This is going to sound inflammatory...

[midnight armadillo]

...but here goes anyway. While as a MA resident the thought of Romney as president makes my skin crawl, I have been thinking about what differences we would see under a Romney administration. Here's the biggest one I could think of, between the Obama administration and a hypothetical Romney (gag) administration: when Mitt proposes, pursues, and implements policies and laws that serve the interests of the oligarchy we won't be surprised or disappointed.

Yes, I'm well aware that Romney would be worse in numerous ways. But on the big stuff...sorry, I don't have any evidence to think there'd be any difference.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

10. + Infinity. n/t

[begin_within]

2. It no longer matters which faction of the Corporate Party is in power.

The horrifying Republican Faction or the only slightly less horrifying Democratic Faction. It doesn't matter any more, because the plutocracy, the real power structure, stays in place regardless of which faction wins.

[earthside]

5. +1 n/t

[woo me with science]

36. This is the correct answer. nt

[primavera]

37. +1 n/t

[Lasher]

3. I suspected as much. Thanks for the insight.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. How would he be on social issues? Would he be led by the religious right?

[Armstead]

40. Yes he wuold be a social wingnut....Which is the hammer the Democrats always hold over ourheads

On issues of Wealth and Power and Government's role, there really would not be much difference between Romney and Obama in the message and the results.

The problem is that Romney would give the keys to the GOP and their socially regressive policies.

That's basically the only substantial difference between the two parties these days.

P.S. I'm from Ma and it was clear that Romney is a chameleon and a complete phony. He'll go along with the prevailing winds, as long as his neo-con economic agenda moves forward.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

12. That is not why I voted for Nader in 2000.

I wanted the Green Party to get matching funds. I'm sick of the "lesser of two evils", two-party hoax......er system that we seem to be stuck with.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Well kewl!

Did you get what you wanted...?

[Webster Green]

20. No.

The Green Party got 2.7%, short of the 5% necessary.

[Butch350]

28. Stop wasting your vote - OR - don't vote at all. Cause it looks like your candidates never win.

[Webster Green]

38. Al Gore was my candidate, and he did win.

I voted for Nader knowing I was in a "safe state" (CA), to try to help the Greens get matching funds. If you think I'm stupid for doing that, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind that Thom Hartman did the same thing, and he is no fool. Had I lived in Florida, I would have voted for Gore.

[stevenleser]

39. if you mean "should have won if the election was fair" yes. But to win you have to be in the WH

and thus, by that standard, no he didnt.

[Webster Green]

42. But of course.

Gore and Kerry both got the votes to win, but weren't allowed to serve. Hence, the mess we find ourselves in today.

[mtnsnake]

7. There are no Republicans anywhere that come close to any Democrat when it comes to the environment

not Romney, not any of them.

[midnight armadillo]

11. That is very true. Worst D >>>> best R on the environment

I was thinking more along the lines of foreign policy, DoD budgets, entitlements, taxes, etc.

[primavera]

8. The magical underwear thing would be a sore blow - n/t

[Rowdyboy]

9. Bet he would have some really great appointments to the supreme court too...

You know, like Scalio and Alito only maybe more doctrinaire.

[MilesColtrane]

14. “I'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the...

states and the elected representatives of the people, and the people themselves, have the ability to put in place pro-life legislation.” - Mitt Romney, 5 June 2007, Republican Presidential Debate

That's one difference.

But, maybe that doesn't qualify as "big stuff" for you.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Couldn't be as neato as seeing people really, really suffer as much as possible!

:crazy:

[gateley]

15. I'm guessing DADT would still be alive and well (and I

consider that a big thing).

[cutlassmama]

17. the Mormon lobby would have him overturn gay marriage

[Life Long Dem]

23. Done

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has joined Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Pennsylvania Rick Santorum in signing a pledge to oppose same-sex marriage on a number of specific fronts. <...>

Romney, Bachmann and Santorum signed on to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don't see a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and to back the Defense of Marriage Act. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/05/1003331/-Mitt-Romney-takes-a-bold,-pandering-stand-against-gay-marriage

[Hippo_Tron]

18. You're really not thinking very hard about this if you think it couldn't be worse

Lets see...

