Maybe It Would Be Better If Romney Lost The General Election

Maybe it would be better if Romney loses in the general, assuming he gets the nomination, of course. I don't hate Obama, however much I detest his policies. Supporting this on behalf of the GOP may be the more distasteful of the two options. I could sleep with a cheap hooker and come away with more self-respect than voting for a guy with a record like this.

We are on a path to nominate someone who campaigned against Reagan, campaigned against the Contract with America, campaigned against those who are pro-Life, campaigned against 2d Amendment rights, campaigned against conservatism, and designed and enacted the precursor to Obamacare from which he will not back away, yet may successfully convince Republican voters that he is the most reliable conservative.

Comments

[Ragspierre]

Those are not the options I consider.

[louisc]

There is no "maybe" about it. He will lose.

[m]

Romney will lose the election if he does get the nominee. He didn't do too well on the debate last night. Romney is not conservative and he will not get my vote. Newt Gingrich won the debate last night.

[Godzilla]

That quote about Romney campaigning against Reagan is not sourced, and I have to raise the bullshit flag on that one.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/romney-attacks-obama-and-reagan/article_bf4c2cf9-bad8-5c07-8fb9-951db02e4cff.html

This is hardly campaigning against Reagan. I don't read Legal Insurrection, and based on that unsourced quote, I'll keep it that way. The one cherished thing that a blogger has is his/her credibility. Legal Insurrection just threw theirs in the shitter.

[EBL]

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/michael-medved-asks-hey-guys-lets-pick.html

You might have a short declarative sentence for this question...

[ltw]

Best line of the debate last night….

GINGRICH: I would like to see it be a flat tax at 15 percent and I would like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue, not raise revenue to meet the government.

I think Gingrich knew what Romney’s effective tax rate was going to be and why. Smart man for knowing his tax code, probably means he knows about the tax profile of the limited partners of private equity and hedge funds. Peter Orzag did in July of 2007 (see page 8, paragraph 2 and also Table 1 of....

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/83xx/doc8306/07-11-CarriedInterest_Testimony.pdf

I bet when Gingrich said 15%, Romney knew he had to start telling what his effective tax rate was. No wonder Mitt is mad. Hopefully this ends up in a good tax reform plan from Gingrich with a clear explanation.

[astonerii]

Hot Air has become a Romney orgyfest webpage and a Newt slaughterhouse. I just blocked my computer from clicking on any links that might lead me there. This election cycle is certainly showing who conservatives Allies are.

[StrangernFiction]

I absolutely loathe Barack Obama. Outside of death row there are very few individuals more detestable than Barky. But that being said, I believe that long-term this country is better off with Obama than Romney. Romney will not repeal Obamacare, he will "fix Obamacare" (ie the camel's nose will still be under the tent). With four more years of Obama at least there's a chance that he completely implodes and destroys the Democratic Party. With President Romney the ship will continue to sink, with nothing being done to save it, and conservatism will get blamed.

[Duke C]

What if Romney loses in the general election? The one thing that bothers me is too many conservatives might stay home on election day. I WILL vote, for state and local candidates, but I will not hold my nose again and vote for another RINO. Romney supports NDAA and #SOPA and #PIPA, that alone kills his chances for victory. We do need to retake the Senate and create divided government to checkmate anymore damage Obama and the DNC can cause.

[zane]

A few months ago, EE of RedState claimed to have gotten a copy of McCain's opposition research on Mitt Romney, but only talked about a few pages of it. Legal Insurrection now has a Scrib link to that McCain research document.

It is interesting and pretty much tells what we know about Romney; that Mittens is trying to hide from, that he is not a conservative, he is a statist.

How many of you felt dirty voting for McCain last time who was deemed the heir apparent to the nomination by the RNC? How many of you said "Never again" and pulled that level or checked that box on the ballot because as bad as McCain was, and as many times as he had sold out conservatives, he was better than the option? Now, Romney has been deemed the heir apparent by the talking heads. Standard practice; the guy who lost to the guy before now get his turn. And this time, they have picked someone even more distasteful than John McCain who at least had his heroic military service to brag about. Romney doesn't even have that much.

