I just think that one should not be fucking retarded about it.
Case in point: Dilbert creator Scott Adams is endorsing Romney because of the Obama crackdown on medical marijuana. And hey, I get it. The crackdown was ridiculous. Our country's marijuana policy is also ridiculous.
But what kind of fool thinks Mitt Romney is going to be better on this issue? This guy:
Romney is likely to continue the same drug policies as the Obama administration. But he's enough of a chameleon and a pragmatist that one can't be sure.Seriously??? The mind reels.
Translation: Romney cannot be trusted, therefore he will legalize weed.
By the time you get to this part, you know you're indulging in the fantasies of the ignorant:
And I'm fairly certain he'd want a second term. He might find it "economical" to use federal resources in other ways than attacking California voters. And he is vocal about promoting states' rights, so he's got political cover for ignoring dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legal.First overestimate the public's willingness to punish a status-quo position. No one, in either party, is worried about winning a second term because they are enforcing marijuana policy too strictly. They do, however, worry about appearing too lax. Hence the Obama medical marijuana crackdown.
Romney's also not going to worry too much about "attacking California voters." He already thinks 47% of them are useless takers. And seriously...in the right-wing hive-mind, the term "California voters" might as well be translate to "Commie bastards." Romney's going to worry about hurting their feelings?
And then there's Buzz Bissinger, the writer of Friday Night Lights, who is apparently not that aware that his left-wing agenda has zero support from Republicans because he too is endorsing Romney.
Mostly because he believes that, despite the campaign, Romney is a moderate. He may well be...I don't know...but I do know that he doesn't have the stones to stand up to the worst elements of his party and instead had demonstrated a tendency to tell them exactly what they want to hear. Add to this, his own terrible political instincts, as seen in his "Blame America First" response to the Libya consulate attacks.
One doesn't have to defend Obama's handling of the issue to see something seriously wrong with Romney's knee-jerk attempt to make political hay out of it. The bodies were still warm when Mitt was giving his press conference blaming the president. At the last debate, he was harping on Obama --to his own embarrassment-- for not calling it terrorism in an acceptable amount of time.
We're going to give this dude the keys to the car?
Back to Bissinger, who complains:
Obama did pass a stimulus package, although probably the most eminent columnist in America, Paul Krugman, will tell you it was too small. It was also inefficient. Money lay there not being used. Dodd-Frank is nice but what would have been nicer, and a stronger message, would have been indicting some of these banking CEOs, such as Blankfein of Goldman, for betting against clients. Obamacare is admirable but was a politically terrible decision, the wrong thing at the wrong time.It makes you wonder if this guy is familiar with the positions of the politician he's endorsing.
You think Romney's going to say the stimulus was too small? No, he'll say it was too expensive and it didn't work anyway.
About Dodd-Frank, Romney wants to repeal it and replace it with some other regulatory scheme that most definitely does NOT include indicting bank CEOs. (Some of his closest friends are bank CEOs.)
Obamacare? Hello, dumb ass. The Republican agenda is devoted to its repeal. In order for that to happen, they will need President Romney's signature, which he will happily provide, regardless of how "admirable" the policy is.
Truth is, if you're disappointed in Obama because the stimulus was too small and the economy is shit, you're going to be really disappointed in Romney.