For those of you out there who are voting for Mitt Romney, I have a simple question for you: what does he stand for?
We've seen him change his mind on every conceivable issue and it's obviously beyond my comprehension why anyone would vote for him. This rings ironic when you consider that many of these same folks that are voting for Mitt Romney aren't voting for Barack Obama because they are afraid of what he might do (and what he may do has no bearing on reality, considering how he has governed and actions he has taken in the last four years).
In the final stretch of the campaign, Mitt Romney has no planned interviews and refuses to answer reporters questions about things like Richard Murdock (the only Senate candidate he has endorsed) and abortion. He simply has his staged campaign appearances and reads from his pre-ordained talking about points which seem to revolved around three things: momentum, Obama sucks, and momentum. Am I the only one that see this as a losing strategy?
If I'm wrong (and there is about a one in four chance that I am wrong), politics in this country will have taken such an ugly turn that I'm not entirely certain things would ever be the same. We'd have, as president, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch...someone willing to do or say whatever it take to get elected, including saying things that are diametrically to something he said even a few days previously. Many of you may chuckle and say, "Ah, but Mark, this is what politicians always do."
Stop and think about this for a minute. This is different. This is worse.
Now, I'm not saying that you have to love and adore President Obama and think he's a savior but you do know what you are getting with him. He's been a moderate president...cutting taxes in many ways for the middle class (the payroll tax, the stimulus), robust national security (drone attacks, getting bin Laden), passing health care (the GOP idea for an exchange with mandate, modeled after Romney's plan for MA) and expanded local oil and gas drilling. That's going to continue if he is re-elected. Anyone thinking otherwise, isn't thinking rationally.
So, if there are still any fence sitters out there or people leaning Romney, I'd like an answer of what exactly he is going to do (based on what he has said) if he is elected and why this (ahem) uncertainty is preferred.
14 comments:
Still trying to figure out who will win Congress before I pick Romney or Obama, but the answer is obvious here. Mitt Romney stands for whatever he thinks will get him elected, which can change from day to day. Guess what - Obama is exactly the same way. Also guess what - that didn't stop you from voting for Obama in 2008. Couple Obama's relative lack of a record with statements like this:
"I serve as a blank screen," Obama writes, "on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."
So you don't have much of a leg to stand on when complaining that Romney is a squish - it didn't bother you one bit in 2008. But that's what one would expect from a partisan, isn't it?
Finally, your characterization of Obama as moderate only makes sense from your rose colored perspective - that of a highly partisan lefty. I think to most of the country, Obama is pretty much a standard issue lefty statist. I wouldn't call him a radical by any means, but he doesn't seem to possess any of the Clintonian instinct to triangulate that would make him the moderate you claim him to be. And if anything is going to be his undoing, that will be it IMO.
I really don't care about the Presidency - Romney won't be that different from Obama. You can delude yourself - loudly and proudly - about that all you want. I also don't believe a Republican Congress is really going to do anything serious about deficit reduction - starting with spending. Nor does who is President have any bearing on that.
I will say that I'm not keen to see another Kagan added to the Supreme Court, but again - I wouldn't expect a Scalia or Thomas nomination from Romney.
In just about any other country in the world, Obama and Romney would be vying for control - of the party they would both belong to, not the country as a whole.
The only real reason I hope for an Obama loss is to mock you.
Oh, and since you chided everyone but yourself about stepping on the dead bodies in Libya...
Father of Slain Former SEAL, New Report, Raise Questions About Response to Benghazi Attack
Either this Administration didn't know what was going on, i.e. they were incompetent, or they did and chose to ignore it for political expediency. Either case is damning.
The facts show your statement to be wrong, Hap. The president said if he had the chance, he'd get bin Laden. He did. He said he would pass health care reform. He did. He said he would cut taxes for the middle class. He did in the stimulus. He said he would get financial reform done. He did. There are many other things he said he stood for, said he would take action to change, and he did. Why you don't accept this is really frustrating (and I do know why:)).
A great example of how Romney and the president are different: taxes. The president wants to extend the tax cuts for most and let the ones for the upper percentiles expire. Romney has changed his mind several different times on taxes...first it was tax cuts for the wealthy...then it wasn't. Then it was an end to subsidies, then he couldn't name any.
Obama's not the only one who is a moderate. I am as well. Being a moderate means accepting the reality of not being able to have a "smaller government" in a society with a 15 trillion dollar economy in an era of globalization. That doesn't make me or the president a statist. It makes us both realists.
The only real reason I hope for an Obama loss is to mock you.
Why is it again you get pissed when I say that you are a juvenile and behave in an adolescent fashion?