I have asked conservatives to think what the ramifications of having a Romney presidency would mean. If you think the Congress will keep him under control, I will remind you that they never even tried to keep George Bush under control (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, compassionate conservatism which is wordsmithing for center-left). While the Congress will continue to thwart Obama at every turn, they will become complicit with a President Romney in driving this nation even further down the toilet. What you are seeing in plain view is the Good Old Boys Club telling you who they want and who to vote for.

So I ask you: is it better to die on your feet or live on your knees?

[KLSmith]

Dan, if you don't hate the Won, well I guess that makes you a better person than me. For the sake of our country we better hope whoever wins the nomination will be popular with moderates and independents. Because too many conservatives will stay home sulking.
I dislike Romney as much as any informed person does but, I don't think our country survives ( other than as geographic location ) 4 more yrs of Obama.
I suggest reading Ziegler's column over @ Am Thinker. I don't think he's right about everything but he makes some interesting points.

[KLSmith]

Zane - There is no way Romney is as bad as McCain. McCain is a sad old idiot media whore. At least Romney isn't stupid.
My answer to your question is that it is better to live to fight another day. If Obama wins, the war is lost. Rewarding a Marxist with a 2nd term gives him carte blanche. He doesn't respect the separation of powers and the Constitution now. Oh yeah, he'll develop some respect and obey the law in his 2nd term.
He will do whatever he wants and nobody is going to do crap about it except bitch and moan.
I wish some of you were half as worried about O as you are Romney. Geez.

[KLSmith]

Love the argument that Romney won't repeal Obamacare. I guess you think Obama will? At least with Romney there is a snowball's chance.
And the argument that congress won't exert control over Romney but they'll get a spine and control Obama. Because Boehner and McConnell are putting up such a good fight now against Obama. Controlling all that spending and such.
OK. You guys have convinced me. Recovering from a couple of more extreme leftists on the Supreme Court, trillions more in debt, over 50% (by then) of the country dependent on government money, busloads of Democrat voting illegal immigrants. No problem, piece of cake. Maybe it will be even easier when the liberals get there wish for completely controlled state media. Sorry I lost my mind there for a minute and couldn't see why none of that would be as bad as Romney.

[sickofrinos]

Right on, Right on, Right on, Dan. It is sickening that republicans are in the tank for a well documented collectivist.
Mcmitty will be beaten, because conservatives have a memory of past progressive nominees. If Mcmitty is nominated, real conservatives will be at home, reloading.

[mike191]

Dan,you think this Nation will survive with President44 as steward conjoined with his meery cabal of leftists making polocies for four years?Mr. klSmith has pointed out exactly what the future of this Nation will be if Conservatives do not vote.

[B Steve]

It's time for Newt to get our of the race and endorse Perry.

Perry is the only person who has a chance to stop Mitt.

[Ragspierre]

Two words, people...

Supreme Court.

Romney, for all his failings, would not appoint a Kagen or Sort-of-mayor.

[Ragspierre]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/an-ignored-disparity.php

Linking to Thomas Sowell's knowledge and wisdom on the whole "disparity" BS of the Collective.

Everyone should read it.

[Huey]

Good God. Same type of crap we heard when McCain was running.

How's THAT working out for ya?

Yeah. There's no reason to think that Obama will go even further left when he doesn't have anything to lose. Nah.

The Supreme Court nominations won't be even more radical. The push to gather the reins of power in the hands of the leftist cabal won't intensify. Extra-constitutional regulatory, administrative and executive actions which strangle free enterprise in favor of crony capitalism in the guise of green energy won't increase. Further consolidation of control over the financial system will abate. Obamacare won't be all THAT bad.

Just fripping amazing. Of course I'd rather anyone on the stage (other than Paul) over Romney. But, to think (let alone SAY) that it might be better to have four more years of THIS than four years of Romney is absolute INSANITY.

For every one of Romney's failings, flip-flops, or whatever, I can tell you one for Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich. Some of the other candidate's failings are political. Some are personal. But, NONE of the candidates have perfect "conservative" records and EVERY ONE of them have made political decisions which are problematic from a "conservative" perspective but were consistent with their CONSTITUENTS AT THE TIME.

