Why would a Moderate Want to Vote for Mitt Romney and the other Conservtive Congressional Candidates? [168*20]
WE ALL KNOW WHY PROGRESSIVES AND LIBERALS will vote for Democrats and why Conservatives will vote for "Republicans"; I use the quotes because that is the official name of their party, the practical title should be the "Conservative" Party. But what is it about the Conservative platform and record that would entice Moderates (me, for example, and ex-Republican) to either vote for the again, as in 2010, or vote for them for the first time; that question popped into my mind one morning as I was in the process of waking up.
What of course matters most are the consequences of Conservative policy, should they be able to implement it if voted into office. You should notice I am focusing on Conservatism and not a particular person, for it really doesn't matter too much who the person is, it is the policy they try to put in place that effects you life, not Romney nor Obama.
So, as I lay there, I started thinking of the changes we would see if the Conservatives were in complete control again. This is the bare bones stuff derived from their historical record and current rhetoric stripped of all of the high-minded verbiage each Party likes to hide their real intent with. So, without further ado, here is the lists I came up with. Conservatives would:
- Repeal Obamacare thereby stripping tens of millions of Americans of health insurance
- Revamp Medicare
- -- Strip $700 billion out of Medicare (the only part of Obamacare they would keep except it would come out of benefits as well)
- -- Increase prescription costs on the elderly
- -- although not specifically said, because the healthy would leave Medicare, drive up Medicare costs over all
- -- in the name of choice, leave the elderly open to deceptive advertising and practices by provate insurers looking to profit off of their old age
- Severly reduce Medicaid
- Legislate, at the Federal level, your morality to fit Christian ethos
- -- Repeal the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell laws reinstating homophobia in the military
- -- Insure the right of the Federal government to control who can marry
- -- Attempt to promote only Christianity in public forums such as courts, pubilc schools in session, etc
- Legislate, at the Federal level, to restrict the ability of minorities to sue for discrimination
- Legislate, at the Federal level, to restrict or ban the ability of women to sue for unequal pay or sexual harassment
- Legislate, at the Federal level, a looser definition of rape so that less instances of rape are classified as such (a recent attempt by Paul Ryan)
- Legislate, at the Federal level, the right of a woman to control her own body
- Legislate, at the Federal level, the right of a woman to have an abortion to save her own life (another Ryan initiative)
- Reinstitute Austrian economics, the economic system that led to the 2008 recession and 25 other recessions, depressions, and panics between 1815 and 1930.
- Continue policies begun in 1981 to increase income inequality in America
- Continue policies begun in 1981 that inhibit economic mobility between income groups (i.e., if you are born poor, you stay poor, if you are born rich, you stay rich); the demise of the American Dream
- Legislate, at the Federal level, to give financial institutions free reign to do what ever they like, vis-a-vis, 1797 - 1937 and 2000 - 2009.
- Legislate, at the Federal level, and to prohibit at the State level, laws to pull back on environmental regulations that have cleaned up our air and water
- Refuse to make Federal laws which protect consumers from fraudulent activities of corporations
- Repeal laws already on the books which protect the consumer
- Refuse to help, at the Federal level, the populous in times of dire need, like after sever drought, natural disaster, or national financial collapse (that view was the norm prior to 1933 although Herbert Hoover, a Conservative, tried to organize relief at the State level by providing them federal funds; he was criticized for it by other Conservatives for meddling)
- One of the conservative standard bearers, Bourbon Democrat Grover Clevelald, POTUS #22 and 24, once wrote this in a veto message, summing up the Conservative view of "general Welfare" - "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood" - (the appropriation being referred to was one passed by a divided Congress on a bi-partisan basis to provide grants to starving Texas farmers suffering through one of the worst droughts during one of the worst depressions in American history.)
- To Conservatives, the above message is perfectly reasonable and appealing; I have heard it in numerous variations in recent times. To non-conservatives, it is appauling.
And what will you get if you don't elect a Congress that has 1) a super-majority of Conservatives or 2) a super-majority of Democrats? Two more years of gridlock, guaranteed; and it doesn't matter who you elect as President.
to me, obviously, this doesn't present a pretty or desirable picture. But, to others, it is perfectly acceptable; it certainly was prior to 1932, and even those regular Americans who suffered the most through those numerous economic hard times assumed those conditions were simply the price to pay for freedom. Nevertheless, I defy Conservatives who read this to prove any of the above points are not true because one or another of your leaders have said such, just ot nso blatantly, or it is now written in your Party platform.
Moderates, the fate of our Nation is in your hands.
IF YOU ARE AN INDEPENDENT ...
If you are an Independent, did you vote for Conservatives in 2010?See results without voting
If you are an Independent, are you going to vote for Conservatives in 2012?See results without voting
More by this Author
Unlike any election before it, the stampede of high profile personalities from the opposing Party who not only won't vote for their Party's nominee, but actually will vote for the opponent.
If the current polls (and my analysis) hold up until November, Hillary Clinton is going to run away with the Presidency.
When I say "Freeloading", that is of course, sarcasm: only a small percentage of those drawing welfare are actually freeloading although Conservatives would have you believe it is 100%.