But after Romney was nominated, I voted for him. A stay-home was equivalent to a vote for Obama.
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.
Would Romney have called for and gotten tax-hikes and $43 of new spending for every $1 in tax-cuts? I doubt it.
Would Romney have allowed Obamacare to stand? I doubt it.
I could go on and on. Yes, Romney sucked. But he was nowhere near as bad as Obama. Nowhere.
Here you are still hacking for Romney, countering criticism of him, protecting and defending the choice, as others want to make sure that such an insanity is not again visited on us.
Four years away from the next presidential election, and instead of working to hammer home the disaster of nominating such a freakish and bizarre candidate you are working to defend the choice, to keep the possibility of a repeat, alive.
And you really don’t want to learn the facts about Assault Weapons bans and Mitt Romney.
Remember the mantra: "The OTHER conservatives we vote for will hold Mitt's feet to the fire and make him go the right direction.
Well; where ARE they??
All I see now is a Conservative group that is rubbing the Emperors feet by the hearth, soothing them with appeasement.
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).