Skip to comments.Why Conservatives Should Continue to Oppose Romney after the Nomination (Please provide input)
Posted on 04/10/2012 9:55:58 AM PDT by xzins
The basic reason Romney should be opposed by conservatives is that Romney is not a conservative. More specifically, Romney is the author of the $50 abortion, the originator of the gay marriage license, and the founder of big government-forced health care.
Those 3 are a mix of social and fiscal issues. The conclusion is that Romney is neither a fiscal conservative nor a social conservative. His tenure as governor of Massachusetts proves that point.
Now, as Romney is touted as the “etch-a-sketch” candidate who will shortly begin his tack to the left, principled conservatives will do well to begin listing their reasons for not ever supporting Mitt Romney for anything other than Citizen Mitt.
1. Abortion: Romney is the author of the $50 abortion.
2. Gay Marriage: Romney signed legislation requiring the issuing of gay marriage licenses. Romney has tried to “moderate” his position by becoming pro-gay union....big deal. He once told gay operatives that he was the gay lobby's best hope for getting their agenda into the republican party. (Look at that, too, in terms of abortion and judicial selections.)
3. RomneyCare: Sadly, Mitt thinks it's just fine to have state governments force you to buy health insurance. I suppose he finds the power to do that in the US Constitution. Oh...I remember...the place where the Constitution says “states can force the people to buy things they don't want to buy and enter into contracts they don't want to enter into.”
4. Give notice to the GOP-Establishment: It probably is very wise to shove down their throat what they are trying to shove down ours. They are not the masters of the conservative universe. Allowing them to think they are will simply encourage more of the same in the future. I'm sure the romney-bots and the romney-enablers will want their say about Romney opponents handing the election to Obama, but the manipulation by the GOP-E is what will lead to that.
5. Romney's “Scorched Earth” Campaign: Romney has divided conservatives and seriously weakened voter turnout. His strategy, liberal that he is, was to run ads via his SuperPac pigeonholing the conservative purity of his opponents. That kind of outrageous hypocrisy deserves punishment and not reward.
6. Conservative Resignation to supporting Romney appears to be surrender of conservative principle. The results of that could be far-reaching. It could mean that the republican movement is totally abandoned to the liberal establishment.
7. Judicial Appointments: "Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romneys appointments were constitutional living document poster children.
Many of Romneys appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different? Barber asked rhetorically."
8. Other reasons "Conservatives Should Continue to Oppose Romney after the Nomination" are welcome. Please post them below.
If Obama win, Dems win the Senate and like the House also!
There has to be a strategy that says ‘Vote for Mitt cause of the Supreme Court, but otherwise we oppose him’. And maybe I have just hit on it. Make this about voting for a Constitutionalist Supreme Court.
The GOPe must be made to pay dearly. They need to die, die, die. A bunch of crony capitalists.
How’s that different from 2008?
Perception is everything...but only for about a week.
Agree anybody but Obama.
I accept that Romney has no real political ideology beyond pragmatism. He governed as a moderate/liberal in MA because that’s what he ran as, and what the electorate of MA wanted. I expect he will govern as a moderate/conservative if elected, because that’s what he’s running as, and what the national electorare wants. Not my ideal, but way better than BHO.
But of course! That has long been the plan of Kamikaze Conservatives on this forum. They are more interested in litmus tests and making statements, than winning elections. Somehow they've never learned that elections must be won before policy can be implemented or changed.
Barry Goldwater suffered the same consequences. He gave great speeches but never was able to implement policy.
Compare that with Ronald Reagan. Dutch knew which battles were winnable and engaged in the art of compromise to gain all that was gainable. He didn't waste time and political capital on the side shows.
Not sure how well that strategy would turn out for us. Have you seen Romney's picks for the MA courts?
Either this is a sick joke or you are working with the Obama Campaign. So you are willing to watch the destruction of our country continue with The Zero.
Sorry if your chosen candidate didn't run or didn't do well. Among those who did run - Romney got the most Republican primary voters to vote for him.
You can decry the Republican electorate if you must - but lets not blame anybody BUT them for the fact that Romney is almost certain to receive the GOP nomination.
It is better to be pissed off than to be pissed on.
I will be voting for Willard as the proverbial lesser of 2 evils - just like I did for McCain last time around. I expect that to be the case in most elections anyway. 2 party systems with no opportunity for coalition government means rarely will we have a candidate to be truly excited about. It is what it is.
See #7 in the article. Romney appointed liberal justices.
If Federal Court judges were elected to office and served for fixed terms, I’d agree. If congressional elections were held on a different day from presidential elections, thereby minimizing the down-ticket effects of a Democratic presidential victory, I’d agree. Since neither is the case, I think I’ll stick with whomever the GOP nominee is, even if it turns out to be Romney. He’s not ideal, but he’ll do. I don’t see how I can realistically expect perfection in a politician when 100m other people also have a say.
Romney is equivalent to being boiled slow.
Obama is a fast boil.
Either way, we are cooked. I had just as soon get to the breaking point and get it over with.
I will hold my nose and vote for a GOP liberal......ever.
Now that Obama has been exposed as a Socialist, it will kill the Conservative movement if Obama wins another term.
It might also kill our ability to ever recover, as Obama is ruthless and hates our country and hates Capitalism.
One reason: SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
When Obama gets his next term and appoints maybe 3 radical leftist judges, thereby sealing the death of America, it will be in large part because of idiots who sat home (like they did with McCain), because they were “principled.”
You will have a lot of blood on your hands.
1. Romney is not an “imperfect conservative.” He’s not a conservative at all and never has been.
2. Romney appointed the most activist kind of liberal justices. See #7 in the article.
Romney is the equivalent to being boiled slow.
Obama is a fast boil.
Either way, we are cooked.
I had just as soon get to the breaking point and get it over with.
I will NOT hold my nose and vote for a GOP liberal......ever.
I oppose Romney now. I support Santorum. I plan to continue along this path. We do not currently have a nominee, so I do not need to formally re-evaluate my position at this time.
Before this becomes relevant, you first have to win elections with somebody who has the right principles. Winning an election with a liberal simply means that you'll have a liberal Republican pushing liberal policies, which sort of makes the whole thing an exercise in futility.
The whole reason we can talk about "Reagan did this" and "Dutch did that" is because Reagan - the conservative - got elected.
Yes, you have to win elections before you get to make policy. But you have to win elections with the right people before you get to make the right policy. Unfortunately, with Romney, that's not going to happen.
See #7 in the above article. Romney appointed ONLY liberal judges.
I think I’ll add #9 — Romney is a liar.