Libertarian Party: Why A President Romney Would Be Worse Than A President Obama
I opened this emailed press release (pasted in below) from the Libertarian Party just after I posted this comment on a blog item:
It is entirely naive -- and absurdly so -- the way the Occupy people ignore the abuses by the Democrats, which are myriad -- as are those by the Republicans.This is politics of idiocy. Once you join a "team," you are predisposed to support and stand behind it. I'm an independent. I look at politicians and issues independently and generally find myself choosing the lesser of two evils, but at least I'm choosing.
The text from their press release:
The Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare does not matter. It will make little difference to America in the short run, and no difference in the long run.Why? Because almost all elected Republicans and Democrats are Big Government politicians - in all things - including health care. After this Supreme Court decision, they will get back to work expanding government involvement in all things - especially health care.
One thing could make things worse. Electing Republican Mitt Romney President.
Why?
Republicans fiercely oppose, and often defeat Democratic Party attempts to massively expand government involvement in Health Care - such as HillaryCare.
But Democrats usually vote for Republican Party legislation to massively expand government's role in Health Care.
Republican President George Bush's $1.1 Trillion Government Prescription Drug Program was voted into law by Republicans and Democrats.
Republican Governor Mitt Romney's Massachusetts state government expansion into Massachusetts health care - RomneyCare - was voted into law by both Republicans and Democrats. With virtually no resistance.
A Republican-controlled House of Representatives and US Senate would oppose Democratic President Barack Obama's health care proposals.
But a Republican majority House of Representatives and US Senate would support and vote for a Republican President Mitt Romney's Big Government health care proposals. And most Democrats in the House and Senate would, too.
What Republican Governor Romney did to Massachusetts' health care, a Republican President Romney would do to America's health care.
A President Mitt Romney would not undo ObamaCare. He'd make it permanent.
A first-term President Mitt Romney would be far more dangerous to small business, the private sector, and taxpayers than a lame-duck President Obama - no matter what the Supreme Court decided.
heh, why do they think Obama would be a lame duck? Freed from campaigning, what changes could he get through, or thwart?
What they say could be true, but doesn't have to be, while we know a fair amount about the guy in there now... how much of it is good?
They seem to think that there is no way to convince congress critters to act in their own self interest, but I'm thinkin most Americans are currently in a bad mood...
It almost seems like they think once you're drunk you should keep drinkin' cuz what does it matter?
SwissArmyD at June 28, 2012 2:02 PM
Just me, or did than cited text not say anything interesting except "Romney will be worse"?
There weren't enough why's and wherefores.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 28, 2012 2:48 PM
From the article: Republicans fiercely oppose, and often defeat Democratic Party attempts to massively expand government involvement in Health Care - such as HillaryCare.
But Democrats usually vote for Republican Party legislation to massively expand government's role in Health Care.
Which is why they're known as "the Party of No."
Patrick at June 28, 2012 3:53 PM
"A President Mitt Romney would not undo ObamaCare. He'd make it permanent."
And Obama would do what?
"What Republican Governor Romney did to Massachusetts' health care, a Republican President Romney would do to America's health care."
And Obama would do what?
"A Republican-controlled House of Representatives and US Senate would oppose Democratic President Barack Obama's health care proposals."
And they would not oppose Mitt if he tried to make Obama's crap permanent?
'A first-term President Mitt Romney would be far more dangerous to small business, the private sector, and taxpayers than a lame-duck President Obama - no matter what the Supreme Court decided."
Why? Obama, being 'lame duck' would not give a hoot what others thought and try his best to push his socialist agenda. Mitt would still worry about being re-elected. Remember Obama saying to the Ruskies wait till after the election...
Paul at June 28, 2012 8:36 PM
Can anyone point to Romney's socialist or Marxist stances?
Do you wan to continue Obama's socialist or Marxist stances?
Romney is not the answer, but he has to care somewhat to make it 36 months.
Jim P. at June 28, 2012 10:20 PM
The only reason we're having this conversation is because so many GOP voters were STUPID enough to vote for Romney in their primaries.
That's one of the major problems with this country: STUPID VOTERS.
mpetrie98 at June 29, 2012 12:56 PM
That's one of the major problems with this country: STUPID VOTERS.
That's one of the major problems with democracy: Everyone who doesn't vote the way we do is stupid, which means, in the end, we all are.
MonicaP at June 29, 2012 4:59 PM
Which is why I want my republic back.
A democracy is 3 rapists and a woman voting on what the standards of consensual sex is.
A democracy is 3 pedophiles and a mother voting on the age of consent.
Jim P. at June 29, 2012 7:29 PM
I often wnder what our country would look like had our political structure been adhered to.
If legislators rather than voting the way the party they belong to told them did their jobs as laid out in the constitution.
If senatrs didnt give a fuck about the public or the executive branch and fulfilled their duties to represnt the interests of their respective states
If congressmen were less concerned with expanding the ever reaching grasp of the governemnt and defended the rights of the people against that governemnt.
It is so sad that so many people have no fucking clue how extrodinary the system concieved by our founders really was
lujlp at June 29, 2012 7:50 PM
Leave a comment