Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

I think I like Mitt Romney, the man. I have defended some of what he has said. But I doubt I will support him for the presidency — and if he gets elected, I’d likely spend as much time criticizing him as I did George W. Bush and as I do Barack H. Obama.

Shikha Dalmia, at, offers five reasons why conservatives should root for a Romney defeat. They are:

  1. Romney won’t man up and dismantle the worst element of RomneyC — oops, ObamaCare.
  2. Romney’s hard line against Pentagon cuts means he won’t be able to bargain with Democrats on making any other kind of cuts. Federal spending will increase under Romney.
  3. Romney, the “ultimate Wall Street insider,” will do nothing substantive against crony capitalism.
  4. A Romney win now would preclude a better candidate four years from now.
  5. “Four years of Romneyisms, all of which smack of elitism, will cement the image of the GOP as the out-of-touch party of the rich.”

All good reasons to blanch at supporting Mr. Romney. But I have another reason, a sixth: It’s highly likely that in the next four years we’re going to hit a major crisis that will make the current “recession” look like a weekend vacation. Romney will flub the response, as would nearly any mainstream politician — perhaps any politician. But because Romney pretends to be “for” free markets and such, “free market capitalism” would almost certainly take the blame for the debacle to come, even though its actual parentage will be the government.

I’d rather blame — and have others blame — Obama, who almost personifies government as we now know it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

By: Redactor


  1. Red Petrovs says:

    You couldn’t possibly be more wrong about this. Four more years of Obama’s policies and this country won’t be recognizable as anything other than a socialist-leaning state. Romney may not be anyone’s perfect candidate, but he’s a darned sight better alternative than the incumbent.

  2. Ray Kirk says:

    Your kidding, right. If not, you need to rename your articles. This is the second article that has shown considerable UN common sense.

  3. Jim Hays says:

    Paul apparently your guy is not going to win thus the acromony. You certainly do not know much about Mr. Romney. Further you would let the incumbent continue his travels on the road to socialism. Four more years of this and weakness the U.S. will be much diminished in the world and more of our freedoms will be abridged. Are you just being careful now that the Secret Service may have you arrested for criticizing the Pres?
    You are being terribly unfair, bordering on being a jerk.

  4. Dagney says:

    Unfortunatly, we have a man in office, not “in over his head”. He is a man who wishes to destroy this country and all it stands for. I’m getting increasingly dismayed whenever someone says that he’s a nice guy but in over his head. HE IS NOT! He’s doing exactly what he wants to do, circumventing the Constitution, Congress, and the Democrat controlled Senate is helping him. You think it would be better to have him as a lame duck president just so he’ll get the blame? I, myself, am damn AFRAID of the damage he will do in the TWO months he will be a lame duck if you loses in November. Of course, he is a selfish bastard, so he might just content himself to ripping off more of the treasury and setting himself up as king of the UN rather than sticking the knife in deeper to our beloved rule of law. Who knows?

  5. While there are scores – hundreds, even – of reasons to not vote for Elder Romney, there are absolutely none to vote for the un-and-anti-American Chicago fascist.

    And no amount of rationalization will come up with a single one

  6. Jay says:

    RE: ROMNEYCARE–A close friend of mine, who is a staunch, “right wing” conservative, and lived in Mass. all of his 60+ years had this to say to me about Romney and Romney and “ROMNEYCARE”–“Romney was THE BEST, THE GREATEST governor Mass. has had in my lifetime. Romneycare, as it is NOW, is not what he put through as governor. It was changed AFTER he left the governorship. The original “Romneycare” was like an assigned risk for at risk drivers. Cost was a few hundred dollars per year; if people did not have, would take form their tax refunds; hence insurance companies shouldered the burden BUT ALSO HAD THE LOW RISK PEOPLE.

    Like car insurance and the high risk drivers.”

  7. Dick says:

    You can’t be serious? You would have Obama lead us down the slippery slope to Socialism?

  8. Drik says:

    Attributing blame accurately will be problematic with a propagandizing press shilling for Presbo at ever escalating volume. And there would still be enough fools that would be willing to either believe or suspend belief to buy in to whatever is said.

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”_ Goebbels

    And since we now have a political machine that is ranting that opposing the president is unAmerican, it will only be a short trip to the idea that any speach that counters what the administration says is also and must be restricted.

    H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act makes it electively illegal to protest the federal government on federal property. Only a short step to making it illegal off federal property as well.

    Or they may not care what is done off federal grounds, as long as they keep getting the money.

  9. Paul Veazey says:

    Silly arguments. Romney is no dream candidate, but self interest will force him to keep his promise to govern as a conservative. Meanwhile, this country can no more endure four more years of Obama than it could have endured four more years of Carter.

  10. Liz Nash says:

    The reasons listed are almost all speculations about what he WILL do, which may or may not come true, but not voting for Romney will be a vote for Obama, and we have already seen how bad he can be for the U.S. when conservatives and libertarians stayed home rather than vote for McCain.

