Jan 11 2012

Big Government Obama versus Big Government Romney

Published by at 9:56 am under 2012 Elections,All General Discussions

Today we are blessed with two harsh examples of how the GOP took a growing wave of anti-government anger in the electorate in 2010 and are about to blow it by nominating a big government GOP candidate (Mitt Romney) to go up against a big government liberal Democrat (Barack Obama).

A lot of this has to do with how these people see the engine of our economy and the heart of America. President Obama just recently stuck his foot into his mouth by claiming America did not get where it is at by being competitive:

“We are not a country that was built on the idea of survival of the fittest,” Obama said, invoking populist undertones. “We were built on the idea that we survive as a nation. We thrive when we work together, all of us.”

The man is truly ignorant of history and the private sector. This country was built by pioneers and explorers. As Mary Katherine Hamm said on the radio this morning, Obama is claiming we did not prosper unless we had a government run program to make us a community.

Pure liberal nonsense. We survived by exploring an untamed continent. In most cases by establishing communities with no government for 100’s of miles. Are ‘communities’ are all grass roots, as is our charity and support. And we very much thrive on competition, winning the race and gaining the spoils. We do not execute the losers (which is the implication by using a Darwinism here – where the losers die off).

But Romney is not much different. His bain is Bain Capitol, which is also not representative of the engine of our economy. Bain Capitol was a vulture-like endeavor, looking at failing companies and trying to fix them or liquidate them. Romney has his Bain, Obama his Solyndra. In both cases, the wealthy fat cats walk away a little richer and the employees suffer. Everyone likes to fire the small folks.

Bain was not a entrepreneurial effort like a new product or consumer service. It was not like our own small company, looking to meet a need and fill it with the best solution in the industry. Yes, Bain helped right companies and save some from oblivion, but let’s not go crazy here and lift that element of the free market above its foundation – the small business competing to be the next wild success.

In another foot-in-mouth moment, Romney came out and compared himself Obama and how the President created Government Motors:

Romney’s critics have accused him of destroying jobs in order to increase profits for his investment firm, Bain Capital, but speaking Wednesday on CBS, Romney said that what he did was no different from the Obama administration’s auto industry bailouts.

“In the general election I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins at General Motors and Chrysler – closed factories, closed dealerships laid off thousands and thousands of workers – he did it to try to save the business,” Romney said Wednesday on CBS.

Great. So Romney plans to bring Bain to the Federal Government. He sounds like he is supporting the government take over of the US car industry. Like I said before, the man should be called Robamaney, since he is just a slight shade of liberal Obama on many issues (Health Care, Global Warming, apparently government take over of the private sector).

This is the blind spot both Obama and Romney have. They don’t see Main Street or the pain and suffering the cold, green-eye-shade efforts have. How does Romney attack all the Solyndra’s out there when he makes statements like this?

Romney is not as smart as people think, and he is not shoe-in against Obama. Today’s dueling quotes clearly show this to be the case.

34 responses so far

34 Responses to “Big Government Obama versus Big Government Romney”

  1. WWS says:

    I remember it as you do, Crosspatch; Reagan at the time was hated by the ideologues on the right just as much as those on the left.

    Ron Paul is the perfect example of the “true conservative” who HATED Ronald Reagan at the time, and who today is trying to retcon his old views to say “oh wait, I always supported him!” No way champ; there’s an old letter available on the net from Paul back in the day telling how he really felt. This letter is a good refresher course on all the reasons that the “true conservatives” of the 80’s despised Reagan:


    I remember hearing all that back in the day, and the ideologues were as wrong then as they are now. The idea of Reagan as some hard core, far right figure is a complete myth that requires ignorance of almost all the decisions he actually made in office. This is a center/right country, not a far right one, and a far right government would be just as disastrous as this far left one has been.

