Robert Replies

Another blogger that I visit regularly, Robert at The Drawn Cutlass, left a comment that deserves consideration.

Let’s be realistic; Mitt has the Republican base at this point, and has to pander slightly to acquire as many of those magical “undecideds” as possible. Mitt isn’t ideal on gun rights; no Republican president since Teddy Roosevelt has been. He’s a damned sight better than Obama, though, and the next 4 years is going to be crucial in terms of the Supreme Court, with at least 2 picks and possibly more to make, one of them to replace a liberal (Ginsburg) with a conservative (the other two possible retirements, Scalia and Thomas, would weaken the court on conservative issues no matter who Mitt picked; you don’t get much more conservative than Scalia or Thomas).

In some ways I think Gov. Romney will be worse than Pr. Obama. Mitt will get some Republican support, couple with the Democrats, and call it bi-partisanship like that’s a universal good. They’ll pass a gun control bill, fail to stop spending beyond income, continue to expand the reach of the Federal government, do nothing more than tweak the healthcare bill, and select moderate-to-liberal justices that will sail through their hearings. You can look at his record as Governor of Massachusetts and see it coming.

I’m willing to be proven wrong, but you’ll have to convince me, right now I’d rather see Pr. Obama get re-elected and then have to deal with a gridlock with a Republican Congress.


8 thoughts on “Robert Replies

  1. I think the probability that Romney would sign a gun control bill would be about 50-50. I think the likelihood that a bill makes it to his desk is about 0. With a few notable moonbat exceptions there is no one in Congress that has gun control as their priority. IMHO

  2. So you think the Tea Party won’t have any effect on, for example, the kind of spending bills sent to Romney for signature? If you’re not convinced he’d do better on the SC Justice issue–and I’m not, but I’m holding out for “not likely to be as bad”–then what about rule by Executive fiat? You think Romney will unilaterally declare Congress isn’t in session so he can recess apoint cronies? You think he’ll let the EPA’s war on coal continue?

    What I’m hearing is someone concerned that we’re going 100MPH down the road the wrong way reaching for the brake and screaming “oh no nothing’s changed” before the foot has even reached the pedal.

    • I agree we’re screaming toward the cliff at 100 MPH, but I also think that slowing down to 60 MPH means we still are headed over the cliff. How much change do we need? We need to stop and go in a different direction. Balanced budget, paying down the debt, etc. Romney’s not going to do that, and none of you are saying he will. You just say (correctly) that he’s not as bad as the current administration. What I am saying is that’s not going to be enough.

  3. the other two possible retirements, Scalia and Thomas, would weaken the court on conservative issues no matter who Mitt picked

    This assumes that either one of them would willingly retire during a Democrat presidency. I find that assumption highly suspect. Justices tend to very carefully time their retirements to coincide with presidents who match their conservative/liberal leanings.

    So, taking into consideration that they’re getting pretty old, it’s pretty safe to assume that during a Romney presidency, one or more ‘conservative’ justices are very likely to retire, giving Romney one or more definite chances to change the balance of the court. During an Obama second term, none of the ‘conservative’ justices are likely to retire, but might die or be forced to retire due to health issues, giving Obama a possible chance to change the balance of the court.

    I’d rather gamble on the ‘conservative’ justices staying alive and healthy for another four years than on Romney’s choices.

  4. ASM826,

    You agree more with Romney than Obama. I know this about you. You can pretend, but it’s true.

    There is NO THIRD PARTY. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. To think that you will be protecting gun rights by voting for some Libertarian moron is absolutely and completely preposterous. They don’t count. They never did, and they never will.

    The gun issue is not the only issue facing this country. We need jobs. We need military strength. We need oil. OUR OIL! NOW!! We need to protect Israel. We need to stop Iran from obtaining nukes. We need to protect the sanctity of life. We need to protect our border.

    What the hell do the Libertarians or a third party plan to do when they get their asses handed to them in 2012? Sit home and polish their guns?

    The way our economy is going, the Dems won’t have to worry about ‘gun laws’ or ‘bans’. No one will be able to afford ammunition, reloading supplies, or weapons. What then?

    I’m not promising that Romney is the answer to every question your heart desires, but if a third party or Obama is the answer…man, it must have been one stupid ass question.

    The NRA supports Romney-Ryan. They know, or do you want to criticize them too? I’m sure Wayne LaPierre would enjoy the debate.

  5. Well, the perfect is always the enemy of the good. But an enormous amount of damage can be done by a American president driven by deeply un-American ideas. Especially when he’s in his last term.

    I have a big distrust of people who’d rather see a system crash than take action to avoid it. Kinda childish and tantrumy, you know?

Comments are closed.