Come on people. Perry has a HOST of "big government" nanny state as well as crony capitalism issues. Santorum has taken positions (and has voted) in ways which are in OPPOSITION to conservative values. Gingrich has, at the least, been all over the place on just about every issue of the day.

We have the candidates we have. Reagan ain't riding over the horizon. Support the one of these flawed candidate (and we're ALL flawed in one fashion or another politically because NO ONE on the face of this planet agrees with me politically all of the time - except me - and the "yesterday me" likely isn't in total agreement with the "today me.")

We need to STOP with this INSANE NOTION that somehow it's is actually beneficial to choose the GREATER EVIL when presented with the choice between two perceived evils.

The notion that such a choice will wake up the voters as a result of the destruction and chaos caused by the chosen greater evil - leading to a LATER choice of a more conservative candidate SHOULD have been put to rest WITH THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

Don't you people EVER FRIPPING LEARN?

[Ragspierre]

Another 100%, Huey.

I was going to post yesterday in the face of all the hyperbolic nonsense, but thought it best just to let people vent/rant.

I frankly don't think we have four years to screw with any longer. I think we are that far gone.

Just on ObamaCare, if we allow that to settle in, the U.S. is doomed.

And that is ONE thing. There are dozens of others.

[zane]

KLSmith, and what security does Congess give you that they will, in any way, thwart the left-leaning policies of Romney? Because they did such a good job of doing that with George Bush? Color me not impressed.

Judges? Do you have a clue as to the type of judges Romney nominated for the MA bench? Over half were Democrats, more were Indies that voted Dem or supported Dem candidates, and very few were solid core Republicans.

Oh, yeah, and then there is that whole thing about Obamacare that makes us so mad. Of course, Romney said he will issue "waivers" to states that want them, but hey, what if Califorian and New York doesn't want them. Enjoy paying for those states, KL, because they are broke and you will have to pick up the tab. And in all reality, why would Romney try to overturn a federal plan that he basically designed?

You name an issue that is near and dear to the hearts of conservatives, any issue, and I'll show you that Mitt Romney is more Obama than he is Washington or Jefferson. I can't believe freedom loving people are so stupid at to believe what Romney is now saying and never bother to dig into his actual record. Romney IS Obama, only with an R behind his name.

[Ragspierre]

"Romney IS Obama, only with an R behind his name."

zaney's hyperbolic nonsense contribution for this hour.

You can be against Romney without being a nutter.

[B Steve]

ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEWT VS ROMNEY OR OBAMA IS THAT ROMNEY AND OBAMA HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HAPPILY MARRIED TO THE SAME WOMAN.

RICK PERRY IS THE ONLY CONSERVATIVE CHOICE!!!

[zane]

rags, here is a litte mental challenge for you. I give you an issue, and you tell me how Romney differs from Obama, no, not on what Romney is saying now, but what he has actually done the one time he held office (every game has rules, you know):

abortion

bailouts

same-sex marriage

increasing taxes

budgets

spending

There, that should get you started. Now, show us what you've got.

[Ragspierre]

Several dubious assumptions, there, B.

1. Obama is happily married to Shellie

2. Romney is happily married to Ann(?)

3. Rush Limbaugh is not a conservative (since he's not been happily married in all cases)

[Ragspierre]

zaney, you may have noticed I don't support Romney.

Or not.

You are THAT obtuse.

But, for chuckles, do you seriously mean to compare THE most radically PRO-abortion person in the U.S. Senate with Romney...???

Seriously...???

(I know, you've shown you are not to be taken seriously...)

[zane]

rags, for someone who claims not to support Romney, you seem to have no problem reducing my moniker to the very same perjorative that Romney tried to label Gingrich with. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I doubt it. And didn't you recently declare that you didn't subscribe to name calling? Ah, how quickly you are willing to desert your convictions.

I didn't say you support Romney. I simply gave you the opportunity to prove that Romney is better choice, and less liberal than Obama. Seems the task was above your pay grade.

[Ragspierre]

I guess that is your surrender on the issue of "Romney = Obama"...

which is a wise position to take, since it is such a stupid, irrational assertion.

[Xiaoding]

"Don't you people EVER FRIPPING LEARN?"

