Is it OK to sit out in 2012?

[Odysseus]

Is it really a swing state though? Pa has voted Democrat 6 out of the last 10 elections and hasn't gone to a Republican since Bush the Elder.

Massachusetts hadn't elected a Republican senator since 1962. Things change, and PA may be in play, for the simple reason that Obama has so thoroughly screwed up the country in his first term that many Democrats aren't going to pull the lever for him. If it came down to a few votes, wouldn't you want yours to be one of them?

Is I'm definitely not staying home this fall. There are local and state races I'm following, and I want the chance to vote against Bob Casey.

But now that Santorum is gone, and Newt Blowhard refuses to drop out in order to raise his speaking fees....I think I'm done with the Presidential race.

Can I just ask one thing: can anyone tell me why they're enthusiastically voting for Romney? I know the reasons are "he's not Obama". But I want to vote for something positive rather than just against something again.

There is a lot to recommend Romney. First, he was extremely effective at Bain Capital and running the Salt Lake City Olympics, which means that he has a proven record of taking failed or failing enterprises and turning them around without increasing costs. Given the massive failures that we are seeing in DC, that's not a bad resume, especially in view of his record as governor, where he started with a $3 billion deficit and left office with a $721 million surplus. As governor of Massachusetts, we're told that he governed as a liberal, but he actually vetoed over 800 bills or line items in the budget. Most of these were overturned, but let's face it, he was governor of the most liberal state in the country, and he managed to bring the budget back into line with revenues despite the Democrats.

His Wikipedia entry details his actions as governor. It's not as bad as Mike128 makes it out to be. For example, although he claimed to be pro-choice, Romney vetoed a number of pro-abortion bills. He started out being in favor of embryonic stem cell research, but changed his mind afer talking to a stem cell researcher:

Romney says that his views on abortion were drastically altered on November 9, 2004, after discussing stem cell research with Douglas Melton, a stem cell researcher at Harvard University. The Harvard Stem Cell Institute was planning research that would have involved therapeutic cloning.^[110] The Governor says that Melton declared that the research "is not a moral issue because we kill the embryos at 14 days." "I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction, which is it just hit us hard," recalled Romney. "And as they walked out, I said, 'Beth, we have cheapened the sanctity of life by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality.' And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, 'I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.'"^[111] Melton disputes Romney's account of the meeting, declaring "Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it ... I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases."^[112]

If Romney is telling the truth, then this means that he is open to changing his mind when he is presented with new evidence. This means, to me, anyway, that his other more liberal positions may change as he works with more conservatives and gets an earful on things like Global Warming, gun control and the like.

On foreign policy, he favors a strong defense, and as governor, he was extremely pro-military. He also understands the we are facing an existential threat from the global jihad.

He's also honest, in the sense that he doesn't use the political process to enrich himself or his cronies. His policy positions have changed over the years, but so have a lot of people's (Reagan started out as an FDR Democrat). He's done missionary work, and takes his faith seriously.
He's a good, decent man who holds some opinions that I'd prefer that he didn't, but he's not a totalitarian monster who will sell the country out to its enemies.

[noonwitch]

Sit it out, or vote for a 3rd party candidate.


What do you expect me to say?

[Stoic]

SGT Jackson,

The question you have to ask yourself is this: If, hypothetically, obama were to win the election, and it was your vote (or lack thereof) that decided it, could you live with yourself?

Whether or not your vote actually decides it is irrelevant. We now know it's going to be Romney versus obama. As much as we all wanted someone else to get the nomination, it won't be.

For me, there is no question. You decide for yourself.

[marinejcksn]

I just don't see Romney being drastically different than Obama. He strikes me as Bush 2.0, only more arrogant.

And he turned around the Olympics by begging the feds for cash. Not exactly what I'd call a limited government advocate.

His flip-flops bother me because I personally don't care if he's pro-choice or pro-life. Abortion and gay marriage and these social issues that Republicans repeatedly go to the well with are not going to get the job done any more. I just wish Romney would grow a spine and be solid. It doesn't speak well of his character when he's willing to run all over the country pretending to be everything to everyone. Isn't that EXACTLY what Obama did in 2008?

And lets drop the rhetoric and be intellectually honest: Obama has yet to materialize into the Socialist Monster we've been told he is, at least so far. He violated the constitution with recess appointments, passed the NDAA and has railroaded through legislation. Is that any different than some of the Constitutional abandonments under Bush? Obama may drink the marxist koolaid, but so far he's basically been a left wing crony capitalist.

I want Obama to be a one term President. I just don't think replacing him with a centrist crony capitalist is going to change much in the long run.

[Janice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q

I'll put it to you this way. If you don't vote, you better not bitch when you are paying $100 for a loaf of bread and $50,000 for the next electric car. (inflation) Don't bitch when you are waiting 3 months for an MRI. Don't bitch when your doctor's visit copay is $300. Don't bitch when the Taliban retakes Afghanistan when we are gone. Don't bitch when your taxes are more than your take home pay.

