I don't like Romney BUT...

[beaven]

I am working on an article to all the Romney supporters who don't really like him but plan on voting for him anyway. I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "I don't like him, but ____ ." Help me with all the objections you've come across so I can include them in my article.

So far I have:

- Contraception mandate
- Mexico City policy
- Repeal Obamacare
- But Obama is just sooo bad!
- Oppose bailouts
- He doesn't hate America

I'm going to address each objection but I feel there are more out there that I am just not thinking of at the moment. Want to help? Post below! Thank you!

[Origanalist]

I am working on an article to all the Romney supporters who don't really like him but plan on voting for him anyway. I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "I don't like him, but ____ ." Help me with all the objections you've come across so I can include them in my article.

So far I have:

- Contraception mandate
- Mexico City policy
- Repeal Obamacare
- But Obama is just sooo bad!
- Oppose bailouts
- He doesn't hate America

I'm going to address each objection but I feel there are more out there that I am just not thinking of at the moment. Want to help? Post below! Thank you!

I would like to help you, but I'm eating right now.

[Anti Federalist]

Signed into law a sweeping gun ban in MA.

[Lucille]

Just ask them if it's really in conservatives' interest to take the white house this year, what with the impending collapse. Do they really want "conservatism" to be blamed? Suggest that they focus all of their efforts on the House and Senate races instead.


It makes sense if we take the economic critique proffered by anti-inflationists like Ron Paul and Gerald Celente seriously: would you want to be President if we’re on the brink of another Great Depression? As the American dollar is destroyed, and the buying power of the average American is about to become the equivalent of a consumer in, say, Zimbabwe, is it really in the GOP’s interest to take the White House this year (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/03/29/mitt-romney-in-your-heart-you-know-hes-a-loser/)?
[...]
Ron Paul isn’t the only one conjuring visions of America as Greece-times-ten, and it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the march to austerity will be met here in this country, where Americans’ sense of entitlement is almost as well-developed as their taste for vulgarity. What happens when the bread-and-circuses stop, and Americans are forced to confront the grim reality of being broke?

[AGRP]

Or maybe Romney is playing poker like Reagan did, in order to appease both his Jewish donors as well as keeping the Iranians honest. The Soviets privately thought Reagan was a madman during the Cold War, but actually he was just as frightened of a nuclear exchange as the Soviets. It should also be noted that Romney's father changed his opinion on the effectiveness of the Vietnam War. Romney is very much of an enigma and doesn't fit the neocon mold like someone like a John McCain or others. It will interesting to see his actual foreign policy decisions going forward in the event he becomes POTUS.


I trust him more than Obama because he's (A) Mormon (Mormons typically march to a different drum) and (B) the TPTB have much more faith in Obama in carrying out their plans. In fact, it has been verified from numerous sources that they are suspicious of Romney and don't trust him.

You can find a treasure trove of neocon love posts if you go through AuH20's posts.

[aclove]

Just ask them if it's really in conservatives' interest to take the white house this year, what with the impending collapse. Do they really want "conservatism" to be blamed? Suggest that they focus all of their efforts on the House and Senate races instead.

This won't work. The people desperately embracing Romney despite knowing what a pathetic excuse for a candidate he is are terrified of the collapse and cannot accept that there is no escaping it. Any argument which accepts the collapse as unavoidable will fall on deaf ears. These people are not yet prepared to accept that, and will not accept it between now and the election.

[erowe1]

The old stand by is Supreme Court nominations.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Signed into law a sweeping gun ban in MA.

But Mr. Conservative signed a sweeping NATIONWIDE gun control law. So if Reagan did it, it's fine by conservatives.

[ZENemy]

"I trust him more then Obama"

yeah, that's because he is NOT in office yet (or ever I hope), Romney will continue the agenda JUST the same as 0bama at the moment everyone goes back to sleep because "we got Obama out, now we can relax"

[LibertyEagle]

You can find a treasure trove of neocon love posts if you go through AuH20's posts.

