Will Mitt Romney expand the role, size, and cost of government?

My first thread on Free Republic I asked if Mitt Romney would balance the budget, and the consensus was that he would not. That we should expect more of the same. So for this next one, I will ask more stuff which is important to me a fiscal free market conservative:

I’m asking these questions about the deficit, and size of government because I don’t understand what the difference is so far between Obama and Romney, and not sure what the point is in replacing Obama with Romney if it is going to be more of the same. I have been listening to Mike Church and Andrew Wilkow when I travel for work, and they have really opened my eyes around the idea of what an alternative is.

I'm new around these parts, and just starting to understand how this site works. Please forgive me for 2 serious spelling mistakes in my previous first discussion thread which I started:

Clay - welcome to free republic. Looks like you’ve only been here less than a week. Usually people post articles and everyone comments. That’s the usual drill. What you have posted is essentially a “vanity”. We all occasionally post vanities but it is generally an exception. In your case you have posted two of them back to back harping on our weak RINO candidate. Like throwing red meat to a bunch of angry tigers. anyway - welcome aboard.

Will Mitt Romney expand the role, size, and cost of government?

For the past 24 years, every Republican candidate has been more and more liberal than the last, culminating with Romney. The last two Republican Presidents expanded the role, size, and cost of government, and Romney is much more liberal than either of them, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue that trend.

Can any one name an alternative to Obama to vote for? Anyone???

I can.

An alternative is to vote for a plurality to increase the chances that whichever bastard wins, Obama or Romney, faces the kind of motivated opposition that happens when the majority of Americans voted to reject him. The lower the plurality, the more vulnerable the President and the more powerful his opposition in Congress.

Clinton won on a 43% plurality in 1992. Fully 57% of Americans voted to reject him. It made him so vulnerable that the Republican Revolution followed. And that was a Clinton who was fairly popular. Imagine what would happen if Obama was re-elected on a 43% plurality OR LESS -- Obama is loathed as Clinton was not.

I'll vote FOR making it that rough and rocky for whichever menace wins by voting for an official third party candidate.

Folks who vote "against" Obama by voting for Romney are kidding themselves -- their vote "against" Obama is their vote FOR turning the Republican party hard left and making liberalism stronger in both parties.

That is what YOU will be voting for, NLZ. That is YOUR sign.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.