An Interesting Campaign Strategy

I'll start by saying the facts of this sticky may or may not be accurate, I haven't done the research.  I just loved the concept of the sticky note and loved the message "Anyone but Obama."  But this picture has been circulating Facebook, and I knew I needed to share it here.

Mitt Wins!

Phew!  That was nerve-racking.  Romney was down in MI until a few days ago and pundits across the country were predicting an end to his entire campaign if he were to lose.  His campaign took that seriously and went all out.

Watching the doom and gloom predictions coming from people whom I respect (won't name names) about the Romney campaign has been at the same time humorous and frustrating.  Did you really think that his campaign was going to roll over and play dead?  Did you really think that he is so weak that his excellent and well-organized campaign would lose to Santorum indefinitely?

So, here we are, a week away from Super Tuesday.  Romney is obviously not going to win every state going forward.  But, let's not underestimate the power of his campaign and of his message.  With pundits and well-meaning bloggers spending so much time demonizing him, he knows how to win.  Thank goodness people are thinking for themselves.

Irony at the Polls

While checking in on the primaries just now, I saw that Michigan (the win, by the way, goes to Romney!) had 999 votes for Cain so far.  Now that's ironic.

Santorum Goes Dirty

Santorum's squeaky clean image was in question for me when he mis-characterized Romney's record in Massachusetts regarding gay marriage and Romney's stance against it.  However, given the rough-and-tumble of the race, this seemed forgivable.  However, today Santorum really did go over the line:

From CNN.com:

"Sen. Santorum did something today which I think is deceptive and a dirty trick," Romney said on Fox News.

Earlier Monday, Santorum's campaign confirmed it was using robo callsrallying Democratic voters to come out to the polls Tuesday and cast their ballots against Romney.

"On Tuesday, join Democrats who are going to send a loud message to Massachusetts Mitt Romney," says an unidentified voice in a Santorum robo call to Michigan voters.

And, the Democrats are doing the same thing:

Organized efforts by Democrats have also been under way to encourage Michigan Democrats to vote for Santorum in the state’s open primary, with the premise that the former Pennsylvania senator would be a weaker candidate against President Barack Obama in the fall.

Does Santorum really want to win a primary because Democrats voted for him?  How can he criticize Romney for dirty politics after this?  If he wins, is this not a hollow victory?  I guess the gloves have come off...

Tomorrow, Vote For Romney

So, after weeks of gloom and doom predictions, tomorrow is finally the Michigan and Arizona Primary.  If Romney loses, people will predict the end of his whole campaign.  If Santorum loses, he and others will say that Romney brought him down with his evil campaign machine, and, they will add, it is a campaign without a purpose (people that say this aren't paying attention to his message about the economy and are forgetting that the goal is to beat Obama).

Either way, the pundits will find a way to make tomorrow about Mitt Romney's supposed "lack of message."

Maybe tomorrow goes another way, instead.  Maybe tomorrow people will realize that Romney is the best chance we have, that Santorum is a good man, but not a viable candidate to beat Obama.  Maybe Gingrich will realize he is better as a professor and not as a president.  Maybe people will finally realize the Romney is not man without a message, but a humble and hardworking man who will follow-through on every promise that he is made in this campaign, that he is a conservative who has been sorely mis-characterized, and that his character is such that he doesn't hold grudged.

I won't hold my breath that people will finally see Romney for who he is, but one can dream...

Three Reasons Why the Birth Control Mandate Hurts Women

There's obviously a lot of controversy swirling around Obama's most recent failure of mandating that birth control be covered under your health insurance (without a co pay).  Anyone who is against the mandate gets called sexist, or against women's rights, or some other ridiculous claim.  But as a woman, I'm telling you, this mandate is bad news for us.

