Two Scenarios

     Perhaps the greatest obstacle for many conservatives when contemplating voting for a third party candidate is the potential for harm to the country should Obama be reelected. Since Romney is seen as the candidate most likely to prevent Obama's reelection, many conservatives feel a duty to support him regardless of his positions. This argument, although one could make a case that it is flawed, and such a case is made here and here, the idea is compelling enough to warrant a more complete discussion.

     The most obvious method of conducting an investigation of the merits of this argument is to produce competing scenarios, one if Obama wins and one if Romney wins, based on the candidates' past actions and a knowledge of American history, and to compare and contrast these scenarios. In making such a case it is important to to remember that, as Mark Twain said, "it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" and that God alone ultimately controls the future. At the same time, it is also important to recognize that such predictions, when carefully made and informed by the past, can be a useful tool in deciding on a course of action.

     In the first case, if Obama wins, certain things are obvious. It is extremely unlikely that Obamacare will be repealed should Obama be elected, particularly if Senate continues to be controlled by Democrats. An Obama administration would most likely enthusiastically implement the provisions of Obamacare. An Obama administration would also continue to advocate a more progressive tax system, emphasizing a move farther away from flat tax rates. How successful an Obama administration would be in this area would be determined primarily by the nature of Congress. Since the most likely situation is that the House stays Republican while the Senate remains Democrat, it is not at all likely that the tax code will change in any significant way, at least for the majority of people. We can also expect, should Obama be reelected, that spending will continue to rise unchecked. However, spending is less a result of the president's actions than it is of the actions of Congress so it is debatable what effect Obama's reelection would have.

     The country can also expect unequivocal support for abortion from an Obama administration in every way possible. Federal funding of abortion, both at home and abroad, would continue and any legislation limiting abortion would face a determined opponent in the White House. Obama's judicial appointments, both to the Supreme Court and to lower courts, could also be expected to share his liberal viewpoint, not just on abortion but also on marriage, religious liberty, and constitutional interpretation. These appointments could potentially produce negative effects for decades.

     On the other hand, if Romney is elected it is still highly unlikely that Obamacare would be repealed. Doing so would require not just having a president who favored its repeal, as Romney claims to, but also having a majority in both houses of Congress in favor of its repeal. As was mentioned previously, current polling suggests that the Senate will not change hands, meaning that a majority in at least one house of Congress will not favor repeal, even if Romney backtracked from his previous positions on the issue and favored repeal. With or without a divided Congress it would require that the Republican leadership be determined and unwavering in their drive to repeal Obamacare. Romney would not be able to muster that dedication to repealing his own brainchild. Under a Romney administration there is a chance that the tax code might be reformed to remove some of the burdensome taxes on businesses, however without both houses of Congress this is unlikely. Further, spending would probably continue to increase at current levels, given Romney's past record (as governor of Massachusetts spending increased dramatically every year while he was in office) and the lack of the moral courage to cut spending among "conservative" politicians. This would most likely be an improvement over an Obama administration, which could easily see an increase in the rate at which spending increases, but not a significant improvement.

     On social issues Romney would be, most likely, slightly more conservative than Obama. It can be argued based on his record in Massachusetts that he would be exceptionally socially liberal, but this ignores the fact that he would most likely give some concession, small as it might be, to those who elected him. He promises to reinstate the Mexico City policy and stop funding of abortions overseas. He also promises to stop funding of abortions at home, however this is also unlikely given the previously mentioned divided nature of Congress - putting a stop to funding for abortion overseas only requires an executive order, however putting a stop to funding at home would require an act of Congress. Romney has promised that his judicial appointments will be judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts. Again, an argument can be made from his past history that he would not do this, since he appointed primarily Democrat judges in Massachusetts, but we will give him the benefit of the doubt. If this really was the case it would certainly be an improvement over Obama's appointments, but it would not guarantee the sort of judicial reform conservatives would like to see. In his ruling on Obamacare, with which Romney expressed agreement, Roberts demonstrated himself to be less of a strict constructionist than he he makes himself out to be. Further, he has only "hinted" that he might overturn Roe v. Wade, although that is more assurance in that regard than an Obama appointee could be expected to give.

