Mitt Romney is not a Wimp

[Brett85]

Hey choir, howzit!?

Which candidate is better for establishment?

4 more years of Obama with a constitutional 'R' challenger showing up in 2016 (in a field of Democrat-lite 'R's and with the new RNC delegate rules in place)

4 years of Romney with any constitutional 'R' challenger being held firmly at a distance by the GOP, msm, and the new delegate rules.

4 additional years of Romney.

Establishment is good with either Obama or Romney, but if establishment is smart they'll go with the candidate that ensures a better chance of control 4 years down the line.

Romney is that candidate.

Yay establishment.

NOBP *with fingers crossed that the O wins*

The sad fact of the matter is that any "Constitutional candidate" has no chance to win the Presidency of the United States at the moment, given the hardcore statist positions that the American people have. Paul Ryan's support of vouchers for Medicare is considered to be an "estreme" position by the media and the American people. Just think what would be said if you had a candidate for President running on a platform of phasing out Medicare and Social Security? Any candidate running on a platform of abolishing the department of education would be derided on someone who "hates children" and "wants a dumb society." I hate to say it, but someone running for President on a Constitutional platform would get crushed by Obama even more than Romney is. That's because we're at a tipping point in our country where people not only don't support returning to the Constitution, but even want the government to pay for their housing, their food, their medical care, their contraception, etc. The sad fact of the matter is that Romney isn't losing because he's not a "Constitutional candidate," but because the American people are now basically in support of full fledged socialism.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Politics used to be about those small gains on the margin. And while it was, it worked, and people went along with it. Some years ago, however, the corporations and the corporatists got greedy. And since that time, politics has been about those small losses along the margin, and trying to minimize those losses along the margin.

And that's the difference which is causing this movement to continue to grow in power, reach and voice. Because this is simply a good time for someone conservative enough to say, 'Enough!' We don't know how to help the rest of you grow a pair except by example. More of a loss in privacy civil liberties vs. more of a loss in fiscal civil liberties vs a bunch of other hair splitting is something for the apologists to work out. Our place is beside our line in the sand.

I have no use for the anti-corportations demagoguery (corporations are basically a collective of persons pushing for the same goal), but I actually prefer your phrasing over mine: politics have always been about minimizing losses and will always be.

Your second paragraph is immaterial. Not voting for Romney won't be an example of anything. It won't make the GOP voters become more conservative. It'll just push the country more to the left, push the SCOTUS more to the left, push the Overton Window more to the left, cost me and my family, friends and neighbours a steeper decline in our standards of living. There's simply no upside to it. None whatsoever. What you suggest is flat out magical thinking. I heard the same stuff four years ago - yet, even though McCain lost, Obama'12 is to the left of Obama'08 and Romney is running to the left of McCain (and run in the primary way to the left of Romney'08).

I'll take what I can instead of falling for unsubstantiated magical reasoning or over-emotional stances. If it's just getting a Clarence Thomas over a Ruth Ginsberg and a slightly less expensive welfare state, so be it. In the end, I still prefer the America of today over the Europe of today and it's not even close.

 

[wgadget]

If I click on your article will I hear vigorous chants of "USA! USA!" in the background?

 

[Philhelm]

He fled to France in order to avoid fighting in the same war he supported (Vietnam). Nope, still a wimp.

It's outrageous that the only candidate (other than Dick Perry) to have actually served in the military was given such hostile treatment for his non-interventionist philosophy. Salamander Gingrich and Mitt Obamney are cowards of the highest order (or is that lowest?).

 

[bunklocoempire]

The sad fact of the matter is that any "Constitutional candidate" has no chance to win the Presidency of the United States at the moment, given the hardcore statist positions that the American people have. Paul Ryan's support of vouchers for Medicare is considered to be an "estreme" position by the media and the American people. Just think what would be said if you had a candidate for President running on a platform of phasing out Medicare and Social Security? Any candidate running on a platform of abolishing the department of education would be derided on someone who "hates children" and "wants a dumb society." I hate to say it, but someone running for President on a Constitutional platform would get crushed by Obama even more than Romney is. That's because we're at a tipping point in our country where people not only don't support returning to the Constitution, but even want the government to pay for their housing, their food, their medical care, their contraception, etc. The sad fact of the matter is that Romney isn't losing because he's not a "Constitutional candidate," but because the American people are now basically in support of full fledged socialism.

