Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Obama "fear" drives social conservatives

Posted by   + Show Post

 link

By EMILY SCHULTHEIS | 9/16/12 6:58 AM EDT

Fear of President Barack Obama - not enthusiasm for Mitt Romney - is driving religious conservatives to pull the lever for the GOP nominee this November.

Romney - a former Massachusetts governor who came late to the anti-abortion rights cause - was never a favorite of evangelical voters during the Republican primaries, and their love for him hasn't grown much now that he has officially become their party's standard bearer, as judged by interviews with two dozen conservatives at the Values Voter Summit in Washington this weekend.

But religious conservatives will support Romney because Obama - who endorsed same-sex marriage earlier this year - is anathema to them. And as much as they are lukewarm about Romney, conservatives are thrilled by the GOP nominee's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate.

"It's not excitement, it is fear - fear of the other guy," said Dolores Taylor, 69, of West Harrison, N.Y., explaining why she will vote for Romney over Obama in November. "Excited doesn't seem to be the right word - I'd say energized, because I'm so angry about what's going on."

Jackie Lewis, a woman from Ashburn, Va., echoed those sentiments, calling the motivating factor behind her decision to back Romney "total fear"of the incumbent.

"We can't take four more years of this," she said.

Fear of a second Obama administration was a centerpiece at this two-day confab of social conservatives a little less than two months before the election. Romney did not attend the conference - and perhaps demonstrating their mixed feelings about the GOP standard bearer, the speakers didn't mention him until halfway through the first day - but Ryan, a fiercely anti-abortion rights Wisconsin lawmaker who is Catholic, did.

Conservatives attending the conference said they worried about a range of things during a possible Obama II, from implementation of the president's health care law, and a move to what they saw as more "socialist" policies to the end of the very values - including the protection of life and traditional marriage - that they came to the summit to support.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), for example, framed the campaign as a battle for the very core of the country, saying another term for Obama would continue the nation's decline.

"This election is going to determine whether or not the very moral fabric of our country will be upheld, or whether it will be torn apart," he said.

Mark Luther, 38, of Kennet, Mo., said Obama will take the nation closer to socialism.

Most GOP voters he knows, he said, "are afraid of a second [Obama] term, so much so that they think if Obama gets reelected, the country will become socialist."

That's how Mary Carbone, 59, from a small town outside Pittsburgh feels, as well.

"I am running across more and more Americans who understand what this administration is trying to do: They're trying to destroy our country, trying to destroy our economy," she said. "A lot of Americans are very angry and very upset about that."

She pointed to the hot mic conversation between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier this year - in which Obama said he'd have more "flexibility" after he'd been reelected - as "one of the main reasons" she's backing Romney.

Asked who they supported during the GOP primaries, the majority of those interviewed named someone other than Romney. Many were early supporters of Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, both of whom spoke at the conference, though they all say they're backing Romney now that he's the nominee.

"I would probably lean more toward Rick Santorum. I know it was very close, and I wish he would have had a better shot," said Barb Johnson, 53, of Zeeland, Mich. "I'm more excited about Romney than I was about [2008 GOP nominee John] McCain."

Martha Stott, a 73-year-old woman from Evansville, Ind., said she thinks Romney isn't as accepting of the tea party as were candidates like Santorum.

"I just don't think [Romney] appreciates the tea party like I'd like him to," she said. "He's more out-reaching on [social] issues than Santorum was," referring to the idea that Romney was going further out a limb to convince conservatives that he is one of them.

Romney made a concerted effort to reach out to social conservatives during the 2012 campaign after losing to McCain during the 2008 GOP primaries. Nonetheless, important social conservative leaders like Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins and James Dobson backed Santorum during the 2012 GOP primaries. Though social issues haven't dominated the race, Obama's campaign and Democrats have still tried to tag Romney and Ryan as anti-woman and seeking to turn back the clock on women's issues.

Romney is now trying to appeal to a broad swath of voters in the middle and make up ground with women, with whom he is lagging badly.

Ryan addressed the summit on Friday and bashed the Obama administration for its proposed ruling earlier this year, ordering Catholic hospitals and schools to deliver birth control as part of his health care reform plan. After an uproar, a compromise was reached that required insurance companies to provide contraception instead.

But Romney argues that the White House is waging a "war on religion" and attendees at the conference repeatedly referred to the platform fight at the Democratic convention in Charlotte in which "God" was originally removed from the platform language (Obama intervened to have it restored).

But conservatives interviewed were not only concerned about Obama. They also expressed concern about Romney's demeanor on the stump, wishing he could be more at ease while campaigning.