     The discussion so far has been concerned primarily with the intent of the candidates, and only slightly with how effective they would be in achieving their goals. Of course, the president alone has relatively little control without the consent of Congress. Here the difference between the two candidates is actually far more marked. Historically speaking second term presidents are very weak - on election night they have reached the zenith of their career. Congressmen cannot hitch their fortunes to the president's star, and so are far less likely to side with the president in politically dangerous situations. Obama would be a second term president, whereas Romney would be a first term president. Romney would have a far better ability to implement his agenda than Obama. In fact, the latter would be extremely limited, in part by his status as a second term president and by in part, perhaps even more, by the fact that while the House is likely to be solidly Republican, the Senate will be only marginally Democrat.

     All things considered, although there are many commonly overlooked mitigating factors that would limit Obama's effectiveness, it seems clear that the immediate effects of an Obama presidency would be significantly worse for conservatism than that of a Romney presidency. However, such a short-term viewpoint would miss important long-term effects. If elected Romney would be the leader of the Republican Party for the next four years. He would have a significant impact on the direction of the party which most closely represents conservatives, dragging it to the left and destroying its credibility by associating it with his own unprincipled pragmatism, just as he did in Massachusetts. In addition, while Obama cannot run again, Romney would undoubtedly be the Republican nominee in 2016. Given his economic record in Massachusetts (abysmal doesn't quite cover it) it is very unlikely that he would win the presidency again in 2016. Whereas we are guaranteed four more years of Obama should he win, we are guaranteed four years of Romney should he win followed by either four more years of Romney or four years of someone even more liberal, probably Joe Biden. Any small gain that might have been made by Romney winning as opposed to Obama would quickly be lost by the hamstringing of the Republican Party and the negative effects of the longer period of liberal dominance brought on by a Romney victory.

     Now none of this constitutes the best reason to vote for Tom Hoefling, but it can provide a bit of peace of mind for those who choose to. A better argument for a vote for Hoefling, consisting of a similar analysis of the potential results should conservatives as a group decide to stand on principle and vote him into office, will be forthcoming in the next few days.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney: Massachusetts Plan Applicable at Federal Level

     Mitt Romney has denied claims that he ever advocated instituting a plan similar to Romneycare on the national level, yet in the past he has indeed advocated such a plan at the national level. He said that "I think a lot of what we did could be applicable on a national basis. My preference, however, is not to have a one-size-fits-all plan pushed on all the states, but instead to give the states flexibility in creating their own plan." He made it clear that allowing states to set their own standards for health insurance, and in doing so following the Constitution, was merely a preference. He went on to add, disingenuously, that "Our plan did not include a government insurance plan. We did not put together a government-insurance product that was then sold to individuals. Instead, we relied entirely on private market-based insurance plans to help people get insurance. I think that’s a much better model." In the context of a discussion of Obamacare that statement is irrelevant - Obamacare also avoids establishing government-insurance, instead forcing the individual to purchase private insurance.

     The fact that Romney would accept, and in the past advocated, a plan similar to his Massachusetts plan at the national level speaks volumes about his principles (or lack thereof). Romney's plan in Massachusetts alone resulted in a 7.3% increase in the state budget in 2010 and a 42% increase in the state's overall costs for health programs. Romney's plan was not fiscally conservative in Massachusetts, and should he implement a similar plan at the national level, as he has said he will do (repeal and replace) we have no reason to expect that that plan will be fiscally conservative, either.