Just don't bitch, if you don't vote.

I would have to agree with this too. To you question: I cant imagine anyone enthusiastically voting for Romney. But that is what the eunuchs in the GOP together with the marxist party and marxist supporting media have made to be the only other choice at this time.

In the midterms we overwhelmingly reacted to congress ignoring us by ramming 0bamacare down our throats and threw them all out. Not only that but we elected tea party candidates to replace them. Next election we can do the same in the Senate. Some of the socialists undoubtedly see this coming and are voluntarily getting out before we throw them out to 'save face'.

But taking our country back is going to be a gradual process. Just like how the socialists have gradually taken all the levers of power over the last hundred years or so. It didnt happen overnite. And 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 80 years ago just like today ... good people did nothing. They 'sat it out'. And its true. The only thing necessary for evil to win... is for good people to do nothing. Its always been this way... ever since the revolutionary war. Lucky for us there were enough patriots. Only about 30% of the colonists were real patriots. Thank God for them!

Now all these years later. What did we go to war for if not the right to vote or choose? Bad choices today, yes. But its a process. And yet, many have opted out .... years and years of people "opting out" have left us with piss poor choices. And opting out again will increase the odds of even worse choices in the future. You can count on that as sure as the sun rises in the east. Intelligent folks "drop out" of the process and what are we left with with? We are left with Oprah Winfrey types. We are left with the moocher class. We are left with the parasites infesting the polls with multiple votes. And guess who they are voting for? Is this what all our brave men and women went to war and died for? Really???

We have replaced most of the House and will hopefully replace the Senate. Eventually these junior congress people will become the leaders and replace the eunuchs we have now. But it may not happen if the responsible class, the intelligent class doesnt show up and vote. And this includes the Presidential election too. Because these people are THIS close to out right stealing all future elections. We must defeat these clowns by overwhelming numbers or ... that is exactly what is going to happen.

Not sure about how to compare these 2 people. I sort of feel like Romney thanks to the GOP is kinda like helping to build the tracks that lead to an "Auschwitz". They are not complete by a long shot. And we can still intervene to stop the construction of them. We can in effect (thru congress) hold his feet to the fire. 0bama on the other hand already has his "Auschwitz" complete. He is busy stuffing as many of us into the ovens as fast as his useless marxist ass will allow him. And he has a lot of helpers too. He also has a lot of folks that are just sitting around and "watching". They are watching all of this. It appears that many of them have drank from a cup marked as "apathy". Very powerful stuff. Can you believe it?

Well, thats where we are my friend. Are you gonna just sit there? The patriots are down (a game analogy). The marxists appear to be leading. Are they going to win? Are we going to give up? Maybe. Maybe the mist or cloud of apathy is too intoxicating to resist. I for one, hope this is not the case. I am lock and loaded. And I am not interested in appeasement. I am taking no prisoners. Its us or them. These bastards must be defeated. My country was here for me and Im not giving up on her. And I will pass on the kool aid, thank you very much.

[linda22003]

Odysseus: I think you mean 1972, when Ed Brooke was re-elected to the Senate from Massachusetts.

[Odysseus]

I just don't see Romney being drastically different than Obama. He strikes me as Bush 2.0, only more arrogant.

And he turned around the Olympics by begging the feds for cash. Not exactly what I'd call a limited government advocate.

Not true. He cut the Olympic budget, restructured the organization, boosted private fund raising, reassured the corporate sponsors and recruited more, at a time when the previous scandals and the 9/11 attacks had made the cancellation of the Winter Games extremely likely. He was responsible for $1.32 billion budget and the coordination of 700 employees and 26,000 volunteers. The federal government only provided $382 million for security (a significant concern after 9/11). It may not have been as tough as community organizing, but it was a great accomplishment.

You asked for a reason to support Romney, I gave you a bunch. If you're going to dismiss them, at least do the research first.

His flip-flops bother me because I personally don't care if he's pro-choice or pro-life. Abortion and gay marriage and these social issues that Republicans repeatedly go to the well with are not going to get the job done any more. I just wish Romney would grow a spine and be solid. It doesn't speak well of his character when he's willing to run all over the country pretending to be everything to everyone. Isn't that EXACTLY what Obama did in 2008?

And lets drop the rhetoric and be intellectually honest: Obama has yet to materialize into the Socialist Monster we've been told he is, at least so far. He violated the constitution with recess appointments, passed the NDAA and has railroaded through legislation. Is that any different than some of the Constitutional abandonments under Bush?

