Why I Am Now an Anybody but Obama Voter

Renew America ^ | 25 Sep 2012 | Tim Dunkin

[Yashcheritsiy]

I really wasn't planning on voting for Mitt Romney this November. He was just too "moderate" for my taste. He had a terrible résumé from his tenure as the governor of Massachusetts and beyond. I thought that he didn't have the backbone to really have a go at the presidency. He's more prone to attack conservative Republicans than liberal Democrats. For a number of related reasons, I had decided after the primaries were effectively over that I was not going to support Romney, even though he was the presumptive nominee. As recently as a month ago, I was arguing that conservatives and Republicans should overthrow Romney during the Republican National Convention and nominate someone with solid conservative credentials. All in all, I was pretty set on not voting for Mitt Romney, and was instead supporting former Virginia congressman Virgil Goode. "Vote for Goode, instead of the lesser of two evils!" became the watchword. I'd even convinced a number of friends and acquaintances to do the same. I wasn't really swayed by the arguments of those who wanted me to vote for Romney because, frankly, Romney wasn't really making the case for himself. If a candidate wants my vote, he or she needs to make a positive case for why I should support him, instead of just trying to "scare" or "guilt trip" me into it because of the perfidy of his opponent.

Just recently, Mitt Romney finally made that case, which is why I'm now supporting him.

If you had asked me before, I would have argued that there was very little difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Sure, in some superficial areas, they might have diverged, but in their overarching responses and tendencies, not so much. I will grant — I still think this is somewhat true. However, in one very important area, Romney made the difference. This is in the area of foreign policy, more specifically his response to the recent events in Libya versus those of the "Commander"-in-Chief currently occupying the White House.

Let's face it — Obama and his administration's handling of the Libya crisis, as well as foreign policy in the Middle East in general, has been an unmitigated disaster of such proportions as to make even Jimmy Carter look like an international relations chess master.

In what was really nothing less than an act of war, militias loosely associated with the new Islamist government ruling in Libya attacked our diplomatic outpost (which is, under international law, considered sovereign American territory), sodomizing and murdering our ambassador, as well as killing several other Americans. What was the administration's response? To bumble around like a lobotomized chimpanzee, periodically releasing contradictory press statements apparently designed to so confuse the press corps and the American people that they would give up trying to figure out just how Obama messed it all up. We found out that the State Department had received warnings that just such an attack was going to take place, nearly three days before it happened — yet they still failed to provide the consulate with any sort of credible protection. Then they tried to argue that there was protection...but was it provided by Americans, or by local Libyans, or by some British security firm? At some point or another, they tried to tell us any and all of these, but I doubt that any of them really know. Was the attack premeditated terrorism and there really wasn't ever any protesting going on at the consulate to begin with? Or was it just a protest gone horribly awry? Or was it terrorism of opportunity gone horribly awry under the guise of a premeditated protest? Who knows? Obama and his team sure don't. The only thing they do seem to be sure of is that the attacks weren't really "against America"...per se, with certain qualifications depending upon the definitions you want to use. The past week and a half have shown that the Obama administration, and the President himself, couldn't find the clue train even if they were tied to the tracks and blinded by its onrushing headlight.

Of course, all of this outrageous behavior came on the heels of yet another Obama apology tour — this time, aimed at undermining our First Amendment domestically to assuage the feelings of Muslim extremists in Egypt. Supposedly, a poorly-made film about Muhammed was the catalyst for protests in Egypt — and instead of simply telling the protesters that Americans do not need to apologize for the use of our constitutional liberties, especially not within our own borders, Obama's state department (the direct voice of the President himself, remember) bent over backwards to express contrition for offending their poor little sensibilities. Not that it did any good, except to further encourage even more protesting and violence at more of our embassies all over the Muslim world, as well as spreading to the embassies of other Western nations who presumably had nothing to do with the film in question. What really happened was that Obama (despite being a Muslim — probably) and his team demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of the honor-shame societies existing in the Middle East, societies where apologizing when pressured to do so is perceived as a gross weakness and only invites more aggression.