     Romneycare truly was the blueprint for Obamacare. The two are similar in their disregard for the principles of good government, for the law of the land (the U.S. Constitution in the case of Obamacare, the Massachusetts constitution for Romneycare), and in the fact that, so far, they have been failures. We cannot expect a marked difference between Romney and Obama when everything in the past records of both men suggest they will be exceptionally similar.

For a new birth of freedom!

Conservative?

     Romney has been praised in circles on the right for his recent debate performance, in which he thoroughly demolished a somewhat vacant Obama, leaving him the clear victor on the platform. However, conservatism did not win as Romney did. While Romney claims to be a champion of conservatism, his statements did match that claim. For example, he lauded Medicare, a product of Lyndon B. Johnson's ultra-liberal Great Society program, and accused Obama of cutting the program - hardly something a conservative would do. Further, he again supported his own plan for government-mandated universal healthcare in Massachusetts at the national level, as he has in the past.

     The race between Obama and Romney is not, as it has been made out to be, a contest between a conservative and a liberal. It is rather a contest between two liberals of the most effective means of instituting liberalism. The choice between the two of them is no choice at all. The only choice for those who wish to preserve conservatism for future generations is Tom Hoefling, the only true conservative in the race.

For a new birth of freedom!

Differences

There are some differences between Obama and Romney, however similar the two may be.

• Obama is pandering to an urban liberal demographic, Romney is pandering to a rural and suburban    conservative demographic.

• Obama is black and rich; Romney is rich and white.

• Obama hasn't given anything but lip service to same-sex "marriage," while Romney helped institute it as governor of Massachusetts.

• Obama can't make conservatives support what they hate, Romney can.

• Obama didn't wage a well-funded and dishonest smear campaign against a number of prominent conservatives, Romney did.

• Obama hasn't corrupted the pro-life label by pretending to be pro-life, Romney has.

• Obama was not able to push through unapologetic funding of abortions in his healthcare plan, Romney was.

• If elected, Obama wouldn't be the head of the Republican Party, Romney would.

• If elected, Obama would face opposition from a Republican Congress, Romney wouldn't.

• If elected, Obama would not be eligible for reelection in 2016, Romney would.

The choice between Obama and Romney is no choice at all. When presented with two unacceptable choice, it is important to choose neither. Fortunately, there is an acceptable choice - Tom Hoefling, who has consistently stood for life, liberty, and the principles that made America great.

For a new birth of freedom!

Why no Christian Should Vote for Romney or Obama

     This post will present an argument explaining exactly why no professing Christian, whatever his political affiliation, should vote for either Romney or Obama. This argument is applied specifically to the 2012 presidential election, but in reality it could be generalized to any election. A line of reasoning is presented establishing first that both Romney and Obama would pursue policies which any Christian should consider evil, and second that that fact alone ought to be enough to prevent any Christian from voting for either candidate.

Romney and Obama the Same

     What if there wasn't a difference between the two major candidates?

     We can choose between Obama and Romney, who are essentially the same, or we can stand outside the box and choose someone who truly represents us.

For a new birth of freedom!

Election Projection

     Romney may have pulled close to Obama in nationwide polls, but projected electoral college tallies still leave him well behind. Tellingly, although the projection shows Romney losing handily, it shows Republicans gaining seats in the Senate, holding steady in the House, and gaining governors. The country is obviously ready for true conservatism. Romney is not falling behind because the country believes he is a conservative, but because it does not.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney did it First

     Conservatives have been almost universally outraged over the passage of Barack Obama's signature healthcare legislation, "Obamacare." However, many of these same conservatives enthusiastically (or not-so-enthusiastically) support Mitt Romney, not realizing or not caring that Romney's signature healthcare legislation "Romneycare," is, according an adviser who held a leading role in designing both programs, the same in every major aspect. Obama did it, but Romney did first.

