Sign up FAST! Login

Reason to vote for Mitt Romney.


Stashed in: Politics!, politics

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

Joe Weisenthal nails it:

The best scenario for avoiding a fiscal cliff mess is to see Mitt Romney elected.

The surest way to get Republicans on board with ongoing deficits is for them to be the party in power again.

History seems to be pretty clear on one issue: Parties out of power favor austerity. Parties in power favor stimulus.

A newly elected Mitt Romney and a Republican Congress would sail past the fiscal cliff with the fewest disruptions possible, insuring ongoing stimulus and deficits.

Vote for Mitt Romney if you want more stimulus and spending.

Vote for Obama if you want more gridlock.

really? so democrats are not hard-ball enough to cause a train-wreck like the debt ceiling? =(

What I'm saying is that the House is likely to stay majority-Republican.

When the House and the POTUS are the same party, they spend.

When the House and the POTUS are different parties, they gridlock.

So, this election is really about whether we want spending or gridlock. :)

so this logic has swayed your vote?

I live in California, so my vote doesn't matter.

But I know people in swing states thinking about voting for Romney for this reason.

True that for California. While on Active Duty, I got to keep my Ohio voting. I mattered!

What about the Senate? I wonder what the odds are that the Senate will go Republican? Again, are senate democrats not hard-ball enough to pull Mitch McConnell's plan of stopping all governing? You don't think Democrats will gain some seats even if Romney wins overall?

Republicans look like they will take majority in the Senate and keep the House: http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/house12.php

Hence the question of Obama vs Romney is the question of gridlock vs spending.

let's go gridlock!?

Heh. At least if nothing changes there will be no bad changes.

thelma and louise, baby

Oh. Now that you mention it, there is that debt cliff thing.

So in this particular case, gridlock doesn't just mean nothing gets done.

It also means the credit of the United States could take a hit.

Damn. These folks are playing with fire.

You mean another a hit. Is your prediction that Boehner wins after all?

friend had a good comment for this one, "Oh, so because the house GOP has decided to be intransigent, we have to elect them President? No thanks."

As said friend and someone who fancies themselves a spurned would-be Republican, perhaps I am being a tad spiteful, because there is some logic to the argument that in a crisis, we want to have the smoothest possible leadership given how things have gone historically. But beyond the simple syllogistic statement that 'If we have one party in control, we avoid fiscal controversy' there is really very little appeal to the argument, and it reeks of apology for obstructionism.

But when the crisis is partly caused by one party, one that has in recent history been responsible for worsening the gridlock problem, why in the world should we reward that? No self-respecting Republican would endorse a plan with the same logic in any policy area I can imagine. More welfare for the lazy? More foreign aid for the corrupt? More subsidies for the hopelessly inept?

When the House was GOP and the White House was Dem, Gingrich's Republicans demanded and got a balanced budget, but they also shut down the government for weeks. The deficit wasn't nearly as bad, so the stakes weren't quite as high. This is worse, but the US government and our global fiat currency power mean that even if we get downgraded and shave points off the GDP, the country won't collapse - it'll just take a huge series of completely unnecessary wounds to its prestige and power. If the GOP thinks it can exist as a MORE successful political party in a diminished and weakened country, why should we reward it at all? It sounds to me like one of the few arguments for straight-ticket voting, but not for them.

There are plenty of arguments for Romney over Obama, but this article is not a good one.

Yes on my belief Boehner will win again. Unfortunately.

Another two years of that crybaby whining about repealing Obamacare for the 33rd time...

Boehner/McConnell is the worst leadership the GOP has had in some time. Worse than Gingrich, who at least is an ideas man.

I voted for moderate Republicans for years. They've all since quit in disgust or turned into full-bore apologists for the ridiculous stances of today's GOP. Should I ignore that and gamble that Romney/Ryan will somehow balance the budget? I'd sooner believe the Democrats could produce a balanced budget at this point.

The phrase I hear a lot is:

I didn't leave the Republican party. The Republican party left me.

I'd probably like the party a lot more if Boehner and McConnell weren't their leaders.

Precisely. And I won't vote for them until the alternative is demonstrably worse over the long term.

The GOP tactic hasn't been successful. It hasn't stopped health care reform, or many other Obama policies. It has, however, absolutely tanked Americans' opinion of Congress, which the GOP controls. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156662/Congress-Approval-Ties-Time-Low.aspx

I won't reward them for that. Nobody should.

You May Also Like: