Friday, October 14, 2011

Once more, with feeling: Why I will not vote for Mitt Romney

I kicked a hornet's nest yesterday - 17 comments so far, with no less an Internet luminary as the Czar of Muscovy himself stopping by (twice!) to tell me that I was wrong.

The gist of the objections is that you don't get to vote for your ideal candidate, you get to vote for the candidate who wins the nomination.  And most commenters point out that Romney will be seriously less obnoxious that the second helping of Barack Obama.  Of course, they're entirely correct in this.

But at the risk of kicking the hornet's nest a second time, it's not the key issue to me.  Sure, Obama will try to get by regulatory fiat what he cannot hope to get passed into statute.  Here's the thing - he'll fail miserably.

So long as the Republicans control Congress - which seems like a decent bet, with 23 Democratic Senators up for re-election compared to only 10 Republicans, and the Democratic Party entering full panic mode, a second Obama Administration will be like the old Bourbon monarchs, restored to the Throne after the fall of Napoleon: they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

And so with Obama.  He will continue to appoint ideologues to Cabinet positions, who will fill the top Department positions with fellow ideologues.  These will continue to be disproportionately academics, drunk on theory and in a hurry.  In short, the Scandal-o-matic will run non-stop throughout Obama's next term, with him ending up known as the most corrupt Administration since Harding.

All that's needed is a Republican Congress, and joint committees issuing subpoenas not just for the Attorney General, but for the Secretary of Energy, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security.  Sure the running dog lackeys in the Press will try to cover for him, but they're already tired of their Lightbringer, and financial scandals (at the least) will no longer be anothing they can successfully prevent from being published.  Their delay tactics will only prove to drag out the scandals, keeping them in front of the Nation.

Congress will know that they have to stop the Administration, and as we've seen from the current House (and Republican Senators), they will actively step up to this.  The single danger is Obama appointing a Supreme Court Justice or two, but a little obstruction (not to mention hearings of Elena Kagan's tenure in Justice) will give plenty of time for Rope-a-Dope.

So what's the advantage of a President Romney?  We know that Romney is a policy wonk and administrator's administrator, which means that he's itching to do something.  And a Republican Senate would feel obligated to let him.

The last two decades have given me about as much of that as I can stomach.

What Romney won't do is scale back government, in any meaningful sense.  He won't get rid of Rabbit Inspectors, or any of the other myriad of governmental intrusions that are an affront to the free citizens of this Republic.  Instead, he'd work to make government work better.  So what if he succeeds?

We will have a well-oiled, efficient Rabbit Inspection department.

And Congress will let him, because they'll feel obligated to support a Republican President.  No thank'ee.

Here's the kicker: if Mitt Romney goes down in flames because of guys like me, that will be the final nail in the coffin of the Republican Establishment.  It will say, go ahead and nominate another one.  We'll vote for Obama before we'll vote for you lot.

I keep saying that the Democrats aren't the problem, and the Republicans aren't the solution.  The problem is that an institutionalized elite holds the rest of us in contempt, and rules for their own benefit.  Mitt Romney is the embodiment of that elite.  Crushing him is not just prudent, it's a damned categorical imperative - it is both required and justified in and of itself.

Defeating Obama is short term, tactical thinking.  Reducing the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government is what this Republic so desperately needs.  That's the prize.  We'll be closer to that prize after eight years of Obama than after eight years of Romney.

Strategic, not tactical.  Our children depend on us to see clearly, and to make the needed - if unpleasant - choices.  Obama is not to be feared, as I've been saying for some time.  The Republican Establishment needs us more than we need them.  We can break them to our will, if we don't let them panic us.  But this is the moment, and if we do not seize it, we shall not see another like it in our lifetimes.



On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.


E'en now, the tide is turning. Cast off, or risk spending the remainder of our days bound in shallows and miseries imposed on us by our "Betters".  Like Mitt Romney.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

You nailed it, the first time around and did it even better this time. Yeah, I'd vote for Obama rather than Romney just to get it over with so's we cn get to rebuilding.
YeOldFurt

Paladin said...

Good analysis, as always. I understand your frustration over the big bag of blah being our potential candidate. I feel it too.

It is my hope that Cain wins the nomination, thereby making some (but not all) of this moot.

Yes, I do have doubts about the 9-9-9 plan that have nothing to do with turning the numbers upside down :) But over all he's much closer to being someone I could actually be enthusiastic about.

You want to send a message to the elites that we don't want their milktoast drivel spooners any more? Then fight that fight at the primary level and take "their guy" out of contention. Instead of sending them a message by withholding your vote - or voting for Obama - send it by actually nominating someone outside the political structure entirely. Someone that walks the conservative walk even better than Romney talks it.

Vote in the primary. Support the guy you like BEFORE the primaries fire up, and do so with EVERYTHING YOU HAVE. The elites can push their choice, but this is still America and they don't get to "pick" our candidate. Neither does the media. They can stack the deck, but in the end its you and I who decide who we get to put up against Obama, not them.

If Romney gets the nomination, it will be because not enough conservatives were paying attention, or took the time to vote, or bothered to look at the issues. If I don't want that to happen then I need to work toward making sure it doesn't.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

He is not the ideal candidate, and i have always voted for non-ideal ostensibly-conservative GOP candidates in the past, when that was the only choice. So, I'd vote for him except for one thing...