"Romneycare" the Same as "Obamacare"

     Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Mitt Romney's "Romneycare" in Massachusetts confirms what we all knew in this article from Hot Air: "Romneycare" is in all significant respects the same thing as "Obamacare." While it was glaringly obvious that many extremely odious aspects of the two plans were the same--notably mandated coverage of contraceptives, abortifacients, and all abortions, regardless of the religious conviction of the insurer--were the same, Gruber's statement provides further confirmation, as he advised both Romney and Obama while they devised their plans.

The Candidates' Positions on Abortion

     Few political issues are more compelling than abortion. Even after multiple foreign wars and an economic collapse abortion holds its place among the most pressing problems of the day, and with good reason. The taking of the life (one can call it nothing else) of the most defenseless in society is a crime not only against that life but against the future and against the ideas of freedom and equality of opportunity that fueled the birth of America. Although the majority of Americans do not support abortion, and more than two-third believe abortion after the unborn child can feel pain (sometime before fourteen weeks according to the latest research) should be illegal, surprisingly few politicians are willing to “speak out for the one who cannot speak, for the rights of those who are doomed.” This year's presidential candidates are, with one notable exception, no different.

     Incumbent president Barack Obama has made no secret of his support for abortion. Not only does he openly support making abortion legal, he even opposed a bill requiring that babies who survive abortions be provided with medical care rather than being left to die. In fact, he promised to make preserving “women's rights” to abortions a priority as president. Although supports abortion, he is in favor of banning late-term abortions, with the usual exceptions for cases involving rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Obama also supports public funding for abortions, although with the exception of the abortifacient drugs covered under the HHS mandate and federal funding for Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the country), he has not been successful in implementing his desired policy while president. Although some have described him as the “most pro-abortion president,” this is not the case. His positions, however repugnant to those who value the lives of the unborn, is hardly exceptional among Democrats. Arguably Clinton's positions were significantly more pro-abortion—after all, Clinton vetoed a bill banning partial birth abortions while Obama, at least in theory, would have supported it. He has been one of the more pro-abortion presidents in history, but not the worst.

Tragedy Reveals Flaw in Gun Control Policy

     Yesterday's tragic shooting in a Colorado theater reveals an awful flaw in the current policy, supported by both Obama and Romney, to reduce gun violence. It has been thought that the way to do so is to reduce the number of guns. In the interests of protecting the most vulnerable members of the population, school and university campuses, along with post offices, banks, and other important facilities, have been designated as gun-free zones. These efforts, although put into effect with the best intentions, are horribly misguided. 

Healthcare

     Today the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Healthcare Act, not-so-affectionately dubbed "Obamacare" was constitutional (for more on that go to this link). Not only does it continue that body's long-standing record of consistently taking the wrong side of every issue (notably Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade, but a quick examination of history provides a number of other examples), it also points out the folly of "holding our noses" and voting Republican, however distasteful the candidate. Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, was the deciding vote in favor of Obamacare. Many conservatives trooped to the polls to hold their noses and vote for Bush, in large part because doing so allowed them, they thought, to gain a conservative Supreme Court. It did not, and it never will. At present five Supreme Court justices have been nominated by Republicans; only three of them are consistently true to the Constitution. It is incredibly naive to believe that Mitt Romney, whose healthcare plan provided the blueprint for Obamacare and who appointed more Democrat than Republican judges as governor of Massachusetts, will change that trend. Further, as obviously unacceptable as Romney is, Obama is far worse.

Obama and Romney on Marriage

     Barack Obama experienced no bump in the polls from his recent statements supporting homosexual marriage, according to this Reuters article. It is obvious that the American people do not want leaders who will redefine the core institutions of the nation, as Obama says he'd like to and Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts by forcing homosexual marriage past the legislature, but rather a leader who will continue to recognize and adhere to the values and institutions that made America great. The family is the most basic building block of society, and if the family is allowed to decay and become meaningless society will quickly follow. Both Obama and Romney have not shown the fortitude to defend the family. When confronted with two unacceptable choices it is important to choose neither.

For a new birth of freedom!