Thursday, October 13, 2011

Why I will not vote for Mitt Romney

Let me start off by saying that I think that Mitt, as a politician, is somewhat more moral than other politicians.  I don't think that he's accepted bribes, or cheated on his wife.  Yes, that's damning with faint praise.  No, he won't get any more praise from me.

He's a fully paid-up member of the political elite.  As such, his mental view of the world is self-limited by what is "proper" for a fully paid up member of the elite to believe.  He thinks that a ban on scary black plastic firearms actually will bring the murder rate down.  While he says that "it's up to the States" to decide whether to force me to buy something (RomneyCare), he doesn't have a problem with the State telling me that I must spend my money the way he wants.

Presumably (because it's unstated), he's happy to send armed police to my house to haul me away in chains to prison, for failing to spend my money the way he thinks I should.

And so, I wonder what the difference would be between a Romney administration and a second Obama Administration.  Actually, I don't wonder.  I think I know.

A Romney Administration would have its own list of Statist projects to implement.  As Congress is likely to be firmy Republican on January 22, 2013, much of this is likely to pass.  Especially given Romney's admitted political and administrative skills.  A second Obama Administration, with a Republican Congress, will pass precisely bupkis.

A Romney Administration will rapidly become a rallying point for the Progressives, aided and abetted by their Running Dog Lackeys in the Media.  This will energize a demoralized and (for now) defunct Progressive Agenda, allowing it to rise, Zombie-like from its current grave of disappointment. A second Obama Administration will inherit the same disappointment from his supporters - perhaps even made worse, that he made them double down to save his political career.  They will, if anything, be even more shamed by their subservience to Democratic demagoguery.  They'll feel cheap and easy, more than they do now.

A Romney Administration will refuse to roll back much - if any - of the regulatory overreach of the current Administration, and a Congress controlled by the Republican establishment will refuse to openly challenge him for at least a couple years.  A second Obama Administration will inherit a full court press from Congress looking at the ATF, DoJ, FBI, and the other alphabet soup agencies.  The Lightbringer's attempts to subvert Congressional oversight will be too much for even the Running Dog Lackeys in the media to ignore.  And the Republican Congress will pare back his new regulations, my paring back the agencies if no other way is available.

So tell me, Republican Establishment - why shouldn't I support Obama over Romney? (Hint: this is why I call you the "Stupid Party")

When he comes back and tells me how he's going to cut back the size of government to 2004 levels, let's talk.  When he tells me the top 100 jobs killing regulations he'll kill, let's talk.  When he talks about corralling the hopes for personal advance and enrichment of you, the Establishment, let's talk.

Yeah, didn't think so.


B said...

2004 levels? Still too high. Maybe 1990.

ProudHillbilly said...

So dittos. Why vote out one liberal elitist just to vote in another?

Divemedic said...

If Romney wins the nomination, I will be voting for Obama, for exactly the reasons that you outlined. At least a Republican congress will oppose Obama's statist agenda.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

I won't vote for Obama. But I'm not voting for Romney either. I've never done THAT before. And it's not like I think some 3rd option has a snowball's chance.

I wonder if the GOP establishement is noticing that more and more ostensible GOP types are going down a similar decision path...

Josh Kruschke said...

If Mit gets the nomination I'll be voting Obama. Prolonging our economic destruction will be worse in the long run. Might as well get it over quick like pulling s band-aid. That way we can start rebuilding.

My 2 cents,

The Czar of Muscovy said...

Fairly tough talk. I advise you vote for Obama, and see how his record of Second Amendment support goes even further than it's done.

Personally, when it comes time to pull the lever, you'll likely go with the guy you disagree with 60% over the guy you disagree with 100%. But then, this ain't my first rodeo.

I heard a LOT of this when Reagan--that liberal, flip-flopping, pro-union president from a weenie state--was running against Carter.

Hmm. Stupid Party vs. Progressive Liberal Marxist Party. Enjoy whichever future you choose to build.

Paladin said...

Everyone should vote their conscience (including the choice to not vote at all), and I'll not argue against any point you made. They are all valid. I may in fact decide to go the same route if faced with Romney as the GOP nom.

Right now, though, I'm planning to vote for him should he be the one running against Obama. I won't do it with a smile, but I'll do it.


1. Obama has already shown a tendancy to use executive fiat and the adminstrative beauracracy to forward his agenda when thwarted by the other branches. If he stays - even with a Republican congress - that will ramp up even more. I want his smug ass out of there.

2. Republican control of house and senate will still require the Presidential signature for any laws passed. If he gets a second term the Veto Pen would scribble ad nauseum. I don't trust relying on the veto over-ride. All while he claims in endless news conferences to be doing everything he can to stop the Republican congress that hates old people and minorities.

3. I want it all - even if the Republican President isn't my first (or second, or fifth) choice. I wan't a chance to show what conservative control really looks like from a results (ie jobs, taxes) standpoint. I want this without Progressive interference and muddling. I don't want to here when things start turning around economically that it's Obama's leadership finally taking off to get us out of the evil Bush's mess. I don't want to hear "See.... we just needed to give him more time."

I don't want to just stop what's gone on for the past couple of years. I want to move forward and actually make things better.