Comparing Obama to Bush ignores major distinctions between the two. Obama has added more debt in three years than Bush did in eight. In a second term, he'd be free to do even more damage. Bush didn't treat the Constitution like toilet paper, and he certainly didn't try to undermine congress or the courts. Bush's SCOTUS appointments were solid conservatives, while Obama's have been extreme leftists. In every category that you can compare the two, Obama comes off as far worse. Did Bush use the ATF to undermine gun laws and create a scandal in order to justify more gun control? Did Bush foment racial discord? Bush's recess appointments weren't unconstitutional. Presidents have that authority, and Bush didn't abuse it, but Obama made recess appointments when congress wasn't in recess.

Obama may drink the marxist koolaid, but so far he's basically been a left wing crony capitalist.
I want Obama to be a one term President. I just don't think replacing him with a centrist crony capitalist is going to change much in the long run.

Romney isn't a crony capitalist. He's a venture capitalist. Don't let the rhetoric blur the distinction. Romney didn't buy companies in order to simply loot them, or to funnel investor funds to his cronies, he turned them around and made them profitable. Those that he couldn't turn around went under, but his efforts staved off their collapse, kept some of their profitable divisions running under new management and ultimately gave their investors and employees more time to react. Obama has used taxpayer funds to pick winners from among his pals, even though the companies were blatantly unsound, because of his hostility to the energy sectors and capitalism in general. Obamanomics is not crony capitalism, it's crony socialism.

Here are a few more reminders of just how much worse Obama has been than Bush was, or Romney is likely to be:

1. Supreme Court. In his first term Obama has already placed two radical liberals on the Supreme Court. This didn’t have much affect on how the court swings as they were replacing liberal judges anyways. In the next 4 years it is expected at least two of the more conservative leaning judges will need to be replaced. With forced insurance mandates, more gun control planned, and a wide variety of other issues, we can’t risk another radical liberals being appointed.
2. No re-election worries. Obama has taken extreme steps against the Constitution throughout his Presidency, but especially in recent months. He’s doing all this even though the election is coming up. Now just imagine what he will do without having to worry about being elected again.
3. Economy. The economy should be the number one issue this November. Obama can’t defend his abysmal record on jobs, debt, etc. so they are trying to push a social agenda controversy which is being led by the media with direction from the White House. They are also cooking the books with employment numbers, and as I said before, liberals and these so-called “moderates” are too naive to see beyond the headline. Every conservative and republican should be making this their top issue.
4. Freedom. In just the past few months we have seen extraordinary moves against our freedoms. Obama not only signed the NDAA which allows indefinite detention of American citizens, they demanded it be included in the defense bill. We can’t forget SOPA and the various other internet censoring bills, which most are tied back to hollywood which of course are backed by democrats. We can’t afford another 4 years of this.
5. Gun control. This administration has taken a lot of quiet steps towards radical gun control. They have also used the scandalous ‘Fast and Furious’ debacle as base for their plans to place harsh restrictions on Americans owning guns. The 2nd Amendment means absolutely nothing to these people, and all you have to do is look at Chicago to see what kind of gun control mess Obama and his liberal cronies created there.

http://www.americansagainstobama.com...against-obama/

And a longer list can be found at http://townhall.com/columnists/hughh...nge/page/full/

[Janice]

Great replies Ody. Too bad the karma thingie is the way it is.

[Adam Wood]

But I want to vote for something positive rather than just against something again.

I hate to burst your bubble, my warrior friend, but the simple reality is that relatively few Americans actually get to enthusiastically vote for their Presidential candidate in the general election. This has happened to me once, when my mother lifted me up in the voting booth as a kid and I got to pull the lever for Reagan.

At the end of the day, elections are going to be about compromise, whether we like it or not. If it just so happens that the stars align and there is a candidate out there that you just love, then that's great, but it doesn't happen often and it doesn't happen to many people. That's just the mathematical reality of elections. I voted for Bush in 2000, but I wouldn't call it an enthusiastic vote. I wasn't voting against someone else, technically, since Clinton was out anyway, but I most definitely did not want Al Gore to be President. So in some ways, I was indeed voting against Gore, but there's some of that in every election. Goldwater voters loved Goldwater. Talk about some enthusiastic voters. But there were plenty who were voting against Goldwater and not because they thought Lyndon Johnson was some sort of great President. And the reverse is true, too.

You can go through every Presidential election, almost certainly all the way back to Washington, and you'll find that there's usually a lot of people who are voting against the other guy and also a lot who are holding their noses while casting their vote. That's just the way it is. If there were a perfect candidate for everyone, or even just a majority of the country, then elections would all be a breeze. That's just not going to happen in the real world, I'm afraid.



ETA: FWIW, Herman Cain would have actually been a case of me enthusiastically voting for someone this time around. C'est la vie.

[Odysseus]

Great replies Ody. Too bad the karma thingie is the way it is.

Thanks. I think that I'm maxed out anyway.