This is something I have mulled over a long time. I touched on it in a comment on Country Thinker’s post yesterday, but I would like to elaborate just a bit.
I know Mitt Romney has many detractors. Many conservatives and libertarians question his conservative credentials, myself included. I questioned them in 2007 and I questioned them during the GOP primary. I still have reservations about how conservative he would be as President of the United States. I contend there are other things to consider, besides his fiscal conservatism.
There are many people who are going to refuse to vote for Mitt Romney, based on his record in Massachusetts. That is their privilege and I would not dare to denigrate their choice. There are also those who will refuse to vote for him on the basis of the theory that he would be worse for our country than Barack Obama. One of the co-authors on Political Realities holds that opinion, but I have seen many other commentators put the same sentiment in writing. This post is not an attack on their position, and certainly not an attack on Ted, but I want to explain why I disagree so strongly with that belief.
Since Barack Obama took office, it has been one disaster after another. He made a promise to bring the nation together while he was campaigning, but he has done just the opposite. Remember how he interjected himself into the issue of racism over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.? He couldn’t help himself and said the police acted stupidly. Instead of allowing local authorities to handle the situation, he just had to get involved. Did this help our country or did it just stoke Obama’s ego? Would Mitt Romney have responded in such a brash manner?
Remember the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? One of the things Barack Obama did in response to the BP oil spill was to declare a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. Safety concerns were slighted. When the moratorium was challenged in court, it was thrown out. Obama was ordered to lift the ban, yet he ignored the court order. The challenge was brought forth because the ban was hurting a lot of people. Jobs and incomes were lost. The court ruled Obama had insufficient cause to issue the moratorium and struck it down. The President didn’t agree with the order, so he refused to comply. It was done in accordance with our judicial system, but the President simply wouldn’t go along. Ask yourself how Mitt Romney would have reacted.
Moving on to health care, Barack Obama has issued new requirements that call for birth control to be available to all women as part of their health insurance. Disregarding that birth control is available for very little cost, the President did his part for the women of America. Using authority that was buried deep inside Obamacare, he is now forcing religious organizations that believe birth control is a sin to provide it as part of the health insurance they provide for their employees. In doing so, religious freedom was severely damaged. Is it not safe to say Mitt Romney would have not issued such a policy directive?
Let’s look at the President’s liberal use of executive orders to change existing law, or to create new law. Immigration anyone? Barack Obama has completely changed the way illegal immigration is handled on the federal level. Because of the policy changes he has affected by executive order, many illegal immigrants no longer have to worry about being deported.
The President did the same thing with welfare reform. Our current law on welfare reform was crafted and passed during the Clinton years and it has worked since then to lower the number of people on welfare. It was widely declared to be a success, due in large part because of the work requirement built into the law. That requirement was strict because Congress made it thus. They wrote the law in such a way that it prevented waivers from granted for the work requirement. Barack Obama must have disagreed with that part of the law, because he magically found a way he could change the law. He issued a new policy directive that allows states to apply for waivers to the very requirement that made the law such a success.
Both of these examples show one of the main reasons why I believe Barack Obama is so dangerous for America. In using the principles of conduct he has applied to both issues, he has shown a complete and total disregard for the American system of government. Instead of working with Congress to affect any changes he may want, he simply took it upon himself to make those changes. In other words, he bypassed Congress and did what he wanted to do, and never mind the Constitution.
Ask yourself a simple question. Would Mitt Romney have done the same thing, or would he have worked within our system of government to change the laws he wanted to change?
As you can see, there are many things to consider, other than Mitt Romney and his lack of fiscal conservatism. I believe there is a large gap between how Romney would conduct himself as President, when compared to how Barack Obama has used his office. That difference is more than enough to convince me to vote for Mitt Romney.
I am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a second term for Barack Obama would be a complete and total disaster for America. Much worse than his first four years. He has shown himself to be willing to bypass the Constitution and do things his own way. That being the case, how will he conduct himself in his second term, knowing he has no worries about reelection?
For all the reasons I have stated, and then some, the theory that somehow Mitt Romney would be worse than Barack Obama simply does not work for me.