Obviously, I will be bummed if he does somehow manage to lose but the up side of it is to see how much he accomplished in four years in terms of turning around this economy, civil rights, energy, national security,education, and health care. It's very impressive when you consider he had the entire GOP rooting for him (and America) to fail. It makes you wonder how much more impressive a second term would be which (sadly) would piss you off for the same that Hap would be pissed:)
Why is it again you get pissed when I say that you are a juvenile and behave in an adolescent fashion?
Funny how you take seriously the throw-away comments and ignore the substance. Speaking of juvenile sensibilities!
All Obama has accomplished huh? You still trust Politifact, don't you?
And if Romney is elected I trust you won't suddenly develop second thoughts about the "Disposition Matrix". After all that may truly be Obama's most enduring "accomplishment".
>He said he would pass health care reform.
Really? So when he was running to get elected, he outlined what exactly Obamacare would look like? Or did he serve you up some vague platitudes about reforming health care that you lapped up? For example, I seem to remember him not liking insurance mandates when he was trying to get elected:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/17/video-of-obama-making-the-case-against-mandates/
Strange that he wasn't bothered by them when it came time to implement Obamacare, no? Or.. he said pretty sounding things to get elected.
>He said he would cut taxes for the middle class.
Which tax rates have gone down?
Of course, what you really mean is that when you voted for Obama, he made a bunch of vague, nice sounding promises that you now want to try to make it seem like were concrete, very specific proposals that he followed through on. I do give him points for bin Laden, though it's pretty hard to see how any president, of any party, wouldn't have been willing to take the chance to get him given the political bonus for doing so.
>Obama's not the only one who is a moderate. I am as well.
Bahaha. Like I said, when you are a partisan lefty, it's hard to place yourself accurately. You even try to rationalize things like Obamacare as conservative, as if every terrible idea that comes from a consevative think tank is conservative dogma. (Do you seriously think that voters know about that, and if they do, that they actually care? After all, Obama and the D's passed Obamacare, not Heritage, or whoever it was.)
>not being able to have a "smaller government" in a society with a 15 trillion dollar economy in an era of globalization.
Totally dude. How would any of us ever make it through the day without every single part of the federal government existing. It's just too scary to contemplate. By the way - why does this realism of yours require spending far more than you take in, and why does it encourage people to be dependent on taxpayer largesse? And why do you think that is sustainable long term? That doesn't seem very realistic to me. Also - why is it, by the way, that you object to the label statist? I realize that you'd like to shift things around such that you are a moderate, I'm an anarchist, and Kucinich is just a leftie, but I think a lot of the country finds that as silly as I do. (But we'll find out soon enough.)
>It's very impressive when you consider he had the entire GOP rooting for him (and America) to fail.
Oh Mark. :) I too was impressed with Bush going well at various parts of his presidency when the entire Democratic party was rooting for him to fail. You were too right? Oh, you weren't rooting for him to fail? *giggle*
Anyway, why do you think I'd be pissed off if Obama wins? Like I've always said - first and foremost I want divided government. All D is the worst, followed by all R. As juris said, the only compelling reason to get Romney in there is for supreme appointments so we don't get another living constitutionalist on the court. There are even some downsides - I've liked having a prez who favors basketball instead of football. Well, ok, that's the only one I can think of.
Btw - on the economy, you've really drunk the kool aid haven't you? I mean, have you looked at the labor participation rate?
Prediction: if Romney gets elected, Mark will suddenly develop a strange new respect for:
- the dangers of inflation and large deficits
- due process for Americans suspected of terrorism
- government overreaching and/or having too much power; he'll even sound like a libertarian sometimes
any others i'm missing?
Hap - yes, you are missing that for at least two years he will harp on how Republicans stole the election and the undue influence of Kochporate money.
He won't even read Mead - too painful.
Rooting for the president to fail was ok up until 2009, then it became bad all of a sudden.
Yes, juris, I've been wondering where his promised discussion/rebuttal of Mead disappeared to.
M is the typical proglodyte, he can't hang with Mead. Just feed him some TPM, DU or TP and he can digest that gruel. Fortunately for M there is a plethora of brainless progressive content across the Internet.
What's amusing to me, Hap, is how much adolescence you prescribe to me. My positions on your list won't change from what they are are now should Mitt Romney capture that 1 in 4 chance and win. I would think you would be the one more nervous than I considering he is a moderate now. After all, he did sign an assault weapons ban and Obama actually increased your gun rights, correct?
how much adolescence you prescribe to me.
Prescribe? Really?
and Obama actually increased your gun rights, correct
No that isn't correct. How many times must you repeat this lie? Still trying to convince yourself?
Post a Comment