism, his affinity for Marxist individual mandates, his own assault on Catholic hopitals and institutions in MA by boxing them in with the forced cooperation with abortion mandates stuck in his Romneycare production, his sign off on queers usurping the sacred contract of marriage.
Rommell has created the template for the now national demise of religious liberty, and capitalism, and we’re going to vote for him, because we are skeered of the alternative? Not a chance.
We know a fleece when we see one.
Personally, I can’t imagine cooperating with evil as even a remote pathway to Heaven, not to mention expecting earthly Peace & Safety to really appear because we’re scared and will vote for Rommell. What kind of vote is that?
Where is that scripture when I need it. The one about the trade off?
What will be left when the sure outcome will be sure apostasy to justify our cowardice in voting for the template of the evil we fear?
BTW, I am expounding not to you, my friend, just expounding the truth as I read it, and as I read it, somewhere. :)
/johnny
Are you planning to vote in the Presidential contest? If yes, for whom?
I can’t support Paul. He’s a blame America first truther.
He’s also a nut along the lines of Alex Jones.
Paul needs to return to the Libertarian party where he belongs and stop trying to split the Republican ticket.
I thought most Pautards were zotted from FR weeks ago.
” ... Romney would never have done these things.
I love the smell of Romney flop-sweat.
There was zero name calling. Read it again. To describe the actions of a coward who enables the template for evil policies, such as Rommell, is not actually calling said person a fool or a coward.
Just a brief tutorial. Name calling is quite exact. The description of actions and thinking and the absence of profanity in describing actions and thinking is not
“adhomenim attacks, or “name calling”.
As I have said before, there is not much hide the hiney around here on FR, and if the shoe fits........
Peace and security voting turns my stomach, personally.
I read that somewhere, and what it leads to. It will lead eventually to apostasy. It has to, in order to justify cowardice voting against one’s conscience, signifying the failure to stand up and vote a Christian conscience and the lack of trust in God for the rest.
You be better off to hang in Proverbs with some actual conviction, and not so much fear.
REBELLION IS TOO DAMN HARD, AND IT’S SCARY.
Definitely agree w this rundown. The worst that Romney is, is a liberal while Obama is a hardcore socialist and saboteur of jobs and industry.
For the first time since the primary campaigns started, I heart Herman Cain.
That was a great statement.
You go, Herman.
That is a sad reality of FR 2012.
Yes. A conservative. And straight conservative down ticket.
Is God mad at me? I’ve been praying never to see the term ‘GOP-e again.
It’s stupid.
Does your candidate have a name? Or have you not yet decided?
GOP-e is shorter to type than “the GOP Establishment” or “the Perfumed Princes of the GOP Establishment.” But maybe you’re right. The internet does strange things to one’s mind, IMHO.
Well, thanks. I really didn’t know what it meant. I just thought it was a catch phrase here on FR for people who don’t want four more years of Obama.
I suspect that it’s too early to say. But I hope that a few people are working behind the scenes to come up with a name we can unite behind when the time is ripe.
Getting all the different kinds of conservatives together behind one candidate is kind of like herding cats, but if the GOP is determined to commit suicide, as seems likely, then I’m still hoping it can be done.
“FR has moved from a Conservative site to a “let’s help re-elect Obama” site by having trolls and idiots attacking his opponent every chance they get.
That is a sad reality of FR 2012.”
This seems to be the only arrow in the quiver of Romney’s outraged supporters, since we have seen it repeated ad infinitum here, so let’s address it and hopefully put it to bed.
He really did believe what he was saying, what his close advisers were saying and what his supporters here have been counting upon: that conservatives would get in line once the primary dust settled. That’s how mistaken you all are.
Without the use of pejoratives, so we won’t have to endure the embarrassment of listening to the whining that I’m being mean ....
Another way this has been put is, “Why—if you don’t vote for Mitt, you’re voting for Obama!”
Same-same.
No. This is an informal logical fallacy—a popular one because it allows the person using it to frame the argument. For example, Obama liked to say, “If you don’t sign on with my plan (usually involving the spending and transfer of billions of dollars from one group of Americans to another) then you are supporting doing nothing. Doing nothing is not a choice.”
To the contrary, “doing nothing” `earned’ Obama a Nobel peace prize within two weeks of his coronation.
So saying not supporting Romney is supporting Obama is simply mistaken. It’s called a `false choice’ or `false dilemma.
On the other hand, if I wanted to put a stick in the spokes of those (I’m supposing they are from the GOP) who like to play rough—until they get dinged—then whine about the importance of playing fair .... voting for Obama would mean going in and pushing the space next to his name. Supporting Obama would be doing all the things that we did to try and get a conservative candidate on the slate, thwarted at every turn by Romney and the GOP.
You folks have made your bed. Don’t expect us to get in with you.
Finally, let me notch my own arrow: ad baculum, or `arguing to the stick’. FR’s owner doesn’t like liberals, of whatever stripe—skunks, polecats or muskrats.
Put that in your pipes and smoke it.
Romney has already let the cat out of the bag through an accidental surrogate, Pam Bondi, that he intends to establish a national health care task force to provide “good” health care to all US citizens (er, residents) via implementing his brand of compulsory health insurance plans in all 50 states at the state level. He and she agree that this is constitutional and the “conservative” way to go. No way will Romney give up on RomneyCare. It’s here to stay and coming to a state near you.
We have several threads including video interviews and transcripts of Bondi spilling the beans and boasting about her being invited to serve on Romney’s National Health Care Task Force here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/bondi/index?tab=articles
I’m betting that Pam Bondi will be appointed by Romney as his Health Care Czar.
Listen to Ronald Reagan’s warning about introducing socialism into America via compulsory health insurance (RomneyCare):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
They say that he is a capitalist, but the truth is Romney is a socialist at heart. The only capitalism he believes in is crony capitalism. Proof? He favors TARP, bailouts, stimulus spending, never ending increases in the national debt limit, compulsory heath insurance, etc. This is big government using corrupt crony capitalism to bypass free market capitalism to pick the winners and losers by government fiat and using government force and the fruits of our labor to do so.
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.