Why Conservatives should NOT vote for Romney. [W:348]

[tessaesque]

His experience is running one business. As governor his record was not so great and on foreign policy and defense he has no experience. I don't think he is really qualified to be president.

That statement, minus the running a business and governorship, could apply equally to Obama in '08.

 

[TurtleDude]

Here's what I know:
I am a hard working man. Romney has never worked hard labor one minute in his entire life.
I am opposed to gay marriage. Romeny has flipp flopped more times on this issue than John Kerry at a corndog eating contest.
I am pro-gun. Can you imagine Romney even PICKING up a gun?
I am a military veteran. Romney ran off to France during his prime draft years during Vietnam.
I am a fiscal Conservative. Romney is calling for more government spending - just like he did as governor of Mass.
I am pro-LIFE. Again Romeny flip flops with the direction of the wind on this one.
I am against outsourcing jobs and dismantling American companies. Romney made a career out of this.

yeah so none of us can figure why you would prefer Obama over Romney

I think you are a POE

 

[IndepCentristMA]

His experience is running one business. As governor his record was not so great and on foreign policy and defense he has no experience. I don't think he is really qualified to be president.

His record is not running 1 business... he's run multiple businesses... he started up a business, Bain Capital, that made money helping other businesses get started up or turn around from bad fiscal trouble... Additionally he worked with Boston Consulting and Bain & Co., that he went back to save and turn around as CEO for 2 years during the recession in the early 90s... He also has experience running NGOs in his local parish and the Salt Lake City Olympics... I, as a citizen of Massachusetts, heavily disagree with your assessment of his time as Governor. He turned a $3B budget shortfall into a $2B rainy day fund in 2 years time without raising taxes in a very liberal state with a 70% liberal legislature. Additionally he turned around the trend of losing people and jobs, and instead created positive numbers in each. He took MA from 50th in job growth in the nation when he came in to 35th in job growth in the nation when he left office, having increased each year by over 20K jobs (one of only 2 states in the nation to have done so in that time period), to a net positive of 87K jobs, dropping the unemployment from 5.6% to 4.7%. He also created the first successful universal healthcare system in the country, that did not raise healthcare costs or create a large overarching beaurocracy. Futhermore, he wrestled control of the Big Dig (the largest construction project in us history) away from the Turnpike Authority, and was able to get it on track for completion and recover costs. On foreign policy, not only has he actually lived abroad, and done business abroad for ages, but he already dealt with embassadors and other heads of state with the organizing of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and he's good friends with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Even Bill Clinton has gone on to say how Romney is more than qualified to be president.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

If Romney wins in November, Democrats will win the midterms and control the Senate.

The Democrats already control the Senate, there, Nostradumbass...

 

[johnny_rebson]

The Democrats already control the Senate, there, Nostradumbass...

They won't if Obama is reelected.

 

[Barrows]

This Republican refuses to hold his nose and vote for a RINO. A Republican in Name ONly is NOT what I want to see the future of our Republican Party to be packed with. If we do not take astand and INSIST on true Republicans, then we have ALREADY LOST!!!
And what I hope to accomplish is being able to sleep at night knowing that I voted my conscience instead of voting to contribute to the derailing of the Republican Party. Maybe it IS time for a third party, the Tea Party.

If you feel that you're no longer represented by the Republican party then you should absolutely vote for someone with your values. It may sound like I'm just trying to discourage a potential Romney voter, but ultimately you're only accountable to yourself and no one can fault you for voting honestly. The two candidates are almost the same, anyways; we have a Conservative Liberal going up against a Liberal Conservative.

Does the Tea Party even have a separate identity from the GOP at this point? Who is the third-party option "real Conservatives" should vote for?

 

[Objective Voice]

His experience is running one business. As governor his record was not so great and on foreign policy and defense he has no experience. I don't think he is really qualified to be president.

Romney and the GOP are doing a decent job of trying to keep the focus of his campaign on the economy. But as Romney's foreign relations tour is showing, he lacks foreign policy experience which IS a constitutional responsibility of the President.

Art 2, Sect 2, Clause 2: [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls...

Foreign policy and establishing strong foreign relations is a central responsibility of the nation's chief executive. Romney has talked a good talk in condemning President Obama's so-called "aplogy tour", but I'm not convinced he has what it takes to effect strong foreign relations. Seems to me he's doing everything he can to stir up decention as opposed to building relations.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Here's what I know:
I am a hard working man. Romney has never worked hard labor one minute in his entire life.