Romney isn't a neocon. That phrase is so overused that it almost has become meaningless.

[Ben Bernanke]

He was a draft dodger, naturally

[Lucille]

Romney isn't a neocon. That phrase is so overused that it almost has become meaningless.

It is misused, but I think he qualifies.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Romney isn't a neocon. That phrase is so overused that it almost has become meaningless.

He actually fits the old neocon label perfectly, and is every bit the neocon Bill Kristol is (maybe even more so, given Romney's attacks on cutting government spending, his arguments being purely Keynesian). If Romney isn't a neocon, nobody aside from Irving Kristol himself is one.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/neo-con-explained.html


As Max Boot admits: "It is not really domestic policy that defines neo-conservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neo-conservatism carries the greatest meaning, even if its original raison d'être — opposition to communism — has disappeared."

Now, it would be wrong to say that the neoconservatives had not undergone any kind of intellectual change. They became less enamored of formal socialism and more at home with mixed-economy capitalism. They grew to hate much of the egalitarian-left cultural agenda of Democratic Party special-interest groups. Many of them wrote treatises decrying the excesses of their ex-brethren.

Even if you don't want to use the Irving Kristol standard (his record in MA meets the Kristol standard), Romney absolutely passes this definition with flying colors.

[DeMintConservative]

I am working on an article to all the Romney supporters who don't really like him but plan on voting for him anyway. I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "I don't like him, but ____ ." Help me with all the objections you've come across so I can include them in my article.

So far I have:

- Contraception mandate
- Mexico City policy
- Repeal Obamacare
- But Obama is just sooo bad!
- Oppose bailouts
- He doesn't hate America

I'm going to address each objection but I feel there are more out there that I am just not thinking of at the moment. Want to help? Post below! Thank you!

Except the "He doesn't hate America" reason - I think none of these men hates America, they'd just dumb - , those are all reasons why I'll be voting for Romney.

In the end, this is a choice between the guy who spent others people money in the auto-bailouts and the guy who's being attacked for writing an op-ed opposing them.

This a choice between a guy who's imposed the contraception mandate on my Church and the guy who's talked against it. One will sign a congressional amendment repealing it, the other will veto it.

This is a choice between a guy who will give the states the power to craft their healthcare policies, will sign Obamacare waivers and sign whatever a Republican controlled congress sends him with a guy who will increase funding for the program that carries his name and will be his legacy for the future.

Between the guy who organized Fast&Furious and the guy who has all the incentives to promote a serious investigation of it.

It's either the guy who wants to cut funding for Big Bird and the guy who cut the funding for the Benzhagi embassy security.

It's a painful and depressing but clear and easy choice for me.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Except the "He doesn't hate America" reason - I think none of these men hates America, they'd just dumb - , those are all reasons why I'll be voting for Romney.

In the end, this is a choice between the guy who spent others people money in the auto-bailouts and the guy who's being attacked for writing an op-ed opposing them.

This a choice between a guy who's imposed the contraception mandate on my Church and the guy who's talked against it. One will sign a congressional amendment repealing it, the other will veto it.

This is a choice between a guy who will give the states the power to craft their healthcare policies, will sign Obamacare waivers and sign whatever a Republican controlled congress sends him with a guy who will increase funding for the program that carries his name and will be his legacy for the future.

Between the guy who organized Fast&Furious and the guy who has all the incentives to promote a serious investigation of it.

It's either the guy who wants to cut funding for Big Bird and the guy who cut the funding for the Benzhagi embassy security.

It's a painful and depressing but clear and easy choice for me.

For once, the Republican party did the right thing in forcing Obama's hand in cutting embassy spending.

Of course, now they're attacking him for it.

As usual, the R party's ideology is: oppose the other team.

[DeMintConservative]

As Max Boot admits: "It is not really domestic policy that defines neo-conservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neo-conservatism carries the greatest meaning, even if its original raison d'être — opposition to communism — has disappeared."