    Keep in mind that as governor of Massachusetts, he had a Democrat House & Senate to work with. If we can get out the vote for good conservative Reps and Senators, then any Republican in the White House will govern more conservatively.

    He may not be as conservative or libertarian as you want, but he is still the lesser of two weevils, and the smarter route is to hold your nose and vote anyways, just to prevent the even worse consequences, that being four more years of an egomaniacal, self serving Marxist idiot in the White House.

  11. Boiler says:

    How can you say you would not support him for President? That is nonsensical. In our two party system not supporting one party implicitly means you support the other party, directly or indirectly. It is extremely reckless to suggest that we can blame the next four years, including your Mayan prophecy doomsday event, on Obama rather than own up to it on our side. Federal spending will go up under Romney? Well I believe federal spending has gone up under just about every administration but I thought that Congress held the pursestrings? You don’t even know who his running mate will be and with such conservative stalwarts as Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Alan West being mentioned how can that ticket not get you excited versus Obama/Biden?

    Have you really become so self loathing and destructive?

  12. James says:

    You make a good argument, Mr. Jacob.

    I won’t be voting for Romney. (To say that this amounts to voting for Obama is, at the very least, an error in elementary arithmetic. But more seriously, it’s a political blunder constantly exploited by party heads to their and their cronies’ benefit.)

  13. Rod beck says:

    Common Sense..NOT

  14. Paulina West says:

    This is a brilliant analysis of a less than optimal situation. In particular, Romneycare is running billions over projected costs and he has said it is a good plan for his state. Therefore, supporting him in any way would give him a mandate for gov’t to mandate purchases and ignore the disasterous consequences. He also has supported carbon tax and ghg emissions reductions. Just because people ignore this fact doesn’t mean it isn’t the case. He supports 20 billion in federal spending on CAR TECHNOLOGY and energy research. If he is elected, it will be argued that there is a mandate for him to persue these economically destructive green scams in energy. This is destroying economies in Europe and the SH.

  15. Paulina West says:

    There is no reason to give any kind of approval or mandate to a politician who has used the force of government to force people to buy insurance, to purchase energy from worthless subsidized renewables, and to buy gov’t specified vehicles. (He passed ghg emissions standards in Ma that were 30% than federal standards.)

  16. Jay Hysom says:

    Have you decided to reconsider after seeing the new Marxist-leaning slogan for this campaign? We were given hints before on how the Obama Administration would govern–“fundamental change,” “utility bills will necessarially skyrocket,” “it’s patriotic to pay more taxes,” “bankrupt the coal industry,” and recently “cruicify them as an example…we’ll adopt that strategy.” I shiver to think what another four years of Obama would bring!!

  17. JFB says:

    Paul, I believe it is premature to determine whether or not to support Romney.
    Now that Romney has the nomination assured I believe next proper question on the agenda is what can the tea party, true conservatives, libertarians and Dr. Paul do to affect the Republican platform? Can Mr. Romney can be persuaded to adopt Austrian, as opposed to the Keynesian, economics as the basis for his fiscal and monetary policy? When those questions are resolved it will be time to make a decision to support or abandon him.

    I do agree with your premise the past and present economic policies will be causing additional. and perhaps more severe, dislocations during the time of the next administration. As for that, if they are honestly predicted, warned of and prepared for, if their genesis made crystal clear, it may be that the conservative side can properly assign the blame. I agree there will be a tendency of the electorate to blame the administration then in place, regardless of the fact the cause lies in history.
    I believe there is a higher probability that Romney not win if he tells the truth and is blunt about the near term future. Obama will shill false hope which is much easier to sell than downsizing or elimination of government programs. When Obama does not deliver again we will be in 2016.
    If Romney and the Republicans are willing to mislead to win, then they deserve a disastrous fate.
    We are in for a real ride, hang on but please, do not make premature decisions.

  18. Paul Jacob says:

    The thought of Barack Obama being president for four more years is unbearable. That’s why I’m not going to vote for Obama.

    But does it make sense to vote for Mitt Romney? Shikha Dalmia gave 5 good reasons for pause. I offered reason #6.

    Because we are each in our own way seeking to protect our country and our freedoms, I have respect for those who hold their noses and vote for Romney and also for those who refuse to vote for Romney and seek an alternative.

    If Americans were given better choices, we’d be in a heckuva lot better shape.

  19. Charles Holtzback says:

    I didn’t know you were a mind-reader as well as a political pundit. Not voting for Romney is voting for Obama. I’d rather have eight years of Romney over one more day of Socialist Obama.

  20. Jaqui Betts says:

    I really thought you had “Common Sense” — But this article is absolutely crazy! Obama has done more to wreck this country in 4 years than anyone thought possible! Another 4 and we would be in disaster. Romney has proven several times over that he knows how to handle crisis and he will do an excellent job and, with a little help from congress, MAY be able to undo some of the damage done during the past 4 years!

  21. ed kahn says:

    Pray for Ron Paul at the GOP convention.

