Some seem to be thinking because Bitter wants to clear up some of Mitt’s record on gunsÂ that means we’re now backing Mitt. This is not really the case. Many folks are pointing out statements Romney has made in the media that indicates his support for strict gun control. This is the problem with Romney, and why neither of us is planning on backing him in the primary. If either of us do end up voting for him, it’ll be a wrong lizard kind of vote, not one with conviction behind it. Either way, the race is generally decided by the time Pennsylvania’s primary rolls around.
But the statements Mitt has made in the media illustrate the problem with him. His record isn’t all that remarkably bad, but he’ll say whatever he thinks will play well in the media. So GOAL and some of their few allies in the MA legislature, take a massive assault weapons ban expansion, gut it, and put in a few reforms, and guarantee the list of 700 exempted firearms. Then Mitt Romney comes along, and his handlers decide his signing statement should be about the evils of assault weapons, believing, probably correctly for Massachusetts, that will play better in the media.
The problem with Romney is that on Second Amendment and Firearms issues, the guy has no real convictions. Those who follow issues like abortion know that his lack of conviction is not limited to our issue either. He is not a friend of the Second Amendment, but nor is he an enemy. He’ll probably be willing to work with gun owners, and listen to the NRA. That makes him a much preferred alternative to Obama on our issue.
My main beef with Romney, actually, is outside this issue. I don’t like that he was the architect of Romneycare. I thought that would put a serious damper on his prospects, but the field this primary is just awful.
18 thoughts on “More on Mitt Romney”
The problem with Romney is that on ___________ (fill in the blank) issues, the guy has no real convictions.
You mean he’s just an honest politician (as opposed to a politician who lies to you about what he has convictions about).
Romney does not need to have convictions on RKBA. President’s don’t make that law, Congress does. Presidents sign it or veto it.
Obama will veto pro-RKBA legislation (HR 822 is dead for this reason); Romney will have to play along and sign it, or lose all his support base.
Romney’s lack of conviction for RKBA does not worry me. I find it rather reassuring. His willingness to shift with the winds works to our advantage because the Congress is more pro-RKBA than ever. America is more pro-RKBA than ever (in recent history).
Mitt doesn’t need to join an IDPA league. He just needs to smile and sign the stuff the Congress puts on his desk.
Obama won’t ever do that. It would offend his base (but at the same time, he cannot veto it because it would offend the rest of the nation. Hence: no pro-gun bills from the Dem controlled Senate).
Romney will sign these bills, because his base are the ones sending them. And as we have all been celebrating these last 2-3 years – gun owners we are now the majority and we are not quiet. We will push. We just need someone who won’t push back.
I don’t care about his past words in a gun-control state. I just look to a future where he’ll read those winds (again) and just stay the hell out of our way.
Follow-Up Thought: Don’t let “perfect” stand in the way of “good enough”.
The man is a consummate politician. He’ll do what it takes to get our support and keep it, smiling the whole time. He goes nowhere if he goes anti-RKBA on us. He will do what is good for himself and his career – and 2012 is not 1996 or even 2006.
National Gun Control is dead. Mitt will not resurrect it or defend it. It would be against his interests. We can use that.
Obama has no such compunction. He will shut us down every chance he gets and work to hurt us in all ventures.
If Romney is the “other guy”, I will take him over Obama in a heartbeat.
Regarding the upcoming GOP nomination:
There isn’t one dog in this fight that i wouldn’t kick while walking across the porch …
More importantly tho’, what it boils down to, is future Supreme Court appointees. That’s the only reason i can fathom holding my nose while pulling the lever …
Bitter, Sebastian, Patrick, your arguments make sense. And youâ€™ve filled in some details I was previously unaware of. I still canâ€™t stand the guy and I will still be voting for Ron Paul in the Marxistchusetts primary. But come November I may not feel quite as bad about pulling the lever for Romney. After all, in the current political reality in this country my favorite Wookie doesnâ€™t stand a snowflakeâ€™s chance in hell of winning the nomination. (That sounds vaguely familiarâ€¦)
On Mittâ€™s tendency to â€œread the tea leavesâ€ and go with what he thinks will play well with his constituents â€“ thatâ€™s actually what heâ€™s supposed to do in the form of representative democracy that our Constitutional Republic is founded upon. Our representatives in government, regardless of what office they may hold, are there to represent US not their own special interests or agenda. If that works out to the candidate/politicianâ€™s advantage so be it.