I'm not entirely sure why you would attach your comments to my post. None of your comments address anything of the 'top down' nature that I refer to.

 

[belian78]

Yeps, an unconfirmed report about Romney alledgely doing something stupid as an adolescent is what defines the man. You can't make up this stuff.

What about that Ann Romney expensive t-shirt? And the horse?

And this is why we're screwed up as a country. People decide their vote brainlessly considering this type of non-issues.

No the reason our country is in the shape that it's in is we have people such as yourself that knows just how bad of a candidate Rmoney is, yet you defend him.

 

[DamianTV]

Glad you enjoyed writing it.

I'm not voting for Romney.

Anyone that does is playing right into their hands and accomplishes nothing more than to maintain the Illusion of Choice.

 

[puppetmaster]

If my vote was the last deciding vote in a tied election I would not vote Romney.

 

[DamianTV]

Napolitano recently called Obama a failed president and Romney a failed candidate.

 

[Brett85]

I'm not entirely sure why you would attach your comments to my post. None of your comments address anything of the 'top down' nature that I refer to.

I was just pointing out that Rand Paul will have a very tough time getting elected in 2016, given today's political climate. We're living in a country where a President who gives us trillion dollar deficits every year gets a 50% approval rating from the American people. So I was just saying that hoping that Romney loses so that we'll get a Rand Paul Presidency in 2016 seems a bit far fetched. We have to to something to radically change the hearts and minds of the American people before they'll ever vote to make someone like Rand Paul President.

 

[puppetmaster]

I was just pointing out that Rand Paul will have a very tough time getting elected in 2016, given today's political climate. We're living in a country where a President who gives us trillion dollar deficits every year gets a 50% approval rating from the American people. So I was just saying that hoping that Romney loses so that we'll get a Rand Paul Presidency in 2016 seems a bit far fetched. We have to to something to radically change the hearts and minds of the American people before they'll ever vote to make someone like Rand Paul President.

well then I guess I hope we fall off the financial cliff sooner than later because I feel that I am better prepared to fight for liberty than my kids may be. A total collapse and revolution to follow will be tough but necessary to wake up enough people to regroup in liberty.

 

[Aratus]

needless to say... the great VEEP debate is next...

 

[RickyJ]

Is that why he ran to France during the Vietnam war claiming he was doing missionary work?

 

[libertariantexas]

Yeps, an unconfirmed report about Romney alledgely doing something stupid as an adolescent is what defines the man. You can't make up this stuff.

What about that Ann Romney expensive t-shirt? And the horse?

And this is why we're screwed up as a country. People decide their vote brainlessly considering this type of non-issues.

You are right.

There are far better reasons to NOT vote for Romney.

 

[Origanalist]

Glad you enjoyed writing it.

I'm not voting for Romney.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[acptulsa]

I have no use for the anti-corportations demagoguery (corporations are basically a collective of persons pushing for the same goal), but I actually prefer your phrasing over mine: politics have always been about minimizing losses and will always be.

Your second paragraph is immaterial. Not voting for Romney won't be an example of anything. It won't make the GOP voters become more conservative. It'll just push the country more to the left, push the SCOTUS more to the left, push the Overton Window more to the left, cost me and my family, friends and neighbours a steeper decline in our standards of living. There's simply no upside to it. None whatsoever. What you suggest is flat out magical thinking. I heard the same stuff four years ago - yet, even though McCain lost, Obama'12 is to the left of Obama'08 and Romney is running to the left of McCain (and run in the primary way to the left of Romney'08).

I'll take what I can instead of falling for unsubstantiated magical reasoning or over-emotional stances. If it's just getting a Clarence Thomas over a Ruth Ginsberg and a slightly less expensive welfare state, so be it. In the end, I still prefer the America of today over the Europe of today and it's not even close.

People like you are why twenty percent of the population had to do eighty percent of the freezing, the work and the dying during the American Revolution. People like you sat around on their fat asses saying, I don't like King George, but he has the biggest army in the world, so on paper he can't be beat. Therefore, I will roll over for him, lick his hand, and like it. Because things can never, ever change for the better, and there's no percentage in being a real, human man.

George Washington proved your type to be liars, and in the last six years, as the American public went from, 'What the hell is a Fed?' to, 'Why the hell shouldn't we use silver as money?' we proved your type to be liars once again. So, excuse us if we take your lovely little poems of alas and woe with a big grain of salt.