1. Despite what you may have heard, it WILL increase your costs.  While you may not see a direct lined charge called "Birth Control Mandate" you are being charged the costs (and your employer) through increased premiums (see a good example here and especially here).  Nothing is free.  And because this cost is to benefit women, the rate for women will likely be higher than the rate for men.
2. It's illegal and unconstitutional.  I won't say much on this because so many others like this, make a clear case for it on their own.
3. I was attempting to think of any other health insurance precedent wherein the cost of a free visit is covered by all.  I was reminded that Wellness Checks for my son are free.  Except that we pay more for a family plan that includes children than single people or employee plus one, so clearly that's not the same.   For millions of women who don't use birth control (and millions who still practice abstinence until marriage) they're still footing the bill.  This is clearly not fair for millions of women who do not benefit from it to have to pay for something they may not even believe is right or fair.

Women and Society

In a one hour period of watching network television, I have watched as women were referred to with a multitude of derogatory terms, going to strip clubs to watch women strip is represented as normal, and women attacking each other in an effort to gain attention. I am really bothered by the role that society, particularly male society, has given women. And women have made the mistake of accepting that role.

I was speaking with a dear friend this week as we discussed that the pressure that is felt by women to be sexy. Why not attractive? Smart? Educated? Spiritual? Cute? Lovely? Classy? A woman has value and should be shown respect even if she is not in patent leather boots with six inch heels.

A wonderful example of a lady is Laura Bush. She is an example of grace, intelligence, and beauty.

(Picture obtained from http://www.uu.edu/news/release.cfm?ID=1688)

"With the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, less than nine months after assuming the First Lady role, Laura Bush found her visibility much higher and with more demands made upon it than she had initially assumed it would be. Scheduled that day to become the first incumbent Republican First Lady to deliver Congressional testimony to a Senate Education Committee, in the weeks and months that followed, she frequently spoke in public forums on techniques that adults could use to comfort children who were traumatized by the changes wrought by the attacks. As the U.S. undertook an invasion of Afghanistan to free it of the extremist Taliban that had overtaken it, Laura Bush met with Afghani women to hear their stories of the harsh repression the women of their country suffered. She discussed their plight as the topic of her radio address on November 17, 2001. It was the first time a First Lady spoke in lieu of the President during one of the weekly radio addresses usually made by the Chief Executive. "

Women, let us set a higher standard for ourselves. Let us be ladies and women of virtue. Educated, kind, strong, gracious, forgiving, and faith-filled.

“Women of God can never be like women of the world. The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity.” - Margaret Nadauld (“The Joy of Womanhood,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 15)

Ann Coulter Is Right About Romney

In another great article today defending Romney, Ann Coulter again articulated why he is the best choice:

As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.

Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)

Romney's approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine.

Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.

Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He's had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.

The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting conservatives by "the Establishment" is the exact opposite of the truth. The Establishment, by any sensible definition, is virulently opposed to Romney -- and for completely contradictory reasons.

The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.

Meanwhile, many of the pillars of the conservative establishment also implacably oppose Romney. Fox News is neutral, but its second-highest-rated host, Sean Hannity, is unenthusiastic about Romney, as is prominent Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, who has told Fox viewers she'd vote for Gingrich -- and also offered herself up as a possible presidential nominee at a contested convention. (Wouldn't a former candidate for vice president on a major party's ticket be part of the Establishment?) 

The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney, and another top conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney -- though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since then. Purely to hurt Romney, the Iowa Republican Party fiddled with the vote tally to take Romney's victory away from him and give it to Rick Santorum -- even though the "official count" was missing eight precincts. Isn't the party apparatus of a state considered part of the Establishment? I'm not sure what part of the Establishment supports Romney. 

Is it Romney supporter Christine O'Donnell, erstwhile tea party candidate for the U.S. Senate from Delaware? Am I the face of the Establishment? (If so, the country is going to be just fine.) I would think that the pristine example of the Republican Establishment is Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol. But he wants anybody but Romney, even proposing that we choose someone not running by means of a contested convention. 

Who are we trying to get nominated in a contested convention, anyway? Without having seen this mystery candidate in action, how do we know he won't be another Rick Perry? You'll recall that Perry was the dream candidate until we saw him talk.