Will Romney and a Republican congress dissapoint me?... Yeah, probably to some degree. You don't fight the fights you think you can win, though. You fight the fights that need fighting.

The Czar of Muscovy said...

Paladin has expressed it perfetly. And the primary in your state will be essental if you dislike Romney. He's not my first choice by a long shot.

But if it comes down to Romney v Obama, bear in mind that Romney doesn't hate you for who you are and what you represent. As BP said, Romney is a moral guy. His opponent is demonstrably immoral.

It's not too late to change your answer, but we will soon reach a date where it will be.

Borepatch said...

@Czar of Muscovy, I lived in Massachusetts while he was Governor, and watched him at work. I'm pretty sure that I have a decent working model of how he ticks.

I think that this country will be better off with a Republican Congress and Obama in the White House. Obama's damage will be obvious and explicit, Romney's will be accidental and "for teh childrenz".

I'm afraid that I'm entirely serious.

That said, I stand by my saying that Mussolini could beat Obama next year. That is part of the representative democracy game, where I don't get to choose the next President, just vote for someone.

Josh Kruschke said...

Why is it that I'm supposed be happy with just slowing the car down as it's heading for the cliff.

This the same stupid fucking atitude that got us our current president. Mit is just telling you guys what ever it is that he thinks you want to hear. He talking a good game and doesn't mean any of it. I remember hearing from alot of stupid independents, we need a moderate like McCain. To be able to beat Obama. And a lot of them voted for Obama going he can't be any worse than Bush.

Also look at Chris Christie's gun record, and who he's supporting.

What ever, we deserve what ever President we elect.


Josh Kruschke said...

Sorry BP for the language.
This settling for mediocrecy is really starting to piss me off.

Borepatch said...

Me too, Josh.

Josh Kruschke said...

My original point was if we are going to drive the bus off the cliff we might as well get it over with. Unless your plan is to put it off long enough that our kids have to deal with it instead of us?

The Czar of Muscovy said...

No one said you should be happy with Romney: that's straw man thinking, gents.

But you are stuck with reality. And Obama isn't it. Mitt is not a great choice, but you know who is? Me neither.

He is however much less likely to erode your rights, much more likely to work with Congress rather than fiat, and all the things Paladin lists so well.

This is baby and bathwater, cut your nose to spite your face. And if you really think we're headed for a cliff, what's YOUR plan? To sulk? To choose the "easy" way out?

The whole "Obama is better because at least you know what you're getting" is pretty much his campaign line, and exactly the stuff you'll be hearing from his side.

Sorry the choices aren't better. But they are clear, if we look at the headlines a little carefully.

ASM826 said...

No to Mitt. Just being less bad than Obama is not acceptable. Mitt wants to be the candidate, fine. It doesn't follow that the Republican Party should nominate him. And if they do, they deserve to lose. I'm not a Republican. I'm an American. I will not vote for Mitt Romney. His record on the 2nd Amendment is enough all by itself. If we're headed for a cliff, slowing down a little bit doesn't help, we need to change direction. Mitt won't do that, he's a big gov't RINO.

The Czar of Muscovy said...

Of course, in Cain keeps heading up in the polls, this could all be a moot argument.

Six said...

I'm....going to have to think about this. It's food for thought BP and I hadn't considered this point of view. My gut reaction is the same as Paladin, Czar and Josh, et al. I want him gone so bad I can taste it. But what happens with a R Congress/Senate and teh one in the white house? I can live with gridlock very nicely, thank you. No legislation is good legislation. The problem is the left and their msm lapdogs will place the blame for such squarely on R shoulders, possibly paving the way for a resurgence and a whole new crop of lefty elections in 2014. If the Libertarians and R's can be less stupid about their message and actions I could see a second term being a near fatal wound for the entire socialist agenda.
The stakes are huge. I'm gonna have to skull this for a bit.

Rick C said...

"Why is it that I'm supposed be happy with just slowing the car down as it's heading for the cliff. "

Without taking a position on Romney vs Obama, the first step in turning the car around (or just putting it into reverse) is what? slowing it down.

Josh Kruschke said...

Rick C.

The word that is important in my statement, and you would have scored a point, was the word *just*. Romney is a big government RINO he expanded the role of government at the state level.
Now they, him & his supporters, want me to believe that he's now changed. That his past actions did not reveal the core of who he is.
A good majority of the "independents and centrists" seem to me to be some damn gullible people.
Some good people are twisting themselves into nots trying to make Romney into something he's not. Wanting and believe something doesn't make it so.

If you want to know who someone is payetension to their actions not what they say.

My 2 cents,

Borepatch said...

Josh K, I don't think he's changed, and quite frankly I don't think his campaign donors think that either. He's raising a lot of money.

Josh Kruschke said...

Mit has about 25% of those polled voting for him.

For him to get the nomination he's got to convince just over that many to come to his side.

Which means only about 1 in 4 got to be wishy washy enough to buy into his rhetoric.

We'll see, I just don't want to hear bitching and complaining down the road, if he's not the hope and change they're looking for this time.

Just because it took Bush 8 yrs to do what Obama did in 3, doesn't make Bush a Saint.


P.S. Just thinking out loud.