Oh, you KNOW that, do you? Ever heard the phrase never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes? My guess is you don't have the slightest what Mitt Romney has done throughout his life... My guess is it takes quite a bit of work to start, organize, and manage a multinational business... It certainly takes a lot of work to be on the campaign trail for several years where every minute thing you say gets measured with a microscope by press of all different varieties and biases...

Although, I'm sure since you're a fan of hard work, you must absolutely love Obama's "work ethic", and all those years he spent being a "community organizer", state senator that voted "present", a junior senator, and all that... That it inspires you to want to vote for the guy... :roll:

I am opposed to gay marriage. Romeny has flipp flopped more times on this issue than John Kerry at a corndog eating contest.

So Obama is FOR gay marriage (after several of his own flip flops), but you're opposing Romney in this election, because he hasn't been as consistent as you'd like on being against gay marriage...

Seems to me in that choice, you would choose Romney in that situation... rather than assisting the guy who is openly against your stance on this issue...

I am pro-gun. Can you imagine Romney even PICKING up a gun?

What you would do if Obama ever had a gun?

Again, Obama is anti-gun, and made the poor people cling to their guns and religion comment...

Romney at least has hunted before (whether or not you believe it)

Another one where you still would favor Romney than Obama.

I am a military veteran. Romney ran off to France during his prime draft years during Vietnam.

And Obama was in uniform when? Obama was the one who voted against funding for the troops in Afghanistan & Iraq as a Senator...

Yes, Romney went on a Mormon mission... he would have done so with or without the Vietnam War. When he was at Stanford he was not one of the liberals protesting against the war, he was out there with a rally to support the troops... And, he did register for the selective service, just his number was not called...

As far as service goes, Romney has been closer to it and less offensive to soldiers than Obama....

I am a fiscal Conservative. Romney is calling for more government spending - just like he did as governor of Mass.

Only... he didn't "call for more government spending" either in his campaign or as governor of my state... Are you scratching the bottom of the barrel when you need to start making up attacks without any basis on reality? He's been campaigning on cutting federal spending... and as Governor of MA, he actually convinced the heavily liberal "taxachusetts" legislature to cut spending without raising taxes... He also began the process of departmental consolidation to cut the size of the state work force, which is still being continued today... Additionally, he fired several 6 figure salaried executives and wrote their positions out of the budget... including mob figure Whitey Bulger's brother... That's called having the guts to do the right thing, regardless of the risks involved...

I am pro-LIFE. Again Romeny flip flops with the direction of the wind on this one.

Obama is pro-choice... and pro-everything that is the liberal agenda...

Romney may not have been as adamant a pro-life politician as you'd want, but at least the wind blows in the right direction with him, wheres with Obama the wind constantly blows east...

I am against outsourcing jobs and dismantling American companies. Romney made a career out of this.

All Obama has done is outsourced government jobs with the billions of stimulus dollars...

Last I checked Romney made a carreer out of helping create Staples, Sports Authority, etc. and turn around the financial situation for many troubled companies and made them profitable...

Still, this question hits at the heart of the campaign... Who do you think is more likely to get more Americans working than the other... Obama had 4 years, and used at least $4T in additional spending... and it hasn't created a recovery... Romney has proven success in multiple areas at creating growth, and getting people back to work...

Now, I don't figure I could convince you that you have to vote for either Romney or Obama... But, if you're being honest, in this election, if the entire anti-Obama support does not go to Romney, then there's a strong possibility that we will be stuck with the guy who drove the debt to $16T, championed and signed the ACA, created the GM buyout, etc.

There is no clearer choice... if you espouse conservative principles, you may not buy into everything Romney says, but you'd absolutely hate nearly everything Obama does, and want to unite behind 1 anti-Obama candidate... and that candidate is Romney...

