Santorum: Might as well have Obama over Romney

[rjas77]

My god, you're still here? Well I guess when you're from Tacoma you have to find an escape somehow.

Actually, Tacoma's become a better place to live than Seattle...

[Hawkgirl]

Romney was not my first choice, or second choice. I liked Cain and even donated to his campaign. I voted for Santorum in Florida.
However; when it comes to the national election, I WILL "pull the lever" for the republican candidate, and if that republican candidate is Romney, I will vote for him. I do not know if he will repeal Obamacare; but we expect him to. The last I heard, on news radio is that he is going to offer a "opt out" like Obama did to several unions and his inner circle. We can hope he defunds the plan, but will need Congress' help to do so. If companies, groups and/or individuals can use waivers to opt out of Obamacare, chances are, unless you are already indigent and already on Government plan, you will opt out...

I'm willing to take the chance and see if Romney can deliver. Voting for Obama or sitting out the election is not an option for me...and as someone here already said, don't bitch about government if you plan on sitting home with your thumb up your a$$ on Election day.

[Gentleman Pirate]

Actually, Tacoma's become a better place to live than Seattle...

You must have attended joke kill university.

[Odysseus]

Okay, so lets say hypothetically President Obama had a little "R" by his name instead of a "D." Would this, and this alone, make him a better president?

On domestic issues, Romney is a wild card. He has governed all over the map, and his philosopy of government is not necessarily conservative, but he is not a socialist and he does not subscribe to the extremist ideologies that Obama espouses. He wouldn't have tried Fast and Furious, for example, and he'd have appointed an AG who would actually enforce the law. It's unlikely that he'd have prosecuted states that passed their own immigration laws or tried to undermine the rule of law within them. His judicial appointments would be more likely to be conservatives in the mold of Scalia, Thomas (Bush 41), Roberts (Bush 43) and Alito (Bush 43). True, Bush 41 also gave us Souter, but Obama is guaranteed to appoint far left radicals like Kagan and Sotomayor. Romney's experience at Bain Capital makes him far more likely to look for spending cuts and departmental elimination than Obama, although this is far from guaranteed, but with Obama, multi-trillion dollar deficits are going to be the norm, and if he is reelected, he will almost certainly double down on failure.

On foreign policy, Obama will continue to alienate allies and suck up to enemies. He has already floated the idea of providing the Russians with classified information regarding our missile defense systems, which means that he is giving them to Syria, Iran and North Korea by proxy. He will continue to gut the military and attack us with PC idiocies in lieu of doctrine, while tying our hands with Rules of Engagement that would hamstring a Pre-K teacher. Romney knows who our enemies are, and is far more likely to be willing to fight them, and he won't be bowing to Saudi kings or Japanese emperors.

The absolute worst that a Romney administration could be would be Bush 43 lite, which is still a far sight better than Obama.

BTW, the one thing on Romney that would turn me into an enthusiastic supporter would be if he came out and announced that he intended to repeal Obamacare because he doesn't make the same mistake twice, and anybody with a brain can see that Romneycare failed to reign in costs, expand coverage or maintain free choice. Somebody who can admit a mistake and promise not to repeat it is somebody that can learn from mistakes. That would tell me that he's not flip-flopping, but has made a real conversion to a conservative principle, and if it can be done there, it can be done on other issues.

Reagan has been deified. He is the Republicans' FDR and his sins against dogma (amnesty, raising taxes, deficit spending, ect ...) are ignored.

As far as Romney, he will say what he has to to get the nomination. I am expecting the Etch-A-Sketch moment to come soon.

Reagan succeeded in turning the economy around and defeated the Soviets in the Cold War. His policy errors, such as amnesty, tax hikes and deficit spending were the result of accepting deals with Democrats which they never kept. For example, the tax hike was part of a deal in exchange for spending cuts, but the Democrats in congress never kept their side of the bargain, and the cuts were never put into the budget.

I suggest we play Fanfare for the Common Man on our march toward Marxism.

One does not march towards Marxism, at least not by the end. When we finally arrive there, we will be crawling, and if there is a band, it will be playing an appropriate dirge.

[Hawkgirl]

Update:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D146048

In a statement released Friday, Santorum said: "I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney's policies mirror Barack Obama's."

"I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it's easy to see why - Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts," he continued.
<snip>
When pressed on whether his position ran counter to GOP unity behind the party's nominee, Stewart said, "Rick has made it abundantly clear once a nominee is chosen he'll stand behind the nominee and do everything we can to replace Barack Obama."


I'm glad he changed his tune...and has clarified his statement...It will still leave a sour taste though.

[Arroyo_Doble]

Update:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D146048

In a statement released Friday, Santorum said: "I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney's policies mirror Barack Obama's."

"I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it's easy to see why - Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts," he continued.
<snip>
When pressed on whether his position ran counter to GOP unity behind the party's nominee, Stewart said, "Rick has made it abundantly clear once a nominee is chosen he'll stand behind the nominee and do everything we can to replace Barack Obama."


I'm glad he changed his tune...and has clarified his statement...It will still leave a sour taste though.

Remember Carville wearing Puma's back in 2008?

Don't worry. Eventually, they all smile for the camera.

[Elspeth]

In Santorum's defense, he was misquoted in a big way. The media both skewed his words and his intention:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...a-over-romney/

“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”

Those are his exact words. What is he trying to say is that if you're just going to put up an unknown with no principles, and not give people a real alternative, you might as well stay with the devil you know and not vote for the (Etch-a-Sketch) devil you don't know.

That's much different than Santorum telling people to vote for Romney if he (Santorum) doesn't win the nomination. He's just trying to say that elections really don't matter if you don't have a real choice. You'll just get one devil or the other in the end.

[mike128]

I seriously doubt that Santorum really believes that Obumbler would be better than Romney. If anything, Romney would drive this country over the cliff slower than Obumbler would, but either way, this country would still be headed over the cliff. Which is why Romney should not be the nominee.

[Rockntractor]

I seriously doubt that Santorum really believes that Obumbler would be better than Romney. If anything, Romney would drive this country over the cliff slower than Obumbler would, but either way, this country would still be headed over the cliff. Which is why Romney should not be the nominee.

You might have taken a small almost imperceptible step in the right direction.
I'm going to have to turn this over to a lab for study.

[mike128]

You might have taken a small almost imperceptible step in the right direction.
I'm going to have to turn this over to a lab for study.

I think we all agree that Romney is not as bad as Obumbler. But the difference between the two is so minimal, that it's not worth it for me to waste my vote and my time on Romney just to get Obama out. If Romney is the nominee, and Obumbler loses, fine. But it will be done without my vote. Trading Obama for Obama-lite is no reason to celebrate.