"Would I like Romney to be more homey, off-the-cuff, like Ronald Reagan? That would be nice," said Jim Vogus, 54, of Redding, Calif., who originally supported Herman Cain.

Still, even if Romney wasn't their first choice, everyone here said that the universal desire to defeat Obama helped rally social conservatives behind the former Massachusetts governor.

"I think all that [GOP division] is now behind us," said David Thomas, 58, of Houston. "While I think [Romney] has independently brought people to him, there has been a whole air of unity to defeat Obama."

Those feelings are consistent with polling on the issue, which shows that Romney supporters are split between backing him on his own merits and backing him to oppose Obama. In a CNN poll released last week, 48 percent of Romney supporters said their vote was for Romney, while 47 percent said they were voting for him as a vote against Obama.

"There are a couple of things [Romney] could take a stronger stand on, but he's what we've got," said Jim Krott, 43, of Kinderhook, N.Y.

Those who are less than enthusiastic about Romney find redemption in Ryan, whose addition to the GOP ticket has reassured social conservatives.

In his speech, Ryan gave a full-throated defense of his anti-abortion rights stance and blasted Obama for his pro-abortion rights stance.

"When he tries to make Big Government sound reasonable and inclusive, the president likes to say we're all in this together," Ryan said. But those words have little meaning "coming from a politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent of all human beings: the child waiting to be born."

Ryan's strongly conservative positions on social issues, coupled with his specific plans for fiscal cuts, have brought skeptics on board to the GOP ticket.

"My family and I weren't quite 100 percent on board with Mitt Romney, but we were really excited that he picked Paul Ryan," said Heidi Deutch, a 16-year-old volunteer for the Family Research Council-sponsored event.

Adding Ryan to the ticket, conservative voters said, helped assure them of where Romney stands on social issues.

"[Ryan] was a huge boost, because if there was any doubt about where Romney stood ... when he put Ryan on the ticket you can see where his thought process is," Vogus said.

Stott said he liked the Ryan pick because of the policy positions the Wisconsin lawmaker adds to the ticket, but also because he's proof that Romney chose the best man for the job, instead of trying to appeal to a particular demographic.

"I love Paul Ryan," he said. "I was just ecstatic when he chose Paul Ryan, which made me appreciate Romney more - he didn't go to ethnic groups, he didn't go to women's groups - he picked the man he thought could do the job."



 


 

by on Sep. 17, 2012 at 8:24 AM
Replies (81-86):
rccmom
by Gold Member on Sep. 18, 2012 at 4:09 PM


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting rccmom:
But we most likely have a fundamental disagreement on how much govt control tips a country into being a "socialist" country. Do you believe that the Republican forays into women's choice regarding abortion as socialistic? That is not socialistic, but authoritarian, perhaps.
For me, there has to be some govt control for the common good. There are a lot of complaints about cap and trade, but regulating pollution amounts is for the common good and is a role the fed govt should assume. In this area, pollution, we need sensible regulation, but regulation nonetheless. In general I agree, but CO2 is a different story.  It is what we exhale, is not toxic to humans, and the policy Obama put in place may even make CO2 and other more dangerous chemical emissions increase.

As for the insurance companies, I think the way it has been currently handled is both immoral and insane. Obamacare is an attempt to remedy some of the more wrong practices. Intentions does not make it a good law.

When it comes down to it, how much individual freedom is there when it is businesses that call the shots?  How can progress occur when legislation and policy is sloppy and misguided, and destructive?

CO2 is a major greenhouse gas, so while it is not directly toxic, it is not good for us environmentally speaking. I've read both good and bad scenarios under cap and trade, I am not sure which way it would go. It could increase innovation as companies seek ways to become more efficient and in line with the cap.

I am not sure that Obamacare is a bad law. There will surely be problems up front as the system adjusts to it, but there always are. The plan suggested by Ryan, I am not sure of Romney's plan, is to just charge people more. I hear doctors against and doctors for the plan. The majority of the plan has not taken effect yet, so when people claim that Obamacare raised my medical insurance, I question the validity of that. What they need to do is not waste so much time and effort talking about and attempting to repeal Obamacare, but rather figuring out what works, keep it, and fix what does not work.

Legislative policy has been sloppy for a while. I believe that is an issue to take up with Congress.

In the end, I've read your responses in other threads and you believe that Romney has the better economic plan, which is fair. I do not believe that he does. I've not been convinced that lowering taxes for the rich is going to help the middle class. I do know that Obama proposed lowering the tax rate for businesses providing we close the loop holes also. I do not believe that because Romney was a businessman that it means he automatically will be able to fix the economy. The govt is not a business, though maybe if we outsourced Congress it would help.  (-;

Carpy
by Platinum Member on Sep. 18, 2012 at 4:29 PM
1 mom liked this
If it were about oil we would just attack our neighbors to the north. They're weaker and much closer.