You certainly haven't. Thanks so much, for selling out your country yet again, Mr. Bend Over.

It is clear, America has not yet learned it's lesson. Four more of O would speed that process along, quite well!

I lough out loud, at those who quake at O for four more. Like the rest of the government will just guve up...there ia Congress, and the States. Really.

Perhaps, those who constantly sell out, project that onto the rest of the nation. Well, I'm here to tell ya, we are not ALL like that.

[Ragspierre]

Ah, now we've heard from our other current nutter.

zaney and dingy...

separated at birth? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Ragspierre]

Looks like Rubio listened on SOPA.

Good.

[zane]

rags, perhaps instead of your habit of slinging perjoratives, you could actually debate the points I made. I understand you are not the sharpest tack in the box, but even with a little push you should be able to dispute my opinions (giving you unwarrented credit that you can even think that deeply).

Perhaps you impress the other limited intellect lemming with your insults, but for someone who actually allows two grey cells to bump together you just acheive a major fail.

Now, if you care to redeem yourself, tell me where I am wrong (and try to do it in an adult fashion).

[Ragspierre]

zaney, you really have no sense of irony...

or self-awareness.

Or logic.

It falls to you, zaney, to defend your indefensible, stupid, and irrational assertion.

Go for it...

Explain how Romney's position on abortion is identical to Obama's. (This'll be fun...!!!)

Not analogous.

Not similar in some stilted reading of their records.

Identical...as in "Romney IS Obama".

[B Steve]

Ragspierre ,

MY POINT IS THAT NEWT = ROMNEY = OBAMA , ALL THE SAME...

PERRY IS THE ONLY CONSERVATIVE IN THE RACE.

BTW, RUSH WILL SUPPORT WHOEVER THE REPUBLICANS PUT OUT. HE SUPPORTED MCCAIN, BUSH SR, ETC.

[zane]

"Not similar in some stilted reading of their records."

I see, so you want to disallow Romney's actual record on the issue of abortin and only rely on what he is currently saying? How convenient.

That's like accepting that a guy who gets sent to jail for robbing a bank is now sorry for that. But you see, he's not really sorry for robbing the bank, picking up hot chicks in his new BWM, whining and dining at tony restaurants with $500 bottles of wine. He's just sorry as hell he got caught.

Is that the mindset you want to use?

[Ragspierre]

Twist and turn and dissemble.

But no defense.

Huh.

It's almost like you can't deal honestly with anything.

Innit...???

C'mon, zaney.

Identical. Absolutely use their records. Just show how they are identical.

[zane]

rags, there is no denying that Obama is pro-killing babies, can we agree on that much at least?

But then, Romney was strongly defending his pro"choice" stance when he campaigned for the office of governor. Perhaps his own words will give you some insight into his mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

Now he not only defends the MA law permitting abortions, but goes on to say that he supports that law, will continue to support the law, and supports a girl under 18 being able to seek an abortion via the court system in Ma, which he says never turns them down.

So, all though his gubernatorial campaign he was pro-choice. All through his one term as governor, he was pro-choice going so far as to fund abortions with a minimumal $50/co-pay in Romneycare, appointing a Planned Parenthood exec on his health care board. When did he have an epiphany that abortion was wrong? Seems it was somewhere around the time he decided that to run as a conservative against such pro-lifers as John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson, who have always been pro-life, he had to change his tune. So change he did.

For Romney to now claim that at the age of 55 he had a relevation that abortion is wrong, is a willing suspension of disbelief.

[Ragspierre]

"rags, there is no denying that Obama is pro-killing babies"

'K.

Is Romney IDENTICAL in his RECORD?

Of course not.

I've heard the disingenuous commercial with the radio sound bite of Romney, noting that minors would need permission from a parent...OR a court...to have an abortion.

Why is that disingenuous?

Because ANY such law...in any state of which I know...HAS to have that due-process provision to withstand review under Roe.

This is not to say I am sanguine about Romney's abortion record. I certainly am not.

But I understand how stupid and irrational it is to say that Romney = Obama.

We could take so many other issues and vignettes from the RECORDS of these two...VERY different...people to prove the point.