 In 2008, Romney was enthusiastically supported not only by Limbaugh and Levin, but also by Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and many others who now seem to view Romney as a closet liberal. This is especially baffling because there is no liberal candidate in the Republican primary this year. 

Just four years ago, one Republican candidate for president was avowedly pro-abortion (Rudy Giuliani). One had opposed Clinton's impeachment and tort reform (Fred Thompson). One supported amnesty for illegals, restrictions on core First Amendment speech, federal laws to combat nonexistent global warming, and opposed Guantanamo and the Bush tax cuts ("tax cuts for the rich!") and called waterboarding "torture." 

That last one was our nominee: John McCain. 

This year, every Republican candidate for president opposes abortion, promises to repeal Obamacare, opposes raising taxes, and on and on. Only one candidate is strong on illegal immigration, which is second only to repealing Obamacare as the most important issue facing the nation. 

That's the alleged liberal, Mitt Romney. 

Read the rest here.

2012 Republican Presidential Debate in Arizona

Tonight was a great night. After having a bit of a break from debates, Americans had a chance to see the candidates back in action again. See below for the summary of candidates' performances:

Newt Gingrich - As always, Gingrich drew good crowd support by attacking the premises of questions but it was clear he is not in the running. This debate was really between Romney and Santorum. Gingrich did a great job of bringing it back to Obama. When asked to describe himself in one word, he stated "cheerful."

Ron Paul - This setting seemed to really suit Ron Paul. He appeared articulate, stated his ideals well, and drew contrasts with others without attacking. "Consistent" was Paul's response to a word that describes himself.

Mitt Romney - Romney looked good tonight. He was able to discuss without appearing like he was attacking, which has been an issue in the past. He drew contrasts with Obama, reaffirmed states' rights, and stayed consistent with conservative principles. "Resolute."

Rick Santorum - This was not Santorum's night. He looked tired, seemed easily flapped, spoke over others as they were talking, and couldn't talk his way out of past decisions (e.g., supporting Spector). With that said, he is much better at his performance when he first started but is not on par with Romney or Gingrich. "Courage."

GOP Candidates Slam CNN and Obama For Contraception

GOP candidates came together when asked about their views on contraception in the CNN-sponsored Arizona Presidential debate tonight. Gingrich came in with the first hit questioning the "elite media" with not challenging Obama. Then Romney hit with a right hook and clarified how Obama is eroding the moral fabric of this country. Santorum took the opportunity to clarify his beliefs and restated that we need to focus on the family because that is the basic block of society. Santorum also clarified that because he is "talking about it, doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it." Paul stuck to it not being part of the federal government's responsibility. Romney came back and supported Santorum and the role of family in society. I love our candidates!

The Tea Party Candidate: Romney

I keep watching as well-intentioned conservatives misrepresent Romney's record as one of big spending vs. the spending of, say, Santorum or Gingrich.  Yet, there is no evidence at all that Romney would spend more than anyone else, except Paul.  Santorum has clearly shown that he wants the government to support social conservative programs.  You may love his religious beliefs and his social views on issues (as I do), but you cannot deny that he would be willing to sign checks like President Bush did to spend money on social programs. Gingrich also has a history of spending.  He voted to create the Department of Education.  If Romney had done this, the others would never let him forget it, for sure.  But, Gingrich and Santorum get a pass for their history of spending because they've been able to convince everyone that they are more conservative, which, by definition, would mean that they should be spending less (at least to be a fiscal conservative).

The bottom line is that Romney is most fiscal conservative between the three (I'm not even going to comment on Paul who has no chance at winning).  And, he's not so ideologically based in the "government must support conservative social programs" dogma that Santorum and Gingrich are.

The Tea Party did a great job of keeping the focus on SPENDING, not on social issues, on spending. That doesn't mean that social issues are not important, but our ship is sinking right now due to spending and we need to elect someone who will forcefully deal with it. Romney understands the need to cut spending.  He also understands that we need to grow the economy instead of raising taxes.  Growing the economy creates more tax-paying Americans that get us out of debt.  This is a fact.  So, instead of focusing on squeezing paycheck-earners dry (as Obama wants to) or spending lots of money on conservative social programs (as Santorum wants to) or colonizing the moon or whatever else comes to his mind (as Gingrich wants to), Romney would actually cut spending.  This makes him most in line with the Tea Party than the other two.

Here is a part of an article from The American Spectator on why the Tea Party should support Romney:

What they don't see is that Romney already is a traitor to his class. He didn't smoke marijuana at Harvard. He didn't participate in student demonstrations -- he was married and raising children, for heaven's sake! He's made lots of money, but he hasn't tried to deflect envy by joining the Sierra Club, hobnobbing with movie stars or celebrating Occupy Wall Street. Romney has lived among the liberal intelligentsia but never become part of it. He's a natural leader for those struggling independent Americans who make up the Tea Party. Yet they refuse to see him that way.

A Few National Review Cartoons

Protect the Sanctity of Life

With Obama's efforts to use taxpayer money to fund abortions in the US and overseas, and with his recent push to require non-profits to fund birth control, I have found myself trying to find ways to reach out and support the pro-life effort.

Ways to fight for the life of the child:
- Stay informed on the legislation that affects the life of the unborn child.
- Write your representatives.
- Write letters to local papers articulating your pro-life views.
- Blog, facebook, twitter to have your voice heard - people think being pro-choice is the popular and only choice. Sometimes just letting women know there are others that believe in the sanctity of life helps them feel connected.
- Donate to organizations who fight for life.
- Vote for pro-life candidates.

Websites and organizations that are fighting for the rights of the child:
http://www.sba-list.org/
http://prolifedallas.org/
http://www.abortionresearch.us/home.html
http://www.pregnantpause.org/people/wholist.jsp?name=life
http://www.nrlc.org/
http://www.virtuemedia.org/index.html
http://www.heroicmedia.org/

"The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn't learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want." - Mother Teresa

Conservatives As Permanent Minority?

This article is probably true though it scares me more than I can say.  We conservatives stand firm in our beliefs and the world moves to the Left.  We are being overtaken by people that would have been considered radical years ago.  And, by the way, they are considered mainstream now:

Perhaps the greatest single piece of sociological, cultural and political legerdemain in the last 40 years has been liberals convincing the country that they have not moved left since John Kennedy’s death. Despite George McGovern, Roe v. Wade, the welfare state, gay marriage and now the Obama attack on religion, liberals have managed to present themselves as the voices of reason in a country gone crazily right wing. And the more liberals move left, the more hysterical their rhetoric about the right grows. At this point, anyone who claims that a balanced budget is good economics or that there are physiological differences between men and women is stamped a Nazi.

And it has worked. Liberals have dragged the country to the left. People may complain about higher taxes and Fox may crush MSNBC in the ratings, but Americans increasingly favor government spending, political correctness, politics as personal therapy with no obligation to the confinements of reason, the president as national Santa Claus, gay marriage and sex without consequence. Liberals keep getting elected to Congress — and the White House. If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee in the 2012 election, he will lose, and badly. Obama is at 50 percent in the polls. America is becoming not just a liberal country, but a left-wing one.

Conservatives need to accept that. At this point, the healthiest thing for conservatives to do is to simply admit that we are going to lose the culture war, and perhaps the country — and that this is okay. In the great span of history, countries, empires and republics rise and fall. It’s not written that America must survive. Our ultimate allegiance is to God. But like the Spartans in the movie “300,” we can make a brave last stand that may redound positively to future generations after America, financially and culturally broken, has hit bottom.

We cannot allow ourselves to fall like Greece of old.  We have it within our grasp and we are slowly losing this war.  

Why Would Anyone Oppose The New Texas Sonogram Law?