 

[CONSagainROMNEY]

Indepcentrist, I'm not voting for Obama, so there is no point in pointing out that he is just as bad as Romney when it comes to the positions I listed above. You can save your breath, time and energy on that one, kidd-O.
What I am saying is that as someone who believes in the Republican Party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan, it is obvious to me that Romeny is a far cry from what our party sould be putting forth to represent us. I would say Mike Huckabee or Jeb Bush or Chris Christie are all a million times better. But since it looks like none of them will run until 2016, I'm not going to perpetuate the downgrading of our once great party by casting my vote for Mitt Romney. He is a flip flopper, a poltical opportunist and he doesnt have one tenth the backbone of Reagan or any of the other great Republicans from our party's past.

yeah so none of us can figure why you would prefer Obama over Romney

I think you are a POE

Did you even read my post Turtleboy? Romney will ruin the Republican Party. The party is already split in two. You have the Tea Party crowd that I associate with, then you have the CEO/white collar Repubs who flip flop on the issues that matter to us working class Repubs because they honestly dont care about the issues that effect us. To vote for Romeny would be to hand the keys of the Republican Party over to them. Reagan used to represent us, so did Bush Sr and even Bush Jr somewhat. But Romney represents special interests. He represents millionaire CEOs who will break up a company, steal our retirement and then send jobs overseas on the drop of a hat. He represents MORE out of control spending on Big government programs. Just look at his recent comments about Obama giving aid to Isreal. He said he would have given Isreal even MORE. THis at a time when our own house is not in order and a second recession is on our door steps. Look at his record as governor of Mass and how much he increaded government spending there. If the economy is the most important issue, then why would you vote for someone who gives lip service to cutting government spending when nothing in his past record indicates he has any notion of doing anything like that what so ever???

Here are the FACTS:

Fiscal year 2003 (Romney's first full year): the Mass budget was $22.25 billion
In fiscal year 2004 it rose to $22.49 billion
In fiscal year 2005 it went up again to $24.22 billion
In fiscal year 2006 it went up again $25.44 billion
ANd in fiscal year 2007 (Romney's last budet): it rose to $27.92 billion

If you compare fiscal 2007 (the last year Romney had any influence on the budget) to fiscal 2002 (the last year before he had any influence), spending rose by about 24 percent over five years, or a little under 5 percent per year.

 

[Blue_State]

^^ Are those adjusted?

 

[Bobcat]

Turtle, relax for a sec.

Romney is no Reagan, and while Obama is Carter, Romney cannot fix his problems.

If Romney gets in office, he's going to embarrass the GOP to kingdom come. Better to let Obama completely screw up than let Romney do a halfway job.

No its not. another obama term will take the country beyond the point of no return. Then no one could fix it. We will be Greece on a larger scale.

 

[AdamT]

No its not. another obama term will take the country beyond the point of no return. Then no one could fix it. We will be Greece on a larger scale.

Sure, what we need is another George Bush term, which is what a Romney presidency would be.

 

[roughdraft274]

Dude, Romney is conservative. I would go as far to say he's severely conservative. He even said so, so you can take that to the bank.

 

[cpwill]

If Romney gets in office, he's going to embarrass the GOP to kingdom come. Better to let Obama completely screw up than let Romney do a halfway job.

That depends entirely on your assessment of our national ability to afford such a thing.

 

[Billy the Kid]

Sure, what we need is another George Bush term, which is what a Romney presidency would be.

Seeing into the future is a great gift; when did you realize you had this talent? :2razz:

 

[Born Free]

His experience is running one business. As governor his record was not so great and on foreign policy and defense he has no experience. I don't think he is really qualified to be president.

You forgot one the Utah Olympics, but that aside, Obama never ran a lemonade stand. As for Obama on foreign policy, except for killing OBL, Obama has taken us backward in foreign relations, Putin tell Obama what to do. He pissed off other countries by giving Russia the missile defense, N Korea and Iran have nukes, he could give a crap about Israel, I could go on. The fact is Obama leads from behind. All that says nothing about Obama's economic failures.

 

[Glideslope]

Remember voting for Dole in '96? Or McCain in '08? Remember watching Clinton being sworn in for a second term and that sinking feeling of Wow, I wasted an entire afternoon going to the polls to vote for a canidate who really didnt have a snowballs chance of winning anyway. Remember thinking, why did I even waste my time?

Well, if you vote for Romney this November then most likely you will be having that same feeling come January 2013.

But that is not why you should NOT vote for Romney in November. The reason you should not vote for Mitt Romney is because he is not a Conservative. The reason you should not vote for him is because of his stance on abortion, on gun control, on health care, on gay marriage, on religion. But these are all wedge issues, you say. Sure, Romney's policies on these issues have been in line with the liberal agenda, but the big issue this year is the economy, you say.
Ok, fair enough. So why exactly do you think Romney would be good for economy??? Because he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has never worked one minute of manual labor in his enitre life? Because he has NO IOTA of what us working folk have to do every day? Because he has an army of nannys, maids, chauffers and assistants to clean up after him and wipe his crack every day? Or maybe it is because he wants to INCREASE government spending even MORE than what we currently have.

Look, unless you are a millionaire who was born with a silver spoon in your mouth, Romney does NOT represent you and you would be a FOOL to vote for him. It would be far better to cast your vote in a respectable manner - in a way that would let you sleep well at night and look yourself in the mirror each morning. It would be far better to vote for the person who actually reflects your vision and your values. Be that Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, or any other write-in candidate like Chris Christie or Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee. Because if you vote for Romney, you are saying THIS is what the Republican party stands for: a flip-flopping political opportunist who hides the money he made in shiping jobs overseas and stealing our retirement funds in Swiss bank accounts and a maze of tax shelters. THAT is not what my Republican Party is about, my friends. THAT is not what our future should be. We need to vote our conscience on this one. Vote for a canidate that actually reflects our Republican-American values. That is the way to go. Or even sit this one out, for 2012 is not our year. It is not the year that we send a true representative of the Republican Party to the White House. 2016 will be that year. 2016 will see the strongest group of Republican contenders since 1976 or 1980. We must be patient. We must circle the wagons and tough this one out. We must NOT vote for a lesser of two evils or a canidate that is not a true Republican. And Mitt Romney is NOT a true Republican!

Your defeatist attitude is nauseating. Why don't you come out of the closet and tell us that you've secretly been planning to vote for Barack Obama all along? You're not a conservative. You're a fence-sitting, quasi liberal who engages in a slobbering love affair with a walking, talking incompetent idiot. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[jamesrage]

But there ARE politicians who have an idea of what it is like to be a working man. Look at Reagan. He came from a po-dunk farming town in Illinois. Nixon never had a silver spoon in his mouth.

Do you think any politician after spending most of their adult life in politics give a rats ass about the common man?Most of these people go in rich and come out richer.

The wealthy class has co-opted the Republican Party by giving lip service to the issues that mater to the working class, but in reality they dont give a flying fudge puppy about OUR issues.

You are sadly mistaken if you think the wealthy have only co-opted just the republican party. This class warfare is nothing more than an attempt to divide people and sucker people into voting for their candidate when their candidate is ****en rich too. People who complain about the rich shouldn't be voting for the rich.

They spend like drunken sailors without caring about how hard we working class Republicans (and even some Reagan Democrats) have to work for the tax dollars that they feel obliged to waste.

Both parties do that.Its easy to spend and give away other people's money when you didn't have to earn it. Both parties give billions away in forign aid to other countries, money that could have stayed in the pockets of the tax payers, money that could have been used for things that the American people need.

There are two kinds of Republicans. The wealthy class Republicans and the working class Republicans (some call us the Tea Party) but even though we all call ourselves Republicans we have little in common.

Bet you all are voting for the same guy.Die hard party tards support the candidate the media has told them that has the best chance of winning regardless of what that candidate's views are.If its a tea party republican candidate,then that is who they will vote for.If its a liberal republican then that is who they will vote for. Many of these people care so much about their party winning that many of these people going Obama is a Marxist and Obama is a communist would vote for Obama if he became a republican and the media said he is the front runner.

And what little we DO have in common is simply given lip service by the wealthy class. They trumpet the flag and bend over backwards to tell you how much they love our country yet they outsource jobs.

I agree.Its completely hypocritical to say we support out troops, we are patriotic,communist suck balls and then turn around and make it extremely easy to outsource jobs.

Maybe it IS time for a third party, the Tea Party.

The tea party is not a third party. The tea party is just a rouse and a con to sucker people into voting for republicans again.

And Turtledude - why is that Johnson has no chance of being elected? Its EXACTLY because of folks with your lesser of two evils type of attitude toward your voting responsibility as an AMerican. SHow come cajones and VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!!!

Die hard party supporters will never do that.As I said earlier they would vote for Obama if he had a R next to his name and the media said he is the front runner.

 

[jamesrage]

That's why we need a Republican senate, too. (Do you realize that the last time the senate passed a budget, nobody had ever even heard of an iPad?)

Republican does not equal conservative nor does republican equal patriotic.