  22. Brian Wright says:

    Ron Paul is not out of the race, and his delegate strategy appears to be working. Surprise that the MSM doesn’t care to know: And he just won Louisiana:

    Romney and Obama are both equally horrendous tools of the police-military-corporate global security state. If either of them wins there will be a revolution; Ron Paul winning means the revolution will proceed more orderly.

  23. Jack says:

    I could not disagree more. This is the first of your positions I have disagreed with, but this is huge.
    Did you write this with a gun to your head?
    The upcoming Pres. election is a choice for the American people between a march to Heaven Or Hell.
    I Adolph is realected, welcome to Hell. Good luck with this Change !!

  24. Rollin Lofdahl says:

    Now that it has become clear even to the most rabid Ron Paul acolytes that he never had a chance to win the nomination, is it really time to cry in your beer? Or is it time to accept the inevitability that it would be someone else; that the American people DON’T WANT Ron Paul anymore than they want Barack Obama?

    So you want reasons to vote for or against Mitt Romney? Many people frame a contest like this as a choice between the lesser of two evils. Mr. Jacobs, the case you make is that we should wait for something better. What you are really saying is that we should take the GREATER of two evils, rather than the lesser, on the hope that we will have something better next time. The “common sense” in that argument eludes me.

    So if we are going to have a choice again in 2016, is it better to have that potential candidate dealing with the state of the country under an 8 year Obama Administration, or after 4 years under a Romney Administration, or even 8 in 2020? If Romney is as bad as you say, don’t you think Americans are going to be as willing to throw him out after one term as we may be with Obama now?

    In my view, we are going to have to take this country back over a long series of elections, a few pieces at a time. Congressmen and Senators are enough of a challenge to pick off, yet little by little the Tea Party candidates have knocked off some entrenched incumbents and may get more this year. (Hatch, Lugar, look out!) Some of those seats may get lost to the other party, but in time we can win a real conservative majority that way. However, with the Presidency, we can’t afford to allow so much power to remain with a man so committed to left wing ideology.

    If a conservative Legislative Branch could succeed so well in pulling Bill Clinton over to a balanced budget and welfare reform, just imagine what they could do with someone like Mitt Romney. Seems like a far better bet, for America, than four more years of executive orders, possibly losing the conservative majority on the SCOTUS and having dozens more liberal, legislative-minded judges sitting on the federal bench that will plague us for 20-30 years. There is a long term consequence for short term elections.

  25. JohnnyK says:

    You can use whatever reason that you want to not vote for mittens.

    My vote is going to Obama because he’s the best man for the job.

  26. Skip Cook says:

    Mitt Romney is irrelevant. He is like so much bad gas after a Mexican food pig out. I am 66. I have never voted for a Democrat. I will not do so this election. But voting for Romney is like sneaking a kiss with your sister. Fucking disgusting. The republican party, if they nominate Mitt Romney will be ancient history.

  27. Skip Cook says:

    Paul, I am sorry for descending into deplorable language. But when it comes to Mitt Romney I could find nothing more appropriate.

  28. Renie says:

    Aaarrrggghhh…can this country survive under the current party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. Renie says:

    Johnnie K – what r u smoking?

  30. Kenneth Paul says:

    Time to take away the Common Sense title on this one.
    i see those reasons as a plus for Romney

  31. S Rubicon says:

    Obama is so far in over his head that allowing him another four years would mean the end of this Republic. Obama’s socialist leanings, if not outright activities & actions, could destroy our legal & political system forever. The system can manage Romney & the Tea Party & its allies in Congress can coerce him to act as they wish in our best interests.
    Any economic downturn will be blamed on Republicans, Conservatives, & the Tea Party, no matter what. The media & radical left is already dusting off their attack those groups plans. Add media complicity & the results will be as we expect.
    We cannot chance the damage Obama would do & we must begin to feret out the moles in the federal bureaucracy who are already undermining our entire government & culture. They’ve made far too much progress while facing no media or public opposition since few really know what they’ve been up to all this time.

  32. MoreFreedom says:

    Reason #7:

    If Romeny is elected, you can expect Democrats to regain the House in 2014 and all branches in 2016, just like after Bush.

    All you Romney supporters either believe what he says (which is contrary to his record as governor) or Hope he will Change to a fiscal conservative. So you’re just like Obama’s supporters in 2008.

    Here’s Romney’s real 4 year record:

    Increased spending 32%
    Increased debt by 52%

    It’s about the same as Obama. So you’ve vote for that? That’s not more freedom, it’s more government.

    And you probably remember Romney saying he balanced the budget. That’s only true if you ignore the increase in debt. Romney is a liar, perhaps not as bad as Obama.

    And what does he plan to cut? At he lists a whopping $2 billion in specific spending cuts – that with a deficit of over $1000 billion and spending over $3500 billion. Anyone who believes he’ll cut real spending is smoking Hope and Change.

  33. […] of my readers to cite the great economist against me. On Wednesday I had offered six (count ’em: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) reasons why conservatives might cheer a Mitt Romney defeat next November. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2019 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top