Never mind the fact that the radical Islamist extremists protesting American free speech (and now trying to create "international law" through the United Nations to ban "Islamophobia" and "blasphemy against Islam") and killing our ambassadors were put into power by the machinations of Obama and his goon squad. Remember how we bombed a stable, though admittedly nasty, regime in Tripoli so that it could be toppled by the radical Islamists? Remember how we lent moral support to the Islamists in the "Arab Spring" in Egypt so they could take over and start imposing shari'a on Egypt's previously secularized population, as well as doubling down on the persecution of Coptic Christians in that nation? Of course, it is none too surprising to find out that the Obama administration has been providing aid to al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Pakistan so that they can overthrow the Syrian government (and completely surround Israel, I might note).

Indeed, it seems that everything Obama does — right down to dismissing Israel's concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran out of hand and calling the violence against American interests a "bump in the road" — belies a lack of seriousness and even outright antipathy towards what is best for America and our allies. This is the President who can condemn a YouTube video multiple times in official press conferences, but who can't find it within himself to condemn Mahmoud Ahmedinejad when he openly calls for genocide against the Jewish people. This has negative consequences across the board, too. Obama's ham-fisted handling of foreign policy questions, such that America's image abroad is not one of fecklessness and weakness, is encouraging China to aggressively bully Japan, one of our closest allies in the Far East — something unthinkable under Ronald Reagan, or even under George W. Bush.

What changed my mind was the contrast that Romney presented. Instead of apologizing for American freedom, he condemned the apologies. Romney called the President out on his fumbled responses to the Libyan crisis. Romney had the "nerve" (some might say "courage") to actually point out the terrible flaws in Obama's policies that the news media have been using reams of paper to cover over and hide. Further, Romney has been standing strongly for Israel, and dared to tell the truth about the Palestinians that the Left has been trying to ignore — which is that they have absolutely no interest in peaceful coexistence and ending bloodshed in the Holy Land, even when they are offered a generous two-state solution.

Why was this a game-changer? It is because the President's constitutional role, aside from signing or vetoing bills and nominating judges, is largely supposed to be federative — it is about representing the United States of America to the world abroad. This may involve his role in negotiating treaties, nominating ambassadors, giving direction to said ambassadors, and so forth. It may also involve his role as the Commander-in-Chief of our military during times of war. Either way, the President's primary function relates to exactly those things in which Obama has shown himself to be a weakling and a failure, and where Romney has, at least in word, if not having the chance to do so in deed, shown himself more willing to stand up for America's interests and to retain (or perhaps "regain" would be the more proper term) a position of strength on the world stage.

Since making the switch, I have been pleasantly surprised by Romney on some other things, as well. For instance, there was his 47% "gaffe." Frankly, the old Michael Kinsley saw that a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth seems to apply here. Romney was exactly right — there is a large chunk of the American people, which really does number around 47% of us, who do not pay an effective tax rate, and who are therefore much more inclined than the average person to want to keep it that way by voting to stick it economically to producers and business owners and others who are already contributing more than their "fair share" to the tax burden in America. Even though not all of these 47% are on welfare or other forms of assistance, the fact remains that these people send their kids to schools that get federal grants, drive on highways maintained in part with federal monies, and are protected by a military paid out of the federal treasury — they take from the system, but don't pay in. And guess what? Even if you have payroll taxes deducted from your paycheck each week, if you get all that money back between your refund and the various tax credits built into the tax code, then you are not paying taxes. You are a net drain on the system, rather than a net contributor. That's a pretty sweet deal in the minds of a lot of people, and the temptation to vote to keep it that way cannot be understated. Romney's comment — despite being pilloried by both the left-wing media and the harrumph-harrumph Right — was an accurate assessment of the dynamics of this race, and goes a long way towards explaining why an otherwise complete failure of a President is nevertheless maintaining a consistent position in the polls at around...47%.

I'm sure there are some out there who are aghast that I've "sold out." That I've "ditched my principles." I used to be that way too, patting myself on the back for my purity. And I have to say, I still understand where people are coming from when they hesitate to support Mitt Romney. But let me be very frank — if your principles include essentially allowing Barack Obama to have a second term, then your principles are...questionable, at best. I submit that you can't really call yourself "pro-life," for instance, when you undercut a guy who, while perhaps making noise about agreeing with abortion in cases where the "health" of the mother is in danger, nevertheless has at least said he is pro-life and will oppose abortion, and instead effectively support the guy who voted for partial birth abortion when he was in the Illinois Senate. You can't say you're against ObamaCare when you oppose the challenger who at least says he will work to repeal it, de facto supporting the guy who forced it onto us in the first place. I'm sorry, but you can't. You can huff and you can puff and you can twist yourself into logical pretzels and you can bombastically accuse me of all kinds of things if you like, but in the end, you're helping to return Obama to the White House.

