Conservatives to Mitt: Quit Now If You Won't Fight Obamatax!

Breitbart ^ | 7/2/12 | Joel B. Pollak

[Nachum]

The Obama campaign has seized on remarks made by Romney adviser Eric "Etch-A-Sketch" Fehrnstrom this morning on MSNBC, to the effect that the individual mandate in Obamacare (and Romneycare) is not a tax. Fehrnstrom allowed Chuck Todd to push him off message--and re-ignited the fears that conservatives have long had about Romney's will and ability to fight. In response, conservatives--who had just coalesced around opposition to what many now call "Obamatax": Mitt, start fighting, or give up and let someone else do it.

Fehrnstrom's point--in defense of Romneycare--was that the Supreme Court was wrong to uphold Obamacare under the taxing power. The individual mandate was never intended to be a tax, Congress never called it a tax, and it wasn't a tax in Massachusetts, either. Fine--but now that Obama's lawyers went to court and called it a tax, and Chief Justice John Roberts called it a tax (and spare us the non-distinction between "tax" and the "taxing power") Obamacare is, undeniably, a massive tax on the middle class. Obama lied. It's that simple.

The GOP primary is over, and this is not a mistake that Fehrnstrom can merely shake away. It's going to be used--and already is being used--by the Obama campaign to save itself from the tax argument, and to label Romney as a liar (when that label belongs squarely on Obama, who campaigned against Hillary Clinton's individual mandate in 2008). Perhaps this is why Rupert Murdoch has been calling openly for Romney to "drop...old friends from [his] team and hire...some real pros," as he did on Twitter yesterday.

[Norm Lenhart]

Larry, I’d love to believe that. But all I have to go by is his arm-length record to taking firm stands that change 180deg.

Abortion? Gay Marriage? 2nd A issues?

If that man told me water was wet I’d expect God to release a dehydrated version. And I’d likely be right to do so.

[Norm Lenhart]

I’ve seen the ABO mentality equated to battered wife syndrome. I agree.

Once upon a time MR told people gay marriage/abortion/socialized whatever and a raft of other things were wrong. Then MR told people gay marriage/abortion/socialized whatever and a raft of other things were right.
MR told people gay marriage/abortion/socialized whatever and a raft of other things were nuanced.

And after each telling, some easily convinced person said “He’s a good man. He just does things like that sometimes. He’ll change if I can just make him see how much he’s hurting me. Because he loves me.”

[Finny]

It's one thing to say you won't vote for Romney. It's another to pretend there is any other choice than Obama, Mitt, or a symbolic vote for a third-party candidate that will have absolutely no bearing on who wins.

You're absolutely correct that a third party vote will have no say on which of the two major party candidates wins -- a third party vote is entirely neutral, favoring neither Coke nor Pepsi.

However, enough third party votes to force a plurality win would be very far from symbolic. It would have solid effect on the power dynamics of the victor, just as it did in 1992 when third party votes forced a 43% plurality for Bill Clinton, who was opposed by a full 57% of American voters, and consequently got his butt kicked in the midterms with the Republican Revolution. If he had won with a majority (or if HW had been re-elected), that Republican Revolution would probably never have happened.

No, the "pretending" is being done by those who think they're voting "against" Obama instead of voting for Romney.

Six months, one year, into a Romney presidency, as Romney quietly, firmly, blithely snubbed conservative Republicans and with the help of moderate Republicans, the GOP-E, and Democrats steadily, forcefully advanced all of the major liberal agendas as he did while Governor of Massachusetts, and while the conservatives we all voted for so diligently down-ticket became impotent to fight Romney's agenda, all the ABOers would be sputtering ....

....."B-b-b-b-b-b-but ... we didn't vote for this! We were voting against Obama, not for Romney and all his progressivism!"

No, you were only pretending to. No matter how you rationalize it or what your actual intentions are, a vote for Romney is a vote for advancing liberalism and big government statism on the back of the Republican party and weakening conservatives. That is what your vote "against" Obama is FOR.

The hard cold reality is that no one can really vote "against" Obama or Romney, and that one of the two is going to be the next president. But you CAN vote to make whichever guy wins as weak as possible in office, not "symbolically," but tangibly.

