There's been a lot of commentary about Romney's landslide win in Iowa ("landslide" is defined as an 8 vote margin of victory) and what it all means. McCain's subsequent endorsement of Romney prompted considerable gnashing of teeth among the more conservative members of the GOP.
The combined result has been mutterings that Romney is just another political hack forced down our throats by the republican establishment, and that there is little difference between him and obama. Both are political insiders; both are pro-big government; neither will take the hard steps necessary to eliminate budget deficits and bring the federal regulatory apparatus under control. Some have even said they will sit out the election, or vote for a third party candidate, rather than vote for Romney if he wins the nomination.
My response to those who feel that way is two words: judicial appointments. The President of the United States appoints federal judges not just at the Supreme Court level, but also at the circuit court (aka the courts of appeals) and the district court levels. These appointments are for life. This gives a president an enormous opportunity to leave his stamp on this country for decades, or even longer. (The president also appoints 'specialty' judges, such as bankruptcy and tax court judges, but these are appointed for a specific term, not for life.)
The two most obvious examples of obama's record in this matter are his selections for the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor, the so-called 'wise latina;' and Elena Kagan, obama's former Solicitor General.
(Side note: as Solicitor General, Kagan ruled that obamacare was constitutional. Now she's sitting on the Supreme Court that is scheduled to hear arguments challenging that ruling. Think she'll be objective...?)
Say what you will about Romney, but IMO his choices for federal judgeships would be infinitely preferable to obama's (Chief Justice Eric Holder, anyone?).
So those of you who are thinking about not voting, or casting a protest vote for a third party candidate, please reconsider. Romney may not be your first choice, or even second, or third, or ... but he's better than that SCOAMF currently ruining this country. We simply cannot survive another four years with obama in power.
Repeat after me ... ABO ... ABO ... ABO ...
4 comments:
Yep... And sadly we DO NOT need Romney, he's Obamalite as far as I'm concerned...
Roger that Old NFO.
The current Rebublican Running Rabble doesn't have one single charasmatic candidate.
Voting will be like throwing half cooked spaghetti up against a wall.
One's bound to stick, but it still ain't edibile.
Yeah, but ... obamalite is still better than obama.
As far as "vile" groups are concerned, one need look no further than a blog wherein the term "SCOAMF" is used in reference to the President of the United States.
There's this FoxNewsPundit-induced haze that has Republicans thinking that the whole country thinks Obama is a complete failure.
As per polling, he has been hovering within 50%. If Obama has 50% general approval in the country, and Mitt Romney can't even get 40% approval against the current jokester Republican field (sans Paul), in a state he lived in/next to, and campaigned in for years, that does not bode well. It's pretty obvious Paul votes won't gravitate towards Mitt in the general election, not to mention most "hardline conservatives" are already considering voting for Mitt a "hold your nose and vote" situation.
The "the anyone on this stage could beat Obama" line has been used repeatedly throughout the debates (I think I even heard Paul use it once, unfortunately), and it has no basis in fact.
RW sites are drowning in racist, Obama-hating reader comments?
Post a Comment