 

[kmiller1610]

Romney has a history of effecting changes in financial performance, balancing budgets, saving companies, making money. I could care less about all the conservative litmus tests. The country needs a financial turnaround guy and Romney has a reasonable track record for the task. If Romney had commissioned a group to deal with spending and debt, he would have jumped on its conclusions and rallied people to take action, not set himself up to counter punch and deride anyone who made a proposal.

 

[CONSagainROMNEY]

Your defeatist attitude is nauseating. Why don't you come out of the closet and tell us that you've secretly been planning to vote for Barack Obama all along? You're not a conservative. You're a fence-sitting, quasi liberal who engages in a slobbering love affair with a walking, talking incompetent idiot. You're not fooling anyone.

I can asure you that I am not voting for Obama. If you actually knew me you would know that I think his social experiment has no chance of succeeding and I have posted the two reasons why I believe that.

As for a defeatist attitude, please tell me which is more of a defeatist attitude; voting for Romney (who in no way what so ever represents me or the Republican Party of Reagan/Eisenhower/Lincoln) and thereby handing over the keys to our once great party to the enemy OR voting for someone that actually shares my beliefs about small government, my pro-gun beliefs, my pro-life beliefs and so on???

In my opinion the DEFEATIST is the numchuck who gives in and votes for a canidate that in no way, shape or form has anything to do with the conservative values that has made our Republican Party so great in our past.

 

[AdamT]

I can asure you that I am not voting for Obama. If you actually knew me you would know that I think his social experiment has no chance of succeeding and I have posted the two reasons why I believe that.

As for a defeatist attitude, please tell me which is more of a defeatist attitude; voting for Romney (who in no way what so ever represents me or the Republican Party of Reagan/Eisenhower/Lincoln)

Seriously? Reagan, Eisenhower, and Lincoln have about as much in common as Obama, Ron Paul, and Romney.

 

[CONSagainROMNEY]

Romney has a history of effecting changes in financial performance, balancing budgets, saving companies, making money. I could care less about all the conservative litmus tests. The country needs a financial turnaround guy and Romney has a reasonable track record for the task. If Romney had commissioned a group to deal with spending and debt, he would have jumped on its conclusions and rallied people to take action, not set himself up to counter punch and deride anyone who made a proposal.

Here are the FACTS about Romney's "conservative" record as Governor of Mass:

Fiscal year 2003 (Romney's first full year): the Mass budget was $22.25 billion
In fiscal year 2004 it rose to $22.49 billion
In fiscal year 2005 it went up again to $24.22 billion
In fiscal year 2006 it went up again $25.44 billion
ANd in fiscal year 2007 (Romney's last budet): it rose to $27.92 billion

If you compare fiscal 2007 (the last year Romney had any influence on the budget) to fiscal 2002 (the last year before he had any influence), spending rose by about 24 percent over five years, or a little under 5 percent per year.

Do you think any politician after spending most of their adult life in politics give a rats ass about the common man?

Human decency is not as easily corrupted by money as you might think. Do you think Reagan did NOT care about the common man? Or what about Ford? If a person is a good, decent person then they will always care about others...I find your cynism to be ugly, unhealthy and unAmerican.

 

[kmiller1610]

Here are the FACTS about Romney's "conservative" record as Governor of Mass:

Fiscal year 2003 (Romney's first full year): the Mass budget was $22.25 billion
In fiscal year 2004 it rose to $22.49 billion
In fiscal year 2005 it went up again to $24.22 billion
In fiscal year 2006 it went up again $25.44 billion
ANd in fiscal year 2007 (Romney's last budet): it rose to $27.92 billion

If you compare fiscal 2007 (the last year Romney had any influence on the budget) to fiscal 2002 (the last year before he had any influence), spending rose by about 24 percent over five years, or a little under 5 percent per year.

He was Governor of the blue-ist state in the union. He balanced the budget, repeatedly. This is good practice for what needs to happen at a federal level. BALANCE THE BUDGET. He did the same thing with the Olympics and with the Bain turnaround. He took necessary steps and negotiated with both peers and opponents to affect fiscal health. The last thing we need is a polarizing purist whose going to wave the absolutist dogma and get nothing done.

When he took over in Mass, there was a projected 3 billion dollar deficit. He balanced the budget.

 

[Diogenes]

If Romney wins in November, Democrats will win the midterms and control the Senate.

If the Republicans perform as poorly as they did after 2004, they will deserve to lose. The goal of us conservatives should be to elect representatives and senators who will actually work for the benefit of the country rather than their own benefit.