    I don’t listen to Limbaugh very much, but I catch him occasionally, and I find it amazing that even he is now criticizing Gingrich and Perry for they way they were trying to jump to the left in a last attempt to attack Romney. If even Rush is now defending Romney, then this primary contest truly is over.

  2. WWS says:


    AJ, you nailed it in your post “Jobless numbers about to get worse”

    Exactly the numbers that came in this morning!

  3. kathie says:

    Rush was not defending Romney……he was just saying that what Gingrich and Perry were doing was bad for free markets, and not smart for the Republican party. He was suggesting other ways to talk about it. I don’t know, but I would think Romney would be Rushes least favorite, but you go to war with the Army you’ve got.

  4. Layman1 says:

    Yes, Ronald Reagan was the best President of the 20th century and certainly in the top 5 all-time. But let’s not glorify his record. It was pragmatic – don’t forget, he didn’t have the House and he only had the Senate for 6 of his 8 years. Go back and look. The Republicans lost the Senate when Orange County conservatives refused to back a “moderate” Republican and Alan Cranston snuck in by a couple thousand votes. Instead of 50-50 with B41 casting the deciding votes we got the Dems 51-49. Basically conservatives screwed Reagan because they couldn’t see the big picture.

    I’m worried that if any of these guys win the nomination (they’re all flawed in one way or another) that some group of Republicans is going to pick up their marbles, go home, and help Obama win a second term.

  5. patrioticduo says:

    Yes, I will be taking my marbles and going home. And I am by no means a conservative. But rather, I am the third way that insists that the status quo that started with Teddy Roosevelt should be overturned. Romney is the quintessential status quo. Obama is just the inept status quo. Ron Paul is not “far right”. He is libertarian. That places him in the upper quadrant diametrically opposed to the Statist. It is by no means left or right. It is centrist, small Government. Ron Paul is so far away from the “perfect conservative”, I can’t even imagine how such a statement could be made unless made in ignorance of the man and what he has stood for almost his entire career. Yes, he opposed the results of Reaganism. And there are plenty of us that know that Reagan was as deeply flawed as Romney and Obama are today.

  6. Redteam says:

    “One thing people don’t really understand about being a Republican governor in Massachusetts is that the Democrats outnumber the Republicans in the legislature by about 4 to 1. They can override any veto ”

    I don’t know why this would be true, that we ‘don’t really understand’ I’ve heard it thousands of times. Now what I don’t really understand is why anyone is still trying to sell the theory that Romney is a conservative. I don’t see any evidence of it and no one seems to be able to point to any evidence of it. If it ‘quacks like a duck’ etc…

    “The idea of Reagan as some hard core, far right figure is a complete myth that requires ignorance of almost all the decisions he actually made in office”

    where is all this crap coming from? who says Reagan is a ‘hard core’ anything. All I said is he was a conservative. He served the USA as president with conservative principles. He, or no other president, can not get everything they want. The Government is by design an institution that has to have compromise. I see no evidence that Reagan was not ‘guided’ by conservatism. I remember all this very well, I voted for Reagan in ’76.

    As I said above, someone point to ANY evidence of ‘conservatism’ by Romney. Everything I’ve seen pointed to is right down the moderate to left line, nothing leans right.

  7. Redteam says:

    Sentence above should have read:

    He, or no other president, can get everything they want.

  8. patrioticduo says:

    And let’s not forget that we are sitting inside the primary process. This is not the general election nor are we examining the performance of these candidates as they would be as POTUS. Therefore, comparisons to Reagan ought to be done according to his primary candidacy, not according to the realities of him as a sitting POTUS. So a far better comparison in my mind is the candidacy of John McCain vs Romney. When making such a comparison I am left with the conclusion that Romney will lose just as surely as McCain lost. Since there is so little to distinguish McCain from Obama. That leaves me with a third option which is to send a clear message to the Republican Party establishment that candidates of that ilk will no longer be acceptable to that part of the rank and file within which I find myself – to wit, the libertarian, independent ground that I and many others tread; we shall sit this general election out because the GOP needs a strong message that Romneys, McCains and Obamas are NOT our kind of President. And since we will make sure that we control both the Senate and Congress in this cycle, all of the fear and loathing about another 4 years of Obama is scaremongering that we won’t buy or drink.

