Romney or Obama?


By RightKlik

It's Romney or Obama. Take your pick:
ABO.

At least Romney isn’t Obama and can be pressured into doing some of the right things. No hope for Barry, he’s rotten to the core.
As bad as Mitt Romney is, can anyone say that he'd be worse than Obama?

On the other hand... I know conservatives are supposed to fall in line for Romney now that he's truly the inevitable nominee, but I cannot lie. To paraphrase a great leader, I'm not willing to light my pants on fire to try and get support for Mitt Romney. I am who I am...

As a conservative, I can't pretend to be keen on what Romney is selling.

Update: This article is a few weeks old now, but I think it provides a timeless lesson on the folly of the rudderless, unpricipled "compromise" (and the rigidity and intolerance) of the standard moderate...


Here's another oldie but goodie: On conservative compromise, via Peggy Noonan, a yardstick metaphor...
Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you’ve got pure liberal thinking—more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you’ve got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they’re dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It’s always grown! It’s as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: “Hey, it coulda been 29!” But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They’d like eight. Instead it’s 28.

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, “We should spend a trillion dollars,” and the Republican Party would respond, “No, too costly. How about $700 billion?” Conservatives on the ground are thinking, “How about nothing? How about we don’t spend more money but finally start cutting.”


Update (LCR): Just caught some comments per the excellent HotAir post RK linked above:


HotAir reader FloatingRock on the falseness of Romney's moderatism:
He’s not: he’s a liberal pretending to be a moderate pretending to be a conservative. Obamacare is corporate socialism and so is Romneycare; they’re both liberals.


Besser Tots On the possibility of Romney being pressured by the right "to do the right thing":

That is the standard? Capable of being “pressured into doing some of the right things?” That applies to even Obama. He signed the extension of the tax cuts after all.

And a lengthy Romney-bot response from a reader called Crosspatch:
... Romney ran for governor of a liberal state where the legislature was bent on doing some pretty radical things. He did manage to moderate their extreme leftism and preserve things like private health insurance.

To some extent, sure, a politician needs to say what they need to say to get elected. But Romney has always been an influence to the right. The problem is that he ran in about the most liberal place in the country. Had he run in a more conservative place, sure, the results would have been much different. The only reason we talk about “Romneycare” is because the people and the legislature demanded some sort of health care solution for the 7% of the population that wasn’t insured and Romney found a way to do that with the least possible disruption to the 93% who had it and to the private health insurance providers.

I believe President Romney will reduce the size of the federal government. I believe President Romney will turn a lot of what the federal government does today over to the states to handle as they see fit. I believe President Romney will, as he says, undo the “government centric” society and give us our country back.
"I believe President Romney will reduce the size of the federal government."

Meh. I have one (hyphenated) word for this reader: Etch-a-Sketch

Update 2 (LCR): John Hawkins on Romney today:
The answer has been the same every time: the same thing I thought of him yesterday. I still think Mitt’s electability is a myth and a lot of conservatives are going to have to sell their souls to support Mitt (More than a few of them have already gotten started). There are a lot of conservatives who’ve put their reputations on the line to assure everyone that Mitt is actually very conservative — and extremely electable. Of course, some of those same people started doing CYA-backpedaling when it looked like Romney almost had the nomination locked up, which begs the question: If you don’t think Mitt is going to win, why were you working so hard to undermine all the other candidates and push Mitt in the first place?
[...]
Can I sit here and tell you that I’m going to be an enthusiastic backer of Mitt Romney? Honestly, no. I never liked him very much to begin with and shoving aside the conservative base, cozying up to the establishment, and buying a victory with a sleazy scorched earth campaign against better qualified, more conservative nominees didn’t do much to endear him to anyone. I have no problem tearing into Obama or defending Mitt when the mainstream media inevitably smears him for the crime of being a threat to liberal interests, but I can’t pretend to be excited about the idea of seeing him in the White House.

On the other hand, my expectations for Mitt are so low that he could almost trip and fall over the bar. So, maybe he’ll be better than most conservatives expect him to be. Maybe, although I really, really, really doubt it, he was lying to everyone in Massachusetts as opposed to all of us and he’ll get elected and turn out to be some sort of northeastern Ronald Reagan in the White house.

Whatever the case may be, Obama is throwing the country off a cliff and when you’re plunging into a bottomless chasm, you can’t get too picky about which branch you grab on the way down.

5 comments:

  1. "republicans" lost their roots. the tea party found them.

    if romney does win it all, a message should be read aloud at every celebration party and outpost: we are watching. if we are not happy we will primary you in 4 years.

    kind of a roman "thou art mortal" thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you gonna sit this election out and let Obama win re-election for the next 4 YEARS!

    What sort of patriot would allow such a thing to happen to America?

    I am sorry...but I just don't get that, RightKlik. I really and honestly and truly don't.

    If no one can see the bight line of difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney, they are either 1) sadly deluded; 2)a sore loser or 3) completely deaf, dumb and blind without any sentient reasoning capability.

    Even freaking Ann Coulter can see the difference between Obama and Romney! (See this great article she wrote awhile back):

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ann-coulter/2012/03/22/coulter-column-send-lizzie-borden-washington

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frank: For what it's worth, Ann Coulter has morphed into a human pretzel re: her support for Romney.

      Ann Coulter's Fragging

      Delete
    2. Who said anything about sitting out the election?

      We'll do what we have to do in November. For some of us, that might (or might not) involve a vote for a third party candidate.

      Romney has been pissing on conservatives' heads for the past several months whilst telling us it's raining. Sorry to be crude, but I can't think of a better way to say it. Apparently Romney doesn't need or want a lot of support from tea party conservatives. He's been insulting and demeaning us at every turn. He doesn't understand us and he doesn't even know how to speak our language.

      I think that Romney and like-minded GOP insiders have made a carefully calculated decision to show the tea party the subtle "middle finger" head scratch. If elected, I strongly suspect Romney will work more closely with folks like Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill, giving him the freedom to ignore folks like Jim DeMint and Rand Paul.

      Why set my pants on fire to help a man whose apparent strategy excludes our involvement?

      Delete
  3. Oh my, oh dear, I have to choose between two evils again. The Hegelian Dialectic is mean that way.
    Follow the money, chaps, and you will find corporate socialism at the end of the both of these "gentleman's" agendas.
    (The top donors of each of Mitt and Obama's campaigns have been the constituent banks of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel: Goldman, Citi, et al.)
    If you haven't figured out how these elements play into politics by now, well... bless your little baby heart.

    As for me, I've got my Sarah Connor attitude on and ain't takin' no more of this, 'cause this economy has been 100 years, YES 100 YEARS, swirling the toilet. Obama is just happens to be holding the bag, a position he was groomed for. Excuse me while I don't wring my hands over a governor from Taxachusetts not being elected to mitigate the full-blown Fabian socialism around me.

    Here's a little nugget of truth: the most successful communists wear the most expensive suits.

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.