At 9/20/12 11:13 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:
Honest question now for conservatives at this point: do you honestly believe in Mitt Romney as a candidate? Please have your answer not include the words "not" "Obama".
Sorry Brian, but it is an honest question when you put that qualifier in there.
1st, let's say we have a scale. -1 is far left and 1 is far right and 0 is the center. Then you put Obama and Mitt Romney on the scale and then each conservative vote (I'll label them x, y & z.
O R X Y Z
Now, if the posting doesn't screw it up...you've got Obama at -0.39 and Romney at 0. (Got these positions from The New York Times' .) Now X, Y and Z, our conservative voters, are going to look at Romney. No he's not a conservative. BUT in terms of ideology...he is significantly closer to their position than Obama. May not be who they wanted or the candidate who came closest to their position in the primary, but he is not the candidate who is furthest from their position. That would be Obama. So in this case they are voting for the lesser of two evils...who happens to be Barack Obama...and therefore they are voting (legitimately) for the 'Not Obama' candidate.
But Mason...hold on a minute...aren't there Libertarian and Constitutional party candidates? Good question Brian, and I'm glad you would've brought it up.
True, the Libertarian Constitutional party candidate may be closer to X, Y & Z's position on the aforementioned graph. However, people vote not only based on proximity of the candidate's ideology...but strategically as well. Those candidates, along with Rosanne Barr on the Left, do not stand a chance of winning. So why cast a vote that will get you the worst (from X, Y & Z's position) case scenario?
Secondly, ANY election is about voting for either the incumbent person or party. It doesn't matter if it's Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter....Jefferson, Adams, or Washington. So yeah...every vote is technically because Candidate X is not Candidate Y.
Thirdly, while I am a Republican...I'm not really considered a conservative because of my opinions on social issues. Furthermore, Bush was a cold bucket of water poured on me. Bush expanded government spending and reduced tax rates. Obama expanded government spending, kept income tax rates where they are and lowered Social Security tax rates.
And I had such hope for the man. See in 2008 I looked at my absentee ballot for weeks as I tried to decide who to vote for. But it took a CNN special on the candidates that highlighted Obama's lack of experience and naivete that made me go with my gut and vote for McCain.
I wish I could say I was wrong.
Obama is the president who came to office with the thinnest resume of any of his predecessors (including W.). He was a state legislator in a state where state politics is firmly controlled by his part...and he did not have a record of leadership or taking bold stands. Then he was a Senator for two years.
So he comes to Washington and becomes president. He didn't know (and still doesn't) what he's doing. Sure Republicans oppossed him. I mean the Republicans, especially in the House, were completely powerless to stop the Democratic agenda.
What has ground Washington into gridlock is that he did not provide any leadership to his party. He left the major legislation to Reid and Pelosi...with no admin support from 1600. See most presidents will write a law they want passed...especially ones like ACA and his stimulus which would be his historic and signature policies that he would then execute...and a friendly Representative and Senator would introduce the bill into their respective house. This kind of helps keep his party unified.
Obama did not do this...and his own party fell apart under his leadership. (The president is the de facto head of his party...albeit unofficially.) So we have a guy who cannot lead his own party. (Which if I'm ever lost in a wet paper sack with Obama...I'm not giving him the compass or the map!)
Then in 2010 he loses the House to Republicans...badly.
Now I know there are going to be cries of outrage: THE REPUBLICANS ARE OBSTRUCTIONISTS!
I draw your attention to 1994. Clinton lost both houses, and then fought Republicans. Both sides realized this was stupid.
Unfortunately...no one up in DC remembers 1994. Reid is fighting a highly partisan fight...with amateur hour at the Oval Office backing him up. Maybe it's a combination of hard nosed Republicans vs and incompetent president? One of these has to go...and it's highly unlikely to be the House turns blue.
Then there is his foreign policy. He dithered in Afghanistan and people needlessly died. The much vaunted Arab Spring skipped summer and fall and went right into winter.
He ordered the SeALs to kill some pirates and UBL (yay!). But let's face it...after 9/11 that's a call any president would make.
And then there's Iraq...he pulled us out of Iraq!
No he didn't. He just didn't screw with the timetable Bush set-up.
In the end, I voted for Romney (sent in my ballot today...but don't worry I live in Missouri so my vote doesn't really matter.) Why? Because he's not Obama. Not because I think he's going to wave a magic wand or use Republican Pixie Dust (trying not to make a Log Cabin Republican joke) and suddenly the economy is going to great and everyone is going to get a unicorn that farts rainbows. It's because I think he's infinitely more competent than a guy who lied about his mother's insurance woes to pass ACA.