Here a key point — if Romney is President, he will largely not be making policy on abortion, or gay adoption, or any of the other issues on which we criticize him. Congress does that. Congress makes the laws. The President can only sign or veto them. So it's important to consider what effects our choice of a President will have on the composition of Congress. It is well-known that whoever wins a presidential race usually is accompanied by "coattails," a net positive effect for down-ticket candidates from the same Party. If Obama wins, this will go a long way towards helping the Democrats hold the Senate and perhaps even take back the House. So, the choice is not just between Romney and Obama — it's between which type of a Congress do you want sending bills to the President's desk? Do you want a Republican-controlled House and Senate sending (generally) conservative bills to Romney's desk, or a Democrat-controlled legislature submitting bills for Obama's signature? Like it or not, that really is the choice we have.

So much against my will, I am supporting Romney. I encourage you to do so, as well, whatever your antipathy toward him might be. This being said, I also believe that conservatives and liberty lovers need to get their act together over the next four years, whoever the President ends up being. If we'd have swallowed our pride and gotten together behind one of the multitude of conservative candidates in the early primaries, we wouldn't even have to talk about biting the bullet and getting behind Romney in the general. This time around, we need to be ready to act in unison, and be prepared to even go so far as to try to overthrow a President Romney in the 2016 primaries, if he proves to be the disappointment that many fear he will be. But for the time being, priority number one has to be getting the worst President in American history out of office and into the footnotes of history books where he belongs.

[muawiyah]

naw, mitt supports abortion on demand with that 'health of the mother' exception. what he does is prove he is a convincing liar if you believe otherwise.

so, a convincing liar as president or an unconvincing liar as present.

so many choices so little time. best get after the RINOS now ~ prepare the impeachment resolutions. NOTE: romney's massachusetts brain trust and some of his wealthier backers are already working over the lists of potential/probable appointees. we must begin our attacks on those people now.

[Fletcher J]

Sorry that you’re so defensive, sweetie, on behalf of the author. Is it someone you know? I’ll stand by my comment, however, which is entirely logical and informed.

This article is kind of like reading a restaurant review that starts with the author saying that until this week, he couldn’t discern any difference between eating horse shit and a decent meal. Although I may ultimately agree with the author’s conclusion about the restaurant, I would decline to consider him an expert on food.

Likewise, anyone who couldn’t until recently see any difference between Obama and Romney has been ignorant of the facts, and I’ll look to others for deep politcal insights, thank you.

[Verginius Rufus]

In 2008 I wrote down the names in order of my preference, when there were 9 candidates, and Romney was next-to-last (ahead only of Ron Paul)...McCain was third-to-last.

This time I was hoping for a conservative that could win, but I was never convinced that any of the conservatives who ran in the primaries could beat Obama in the general election.

Romney is pro-American and pro-free enterprise. His views on the so-called social issues are too liberal for my liking, but he claims to be pro-life now. In any event, if he is elected he will want to be re-elected, so conservatives will have some leverage with him. If Obama is re-elected, we have none--and he's likely to be more extreme, more lawless, and more arrogant than he has been in his first term. Heaven forbid that he gets a chance to replace one of the conservative Supreme Court justices with a clone of the two justices he has picked so far.

[muawiyah]

yeah, we're voting religion this time ~ at least that Ann woman is ~ she's still carping about religious bigotry ~ and she doesn't mean her own.

Mitt and his mittbots gotta' get off that stuff and right now. the slightest hint of it will lose him a good 20 million votes ~

Sounded so MOOSHELL and her ashamed for the country angle.

one term of that stuff is enough.

[txrangerette]

And thank YOU for dropping by...

:)

[txrangerette]

Count on livius to be so very...RATIONAL.

Thanks for your input.

(You “Mittbot”, you /sarc.)

[Yashcheritsiy]

Not defensive. I’m merely amused by the fact that seem like you don’t have any reading skills.

But then again, that’s more common on here than a lot of FReepers like to think, so I won’t hold it against you.