It is unfortunate that the new law in Texas is getting such opposition.  The law requires women to get a sonogram and be given the option of hearing the heartbeat and then wait 24 hours before having an abortion.  A mother is about the end the life of her child, and the law only states that women need to understand how their baby is developing and then take a day to think about it before making the decision to end the baby's life.  How can anyone disagree with this?  The people that are outraged are the ones that think that getting an abortion is no more serious than cutting your toenails.

From gosanangelo.com:

"It's condescending," said Dr. Curtis Boyd, medical director and owner of Southwestern Women's Surgery Center in Dallas.

"Before this law was even conceived, women were giving thoughtful consideration to whether they should go through with an unplanned pregnancy."

One 19-year-old woman sitting in Boyd's office on a recent afternoon accepted an offer to hear the heartbeat and see an image of the fetus as the doctor described the developing spine. But for her there was no turning back: With two children already, she said abortion was her best choice.

Another woman waiting for a sonogram in the same clinic didn't express anger or resentment but acknowledged the pregnancy would soon "become a lot more real."

The portion of the law requiring the sonogram and a 24-hour wait went into effect in the fall, but the remaining requirements — describing the fetus and offering patients to see an image and hear the heartbeat — were tied up in litigation until an appeals court ruled last month they could be enforced.

Thank goodness for the Texas legislatures that put this law into place and the lawyers that defended it.  

Why No Senate Love For Santorum?

Santorum pointed out in a recent debate that Gingrich did not have the support of those that worked with him in Congress. Is Santorum suffering from the same affliction??

"Santorum was in the Senate for 12 years. He served in the House for four years before that. Yet only three House members have endorsed him, and he has no endorsements from any sitting senators.

Mitt Romney, who never served in Congress, has racked up 77 congressional endorsements, including 12 senators....

So, why the lack of support for the former senator? Most observers point to questions about Santorum's electability. Multiple GOP Senate sources tell CNN many who were in the Senate trenches with Santorum like him personally, but don't think he can win the presidency."

Paul Ryan Confronts Timothy Geithner

Paul Ryan is as valid a choice for VP as anyone. What a great leader.  Watch this video where he forcefully questions Timothy Geithner for his lack of leadership on the economy:

Obama, You Have Officially Killed The American Dream

Aren't we so proud of our President?  He has managed to take the American Dream which was already on life support when he took office and smother it to death.

For the whole of our existence, America has been a country where everyone can own land.  During the first several decades of our Republic, this meant having your own farm.  People would go out West and stake their claim in land and then work and toil to build a life for themselves and their families.  And, as time went on, that land would be worth more than it was when you moved there.  Your homestead, your farm, your home (that most built for themselves) only grew in value.

Over time, the amount of land has gotten smaller for most, but the dream was the same, every American could own their own home.  In the 90's, mostly due to the encouragement of Democrats like Barney Frank and due to the existence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, people were encouraged to buy homes that they could not afford.  The bubble burst finally right before Obama took office, and those that attempted to profit from the bad mortgages led us to a financial meltdown the likes of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression,

You could call it a hurdle for a new president, or you could call it an opportunity for him to come in and prove that his fiscal policies are solid and can turnaround our nation.  Yet, Obama didn't do that.  He decided to focus on spending and big programs.  He decided that the government had to take over healthcare.  He decided to focus on everything except getting Americans back to work.

And now, the advice to Americans is: Don't buy a home.  As reported by Rueters:
Examining 250 properties around the U.S., and going through close to 40 client files to project the financial impact of owning real estate versus liquidating it, Arzaga (Founder and CEO of Cornerstone Wealth Management), an adjunct professor in personal finance at the University of California at Berkeley, found that, "100 percent of the time it was better to rent, rather than own." 

That's right: 100 percent. 

The reason is simple. While a home is the main repository of wealth for many Americans, it comes with numerous hefty expenses. The carrying costs - what's needed to hold and maintain the asset - range from property taxes and home insurance to emergency repairs and renovations. In a rental situation, the landlord covers those costs, leaving the occupant free to invest revenue in other areas. 