Quoting Celtic_Dragon:

What else could it possibly be about? Why would we be fighting so hard over there? Spending millions of dollars to fight a war that doesn't really have a purpose to be fought, other than for oil? Big oil rules our economics and our politics. You are horribly naive if you believe otherwise.

So, if you disagree, what IS the reason why we are fighting this war? Please, enlighten me if my "opinon" is "ridiculous".


Quoting BillieJeans:

That's a ridiculous opinion, but you are welcome to it.


Quoting Celtic_Dragon:


I disagree with this. I think the real culprit of the current Middle East turmoil and the war we have been fighting have been about oil and only oil. Everything else is a lie.


Quoting BillieJeans:


That is a strange response.


The current turmoil was almost 100% originated and fueled by the current administration.


Quoting Kate_Momof3:


 What about statesmanship? Dealing with the turmoil in the Middle East? Our financial mess won't be taken care of if we're engaged in another war.


Quoting 4kidz916:


You're right it is, but the way I see it is that if the financial mess isn't taken care of, the social issues won't matter at all. 


Quoting Kate_Momof3:


 That's fine. You're a fiscal conservative so that makes sense. The presidency is more than a CEO role though.


Quoting 4kidz916:


I'm a conservative but the social issue don't have me leaning towards Romney, it's the financial issues. 


 




 








Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Celtic_Dragon
by Member on Sep. 18, 2012 at 4:34 PM
1 mom liked this

We don't need to attack them. They work freely with us and they are also a powerful nation, so going to war with them and as their neighbors is pure idiocy.

However, the Middle East is 3rd world and due to the lack of OTHER natural resources and political stability of their own, they are weak and easily manipulated by our big oil politics.

Why is it that we spend over $100 a barrel, which the majority of this comes FROM the Middle East, yet their nation is still impoverished? Do you honestly think their government squirrels those BILLIONS away?

No. That profit is going right into the pockets of big oil, which a good majority of them are American companies like Halliburton.

And that didn't answer my question. If it isn't big oil, what is the purpose of this never ending war? Why were we attacked on 9/11, why does the Middle East hate America so much?

Quoting Carpy:

If it were about oil we would just attack our neighbors to the north. They're weaker and much closer.

Quoting Celtic_Dragon:

What else could it possibly be about? Why would we be fighting so hard over there? Spending millions of dollars to fight a war that doesn't really have a purpose to be fought, other than for oil? Big oil rules our economics and our politics. You are horribly naive if you believe otherwise.

So, if you disagree, what IS the reason why we are fighting this war? Please, enlighten me if my "opinon" is "ridiculous".


Quoting BillieJeans:

That's a ridiculous opinion, but you are welcome to it.


Quoting Celtic_Dragon:


I disagree with this. I think the real culprit of the current Middle East turmoil and the war we have been fighting have been about oil and only oil. Everything else is a lie.


Quoting BillieJeans:


That is a strange response.


The current turmoil was almost 100% originated and fueled by the current administration.


Quoting Kate_Momof3:


 What about statesmanship? Dealing with the turmoil in the Middle East? Our financial mess won't be taken care of if we're engaged in another war.


Quoting 4kidz916:


You're right it is, but the way I see it is that if the financial mess isn't taken care of, the social issues won't matter at all. 


Quoting Kate_Momof3:


 That's fine. You're a fiscal conservative so that makes sense. The presidency is more than a CEO role though.


Quoting 4kidz916:


I'm a conservative but the social issue don't have me leaning towards Romney, it's the financial issues. 


 




 









Kate_Momof3
by Platinum Member on Sep. 18, 2012 at 4:37 PM

giving heart

Quoting Celtic_Dragon:

We don't need to attack them. They work freely with us and they are also a powerful nation, so going to war with them and as their neighbors is pure idiocy.

However, the Middle East is 3rd world and due to the lack of OTHER natural resources and political stability of their own, they are weak and easily manipulated by our big oil politics.

Why is it that we spend over $100 a barrel, which the majority of this comes FROM the Middle East, yet their nation is still impoverished? Do you honestly think their government squirrels those BILLIONS away?

No. That profit is going right into the pockets of big oil, which a good majority of them are American companies like Halliburton.

And that didn't answer my question. If it isn't big oil, what is the purpose of this never ending war? Why were we attacked on 9/11, why does the Middle East hate America so much?

Quoting Carpy:

If it were about oil we would just attack our neighbors to the north. They're weaker and much closer.

Quoting Celtic_Dragon:

What else could it possibly be about? Why would we be fighting so hard over there? Spending millions of dollars to fight a war that doesn't really have a purpose to be fought, other than for oil? Big oil rules our economics and our politics. You are horribly naive if you believe otherwise.

So, if you disagree, what IS the reason why we are fighting this war? Please, enlighten me if my "opinon" is "ridiculous".


Quoting BillieJeans:

That's a ridiculous opinion, but you are welcome to it.


Quoting Celtic_Dragon:


I disagree with this. I think the real culprit of the current Middle East turmoil and the war we have been fighting have been about oil and only oil. Everything else is a lie.


Quoting BillieJeans:


That is a strange response.


The current turmoil was almost 100% originated and fueled by the current administration.


Quoting Kate_Momof3:


 What about statesmanship? Dealing with the turmoil in the Middle East? Our financial mess won't be taken care of if we're engaged in another war.


Quoting 4kidz916:


You're right it is, but the way I see it is that if the financial mess isn't taken care of, the social issues won't matter at all. 


Quoting Kate_Momof3:


 That's fine. You're a fiscal conservative so that makes sense. The presidency is more than a CEO role though.


Quoting 4kidz916:


I'm a conservative but the social issue don't have me leaning towards Romney, it's the financial issues. 


 




 










Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Sep. 19, 2012 at 4:24 AM


Quoting rccmom:

CO2 is a major greenhouse gas, so while it is not directly toxic, it is not good for us environmentally speaking. I've read both good and bad scenarios under cap and trade, I am not sure which way it would go. It could increase innovation as companies seek ways to become more efficient and in line with the cap.

Cap and Trade in Europe has so far been unsuccessful in reducing greenhouse gases, while costing people more.  That's a concrete example of where Cap and Trade would lead us.  But, as Romney points out, prohibitive limits on CO2 emissions will effectively outsource the emissions to China, where they have even less stringent pollution controls then we had before CO2 regulation; we're talking toxins that are directly dangerous for human, plant, and animal life, not just greenhouse gases.

I am not sure that Obamacare is a bad law. There will surely be problems up front as the system adjusts to it, but there always are. The plan suggested by Ryan, I am not sure of Romney's plan, is to just charge people more. I hear doctors against and doctors for the plan. The majority of the plan has not taken effect yet, so when people claim that Obamacare raised my medical insurance, I question the validity of that. What they need to do is not waste so much time and effort talking about and attempting to repeal Obamacare, but rather figuring out what works, keep it, and fix what does not work.

Romney's plan includes vouchers, not "charging people more," although some pundits rush to say it will cause just that, while Obamacare already charges the middle class more in taxes. IMO vouchers puts more choice back into consumers hands, which IMO is vital to effective healthcare.  Generally, people need to consider themselves just as in control over their health as their doctor, people need to become their own primary health advocate.  The more they do, the more they will alter behaviors that have detrimental health effects which no amount of governance can fight alone.  So, IMO vouchers do two fundamentally necessary things:  1)They increase competition among providers, benefitting the consumer, 2)They put more control into individual hands, and when people see they have more control over their destiny they tend to exercise it more carefully.

Legislative policy has been sloppy for a while. I believe that is an issue to take up with Congress. Yes, and Romney is extremely good at that, both at cleaning up sloppy internal policies and working with the legislature.

In the end, I've read your responses in other threads and you believe that Romney has the better economic plan, which is fair. I do not believe that he does. I've not been convinced that lowering taxes for the rich is going to help the middle class. Romney's plan is to lower taxes accross the board, in addition to closing loopholes with the condition that doing so will not further burden the middle class.   I do know that Obama proposed lowering the tax rate for businesses providing we close the loop holes also. Indeed, this last year Obama has parroted quite a few plans that Romney has announced.  The thing is, I have every reason to believe that Romney can do a smarter job at closing loopholes than Obama, a smarter job of lowering tax rates.  If there is anything they both say threy will do, there is much greater indication that Romney woiuld do it better. I do not believe that because Romney was a businessman that it means he automatically will be able to fix the economy. The govt is not a business, though maybe if we outsourced Congress it would help.  (-;

Romney did indeed close loopholes as governor of Massachusetts:  Also, Romney plans to require new regulations to be revenue-neutral, requiring them to clean up outdated, sloppy regulations in favor of smarter ones.  And btw, regulations are at record levels so there is an enormous room to work reasonably for needed laws. I do not claim that Romney is merely qualified as a successful businessman, I am saying he is qualified as a successful problem-solver who can work with legislatures, with budgets, against burdensome bureacracies and regulations.


