It's understandable not to want another four years of Barack Obama, after all, his tenure has been atrocious. Bailouts, "stimulus," money printing, cronyism, and health care fascism (just to name a few of his initiatives), are hardly the marks of a place that was once called "the land of the free."

But that's no excuse for supporting the pathetic Republican candidate, "Me-too" Mitt Romney.

The following are supposedly 6 "very good reasons" to vote "for Mitt Romney." I disagree. Vote for Nobody. Here's why.

"Why bankruptcy is preferable to bailouts"

President Obama has been on a chest-thumping tour touting the success of the bailouts both in the auto industry as well as the financial industry. Supporters and critics alike have focused upon what constitutes a success. Some will calculate the cost to the taxpayers. Others will focus on the jobs saved. It is these glass half-empty/half-full arguments that highlight the crux of the problem. Bailouts v. bankruptcy is not an apples to apples comparison.

Bailouts encourage and enable bad business practices. Bankruptcy penalizes it. So when you question whether or not Obama succeeded with his bailouts, you should instead be asking why he engages in a policy that promotes risky investments and inefficient business practices that will eventually require you the taxpayer to pay for it.

I agree. Any half-thinking person should understand, quite intuitively I must add, why bailing out Washington cronies to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars at taxpayer expense is nothing short of a crime. Let's call it what it really is. Regardless of partisan rhetoric (from either side of the aisle), bailouts are nothing more, nor less, than wealth transfer programs designed to take money away from the poor and middle class and give it to the politically-connected rich!

While it's certainly true that bailouts create moral (among many others) hazard, the problem is much more fundamental. There isn't a legitimate moral argument available to justify the theft of one person's property (in this case, income) in order to give it to another. Intentions don't matter. Theft is theft. Robin Hood was a thief. The bailouts were a crime. The problem with the bailouts goes way beyond matters of policy. It's a matter of ethics: Is "Thou shalt not steal" subjective?

Why would anyone expect Romney to be any different than Obama on this anyway? After all, wasn't it the Republicans who gave us TARP? Yes, yes it was! Romney even went on "a chest-thumping tour touting the success of the bailouts" earlier this year himself. Yet we're supposed to believe Romney is different? Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt.

Is it the auto bailouts? Romney did indeed say he would've let them go bankrupt, albeit a "managed bankruptcy," with government help (and federal loan guarantees). The difference between Romney and Obama on the auto bailouts amounts to Fatal Conceit 'R' vs. Fatal Conceit 'D.' Either way, cronyism triumphs while honest taxpayers lose.

Implied by Romney's TARP braggadocio and "managed bankruptcy" for the autos, is that the free market — the natural order of things — is responsible for the banking crash and consequent crappy economy, and that government technocrats are needed to "fix" it (at taxpayer expense of course). This is the same false assumption underlying Obama's worldview, yet we're supposed to believe (as if by magic) it'll all work out because Romney is a (sound the trumpets) Republican?

Mitt Romney's ideology is "pro-business," not "pro-market," the difference of which is hardly trivial. "Pro-market" is to trust the natural order of things, while "pro-business" is technocrat-speak for government direction of private industry (aka economic fascism). So when Romney says, "Washington has to become an ally of business," Obama agrees! Because in spite of his Marxist claptrap, Obama is a "pro-business" corporatist too.

Don't think so? Like RomneyCare, ObamaCare is a creature of the major insurance and drug companies. In other words, corporatism, not Marxist ideology. Obama's "green energy" scam is also a big pile of corporatism. Why else do you think Goldman Sachs swings both ways?

Thought experiment: Where did bailed-out Goldman Sachs get the money to help fund campaigns for both Romney and Obama? Hmmmm …

Mitt Romney's experience at Bain Capital had little (if anything) to do with "free market" entrepreneurship. When Romney took over the restructuring of Bain & Company, he got a $10-million "debt forgiveness" deal from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC). It's good to be politically well-connected, uh? A federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bailout the underfunded pension plan of a steel mill Romney bought too. Why bother funding the shortfall when you expect Uncle Sam to come to the rescue (remember, moral hazard)? (Uh, oh. It looks like the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is gonna be looking for a bailout soon.)

Even his Olympics "success" required $1 billion in pork-barrel funding from the federal government … Romney doesn't have a clue as to what a free market is.

Moreover, not only did Mitt support TARP, he has admitted during the debates that he's open to EVEN MORE bailouts. Put it all together and even Barack Obama is to Mitt's right on bailouts. — John Hawkins

The "Etch-A-Sketch" candidate is a corporatist wet dream. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney handed out corporate welfare like Obama hands out food stamps. He loves federal loan guarantees, ethanol subsidies, wants the government to "invest" in "infant industries" and supports his own version of programs like Solyndra. Bottom-line: "All signs suggest Romney still believes government should 'support' business."

"America's Need for Energy"

The good news is Governor Romney plans to take a more practical approach to energy policy if he's elected president. Drilling for oil and gas is not incompatible with protecting the environment. American ingenuity and engineering know-how is the best in the world. We can make our nation energy independent, create good jobs, and do it safely and efficiently.

When it comes to energy the choice is clear. President Obama will ensure that we freeze in the dark. Mitt Romney can keep America working, with a balanced approach that recognizes the value in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and yes green technologies too.