He isn't just a non-ideal candidate. He is an unnacceptable candidate. I can't pull the lever for Obama. He is unnacceptable. So is Romney. And voting for some 3rd party nonsense isn't me. So the ballot will be left blank, there, if those are the choicse

George said...

There is a war going on right now for control of the party. On the one hand, you have the Republican establishment, personified in this case by Mitt. On the other hand you have the tea party types. The establishment types don't want to reduce the power of government...they like having that power.

The Republicans are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to run real conservative candidates. They have to learn that they can either embrace us or they are going to loose elections. They found out in 2008 that we won't pull the lever Democrat lite. I fear that it will be another election cycle before they learn that lesson.

genedunn said...

In short, a powerless Obama is better than an empowered Romney?

ASM826 said...

Just say no to SORC!

From June 3rd, 2011:

Mitt Romney, Same Old Republican Crap

Sevesteen said...

Neither party comes close to representing my views. If the choice is between bad and worse, my vote is more valuable as a signal than it is in pushing towards the better of unacceptable choices. I'll pick the least-objectionable third party over Obama or Romney, even someone I would not vote for if they had a chance of winning.

Anonymous said...

sorry, there is plenty Obama can do. Expecting congress to have a backbone when they have been sent a message that Obama is reelected/ the peoples choice, is wishful thinking.

Joseph said...

Have to agree with the 9:08 Anonymous in that there's plenty of damage Obama can do, and I have no faith -at all- that the Republicans will win a game of judicial chicken over a SCOTUS nomination. With anything less than a Van Jones-esque nomination, we might see some fireworks, but they'll be followed by a heavily favorable confirmation vote.

And don't forget that the POTUS doesn't just nominate SCOTUS justices, but also federal judges. And those commie academic cabinet members/czars will bring teams of people steeped in the faith of utopia being achievable if we just have enough government regulations.

There's plenty of damage he can do, no matter the make-up of the Congress.

Alan said...

If you're worried about the damage Obama could do in a second term, I have two words for you.

George Bush. Who brought you:

Medicare Part D

Patriot Act

No Child Left Behind

Sarbanes-Oxley

Homeland Security and the TSA

Real ID

And a whole host of other nanny state/police state big government laws.

If you think voting will change anything you're not paying attention.

Borepatch said...

Bingo, Alan.

The only thing that I'd add is that there's a chance - only a chance, mind - that if they lose a "can't lose" situation a different set of insiders will take over who are more aligned with where the country is.

But it's a chance, however risky.

Doug said...

A Republican Senate will certainly not stonewall Supreme Court (or any other court) nominees. This is crucial.

Borepatch said...

Doug, why not? The Democratic Senate did it to Bush.

Doug said...

They tried, but ultimately Bush generally got his nominees, Supreme and otherwise, in there. Congress will simply not hold up a Supreme Court nominee for 4 years until the Oval Office changes hands.

Anonymous said...

Paladin as for Cain he is asmuch establishment as is Romney, Cain after all worked at the Federal Reserve bank as one of it's governors.

Six said...

I've made my choice BP. No to Romney regardless and may fortune favor the foolish.

Thanks for hosting this particular discussion.

Stephen said...

And the crowd said, Amen. Well done.

Stephen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"And Congress will let him, because they'll feel obligated to support a Republican President."
This.

If the Republican candidate wins, no matter who it is, the Party will take it as a mandate for that candidate's policies, no matter what they are. The House and Senate leadership (assuming the R's maintain control) will essentially do what that candidate says because they will think that is what will buy them the votes in the next election.

Would you rather have Romney with a free hand and near total control of the Republican Party and both houses, or Obama with a majority of both houses of Congress in opposition to him?

Plus, as Borepatch has said, Romney winning the election would be taken as a sign that "business as usual" is the way the Republican Party should go.

Strategic rather than tactical.

James Nelson said...

Does anyone remember how Obama's evil Rino twin governed in Massachusetts? I say if there's a choice, always vote for the real thing. I won't vote for either, I'll find some third party to send a message and study the down ticket races.

Josh K. said...

I'm petty enough to vote for Obama just to kill a RINO's vote.

Ken said...

Slick Willard won't even preside over the repeal of Obamacare. If a repeal doesn't show up on his desk with enough votes to override, I wouldn't bet a nickel on it. That guarantees our kids and grandkids will be stuck under the National Health until colanders and chaps are the uniform of the day.

The Lautenberg amendment won't go away. Hell, the Hughes amendment won't go away. EPA will still be chock-a-block with Tchernobog worshipers, laboring in manic hope for the coming of their savior, the Dieoff, and will remain effectively unrestrained. I could go on, but what's the point?

Borepatch said...

Ken FTW! "Slick Willard" made me laugh out loud.

And you're 100% right. Romney won't do any of these, and if Congress tries to, he'll work with Democrats on most of them.

Cormac said...

I've been saying this for weeks!

People tend to think I'm either an Obama fan, or I hate Mormons...

I'm hoping to see Obama impeached and I hate Romney's ideas.

They seem to have different philosophies, but their ideas and the method of execution of those ideas, are eerily similar.