If one in three voters -- Democrat, Republican, Independendent, Libertarian, whatever -- is disgusted enough with the Obama vs Obamalite charade and votes third party, it will be ON RECORD that in the popular vote, two in three voters REJECTED the sitting President, and that fact -- not symbol, dirtboy, but FACT -- will make him vulnerable to his enemies within and without, weak, defensive, humiliated, and a mockery in the public eye.

He would be put on the defensive. Considering that it would be happening to a president who is anti-conservative and pro big-government in any case, that would be a GOOD THING.

A Romney landslide, on the otherhand, which fear-motivated ABO risks, would be something every ABOer would come to regret with extreme anguish.

Panic and hysteria have always made people do stupid things. I hope American voters realize that in time to avoid a Romney landslide.

[dirtboy]

If one in three voters -- Democrat, Republican, Independendent, Libertarian, whatever -- is disgusted enough with the Obama vs Obamalite charade and votes third party, it will be ON RECORD that in the popular vote, two in three voters REJECTED the sitting President, and that fact -- not symbol, dirtboy, but FACT -- will make him vulnerable to his enemies within and without, weak, defensive, humiliated, and a mockery in the public eye.

I don't see that happening, either, quite frankly. Dissent with both major candidates might be able to reach ten percent, but we are not seeing anything close to that in the polling. Plus, only winning with a plurality didn't slow Clinton down his first two years.

[Eye of Unk]

I refuse to post while the grammar/spelling nazis are on patrol.
My posting lately is being done mobile on a smartphone and my grammar, punctuation and spelling shows its weak spots. My actual puter time is limited, the rest of the time is using my too big fingers on a Galaxy II phone.

That said how much I deplore a grammar Nazi I also believe in the half full glass, the Lord may have another job for Romney than to be POTUS.

Then who do we all rush to then?
I already know.

[Nachum]

Let he who without type cast the first flame.

[Rona Badger]

Let me know your thoughts after watching the film, if you care to. I would like to talk about the IRS and ways for more concentrated rallies around that particular issue (i.e., stop taxing personal income and start a flat/fair tax on purchases equally or something of the sort) as a five year plan. I realize this is what the Tea Party is about. Because everything now is locked up tight by the Fed and the IRS. Whatever on the President, they are one in the same for the most part. I want to concentrate on Congress, perhaps our last ditch effort. Isn’t this what we sent the 2010 representatives to do? I’m trying to do my part, but right now I am so swamped and overwhelmed trying to make ends meet, I can’t afford health insurance or even food some weeks, not to mention I’m in a funk after last week’s sickening ruling.

[Finny]

Clinton was new and on an upswing in popularity (though he never DID win with a majority ... both times, the majority voted against him). Obama is old hat, those who once liked him are disillusioned by the score (check out reader comments on MSM news sites and listen to your Democrat acquaintances) and loathed even now; there is very little chance he could win a majority.

Providence, God, has blessed us with a unique opportunity -- for once, voting third party creates virtually no risk of seeing an Obama majority win, so to waste this opportunity and vote FOR putting a fully confirmed big government statist in charge of the Republican party -- and risking a landslide!!! -- would be ... well, in retrospect people would say, "How could they have been so STOOOOPID? Didn't they see the opportunity they had?"

There is much more danger in a Romney landslide than seeing Obama re-elected under such humiliating circumstances as having two in three votes cast against him in the popular vote. A Republican, conservative-emboldened Congress (and conservatives would have a MAJOR victory if Romney lost), with the support of an American majority so disgusted with Obama that two thirds voted against him, would be able to stop Obama -- he is a mere mortal, not Obama the Great and Powerful Oz.

On the other hand, as de facto head of the Republican party and supported by moderates and Republicans seeking favor with the new president, as well as Democrats on board with the liberal agenda Romney WOULD push, Romney would ensure weakened minority status for conservatives. Romney, paradoxically, would make it so conservatives would be disarmed in opposing the advance of liberalism.