This is so totally wrong and false it's not even funny.

Neoconservatism began as a movement about domestic policy: especially welfare and crime. As Kristol dad would say, they were "mugged by reality". It had nothing to do with the Soviet Union but living in NYC and seeing the effects of the big government urban welfare programs and the culture of dependency they created.

Nice to see Rothbard disciples don't fall far away from the tree when it comes to historical accuracy.

[Anti Federalist]

But Mr. Conservative signed a sweeping NATIONWIDE gun control law. So if Reagan did it, it's fine by conservatives.

Yah, and all while a huge gun and dope smuggling ring was being run right under his nose in the WH basement.

[Anti Federalist]

This is so totally wrong and false it's not even funny.

Neoconservatism began as a movement about domestic policy: especially welfare and crime. As Kristol dad would say, they were "mugged by reality". It had nothing to do with the Soviet Union but living in NYC and seeing the effects of the big government urban welfare programs and the culture of dependency they created.

Nice to see Rothbard disciples don't fall far away from the tree when it comes to historical accuracy.

Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which combines features of traditional (paleo) conservatism, military interventionism, social conservatism, nationalism, and a qualified endorsement of free markets.[1] Neoconservatism (or new conservatism) is rooted in a group of former liberals, who in the late 1960s, began to embrace nationalism and interventionism in opposition to the rise of the USSR and moved significantly to the right of the spectrum.[2] The term "neoconservative" (sometimes shortened to "neocon") was initially used in the 1930s, to describe American liberals who criticized communists for following a path closer to Soviet communism.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

[Feeding the Abscess]

This is so totally wrong and false it's not even funny.

Neoconservatism began as a movement about domestic policy: especially welfare and crime. As Kristol dad would say, they were "mugged by reality". It had nothing to do with the Soviet Union but living in NYC and seeing the effects of the big government urban welfare programs and the culture of dependency they created.

Nice to see Rothbard disciples don't fall far away from the tree when it comes to historical accuracy.

Neoconservatism opposes the welfare state... That's your final answer?

[Anti Federalist]

This is so totally wrong and false it's not even funny.

Neoconservatism began as a movement about domestic policy: especially welfare and crime. As Kristol dad would say, they were "mugged by reality". It had nothing to do with the Soviet Union but living in NYC and seeing the effects of the big government urban welfare programs and the culture of dependency they created.

Nice to see Rothbard disciples don't fall far away from the tree when it comes to historical accuracy.

Ron Paul's defining characteristics of a neo con:

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
They express no opposition to the welfare state.
They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

[AGRP]

Romney isn't a neocon. That phrase is so overused that it almost has become meaningless.

Oh really lol? Who controls him and who will be managing his foreign policy? Ron Paul? Pat Buchanan?

[AGRP]

This is so totally wrong and false it's not even funny.

Neoconservatism began as a movement about domestic policy: especially welfare and crime. As Kristol dad would say, they were "mugged by reality". It had nothing to do with the Soviet Union but living in NYC and seeing the effects of the big government urban welfare programs and the culture of dependency they created.

Nice to see Rothbard disciples don't fall far away from the tree when it comes to historical accuracy.

Thats not what it is about now. Do we need to dig up Bill Kristols video about Obama being a born again neoconservative because of his foreign policy? Youre really arguing with mr. neocon himself which is ridiculous.

[torchbearer]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8056/8078308000_443ec5ae40.jpg

[DeMintConservative]

Thats not what it is about now. Do we need to dig up Bill Kristols video about Obama being a born again neoconservative because of his foreign policy? Youre really arguing with mr. neocon himself which is ridiculous.

Well, my comment was in reply to a text addressing how neoconservatism began. Let me quote it for you: It is not really domestic policy that defines neo-conservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy,.

[erowe1]

Neoconservatism began as a movement about domestic policy: especially welfare and crime.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[DeMintConservative]

Anti-Federalist and Feeding the Abcess: I'm totally aware of how Lew Rockwell et all view neoconservatism.