The bottom line is that if Americans had jobs, they could buy homes.  So, Obama's decision to spend his first 2 years in office when he had majorities in the House and the Senate focusing on big-government, liberal priorities instead of creating jobs when Americans were needing jobs more than anything else, is not only the wrong focus, but it took a failing country and killed the American Dream.  Obama's decision to not even consider the job-growth ideas that have come out of the GOP-led House shows his dedication to his own ideology over the good of the country that he claims to love.
 
Another impact the Obama-conomy has had is that we can't count on homes growing in value anymore like we could in the past. The idea that the cost of owning a home would outweigh the benefit gained by investing in it in the first place is only a factor if the investment itself does not grow over time to outweigh the costs.  But, as Obama is proving, this is no longer something we can count on.  Obama's policies encourage higher costs and taxes across the board, and he is doing everything he can to ensure our economy stays weak, so the inevitability that investors used to have that a home would grow in value is no longer there.

Obama has not worked for the American Dream as president because it was not his dream for America.  He came in with an agenda and was determined to push that agenda regardless of the needs to the American people.

Conservativism vs. Libertarianism

There is a video floating around where Santorum says that he is not a Libertarian and is not happy with the emergence of Liberatrianism in the GOP.  He has clearly stated time and time again that he is a conservative.  Ron Paul is the obvious Libertarian is the race.  He has spent the entire campaign trying to articulate as well as he can the need for the GOP to embrace liberty as he describes it.

So, the conservatives and the libertarians are fighting to lead the GOP.  And, given the great support that Paul has garnered, there is clearly a place for libertarianism within the GOP.  But, the question is - which view wins?

The Tea Party's emergence a few years ago was for the very specific purpose of reducing the size of government.  It opposed TARP, Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and other government spending that Obama was promoting.  What's interesting is that it seems that the conservative arm of the party would actually support spending, but the type of spending that supports our social goals.

In other words, Santorum should just as well be saying: I want the government to spend money on programs, just not Obama's programs.  Paul would say: I don't want the government to spend money on any program, whether or not I agree with the purpose of the program.

I find for myself that I am a hybrid.  Is that possible?  I want liberty.  I don't want the government to make decisions for me.  However, I think that the government should reflect the values of the people.  I am still deciding if I am as pure a libertarian as Paul.  Probably not.

At CPAC, Phyllis Schlafly discussed the connection between social and fiscal policies.  She mentioned that in years past, there was a greater marriage benefit in the tax code than there is now.  The savings for "married filing jointly" was greater and has been reduced over time.  Santorum has said that things like mortgage deductions, charitable deductions, and the child deduction should continue and are representative of our fiscal policy reflecting our social beliefs.

I find myself agreeing with Santorum on some things, but not comfortable when it gets taken too far.  President W. Bush raised funding for religious organizations.  I disagree that the government should be funding community groups (the whole point is that they should be privately funded).  Gingrich supported the formation of the Department of Education which was the first step toward the mammoth, overreaching agency we have today.  I believe that education should be handled by parents and if there are any kinds of rules around education, they should be created as locally as possible to the child (at the state or community level).

So, at the end of the day, do I support Paul's fiscal policies or Santorum's?  I'd say Paul's.  I'd like to see the government get it's hand out of as much as possible.

Shocking Article Limiting Parents' Rights!

In case you needed a reminder for what we're fighting for, here is a little article that should blow your mind.  Basically the school inspects all homemade lunches and "supplements" them when they don't meet USDA standards.  This child had a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice, and potato chips.  The school determined they needed to supplement the child's meal with chicken nuggets and sent a $1.25 bill home with the child for the parent to pay.

I was shocked that this happened here in the United States, it certainly didn't sound like something a "free" country would have take place, but these are the kinds of stories we're going to hear more and more about if the liberal movement continues on their path of mandating and picking and choosing what liberties and freedoms we're allowed to have.