You can let polls tell you how to vote if you want, but I'm letting common sense tell me the smartest way to vote. And in this unusual convergence of circumstances, where both candidates are particularly weak, common sense says to vote in a way that takes advantage of it. It's a risk -- it's all a risk, but the outcome either way of a third party vote minimizes the biggest risk -- that of a Romney landslide -- and maximizes conservatives' chances of weakening whichever president gets in office.

[G Larry]

So, slick, what are you doing to support the re-election of Obama?

[G Larry]

When are you going to quit bashing Romney and start campaigning against Obama?

[Graewoulf]

There is considerable risk that a very weak candidate such as Romney will repeat the 2008 loss to Obama in November.

Just DUMP Romney with an ABSTAIN first Ballot in Tampa. Vote, broom, done.

Romney was handed this election on a silver platter when Traitor John Roberts destroyed the boundary between the Judicial and Legislative Branches of Government last thursday.

Romney steadfastly refuses to embrace this building outrage toward Roberts and Obama”care.”

If Romney wants to play prep school politics, with absolutely no fire-in-his-belly while our Nation is being torn asunder by a Rogue Chief Justice and a foreign-born Bolshevik White House Occupier, then thank you Mr. Romney, don’t call us, because we are going to DUMP you!

[Nachum]

Here in Mexifornia, I don’t think my vote counts a whole lot in the National elections. It is a one party state. Oh, I could vote for Romney, but it is a little like spitting into the wind.

[Graewoulf]

Yeah, I know. What to do?

The Democrats are running a Communist.

The Republicans are running a Socialist.

So the best case is that we get Romney”care,” which will morph into Obama”care” the next time a Democrat wins the WH.

I am doing my small part in encouraging the Convention Delegates to vote ABSTAIN on the first Ballot.

Then at least we have a chance to beat Obama. Otherwise Romney will lose to Obama by 10 %.

BTW, how many National Elections does the Republican Party have to lose before they realize that when their GOP Elite endorse a Liberal Republican that they are guaranteeing that they will lose to ANY Democrat in November?

Maybe they never heard of Einstein.

[Diogenesis]

You sure talk a lot ... but it is all hot air.

Can’t you defend Mr. RomneyCARE?

If you can’t defend his reprehensible
actions, then take him back to the Democrats.

[uncbob]

Well then they should be happy to keep Obama as CIC and with the increased medical premiums he is trying to pass on the military

[G Larry]

Why would I bother to defend his past?

That is not the task in front of this nation.

The ONLY task in front of us is to save this nation from the destruction Obama has in store.

So, quit your bitching about the past, and do something positive about this nations future.

[Bikkuri]

You should add this to something that MUST be watched, if you haven't already:

http://agendadocumentary.com/

[Diogenesis]

You should only defend his past IF you want to be taken seriously.

Apparently, you do not.

No one takes Mr. RomneyCARE as serious, either;
except as a serious distorter and backstabber
who has been exposed as posing as a ‘conservative’
about 14% of the time.

[G Larry]

I wasn’t aware that you set the FR standards as to how to be taken seriously?

I would have bet that to be taken seriously one would look to the future and quit whining about the past.

[Norm Lenhart]

“When are you going to quit bashing Romney and start campaigning against Obama?”

The very nanosecond he gives me a reason to believe a word he says. BTW, I see Ebay has a few really good deals on buckets. You know...so you won’t spend as much carrying his water. Or to haul your BS around.

Here’s the bottom line. I’m not going to collapse like a coward because big bad Barack might get reelected. A whole bunch og you psuedoconservatives trashed the actual ‘conservatives’ in the race. leaving us with a man with a record Jimmy Carter would be proud of.

Now I’m supposed to run out and vote for the man the ABO brigade fostered on us? Not gonna happen. If America burns, put the blame where it belongs.

Only in modern America could standing for what one believes in be considered a bad idea. You ‘go along/get along’ people sicken me to my core. It’s amazing. FR lately is filled with ‘conservatives’ bound and determined to trash anyone not willing to abandon their principles and what has always been our philosophy...just to get a liberal elected.

You are going to elect a liberal. Good for you. Come out of the Democrat closet and be ‘proud’.