  9. Redteam says:

    Patriotic: LOL! There are at least 2 absolute guarantees you could be given. 1. Paul is the nominee.. guarantee Paul loses in a blowout.
    2. Paul runs as 3rd party. guarantee, Paul and Republican loses.

    Either of those two options are surefire for the Dims.

    I do agree that “Since there is so little to distinguish McCain from Obama. That leaves me with a third option which is to send a clear message to the Republican Party establishment that candidates of that ilk will no longer be acceptable” is true.

    Romney, McCain are not acceptable as conservatives

  10. Layman1 says:

    Patriotic Duo: you’re wrong!
    “And since we will make sure that we control both the Senate and Congress in this cycle, all of the fear and loathing about another 4 years of Obama is scaremongering that we won’t buy or drink.”

    I keep saying that the real prize is the Senate. But unless we get 67 seats then it really does matter who is President. A 55 seat Senate with a President Obama wielding his veto is worthless. Obama will be content to let inertia keep dragging the country down for 4 more years. He’ll veto legislation and using Executive Orders to implement as much of his agenda as possible. Remeber, Obamacare IS law and has to be repealed if we want it reversed.

    I’m convinced that even a luke warm moderate President Romney will sign the bills sent to him by the Congress and roll back much of Obama’s “legacy”. So let’s go get a “real conservative” or a “real libertarian” if that’s what we want. But the “Yes, I will be taking my marbles and going home” mentality guarantees we all get the shaft.

  11. Redteam says:

    Layman, I certainly agree with that last sentence of yours.
    the only out if the Senate doesn’t get 67 is that the Congress still does control the purse strings. They can defund anything they want to.
    The Executive branch can be denied the funds to fund executive orders.

    I do realize that Republicans are generally the ‘lay down and get rolled over’ party. Even when they are in the majority they are scared to upset the apple cart.

  12. patrioticduo says:

    @Layman – “1. Paul is the nominee.. guarantee Paul loses in a blowout.” Well if that were to happen it would be because of all the OTHER Republicans didn’t do what they keep telling me (Paul supporters) to do which is that we MUST pull the lever for “our” candidate. What you are saying is that libertarians and independents that form a large voting block in the Republican party have to toe the line and follow the other side of the Party because why? Because we *must* do as we’re told because Obama simply *must* be defeated. Except that we did just that in the last election and McLame LOST. So now it’s our (or should be our) turn to put up a candidate that we actually want and have some belief in and YOU LOT should be lining up and holding your noses this time because WE (the unwashed libertarian and independent masses) are not doing it two elections in a row! There’s an old saying “fool me once…”.

  13. Redteam says:

    Patrioticduo: Not really. Repubs do not make up nearly 50% of the voters (nor do Dims) Most of Paul’s votes in the open primaries are/will be Dims and dumb independents that will all vote Dim in the general election. They are, of course, voting for Paul in the open primaries to deny Newt the nomination.
    Even tho it would bother me, if Paul gets the Repub nomination, I will vote for him in the General election because he is not a socialist, communist as Obama is. He is also not an Alinskyist as Obama is.
    There is no one person that will be as harmful to this country as Obama will be if he were reelected.

  14. Layman1 says:

    I’m not even sure what all that means. I never said anything about Ron Paul. If he can convince enough people that he’s the guy and he wins the nomination I will vote for him. I may even send him a few bucks. Because the alternative, 4 more years of Obama, is unacceptable. I will not pick up my marbles, go home, and have a pity party.

    No matter who’s the nominee, the key will be to take both houses of Congress so our new President is getting a constant stream of conservative bills to sign. With Obama those bills are DOA.