Saturday, March 3, 2012
Comments Pertaining to Romney
) Every once in a while Chris Matthews will say something that is totally brilliant. Take, for example, what the dude said about Romney recently. He asserted that all of Romney's flip-flopping could actually work to his ADVANTAGE in the "general". People will think (Mr. Matthews further argues) that Romney probably doesn't really believe all of the garbage (that he's so "severely conservative", for example) that's he's been uttering the past four years or so, and that, once in office, he'll probably revert to being the reasonable guy that he was in Massachusetts. Me - I'm personally not going to vote for Mr. Romney (I just don't like phonies) but I kind of DO agree with both Matthews and the voters on this one.............2) I have a question for my liberal colleagues. Would you, if by chance a miracle happened and the Mitt Romney of 1994 and 2002 (pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, reasonable on the economy and heath-care, etc.) were able to secure the Republican nomination, even CONSIDER voting for him over President Obama (a person, mind you, who a) has some competency issues and b) has frequently disappointed his base)? OR, would you de facto not vote for him or anybody else who has an R in front of his name? I'm just curious.............3) The way that I see it here, short of the fellow going all neocon on us, Mr. Romney probably won't be all that different than President Obama (whether or not that's a good thing, I'll leave that discussion to others for now). I mean, I obviously could be wrong about it. But I just think that once in fact he actually does get elected (if, that is, that does happen), reality will probably set in and he'll govern more or less accordingly. Wishful thinking, maybe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
If he were to be not that different then Obama, then he'd have to be flat out lying regarding a lot of what he's saying now. So he probably is... that doesn't mean he wouldn't bring some of his "severe conservatism" to the presidency (not if he wanted a second term). There'd probably be talk of impeachement... from the Republicans! No, I wouldn't vote for him.
No, I'm saying if he was the guy from 1994 or 2002. It's a purely fantasical construct that I'm proposing here.
If he is not that much different from Obama, then there is no reason to vote for him instead of Obama.
I have a question for my liberal colleagues. Would you, if by chance a miracle happened and the Mitt Romney of 1994 and 2002 (pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, reasonable on the economy and heath-care, etc.) were able to secure the Republican nomination, even CONSIDER voting for him over President Obama
No way, no how! The most important branch of government, by far, is the judicial branch, which now has a clear 5-4 conservative majority. The conservatives have controlled the Supreme Court since 2005. There are four justices, two liberal and two conservative, who are likely to retire in the next four years. The direction of the court for the next twenty years may be decided in the next term.
Romney would be far more likely to appoint a conservative justice to the court. That would be worse than just about anything else he could do to the country.
Additionally, as Jerry mentioned, if he is not that different from Obama, something I think may end up being true, then why vote for him? Why not keep Obama?
Yes, John, the Romney of today probably WOULD appoint a neanderthal, and that's why I premised the question with the Romney of 1994/2002 instead.......Jerry, I don't know if you caught it or not but none other than George Soros said that Romney probably wouldn't be very different from Obama. Granted, that could just be Mr. Soros stirring things up a tad but, still.
Soros is sitting out this election cycle, so,his opinion is not worth much. Did someone say "sour grapes"?
Post a Comment