I'm just stating it's pure ignorance to claim neoconservatism is founded on a foreign policy view. The first generation of neoconservatives - Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristoll, Charles Murray, etc. - were old-school liberals (hence strongly anti-communist) who were mostly focused on domestic issues, especially the "War on Poverty" stuff and the Great Society style welfare. Their foreign policy stance wasn't exactly realist but was rooted on the national interest - not any global dreams of democratization - and fairly anti-uthopian (especially when compared to the later generation of neocons, like Bill Kristol et all).

I'm not really arguing what neoconservatism means today, but when it comes to the historical evolution of the so-called neoconservatism, you simply have your facts wrong. Read a collection of Irving Kristol early essays for example and see by yourself.

[AuH20]

Neoconservatism is all inclusive, in that you cannot isolate and separate key facets of it's overarching philosophy. It's very much a more benign form of progressivism with an emphasis on state controlled capitalism. Neoconservatives have no objection to the welfare state as long as it keeps the machinations of the state humming along. They aren't concerned with the pitfalls of mass immigration because cheap labor is ultimately beneficial to their class of elites. They have no qualms with a centrally planned economy, beset by interest rate and currency manipulation, because they are in essence, control freaks. Control freaks do not like the unpredictable twists and turns of a free market.

[erowe1]

Neoconservatism is all inclusive, in that you cannot isolate and separate key facets of it's overarching philosophy. It's very much a more benign form of progressivism with an emphasis on state controlled capitalism. Neoconservatives have no objection to the welfare state as long as it keeps the machinations of the state humming along. They aren't concerned with the pitfalls of mass immigration because cheap labor is ultimately beneficial to their class of elites. They have no qualms with a centrally planned economy, beset by interest rate and currency manipulation, because they are in essence, control freaks. Control freaks do not like the unpredictable twists and turns of a free market.

But its defining characteristics are its foreign policy.

[AuH20]

But its defining characteristics are its foreign policy.

Unfortunately. But it's much more than that. Their foreign policy views are essentially an outgrowth of their domestic views. Maximize profit any which way possible. Enforce their tainted view of order and export this belief abroad. All these underlying core precepts define their foreign policy. 'Spreading democracy' is code for new markets and the implementation of a select social engineering which promotes the conditioning of a better consumer.

[DamianTV]

Maybe using the Ron Paul strategy against his supporters might work...

A lot of people say "They like Ron Paul but... he doesnt have a chance to win". So for these people, they would rather vote for someone they dont like because they think he has a chance to win over voting for Ron Paul because they believed he couldnt, even with their support. There has to be a way to use their own words against them.

[Anti Federalist]

Anti-Federalist and Feeding the Abcess: I'm totally aware of how Lew Rockwell et all view neoconservatism.

If you had bothered to read the link, you would have seen that was not Lew Rockwell's definition, but Ron Paul's.

That was from his epic "Neo-Conned" House speech.

Foreign policy is the only issue the separates a "liberal" from a "neo-con".

It is, and always has been, the defining characteristic of "neo-conservatism".

[JK/SEA]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8056/8078308000_443ec5ae40.jpg


in a nutshell. Nice post.

[torchbearer]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8056/8078308000_443ec5ae40.jpg
I am using this list as a paper-slip hand-out to people who have the "but obama" syndrome.

[erowe1]

I am using this list as a paper-slip hand-out to people who have the "but obama" syndrome.

They also both claim that cutting government spending would be bad for the economy.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8056/8078308000_443ec5ae40.jpg

Do you have any sources for the similarities outlined in this list? (Undecideds I know are curious.)

[angelatc]

It is misused, but I think he qualifies.

I don't think he's aaa neocon. I think he's a technocrat. We hz one in Michigan.

