No, it will done on nothing, like last time:
Posted on 01/19/2013 8:53:03 AM PST by Kaslin
AMEN!
Your paranoia is misdirected. Firstly private searing ins are mot uncommon. More importantly, what is your point? Let’s say he believes in Islam or Maoism more than the Bible. That would mean he’s taking his oath seriously. And what is that oath? To execute his duties faithfully, blah, blah, blah, and to uphold the Constitution. But of all things he’s not gonna do that!
So why would he want to take the oath on something meaningful to him? If he does it on the Bible and the Bible is just another book, then the oath doesn’t mean as much, which is what he wants.
No, it will done on nothing, like last time:
Would Romney have called for an ''assault'' weapons ban and then use federal agencies to enforce his will while breaking the law? I doubt it.
He signed such a bill in MA. He would not need to use Executive Orders, as he would get all the Dems and enough Republicans to vote it through the normal way.
Would Romney have called for and gotten tax-hikes and $43 of new spending for every $1 in tax-cuts? I doubt it.
He raised various taxes and fees in MA, in addition to cutting spending. Would the ratio be $43 for $1? Maybe not, but he's not much of a small government guy, so on the whole he'd be a tax collector for the welfare state.
Would Romney have allowed Obamacare to stand? I doubt it.
For the most part yes, I think he would let it stand. He might tinker with it just enough for it to be renamed RomneyCare, but there's not much in it that is different from the Romney plan in MA.
The problem isn't that Romney is personally worse than Obama, but that he's a compromiser and this is exactly the wrong place and time to be compromising. With only the house in Republican hands, if Romney wanted to get things done, he would have to compromise with the Dems. It'd be easier for him to get enough R's on board a Dem-driven agenda than it is for Obama.
It'd be a lot easier for Romney to pass anti-gun bills or to make ObamaCare unrepealable, repeal DOMA, etc. And there is little reason to think he would not do so. Just as in MA, when he claimed he did liberal things because it was a liberal state, he would do liberal things in DC because it's really a liberal country (since the Dems hold a lock on the Senate).
Well, just take a look at WHERE those precincts are. If they're deep in Philly or Chicago, there's no question but that they're accurate. Not many folks in urban areas with large minority populations were interested in Romney, so seeing those percentages doesn't surprise me in the least.
As the article says, we need to concentrate on a good candidate next time, not just the 'next in line'.
Succinct and to the point.
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.