[zane]

OK, rags, on what issue does Romney's record (the only actual thing we have to go on) differ from Obama?

Name them.

[Ragspierre]

Oh, no, zaney...

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to defend it.

Which, of course, you cannot rationally do.

Show how "Romney = Obama".

But, for chuckles, do you think Romney would have nixed the Keystone Pipeline?

(Show your work, please.)

[Huey]

Xiaoding: Yes. The House has really done a bang-up job slowing Obama down. A Republican House/Senate won't be able to slow down his regulatory/administrative/executive excesses. They won't be able to override his veto of any bill which attempts to either defund or repeal Obamacare.

This notion that we need to INTENTIONALLY DAMAGE THE COUNTRY so that we can HOPEFULLY later repair the current and intentionally created later damage is INSANE.

The insanity is based on a world view which is delusional, i.e., that "really, people actually are in agreement with me. All they need is the proper kick in the ass to realize it."

No. No. No. While it is true that 40% of the population self-identify as "conservative," there are a few problems with thinking that these self-identified "conservatives" actually agree with you and those who hold your views.

First. They are "self-identified" conservatives. Romney believes himself to be a conservative. So did McCain. And, they're RIGHT. Why? Because "conservative," contrary to what you and those like you believe, isn't an unvarying, timeless POINT in the continuum of spectrum of politics, it's a COMPARATIVE TERM which ONLY has meaning when compared to those who hold different views. That which is "conservative" today would be considered to be "liberal" merely thirty years ago and MUCH of what is today considered to be "conservative" would be, likewise, considered to be FASCIST in the same time frame BY CONSERVATIVES. (The notion of being able to indefinitely detain American citizens without their Constitutional right to Habeus Corpus and a lawyer springs to mind...) But, McCain and Romney IN COMPARISON to Pelosi or Obama ARE, in totality, "conservative." So, there ain't as many "conservatives" out there as you seem to believe.

Second, "being" a "conservative" is a summation of the totality of a person, not a check-list. Many believe themselves to be "conservative" yet support abortion. Or Amnesty. Or any other positions which are thought by others who also self-describe themselves as "conservative" (which carries with it the requirement that they also SELF-DEFINE what is IS to "be conservative.") But, on the whole, they hold what are, today, considered to be "conservative" views. BUT, those single-issues (and, sometimes, multiple issues), for them are sufficiently important that they simply WILL NOT VOTE for someone who advocates for the opposing view. (Santorum's response to why he voted against "right-to-work" in the most recent debate comes to mind.)

Third: A significant minority of the voters have a VESTED INTEREST in maintaining and even expanding the welfare/dependency state. That percentage is growing, not decreasing. Self-interest frequently trumps political desires.

Fourth: Many people who actually live their lives in accordance with traditionally "conservative" values live their POLITICAL lives by voting for Democrats REGARDLESS of the political behavior or beliefs of the Democratic candidate. Blacks and Hispanics (to a lesser degree) spring immediately to mind. What portion of that self-described 40% "conservatives" these people make up is something I can't know, but I can know that it's a pretty big chunk.

So...

You (and those who think like you) believe that letting Obama win will "wake the populace up" to what's happening and cause them to change their voting behavior.

Yet, we KNOW that a significant portion of those who aren't already voting Republican will NEVER vote Republican, i.e., blacks and hispanics.

Yet, we KNOW that a significant portion of those who aren't already voting Republican will NEVER vote Republican so long as the Republicans continue to support a contrary position to their all-important single-issues, i.e., abortion, etc.

Yet, we KNOW that a significant portion of those who aren't already voting Republican will NEVER vote Republican because they have a vested interest in maintaining and expanding the welfare state because THAT'S HOW THEY EAT.

Yet, we KNOW that most of those who vote Democrat do so because they LIKE what is happening. They WANT it to happen.

So, the bottom line is simple. Most of the people in this country are not "conservative" as you define it, and ONLY 40% of the people in this country are "conservative" even as THEY define it. This number is unlikely to CHANGE when they are bombarded by yet another four years by a liberal media promoting the policies of a liberal President while attacking the "right wing nuts" who attempt to stop them from helping out the country.

Yeah, sounds like a good idea to me.

Sheesh.