Nevertheless, there are a lot of good reasons to see Romney and Obama as very similar. You could start with their mutual support for government-run health care, and move on to other things like their past support for abortion, the gay agenda, gun control, higher taxes, forcing religious organisations to conform to government mandates against their own doctrines and consciences, illegal immigration, etc. etc.

As much as you might pretend they are, these aren’t trivial. It’s stupid to say otherwise. that’s why I say your comment is ignorant. If you really and truly believe that there is a wide gap between Obama and Romney *across the board*, then you probably don’t have any business voting, much less commenting on this article or this site. the differences are a matter of small degrees on most things - it’s the one area of foreign policy where Romney finally started putting a difference.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

As with Rush, once you’ve said it, there’s nothing more to say! :)

[txrangerette]

When they have only one word left, “Mittbott”, you know it’s over...

[Lancey Howard]

I’ll vote for the ticket that promises to restore honor and dignity to the military, first by returning to DADT and barring declared homos from serving. Where does the Bunny/Fudd ticket stand on this?

[brightright]

Voting for the lesser of two evils has been working so well. Continuing to support the liberal Rino candidate is what gave us Obama. Every Election we have been given a more liberal candidate. Till now we have a candidate who can’t even pretend he is not liberal. He has not repudiated even one of his liberal policies or statements. But he did say he was severely conservative so he must be. No matter who wins this election it is bad for the Country. As long as we continue to accept and support liberals they win, and the Country loses.

[muawiyah]

The one sure way you know you’ve got a mittbot on the line is they start kvetching about ‘mittbot’ ~ get over it. bushbots did ~ certainly you can too. RINOs are all alike in that regard. buck up.

[muawiyah]

we really do have to go after this guy's appointees right off the bat. any of them from massachusetts or other new england states must be opposed to the bitter end even if it shuts down the Senate.

no one from bain, with bain, at bain, or involved in any firm with any dealings with bain may be allowed to pass, and no one who ever worked for the mccain core team either.

[Grampa Dave]

Obama lied again and this time Americans died in Libya!

Carter is Obama. Obama is Carter.

Both are Traitor Losers, who hate America!

Jimmy Carter's presidency was doomed by the Iranian hostage crisis after the US embassy in Tehran was stormed by Islamist extremists following the Iranian revolution.

A year after the 52 Americans were taken hostage, Carter lost the 1980 election. The hostages were released just as President Ronald Reagan, who defeated Carter, was sworn in.

1979

2012

As Clint noted, the Empty Chair improved by codetoad:

It is past time to fire Barack and his empty chair and have both of them hit the road back to Chicago!

Thanks to RushIsMyTeddyBear and Focault's Pendulum and for finding these morphing graphic art realities

[Terry Mross]

What scares me are the “moderates” who think Romney is too conservative.

[Yosemitest]

Obama’s smaller crowds a hint of smaller voter turnout
September 6, 2012

The main event, Obama’s acceptance speech, is scheduled for the 74,000-seat Bank of American Stadium.
Four years ago, when Obama gave a similar open-air speech at an NFL stadium in Denver he drew an energized, enthusiastic crowd of 80,000.
Steve Kerrigan, head of the DNC convention, said at a Monday morning press conference, “[The speech] at the stadium will go forth rain or shine.”

Wait, another Democrat about-face, today it was announced that President Barack Obama’s big speech on Thursday night will move from the vast Bank of America stadium to the much-smaller Time Warner indoor arena.
That is a crowd downsized by 50K, with the forecast for Charlotte on Thursday staying the same, a 40 per cent chance of rain with only the possibility of thunderstorms:
‘Overcast with a chance of a thunderstorm and a chance of rain..Chance of rain 40% with rainfall amounts near 4.8 mm possible.’
The chances of rain in the evening drop to 30 per cent.

With Obama’s speech moved indoors, there will likely be thousands of disappointed fans.
However, with enthusiasm surrounding the Obama campaign seemingly diminishing, there have been concerns that the stadium could even be filled.
This in nothing new for the “Forward” 2012 campaign, when Barack Obama launched his re-election at Ohio State University on Karl Marx’s birthday it was to a stadium full of mostly empty seats.


