What will happen is Mitt Romney is elected? Will he ban tampons. More here.
Will people die? Will men and women die or just more women die. (As we all know, no one has died during Obama’s administration. Along with the rise of the oceans stopping and the planet healing, death stopped.)
Will illegal aliens self-deport and be followed by some Americans> Will America turn into a “corporate shithole”?
Will Obama have to “use the color bathroom with the rest of the color folk?” Will taxes on the middle class go up? Will it be the end of the middle class? (We all know how the middle class has thrived under Obama, especially the black middle class that has lost the “gains of the last 30 years.”)
Will segregation return if Romney is elected? Will it lead to civil war? Will Romney “Borkize the Supreme Court?”
If Romney is elected will “Racists will take heart.”, “The economy will implode quicker under Romney.”, “Health care will be out of reach of more Americans …”, “Oil drilling will undergo a new boom time as if there’s no tomorrow, and denial of global warming will represent a curtain of deceit.”, “The military industrial colossus, its own world independent of everything else, which eats up two-thirds of the country’s current out-of-control megalithic budget-in-the-red, will experience a new renaissance of spending and waste as the U.S. continues to be the world’s arms supplier, and develops weapons of untold destructive power.”, “Americans down on their luck with vital services will be further decimated out of existence in an accelerating manner by withholding their funding in favor of privatization and relying on churches to take up the slack, an Ebenezer Scrooge “let them fend for themselves” mentality.”, “PBS and Big Bird will be eliminated.” (Big Bird makes a lot more than Romney and pays no tax.), “Men will continue to rule women’s bodies…”
The biggest question, a claim put forth by the vice-president of the U.S. himself, will Romney put blacks back in chains? This is a serious issue!!
A good way to answer this kind of question is to look at it three ways:
1) What would Mitt Romney do as President if he gets a prime opportunity (however short), at some point, to accomplish his goals. If, in particular, Republicans get the House, and the Senate with a margin that can overcome filibuster, while Romney is President? What “big fucking deal” (to borrow a phrase from Biden) could he accomplish? For Obama, this was the Affordable Care Act, the Lily Ledbetter Act, repeal of DADT, the START treaty, Dodd-Frank, and the American Recovery Act. (I’m leaving ending the war in Iraq off this list because Bush managed to negotiate his own schedule for that before Obama took office. I’m leaving out taking out bin Laden because that one doesn’t depend on Congress, and therefore belongs in my second category.) Not all of the things on this list depended on having a wide margin in both House and Senate, but some did (the Affordable Care Act, definitely). If Romney gets this kind of margin, I’d expect a repeal of Obamacare, voucherizing of Medicare, and privatization of Social Security, as well as major changes to the tax code.
2) What could Mitt Romney do as even a weak President, one who’s thwarted by Congress at every turn? This includes things that can be done by executive order (for Obama, ending torture, and ending what’s called the “global gag rule” on international family planning funds), shifts in foreign policy, and appointments to the Supreme Court.
I’d expect Romney to reverse Obama’s ending of torture (since he’s repeatedly said that he would), so we’d be back to waterboarding. I would not expect him to reverse Obama’s use of drones, since he’s criticized Obama for an imaginary global apology tour rather than the drones, so we’d still be killing people. I’d expect the “global gag rule” to be back. And I’d expect a significant shift on the Supreme Court. Supreme Court appointments are one reason I keep voting for Democrats for President even in those elections where the candidates look relatively close; I believe that the appointments Democrats make as Supreme Court judges tend to be more protective than the Republican appointments of the freedoms that I care most about and that impact me most.
3) What would Romney probably not get done, in either case? For Obama, this included that “grand bargain” on the deficit, representing by the Bowles-Simpson commission. I expect the budget not to be balanced soon, whichever of the two gets elected (though Clinton did balance the budget), because I think that the budget’s only going to be balanced when we get a coalition of DLC-style Democrats like Clinton and moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe together (it’s the centrists who care about this issue), and right now Congress doesn’t have that combination.
Also relevant is, for this candidate, what among his stated goals really animates him? For Romney, I think it’s tax policy and freeing the financial sector to do its thing. I don’t think social issues are a priority for him, so he’s not going to push them anywhere that’s really hard (DADT is gone to stay), but I also don’t think he’s going to swing back to the moderate positions there that he needed to take as governor of Massachusetts (so his Supreme Court appointments will look like Scalia, not like Souter).
Obama just hands prisoners over to others, who he knows will torture them. How honorable. Of course, using drones to kill innocent civilians along with suspected terrorists isn’t torture. Thank God.
“imaginary global apology tour” Imaginary? You talk about imaginations and you refuse to face reality.
I don’t want a “big fucking deal”. I want actions taken with appropriate forethought, reading of bills before there passed and fiscally responsible government spending.
A few hundred innocent citizens killed by drones and conservatives get all weepy. Thousands killed in Iraq, and accolades for Bush. Meh.
Steve
“Of course, using drones to kill innocent civilians along with suspected terrorists isn’t torture.”
Bipartisan consensus policy. The only way to vote against it is to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. Since Romney’s criticizing Obama from the hawkish side, I figure I’ll get one of two results from him: 1) He’ll do exactly what Obama has done, but talk more loudly about it, or, 2) He’ll step up what Obama’s done, and we’ll get even more drone strikes. It seems unlikely that he’ll halt what he hasn’t criticized. (Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would have, but Romney isn’t Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.)
“You talk about imaginations and you refuse to face reality.”
Nobody’s ever produced one concrete actual apology made on this tour.
“I don’t want a “big fucking deal”. ”
You’ll get a “big fucking deal,” whether you want one or not, if either party gets hold of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, with a sufficient margin in the Senate to push its agenda through. And either party, given the opportunity, will push its bills through while it holds the right margin in the Senate, in whatever window of time it gets, whether or not every legislator has read the whole bill being passed. It’s therefore important to know what “big fucking deal” each party wants (each wants something, and neither is particularly modest in its goals), in the event that either party does get a sufficient sweep to get its particular “big fucking deal.” Because one consideration in voting is whose “big fucking deal” is scarier, given that neither party can be expected, given the power it needs to do what it wants, to have a small, modest deal. (Obviously, if one party’s “big fucking deal” is actually attractive, you vote for that party, but if neither party’s “big fucking deal” is attractive, you vote for the lesser evil.)
My good Lynn,
By “I’d expect a …voucherizing of Medicare, and privatization of Social Security…”, what you actually mean is the privatization of retirement benefits for far future retirees, at least those currently 54 and younger currently.
For the reasons what you intended to say but didn’t is the case, see the excellent post preceding this comment.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
For one thing, if Romney is elected, you can bet he would attend 100% of the daily intelligence briefings, unlike the current White House occupant who’s been present for maybe 60% of ‘em. And sadly, it shows.
As for the upcoming debate – I would pose this question: WHY DOES THE PRESIDENT NEED TO ‘PREPARE’? He’s been the PRESIDENT, FFS – he should have all the answers and be able to express them, since he’s the most brilliant president and the best orator we’ve ever had.