[zane]

rags, I presented you with Romney's own spoken words on the one issue you itemized (abortion). Do you deny that his spoken words agree with Obama's own words that abortion is the law of the land (in Romney's case, the laws in Massachusetts) and they both defend that law?

You are trying to create a circular argument. I want specifics. You gave one, abortion. Yet you reject what Romney, himself, said.

I am through arguing with you. You are a juvenile punk that would not know a rational thought if it was written on your forearm.

[Ragspierre]

"You are a juvenile punk that would not know a rational thought if it was written on your forearm."

Projection...muttered as you head...

AGAIN...

for the tall grass, rather than defend your stupid crap. (Which you can't defend, after all.)

Here's a tip for the future...

don't post stupid crap...!!!

Try it.

[zane]

rags, you freakzoid, you wanted me to prove that Romney is no differnt that Obama on the issues. You singled out one, abortion. Now you want to discount that and say I offered no proof of my claim.

You need to be treated for your analcrainal disorder, son, and quickly.

[Trista]

Zane, Rags, play nice with each other. It took me 2 seconds to Google "Romney Obama compare Abortion".

It took another brief glance to see that Romney and Obama are NOT exactly the same on this issue.

http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/?compare=Obama&vs=Romney&on=Abortion

If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you can compare the two on several other issues, too.

Have fun.

[Ragspierre]

And you can't seem to quit, can you, zaney.

NOBODY here would agree with the notion that you supported the proposition that Romney and Obama had an identical record on abortion.

Essentially because THEY DO NOT.

Even Nanny Pelosi has a record on abortion DIFFERING significantly from Obama.

Objectively.

Moron.

[zane]

Trista, Romney's opinion on Roe changed (as noted on the website you linked) in June, 2007, five months after he left office and five months into his campaign against other pro-life GOP candidates.

Romney was solid in his support for the MA law permitting abortion. You don't put a Planned Parenthood exec on your health care board if you are against abortion.

[trista]

Still, Zane. Not the same.

[Ragspierre]

Let's be clear.

Romney is not a Conservative.

He is NOT the right guy for the GOP to nominate in these times.

Of those (aside from False Flag Paul) running, he is the worst of the choices.

But it is simply asinine to say "Romney = Obama".

And saying asinine stuff is...well...

not persuasive.

Andrew Klavan said something I like the other day---

"You can’t improve the world unless you’re willing to live in it."

Or, reality is a good place to occupy.

[Huey]

One thing which always gets me is the logical inconsistencies people hold and, even when they are pointed out, deny holding them.

"Conservative" Republicans: "A politician should have core values and vote them!"

"Conservative" Republicans: "Sorry Democrats! They are passing Obamacare against the will of the People!"

Come on. At least be consistent.

Do you want a politician who votes his own values or one which votes his constituents' values? Often they're the same vote. Sometimes they're not.

Santorum, in the last debate, had to explain (one of) his "less than conservative" votes (his vote against "right to work") and did so with the explanation that, no matter his personal beliefs, the PEOPLE OF PENNSYLVANIA, WHO HE REPRESENTED, did not want it.

Any politician who actually wants to remain in office will, at least occasionally, vote contrary to his personal beliefs in favor of the views of those to whom he answers. And, if he doesn't, then those same voters will vote in someone WHO WILL.

Really. It's not rocket science.

What is important is what we believe Romney would do if he is elected, NOT what he did when he was elected elsewhere. (At least not as a SOLE predictor or future behavior.)

EITHER Romney is a man with core values he will follow once in office or he is NOT.

The (yet again) logical inconsistency which some on the "right" hold (and endlessly spout) is that Romney, once in office, will instantly "betray" those who put him there and begin to ACT in a manner inconsistent with the beliefs of those who put him there.

While, at the same time, those same people endlessly complain that Romney, while Governor in Mass. acted in a manner CONSISTENT with that of the values of the people who put him there, i.e., was, at best, a squishy (or even liberal) Republican.

So, WHICH IS IT?

Does Romney have the core values which will cause him to betray conservatives as soon as he takes office OR is he a politician without any core values who bows to the will of his constituents so to obtain and retain office?

Sheesh. Do you people even THINK about what you THINK?