The official Barack Obama Tumblr boasts a figure from ThinkProgress that 14,000 attended the event, that is only 70% of the stadium’s seating capacity.
Keep in mind that this was less than half the crowd that greeted the President in Ohio only two years ago.
It’s a good thing Obama aides maintain that the president appearing before smaller crowds is all part of the new more intimate plan.
Apparently, Obama’s team wants the American people to believe that they are intentionally working to minimize the turnout of supporters at 2012 campaign events.
Campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said,
“Our focus right now is on exciting our supporters and winning over undecided voters
and the smaller and medium-size events are the best venue to accomplish that because the president can closely engage with the crowd.”

COME ON MAN!
Recent polls show that Republican voters are far more enthusiastic about the upcoming election than Democrats.
Figures show almost 2/3 of Republicans describe themselves as either extremely enthusiastic, or very enthusiastic, about voting out Obama in 2012.
What is important about this is at the same time Democratic enthusiasm is dropping.
Only 21 percent of Democrats say they are extremely enthusiastic about voting, and 22 percent described themselves as very enthusiastic about voting.
The real reason Obama’s speech was moved indoors was
because they couldn’t have thousands of empty seats broadcast into households across America.
Traditionally, Democrats have been very good at motivating their people to turn out and vote,
but if Democratic enthusiasm wanes a good number just may stay home or vote for the economy, not ideology.
When that happens, President Obama’s tenure will come to an end in January, 2013.

Yeah, most Democrats are TOO DEPRESSED to vote again for a Fabian Fascist, even if he IS a Kenyan TURD!

[windsorknot]

I'm not a Romney fan, but I detest King "Jug Ears" Hussein and his disastrous policies. I will vote to remove the trash from the White House.

[Tuanedge]

I’m voting Romney, because it means the country and the Constitution will die more slowly, and more people will have a chance to prepare. That’s the win. All our conservative choices have died at republican hands.

If the election makes him Reagan, then I say glory to God...but this is the age of diminished expectations.

[Fletcher J]

Glad you’re not defensive... LOL I’ll ignore your insults to get straight to the point.

Romney isn’t exactly a Reagan conservative, but in terms of the individuals themselves, Romney and Obama, there is a big difference between the two.

Romney is a decent American family man who loves his country. On the other hand, Obama was raised by various America-hating scum, and welcomes seeing this country being humbled economically, politically, and militarily.

Romney didn’t spend his formative years in Indonesia, wearing a sarong and eating dog meat. Romney’s father was American, not Kenyan. Romney’s mother was not a commie. It won’t require Romney to be elected President for Ann Romney to be proud of America. Romney didn’t spend 20 years listening to a pastor who said “Not God Bless America, god d**n America!”. Romney has never bowed to foreign leaders and gone on a world-wide apology tour. Romney has never associated with known terrorists to begin and maintain his political career. Romney has had a real job and made his own fortune, instead of spending his whole life in make-work jobs provided by political sponsors. Romney has executive experience. Romney has established a record of achievement, instead of breezing thru life with an assist from Affirmative Action. Romney is a hard worker, and not a lazy slug like Obama. Romney has been vetted, unlike Obama. Romney isn’t a narcassist who “wrote” TWO autobiographies before turning 40. Romney has never snorted cocaine or smoked pot. Romney would respect religious beliefs and free speech, unlike Obama. Romney chose conservative Paul Ryan for his running mate, Obama chose Joe Biden - to add some gravitas to the ticket! LOL Romney is promising us conservative governance, Obama is promising us liberal governance.

Bottom line is that while I might disagree with Romney on a host of issues, I trust his motives. Obama, on the other hand, wants to manage America’s decline so that we are no longer a world leader. That’s a huge and fundamental differentiator between the two.

This country would be hard-pressed to recover from another 4 years of Obama, so our best hope is to elect Romney and then hold him accountable to conservative principles. We have a chance to do that with Romney, and zero chance with a lame-duck Obama administration.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Bottom line is that while I might disagree with Romney on a host of issues, I trust his motives. Obama, on the other hand, wants to manage America’s decline so that we are no longer a world leader. That’s a huge and fundamental differentiator between the two.

That's find - but it is a differentiator that exists as a result of your own subjective opinion, not objective fact. It is your "feeling" about the candidates vis-a-vis each other. That's your right, obviously, but you can't pretend that it has to be normative for every other person that you deal with. Yet, just that attitude is the crux of your criticisms, making your criticisms unmeaningful.