What would Romney do different than Obama?

Besides some personal beliefs, I have trouble seeing the difference between some candidates?

In function, I don't see a difference between Obama and Bush, and don't think Romney or even Paul would actually be able to be much different, even if they wanted to, the system (the laws and the capitol culture) stops them (for both good and bad).

Make the nation christian or stop abortions or end the fed and I bet it is only a matter of hours or days till all three are reversed again.

What are the real functional, not marketing, differences between the candidates? Keep in mind we have people like Reagan that still are remembered by their marketing vs. their actions (small govt, bla bla). Parties and their candidates still run on the party platform, yet it is not how they govern. (See the very left park county gov which is all elected as repubs).

I think Romney would work better with Congress & the Senate. He has a history of compromising with a liberal legislature. And I believe Republicans in Congress would be more willing to negotiate with a Republican President.

And this willingness to compromise, scares many TEA Party folk. They saw "W" do the same thing, expanding Medicare and the federal goverment.

I think if either Santorum or Gingrich won, they wouldn't get a honeymoon with either the press or the Dem Senate.

He has some serious neo-cons on his advisory staff that have me worried about even more military engagement in world, especially middle east where we should get the hell out.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mitt-ro ... nservative

Good point about the neo-cons, but personally Obama has proven to meddle much more internationally than I suspected, helped to push Mubarak out, helped to finish Kadaffi, and now the US, without NATO or UN help is looking at establishing a no-fly zone over Syria from air bases in Iraq and carriers offshore.

I think the American public is going to be hard to convince to start a ground war anywhere.

I'm having a hard time figuring that out myself PE - but if Romney ends up with the nomination I intend to vote for him so that he gets a chance to show us what he does differently. How about you - you in?

He puts his pants on different.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: He puts his pants on different.

He has a team of tailors sew them on as he stands still!

Then he lays off the tailors and sells their sewing machines to finish the pants...hey, those pockets gotta be LINED!

I think the big difference would be in court appointments, especially the Supremes. Romney would be unable to get hard core conservative judges past a Dem Senate, but I doubt he would appoint super conservative choices. More likely to pick another John Roberts over a Anthony Scalia. Would Ginsburg and Kennedy want to stay on a court where they were always the minority opinion?

PrintSmith wrote: I'm having a hard time figuring that out myself PE - but if Romney ends up with the nomination I intend to vote for him so that he gets a chance to show us what he does differently. How about you - you in?

My vote went to Paul. I have already lived under Romney, no need to do it again. I posted this because it will not be different, I don't want to accept either Obama or Romney, so in this case, I will write in another candidate. I stand with the majority of the troops in all three branches and will only support candidates who will uphold the constitution, reduce the use of government force. Romney fails on the drug war, on attitude and on consistency, without him there would not even be an obamacare, he is like the mom of obamacare. For president I will write in Paul (if needed) or vote for him if he goes with another party. He is the only candidate that supports the law of the land (aka the consitution), freedom, sound economics and small govt. I really have no other choice all other cadidates are marketed as different than each other, but are not.

Would Romney allow a law that says that it is illegal to dance peacefully at the jefferson memorial, I bet. Would Paul repeal it, in an instant.

There should be more news coverage of the fact that so many service members marched in support of Paul in opposition to orders. That they contribute more money to Paul than any other and Paul does not take corporate bribes....Paul does not support wars of aggression or the excessive use of govt force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhuI_kppIE0
Watch the last minute at least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5I0E75G ... re=related
Could you make a vid like this for any other candidate?

4 more reasons not to vote for Paul...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-skTuaIs ... re=related

Paul gets more military donations than all other candidates combined, take him out of the mix and Obama gets more than all other R, candidates. These guys are sick of dieing and killing immorally for aggression vs. defense. The public disagrees, but the troops want nothing to do with Iran.

I am so unhappy with the current candidates that I will probably either not vote or vote for Obama. A Republican party that even considers a whack job like Santorum has left the planet, and me, behind. Romney's not as objectionable as Santorum, but he has major issues to overcome such as taking both sides of every issue. At least he's not on a personal vendetta to change the culture of the United States into his own version (I'm talking socially here). Can anyone actually make a good argument for Romney over Obama? It might start along the lines of fiscal conservatism, but I need real numbers and facts, not hyperbole.