[beaven]

Thank you everyone for your contribution. My premise that I hope to outline in my article is that we are in a field of battle and we have two enemies, one we will have to live with. Which do we oppose more? We have to ask ourselves two questions:

1. Whose values are more hostile to our own?
2. Who would have the greatest tactical capacity to do us harm?

The second question is more important than the first. Most of the, "I don't like Romney, but..." people ignore the second question. I will outline how, though Romney might be the lesser of two evils in an absolute sense, he would actually be the greater of two evils in a practical sense, as he does oppose our values and would have a greater capacity to destroy what we've worked for. Naturally, in the article, I will be addressing some of the BUTs that reluctant Romney supporters throw out.

Thanks for the help!

[sailingaway]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8056/8078308000_443ec5ae40.jpg

wow. great post!

[Lucille]

I don't think he's aaa neocon. I think he's a technocrat. We hz one in Michigan.

Aren't neocons technocrats?

This might help, beaven!:

We Agree!
Posted by Lew Rockwell on October 12, 2012 10:19 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/122977.html


Here’s my analysis, which I sent this morning to a Republican friend who has been struggling to convince me to vote.

1. Foreign policy--We agree. We love American military power and will extol it every chance we get to score points with patriotic voters. America should continue to police the world, bully other nations, and fight undeclared wars.

2. Unemployment--We agree. It is government’s role to manage the economy and create jobs. What kind of nut case doesn’t know that?

3. Medicare and Social Security--We agree. We love them. Taxing young people to pay for old people’s retirement checks and government-rationed medical care is the American way. We should continue it forever.

4. Taxes--We agree. We love them. We will always claim that we’ll give the middle class a break because that’s where the votes are. People are too stupid to understand that “loophole” is just another name for “deduction,” so it’s a slam dunk that they will cheer when we promise to get rid of them. Then – surprise! – their taxes go up even though the rate went down! Such a deal! We will fiddle with the tax code to get votes and to manipulate people’s economic behavior, but the one thing we will never do is question the morality or efficacy of taxing the pants off of productive people in the first place.


5. Afghanistan--We agree. Our troops are wonderful. Voters feel good when we say that. Did we mention how brave they are? With just a little more training, the people whose country the US government invaded and is now occupying will be able to provide their own security so we can leave – sort of. Foreigners love it when we help them like this. Fragging is but one way they show their appreciation.

6. Syria and Libya--We agree. Khadafy had to go. Assad has to go. Voters think we’re cool when we say somebody “has to go.” Phrases like “slaughtered his own people” help too. Supporting killers in other countries at the expense of productive Americans is a splendid idea, especially when we aren’t sure who the killers are, who they might kill, or what they aim to accomplish. If we assure voters that we won’t put “boots on the ground,” they’ll think we are soooo reasonable and restrained. A nice bonus is that these adventures always create more instability that we will have to fix later. Hey defense contractor campaign contributors, can we hear a big “cha-ching” from ya?

7. Abortion--We agree. We love this issue because we know that questions about the role of government in this will never be resolved, since they boil down to a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes an individual life. Thank goodness this tool will always be there when we need it to demonize opponents and whip up our base.

8. The tone of the campaign--We agree. God bless the hero who asked the question. Hero, hero, hero! We never get tired of saying that word. Voters get tears in their eyes when they hear it, and voters with tears in their eyes tend not to notice that our policies are exactly the same. Only the other guy engages in negative campaigning. Our side simply cites the record and tells the truth.

9. What I could give to this country that no one else could--That would be my unique ability to manage the biggest government in the history of the planet so it can fix all problems. Unemployment, poverty, the shrinking wealth of the middle class – government can fix those things and more if you’ll just put my team in charge. Hey, how about that, we agree!

In conclusion We agree! Things are bad. But cheer up: government can fix it! More debt! More deficits! More deceit! More drones! More dead foreigners! God bless America! Oh, and remember: there is a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats. Never in the history of Our Sacred Democracy have there been differences that are more differenter, so everybody vote!

[coffeewithgames]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8056/8078308000_443ec5ae40.jpg

Pro United Nations. Also, if sharing online, make sure to target the points to the audience.