Right now we have a politician in the Oval Office whoâ€™s only concern is consolidating his own hold on power in order to further his agenda. Limitations on that power set forth in the Constitution be damned and regardless of the Will of The People to the contrary. If it takes voting for Romney in the general election to get rid of him, I guess Iâ€™ll have to hold my nose and vote for Romney.
That said, I still donâ€™t like the guy.
It boils down to this, IF Romney is the Nominee…I will vote for him. Period.
If he becomes the Nomninee…and someone decides not to vote at all in the General Election – because they don’t like him —> this reason not to vote at all in the General Election – is dumb as can be. Because you can bet your bottom dollar, that the Unions, Greenies, Occupy-you-can-name-your-town folks, Democrats, Anti-2As, etc. will come out in droves to vote for Obama.
Not voting for whomever the Republican Nominee is in the General Election – is a vote for Obama. Period.
“Our representatives in government, regardless of what office they may hold, are there to represent US not their own special interests or agenda. If that works out to the candidate/politicianâ€™s advantage so be it.”
I agree to an extent but if a politician should totally blow in the wind, why do we have political parties with platforms? Wouldn’t at that point the little letter beside their name represent a voting club rather than a political affiliation? Which is pretty much what they have become.
HA! Wrong lizard… Seriously, though. We have to back a guy that we don’t support, because we don’t like his history (I love me some 2a, but there’s also 1a, 4a, 8a, and probably 3a for all I know, issues comin down the pike); we dare not vote for the guy that’s gotten zero done (thats my favorite kind of politician) because of what he represents, and we HAVE to vote for a lizard, or else the wrong lizard might get in. Its not just the GOP primary, or the Presidential general, its EVERY DAMN VOTE. I just voted for a R in the OR special election. Not because I like him or his politics, but because I want one more NOT D in the house, and the L cant win. Why can’t he win? Because of all the guys like me out there that are worried about the wrong damn lizard getting in! We’re hosed. And we did it voluntarily.
My sentiments, exactly! *sigh*
I, for my part, did not think either of your were endorsing Romney on a personal level; however, I think it is important to point out his faults (rather than defend his squishy nature) to avoid having him win the nomination if it were possible (I do not think it is at this point).
That said, like most everyone else, I will probably push the button for him on election day as ‘Not Obama,’ and hope for the best.
We largely held off on mentioning this until now because we didn’t want to help the guy. But I think if folks are going to be mad at him, they ought to be mad at him for the right reasons. The fact of the matter is the guy didn’t sign an assault weapons ban… what he ought to be blamed for is pandering to the left-wing media in the Bay State.
Politics should never be about hoping for the best. It should always be about avoiding the worst. Hoping that a government will provide the best life can offer is anathema to liberty.
SomeGuy: I know you weren’t going down that path, but I used your words as a jump-point anyway. No offense.
Romney showed that he’s a true politician in another way. When speaking about the states emergency services and emergency response, he dismissed the Ham Radio community by saying they didn’t need untrained amateurs near the professionals. The people that run and staff the EOC’s (Emergency Operation Centers) had to do a lot of damage control so they didn’t lose a good part of their volunteer base.
And from my experience (in Oregon), Hams’s are well prepared and trained (we’re terrorists according to some Homeland Defense guides ), having 72 and 144 hour emergency kits available as well as the means to defend them.
Thank you for this information. It will make me feel a tad less icky to vote for Romney in the final election, if it comes down to that. Of course, I’ll feel icky no matter *who* wins the final election…but that’s because every Republican nominee has a major ick factor.
Admittedly, every candidate has things I like about them, too, but it seems that every candidate has that ONE THING (or more than one, in the case of several) that makes their ickiness outweigh their likableness.
During the Fox News SC debate last night, Romney said he’d sign the NDAA. ouch.
. . .itâ€™ll be a wrong lizard kind of vote. . .
The trouble is even “wrong lizard” votes count — and are spun — just a much as sincere, committed votes.
Vote for a squish, and the one sure message that will be gotten from it is that we’ll vote for just any squish, as long as he has an (R) next to his name.
Of course, the Rs already know that, which is why we see almost nothing but squishes be offered. We come cheap, and they know it.
Comments are closed.