Need I say it? America's "energy problem" exists precisely because of schmucks like Romney and Obama and their ludicrous top-down "plans." Conservatives should be ridiculing Romney for such technocratic arrogance, not praising him. The world has truly turned upside down.

First of all, "we" don't produce oil (or any other energy product for that matter). This is a collective notion conservatives need to get out of their heads right quick. Second, "energy independence" is a myth. It's a global market. No matter how much oil is pumped by American companies on American soil, when you turn on the lights or fill up your gas tank, you'll be consuming resources from all across the globe. The only thing the government can do to make energy cheaper and more abundant is to drop their "plans" and get the hell out of the way.

This, right here, is the problem with the conservative movement's election-driven strategery. Coddling the Establishment and making excuses for their left-wing policies is given priority over seeking and speaking the truth. The political success of the Republican Party is always more important than liberty. Any conservative who still can't figure out why the government consistently grows, year after year, in size, scope and power, need only look at themselves in the mirror. Because twisting yourselves in knots trying to elect statist after statist, merely because they wear an 'R' on their lapel, can only result in pain. You built the party as it is by supporting schmucks like Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney. Conservatives aren't victims of Democrats or anyone else, not in the slightest, they're only victims of themselves.

At 44 years of age, I've been hearing about the mostest importantest election evah for as long as I can remember. It never is. Democrats get elected, Republicans get elected, government usurps power and grows no matter which team is in charge. Same as it ever was …

The remaining four "very good reasons" to vote for Romney will have to wait until the next post.

« Previous Post

Next Post »

  • http://conservativesonfire.wordpress.com Jim at Conservatives on Fire

    You know I disagree with you, CL. I don't see how any rational person can equat Romney with Obama. I know you feel exactly the opposite. Consider the opinion of another libertarian friend of mine on how peoplle should vote next Tuesday.

    He suggested that in the swing states that will decide this election, libertarians should vote for Romney. In states where it is obvious that the electoral votes will go for Romney, libertarians should vote for Gary Johnson. In states where it is obvioust that their electoral votes will go for Obama, libertarians and conservatives should vote for Gary Johnson. My friend gave three reasons for his sugestions: !.) Obama has to go, 2.) if Gary Johnson can get in the neighborhood of twenty million votes, it might scare the otther two partoes into rectifying their ways, and 3.) most importantly, if Gary Johson could get about 20 million votes, it would give the Libertarian Party some much needed credibility.

    I think my friend makes some good points.

    • http://the-classic-liberal.com/ theCL

      But a rational person did just equate Romney with Obama, and provided substantial evidence to boot.

      Hey, people can vote however they want. But replacing Obama with Romney changes nothing of significance.

  • http://www.spellchek.wordpress.com 5etester

    You linked my post but apparently didn't read the first paragraph which stated "Romney may not be the first choice for some of these contributors, but we can all agree that Obama must go ".

    You stated "The following are supposedly 6 "very good reasons" to vote "for Mitt Romney".

    I'm one of those who won't be voting for Mitt Romney but that doesn't mean I can't participate in an effort to oust Obama.

    • http://the-classic-liberal.com/ theCL

      I know, but I don't think Romney qualifies as even the 53rd choice, or 102nd, or 1,000th choice.

      I'd love to see Obama go too but Romney is just more of the same. He isn't what people wish he would be. He's a pro-bailout, pro-regulation, pro-money printing disciple of John Maynard Keynes.

  • http://EasyOpinions.blogspot.com Andrew_M_Garland

    I think Romney is much less bad than Obama, and has a chance to explain our economy to the people in a way that Bush would/could not, and which Obama does not understand. But, even if you believe that Romney is as bad as Obama, then vote for Romney.

    ()  Removing the incumbent breaks up the consolidation of power.
    ()  There is more opportunity to punish Obama's cronies, sooner.
    ()  Romney is likely to appoint better Supreme Court and appellate judges.
    ()  Obama is an ideologue with unknown and suspicious background, which causes him to lie and make bad decisions.
    () A pragmatist Romney will be able to make better decisions in the face of the coming financial collapse. Obama will rush into it as a Communist inevitability/desireability.

    There is an argument that Obama should keep office and reap the horrible outcomes which his policies make inevitable (and some policies prior to Obama). This would teach the solid lesson that Liberalism doesn't work. But consider:
    ()  FDR was able to argue (falsely) that he needed even more power and control to meet the economic disaster which he was in fact causing.
    ()  Touching a hot stove teaches a lesson. Planting your hand on the hot stove and keeping it there teaches the same lesson, but it isn't worth losing the hand.

    Voting is not essentially an expression of personal preference. It is an expression of group power. Vote for the person who is the best of those who can actually take power. Send $50 to the party who you want to have power in the future, and work for the public recognition which will eventually make that party viable for a future vote.

    • http://the-classic-liberal.com/ theCL

      I'll answer tonight after work.

  • Pingback: Sunday Links: Special Pre-Election Facebook Friends Pics Edition

  • http://in127words.blogspot.com/ W.J. McCabe

    I voted for Obama and am disappointed by his presidency, but when I look at Romney I see a man that cannot be trusted because he will say and do anything to be elected president. For this reason Barack Obama has my grudging support in this broken system of ours.

  • Pingback: Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (closing argument edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL

  • Pingback: Why? Because I Hate Hiim | Daily Pundit

  • Pingback: Seriously, Just Don’t Vote #VRWC