I think all Presidents pretty much run to the center and I don’t think Obama and Romney are that much different. If Obama is defeated, what of substance will change? Is it possible to keep this as abstract and non-partisan as possible?
Thanks,
Rob
Depends on which Romney wins, doesn’t it?
It’ll give the right-wing in Congress a friendlier pen in the Oval Office. The fact that it doesn’t look good for the Republicans in the Senate would mean less damage however.
Probably not much. Despite his claims as to what he will do, he doesn’t have the power to repeal anything, or to pass legislation. He’s a moderate (and I’m sure his comments last night horrified the far right), which is the good news. Unfortunately, I think he wants to be president because he thinks he deserves it, and will likely do as little as possible once in office.
Pledge Week becomes Pledge Month.
The White House Thanksgiving meal will feature a very Big Bird.
Trying to remain non-partisan, as long as Romney doesn’t die, putting Ryan in the WH, probably not a whole lot.
I think Romney would pass a tax cut that he says will not swell the deficit, and then be all surprised when the deficit swells.
I think major parts of Obamacare would remain. Lifetime caps on coverage will not come back, nor will rejections of healthcare for pre-existing conditions.
The military will still be withdrawn from Afghanistan on the same timetable.
Romney will give more money to the defense department, which is probably the biggest difference. That’s a huge government employer.
I think the most impact Romney as President could have is replacing Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. I don’t think she’s got 4 or 8 years left and if she gets replaced by an Alito, the country WILL change. Affirmative action gone, unlimited campaign money, overturning Roe. And that’s just off the top of my head. The country could take a hard right turn.
Excellent point. Also, the specter of a Paul Ryan run in eight years gives me the willies. It’s usually not who sits in the Oval Office that’s the problem; as we saw in Bush’s eight years, it’s who he drags out from under the rocks to bring with him.
I think we’ll certainly see tax cuts and deficits rise to record highs. He thinks patching loopholes the rich exploit with bubble gum, spackle and bailing wire is going to cover some vague $X trillion cut. Uhhhhh-huh.
Subsidies for green energy will be cut, along with oil, and domestic drilling and fracking will keep nascent, promising, (and risky, sure) green technologies and infrastructure from getting off the ground, like the catholic church on science during the dark ages.
He’ll take that money and dump a trillion or two into the military, so we can send troops to keep dying in the middle east for yet another problem we can’t solve. But dammit, if it doesn’t make us look Patriotic and Righteous!
Gay marriage will continue to be shot down. However, I can’t see Roe being overturned. I don’t think his heart is really into pushing it that far. Something like that would probably cost him re-election.
??? You mean you can’t see Mitt nominating a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court? Cause I can pretty much guarantee he will if he gets a chance.
There’s no way Roe will be overturned. The only way abortion is going away is through amendment to the constitution, and that will never happen.
Don’t forget, Romney was governor of a very liberal state, and one of the ways he got anything done was to compromise. Obama’s attitude to Republicans bears a large part of the blame for their obstructionism. Telling them, “I won, you lost, get in the back of the car and shut up and let me do what I want” was guaranteed to prevent the kind of dealing that’s required to pass anything in a bipartisan legislature.
Romney’s style is to say to his opposition, “These are my principles. This is the most important thing to me. I know you have your own important things, so let’s figure out where each side can give so that we both get the important things we want and compromise on the other stuff.” That’s also what Reagan did, and also what Clinton did. And all of them were successful in working with legislatures that were in control of the other party. Obama, not so much.
I don’t agree with you guys at all. There are already four votes to overturn Roe: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts. I’ll grant you there’s a small chance Roberts would wuss out at the last moment for political reasons, like he did on Obamacare. But that’s it.
Ginsburg can already see the light and anyone from Breyer to Kennedy could drop dead at any time. If Romney replaces Ginsburg, I’d say Roe is probably dead. If Romney gets to replace two justices, forget it. You’d be back to restricting birth control and re-arguing Griswold v. Connecticut.
Oh, I can totally see him doing that. But whether or not he’d get behind a push for a reversal is another matter entirely. From his own mouth in 2007, from Factcheck.org:
Also:
He’s wishy-washy. It’s what he want’s, but he knows the polls say if he signs such a bill, he’d risk re-election; it’s not what the majority wants.
The man has no conviction or fight in him. He’s a stuffed shirt.
He wants to put it back into the State’s hands (or so he’s said). Which would end up being more states than there were prior to 1973.
I’m not sure we’ll be at this forum when it happens, but I think you’re wrong on this. We are one or two votes from it happening - and RBG could very easily be replaced by a Romney appointee. Then it’s just a question of whether Breyer goes too under a GOP president (and, potentially, Scalia) - if he does the Roe is as good as gone, IMO.
On social issues, you’re probably right. Not on the federal budget.
Still, if he got to nominate a Supreme Court justice or two, I imagine he’d nominate a pro-life one.
Here’s what I think will be different, but most of these perceptions are predicated on a far less obstructionist caucus of Democrats in the Senate than we saw with the Republicans:
-
The nomination of a supreme court justice that will threaten Roe v Wade and make other decisions that will benefit the conservative agenda.
-
The continuation of the doctrine of preemptive war. In other words, spread worse-case, poorly sourced scenarios to promote military conflict. We will see the bombing of Iran as his term closes and the economy picks up.
-
An attempt to fundamentally change the way medicare is handled (this voucher system that is constantly talked about) and to slam mine and future generations with this change. In the meantime I will pay taxes to support the system I will only dream of.
-
As the economy improves (on its own and without any real influence by the government) there will be no sincere effort to increase spending in the sciences, or on technological development.
-
Any Republican bogeyman will lose funding such as PBS.
-
The demonization of immigrants will increase, no real solutions to the problem will be addressed and a War on Immigrants, similar to the useless War on Drugs will be unofficially declared.
-
Increased military spending for no reason at all except that its the only type of job/training rurally-raised, scientifically illiterate, and educationally-challenged youth can get to rescue them from the hopelessness endemic to their aging and backwards communities.
The way Republicans handle money, I imagine what it will mean is that I won’t have to drive as far to visit a Chinese “Special Administrative Region.”
I’ve always seen Romney as a moderate Republican. He’ll very easily shift to the center as President. He may even have some success in Congress by working with both parties.
It’s too late to totally over turn Obama Care. It’s actually pretty close to Romney’s Mass state health plan anyway. I don’t think he really wants it overturned. Maybe a few tweaks to keep the Right happy.
I can’t see him rocking the boat too much in Foreign policy. We’re halfway out of Afghanistan already and no one wants to jump back in.
The sky isn’t going to fall if we get a President Romney. There were a lot more scary Repubs in the primary.