War with Iran, a plan to privatize Social Security that will make this current talk of austerity seem like minor changes, two more Scalias on the Supreme Court, Monica Goodling and co. back in charge of the Justice Department, FEMA director becoming a patronage appointment again.

Speaking as a former resident of New Orleans, my city was greatly impacted because of Republican mismanagement of the federal agencies responsible for dealing with natural disasters. Say what you will about Al Gore (or John Kerry for that matter), but neither of them would've appointed an incompetent buffoon to head FEMA.

You're right, big money has a substantial grasp over our politics and it sucks. The Obama Administration capitulates too much to the Republicans and lets them run the table way too much on the legislative side. But even so, they manage the government far more competently than the Republicans ever did, and that actually makes a substantial difference in some peoples' lives.

[dkf]

19. Why Mitt Romney? Maybe it's Michele Bachmann.

[izquierdista]

21. Not inflammatory at all

The $$Powers That Be$$ will be $elling u$ thi$ a$ a great and hi$toric choice to be made, after which, they will get what they want.

[nevergiveup]

22. I have some right wing acquaintances

who would be drooling if they read your post.

[Tx4obama]

24. Romney would appoint right-wingers to the Supreme Court.

That in itself is good reason to work hard to get President Obama re-elected.
As it looks now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will probably be retiring in 2013.
We need Obama in the Oval Office to appoint her replacement.

There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between who a republican president and a democratic president would appoint.

Also, all the other federal appeals court and district court judges that will need to be appointed in the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 need to be appointed by Obama the Democrat!

[bhikkhu]

25. How many things on this list do you think Romney would have done?

http://planetpov.com/2011/02/13/a-short-list-of-pres-obamas-accomplishments/

I know there are a few, but most of it he wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole - or wouldn't be allowed to by his backers.

[CakeGrrl]

26. Well finish rolling over and out of the way, then.

:hi:

[Mimosa]

27. Women's issues, including abortion, Romney would sell to rightwing nuts.

Would Romney be more of a corporatist than Obama? Possibly.

I would fear Romney's Supreme court and judicial appointments.

[ZombieHorde]

29. I think President Obama's Supreme Court picks would be more to my liking than Romney's picks.

Additionally, I doubt DADT would have been repealed under Romney.

I would rather have Obama in the White House than Romney.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. Well, he's not batshit crazy, at least by Republican standards

and his health care plan was close to Obama's, and he did actually succeed in implementing it in Mass.

I know he plays batshit crazy for the primary audience, but he does in fact have some practical experience in governing.

I dunno. Maybe he's the least worst option out there, considering what the alternatives are.

It seems to me that the far right agenda is getting advanced faster under Obama than it was under *Bush.

[cbd87]

31. hmmm

I honestly don't know what Romney will do when he gets in office because he doesn't have any positions. He's changed positions on most major legislation since he has been running for president. 2011 Mitt Romney would have never won in Massachusetts.

[BR_Parkway]

32. It'd be easiery to get Romney to go out way as long as we influence the polls

and show majority want something - seems like over his political career, there's not been much he won't get out in front of as long as there's favorable polling to pull him along.

For gay rights before not being, then jumping on the amendment bandwagon as soon as his rivals came out that way
For abortion rights before coming out against them.

Compared to a whole host of politicians on both sides the aisle who keep voting against what the public clearly wants (80+ % said tax the rich during the debt ceiling bs) it might be refreshing to have one person in DC who actually will spin on a dime if the polling goes against what he claims to be for at any given moment.

[jefferson_dem]

33. That doesn't sound inflammatory...

Just woefully ignorant.

If only we could make Mittens your personal president so you could better appreciate the distinction... while the nation benefits from Obama's re-election.

[Enrique]

34. that's going to be Obama's message

i'm not kidding: "what's Romney going to do that I haven't done already? Why not just keep me?"

[BeyondGeography]

35. Imagine Romney with a Republican Congress

Then get back to us.

[swilton]

41. Furthermore

The Democratic Party might act like an opposition party! ding, ding, ding!