The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

rccmom
by Gold Member on Sep. 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting rccmom:

CO2 is a major greenhouse gas, so while it is not directly toxic, it is not good for us environmentally speaking. I've read both good and bad scenarios under cap and trade, I am not sure which way it would go. It could increase innovation as companies seek ways to become more efficient and in line with the cap.

Cap and Trade in Europe has so far been unsuccessful in reducing greenhouse gases, while costing people more.  That's a concrete example of where Cap and Trade would lead us.  But, as Romney points out, prohibitive limits on CO2 emissions will effectively outsource the emissions to China, where they have even less stringent pollution controls then we had before CO2 regulation; we're talking toxins that are directly dangerous for human, plant, and animal life, not just greenhouse gases.

I am not sure that Obamacare is a bad law. There will surely be problems up front as the system adjusts to it, but there always are. The plan suggested by Ryan, I am not sure of Romney's plan, is to just charge people more. I hear doctors against and doctors for the plan. The majority of the plan has not taken effect yet, so when people claim that Obamacare raised my medical insurance, I question the validity of that. What they need to do is not waste so much time and effort talking about and attempting to repeal Obamacare, but rather figuring out what works, keep it, and fix what does not work.

Romney's plan includes vouchers, not "charging people more," although some pundits rush to say it will cause just that, while Obamacare already charges the middle class more in taxes. IMO vouchers puts more choice back into consumers hands, which IMO is vital to effective healthcare.  Generally, people need to consider themselves just as in control over their health as their doctor, people need to become their own primary health advocate.  The more they do, the more they will alter behaviors that have detrimental health effects which no amount of governance can fight alone.  So, IMO vouchers do two fundamentally necessary things:  1)They increase competition among providers, benefitting the consumer, 2)They put more control into individual hands, and when people see they have more control over their destiny they tend to exercise it more carefully.

Legislative policy has been sloppy for a while. I believe that is an issue to take up with Congress. Yes, and Romney is extremely good at that, both at cleaning up sloppy internal policies and working with the legislature.

In the end, I've read your responses in other threads and you believe that Romney has the better economic plan, which is fair. I do not believe that he does. I've not been convinced that lowering taxes for the rich is going to help the middle class. Romney's plan is to lower taxes accross the board, in addition to closing loopholes with the condition that doing so will not further burden the middle class.   I do know that Obama proposed lowering the tax rate for businesses providing we close the loop holes also. Indeed, this last year Obama has parroted quite a few plans that Romney has announced.  The thing is, I have every reason to believe that Romney can do a smarter job at closing loopholes than Obama, a smarter job of lowering tax rates.  If there is anything they both say threy will do, there is much greater indication that Romney woiuld do it better. I do not believe that because Romney was a businessman that it means he automatically will be able to fix the economy. The govt is not a business, though maybe if we outsourced Congress it would help.  (-;

Romney did indeed close loopholes as governor of Massachusetts:  Also, Romney plans to require new regulations to be revenue-neutral, requiring them to clean up outdated, sloppy regulations in favor of smarter ones.  And btw, regulations are at record levels so there is an enormous room to work reasonably for needed laws. I do not claim that Romney is merely qualified as a successful businessman, I am saying he is qualified as a successful problem-solver who can work with legislatures, with budgets, against burdensome bureacracies and regulations.


I understand your support of Romney. I have to say though that Obama talked about wanting to lower the business tax 2 State of the Unions ago. However, the Republicans block any attempt because they say that when you close the loop holes, it must remain revenue neutral because they consider closing a loop hole the same as increasing taxes. This is not a case of Obama parroting Romney.

Obamacare also will provide insurance vouchers for persons. The insurance markets he wishes to set up is a conglomoration of various insurers that will allow persons to choose which plan they believe will work best for them. So, choice remains under Obama also. Stats show that more people will receive tax credits for insurance under Obama than will have to pay a penalty. I am not sure how Obamacare is raising taxes on the middle class.  

I can't speak to Cap and Trade in that manner. I do believe that reducing pollution is important. I do not believe it would outsource everything to China because we can't outsource our energy suppliers. As for other businesses, they outsource to China for a variety of reasons, not just Cap and Trade, so I don't know how big of an impact that would really make considering all the other factors. But I will concede it could have some impact.  

You have faith that Romney will do better. I don't have that faith, though I won't be heartbroken if Romney wins. I do not think he is the better choice, but he is not as bad as some of the other Republicans would have been. If Obama wins a 2nd term though, he has learned not to take the Republican party at their word, so I think he will be tougher in dealing with them and be able to accomplish more in the way of tax and regulation reform.   

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)