A question to Romney supporters

[angus]

So, what kind've person would vote for Mitt Romney after not voting for H.W. 92, Dole, Bush 00, Bush 04 or John McCain? Why is Mitt Romney a better candidate than those guys?

Not sure how many of us there are who fit that.  I voted for Clinton in 92 and 96, and for a third-party candidate in 2000, and for Obama in 2008.  Except for 2004, when I supported Bush, I fit your description pretty well.  I'd venture a guess that I may be the best fit for your description among the posters herein, so I'll give it a go:

Mitt Romney is a hard sell.  I didn't vote for him in the primary election, and he's not necessarily a better candidate than any of those whom you have named.  It's just that I'm all for displacing Obama--not because I don't like him.  I still think he's a fairly ethical character--I'm just keen on repealing the PPACA.  That said, I'm finding Willard harder and harder to take seriously.  Oh, I'll probably vote for him, once he's nominated, if he's nominated, and I'm pretty confident about the GOP taking both chambers of congress, but increasingly I don't really see him defeating Obama in a head-to-head contest.

I suspect it'll come down to a referendum on Obama, rather than a true contest between the President and whatever dregs the GOP runs against him.  At the moment, I'm all for the devil we don't know yet, and at the moment, that devil happens to be Willard Mitt Romney.  I'd rather it were Jesus or Gandhi or somebody like that, but sometimes you just get Candidate B.  And Candidate B will, ultimately, have to dance with the one that brought him to the dance.  He can play etch-a-sketch all day every day while Washington burns, for all I care, so long as he signs the repeal of the PPACA when it comes across his desk.  I think he'll do that. 

[angus]

sbane, there are probably some good things.

I'm against the mandate for sure, but more importantly I'm against exacerbating extant problems.  Some folks think that we're paying too big a share of our aggregate GDP for medical or health-related expenses.  It's something like 16 or 17%.  I think it has to do with inefficiencies, and to the extent that this bill deals with that problem, it's a good idea, but this bill will increase the share of aggregate GDP that we spend.  Generally, however, I agree with Beet's analysis.  I'd go further and say I hope that in the long run such issues don't always divide along party lines.  As it is now, a Democrat can serve up a warm, steaming bowl of shit and call it delicious, and all Democrats will say, "yes, this is good" and all Republicans will say, "No, it's horrible and it stinks."  Same for Republicans and vice-versa.  Shouldn't be that way.  

More importantly, if you're into enacting a public medical system, it could be done, but this isn't what the poorly-named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does.  The ppaca is a cluge of stopgap measures that will increase the budget deficit by $560 billion.  The exact figure is a moving target:  Republicans put it a 700 billion over the first ten years and Democrats put it at 230 billion.  Obviously it depends upon what assumptions one makes.  I think it was meant to provide insurance to the uninsured, but even there it fails since it leaves 23 million people uninsured who are allowed to opt out of the mandate.  (Some, but not others can actually opt out.  Equal treatment for all??!)

Anyway, I'm all for its repeal, and I think a majority GOP congress with a President Romney could do that.  I just have a hard time imagining a scenario in which Obama doesn't defeat Romney.


 

[angus]

1.  He can defeat Obama.

2.  He's not as extreme as the three other candidates.

1.  More accurately, he has a better chance than the others.

2.  True, but only by default:  if you have no philosophy, then you are not extreme.