Basic Conservative - "Looking Forward To A Romney Presidency"

If you haven't discovered the blog Basic Conservative yet, take a look. The blogger appears very thoughtful and articulate in his opinions and seems to do some good research. I really like his summary as to why Romney, over others, will make a great president.


"So this is why I think he’ll make a great President. The one topic that gets Romney fired up is business itself. He has real passion when he starts talking about the free market and how business provides a path out of poverty for us all, and frankly, that should be a beautiful thing to all of us, after three years of a President who speaks with pride about keeping his boot on the neck of industries. We desperately need a President who can explain to the public why business is good for us, why wealth and profit are healthy and good. We need a President who demonstrates a passion for and history of promoting business. We need a President with a demonstrated ability to save what can be saved, eliminate what needs to be eliminated, and turn failures into successes. Our biggest problems today aren’t the debate over legalizing pot or gay marriage. We’re not going to get anywhere trying to reinstate the gold standard. Our priorities ought to be readily apparent. Our economy is a mess and our government is broke. We need a turnaround artist. This is exactly what Mitt Romney has specialized in.

The rest of the remaining field has impressed me in various ways. Up until the last few weeks, I was strongly favoring Newt. I’ve always been impressed by his intellect and historical perspective, and I can be swayed by intelligent debate. I’ll admit, I do still love the idea of a Newt/Obama debate. His conservative history is checkered, but so is everyone else’s, and I found it hard to argue with his list of accomplishments. But the last month has reminded me of why he quickly lost the support of his own party in the 90s, and shown that while he’s a heavy hitter, he’s so unfocused that he misses far more often than he connects. His attacks on Romney’s record with Bain Capital showed that he either completely misunderstands capitalism, or is willing to say things he knows are patently untrue as long as he thinks he can personally gain from doing so. His long history of conservative crusades and his more recent robo-calls falsely claiming that Romney forced elderly Holocaust survivors to eat non-Kosher food make the latter seem more likely, but either way, these attacks show that he would be a completely inappropriate choice to communicate a conservative, pro-business message to America.

Santorum has virtually reinvented himself in the last few weeks, and I like the new Rick. In the past, he’s been petulant and condescending. Now, he’s smiling, confident, and he’s almost completely lost his disdainful smirk. However, his message is still almost exclusively focused on social issues, and frankly, it’s the economy, stupid. When it comes to the social issues, I disagree with him as often as I agree. He’s uncompromising, and only other uncompromising people actually respect that–and few Americans are truly uncompromising. He cannot win in a general election, and I therefore cannot support him.

Paul has also impressed me recently, which is refreshing. I don’t believe for a minute that he’s backed off any of his foreign policy ideas (he’s never changed his mind on anything in his life, why start now?), but he’s stopped really talking about them, and focused on the small-government, economic liberty message that all conservatives can get behind. I’m thrilled that he’s successfully brought that message to the public–Republicans coast to coast are talking about the Austrian school and auditing the Fed. It’s a wonderful thing. I also think his idea that Iran is no threat is insane and would lead to disastrous policy decisions along the lines of Neville Chamberlain in the 30s, and I’m also quite uncomfortable with a President that winks and nudges 9/11 truthers to keep a lock on the pro-grassy knoll voters. That said, I hope he keeps fighting so strongly for what he believes in, because he has personally shifted the public discourse in amazing ways.

Romney’s record is not without blemish. Nobody’s is. Romneycare was a bad idea. Newt supported it, along with cap and trade. Santorum voted against right-to-work laws, and his social views scare a lot of people off. Paul, well, I’ve already gone there. But let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let’s remember that our nominee will be up against a candidate with a deeply flawed record as well: lawsuits preventing Boeing from hiring thousands, raids against Gibson guitar factories, blocking the Keystone pipeline, not to mention the regulatory messes of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, and constant attacks on anyone that has managed to do too well for themselves and employ too many people. We have an anti-business, anti-success President, and we need a pro-business, pro-success candidate to show the country the deepest differences between conservatives and liberals.

For that, I will happily and enthusiastically support and vote for Mitt Romney."