My Closing Argument, and This Ain’t Just Rhetoric

Overview: My Main Philosophical Reason I’m Voting For Mitt.

I feel so strongly that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president that I wanted to make one last post, my closing argument as it were, in hopes of convincing that one last undecided voter out there somewhere to vote for Mitt. I wanted to explain why I, and the other authors here at Mitt Romney Central, have devoted such time, effort, emotion, and yes, money, to the cause of electing Mitt. My list of specific reasons why I like Mitt, and my counterarguments to President Obama’s case, are below. But I can sum up why I feel so strongly with this: Barack Obama’s vision for America is inconsistent with that of our founding fathers and our Constitution.

A Limited Government Preserves Freedom

Our government was founded on the principles of self-determination and freedom. Americans were not content to be told by the British government how much they should pay in taxes or what freedoms they were entitled to. So they fought a war to gain their independence. When the founding fathers then set up their own government, at the forefront of their minds was the concern for how to preserve their hard-won freedoms. So they came up with three fundamental ideas about the new federal government: (i) it should be small, split into different branches with checks and balances over each other’s power, (ii) it should share power with, and in fact have less power over citizens’ day-to-day lives than, the states, where the citizens were better represented, and (iii) our most basic freedoms should be enshrined in a Bill of Rights to make absolutely sure the federal government did not violate them. This combination of ideas, they thought, would assure, over time, that the God-given rights they had won back from their government at great cost would be preserved against tyranny.

Obama’s Vision of a Larger Government is Antithetical to Freedom.

In 2008 when Senator Obama talked of “transforming” America and saying “we can do better,” it was clear to me he was talking about fundamentally changing these key principles. He stood for a larger federal government; one that would try and take responsibility for the poor and do more for its citizens. While that may sound nice, having a government undertake that responsibility also means it must become larger, tax more (a government that undertakes to define what’s fair for all its citizens will also try and make everyone pay their “fair share”) and become more involved in our lives, much more involved than the founding fathers intended. A larger government necessarily becomes more difficult to manage, begins to take on a life of its own, and becomes very difficult to control. A larger federal government also means a shift in power from the states, where citizens can more easily control their own destiny. And once people begin to rely on government largesse, cutting the size of that government and its programs, even if the government cannot afford them (witness our overwhelming deficits and the troubles in Europe as it tries to cut back), becomes very, very difficult. People become less willing to give up that security, even if it means a loss of liberty. And they can become accustomed to the idea that the government represents someone else, not them, and that they are owed something by that government (witness appeals from the left that sound like class warfare). As a result, I believe the policies of President Obama reflect a threat to our liberty. Perhaps not immediate. Perhaps only a little. But what he wants to do, at its core, is inconsistent with the intended size and role of our government, which means we will inevitably lose a little, or a lot, of liberty. How much really depends on how much further down Obama’s road we go. And in my view, we’ve already lost too much.

Example: Obamacare.

As an illustration of what I mean, I’ll use Obamacare. It sounds nice to make sure everyone has health insurance. And there are lots of stories of people who can’t afford insurance, and how having it would benefit them greatly. I get that, and I feel for their situation. This is what Obama meant by “we can do better.” He’d like to use government resources to fix these problems. But, just like when you get your first credit card, you need to look beyond the nice things you can buy and decide whether you can really afford it, because that bill will come due at some time. As for the cost in dollars and cents, it’s clear we can’t afford Obamacare. We just can’t. It adds trillions of unfunded government outlays over the next two decades. And once these benefits are offered to citizens it’s very difficult to take them away. In addition, Obamacare has already begun to infringe on our freedoms. At its core it’s the federal government (not the state, which is the principal difference between Obamacare and Romneycare), forcing us to buy a product. Then, because it forces us to buy this product, it must go further and legislate the minimum requirements of this product (or everyone would buy the cheapest version available). That legislation now includes elements some religions find offensive. How’d we get here? By involving the federal government in something it really was never intended by the founding fathers to be involved in: providing health insurance. Further, because the IRS will be in charge of enforcing compliance with the mandate, it will need to know our personal health information. The founders’ vision of limited federal power, with express limits on what the federal government can and can’t do, has been violated by Obamacare. And having the federal government in this position simply poses a threat to our freedom. The founders knew power corrupts, and while we think we can trust the government now, we don’t always know we will be able to. When will it be your religious belief that’s infringed? Or your freedom of speech? This is why the Republicans resist President Obama so much. This is why Obamacare did not get one single Republican vote. This is why Obama’s own budget was rejected by not only Republicans but his own party. And finally this is why Mitch McConnell said it was his goal to make sure Obama only had one term: to try and make sure the damage President Obama does is not long-lasting. Obamacare is a threat to our freedom, and it’s just one example.

This Ain’t Just Rhetoric.

Let me say that this is not just rhetoric. I’m not just making an argument because I want you to vote for Mitt for some other hidden reason. This is why I’m voting for Mitt, and why I honestly believe everyone should. This is what worries me about the prospect of Obama serving another term. He has already made some strides toward “transforming” America into something I believe it was never intended to be. Obamacare was one very large step in that direction. As Vice President Biden said, it was a “[blanking] big deal.” I know the further we go down this road the more difficult it is to go back. I also know the GOP will fight Obama to preserve that liberty, which is likely to result in more gridlock at a time when our government needs to work together. Unfortunately, though, cooperating with the president can mean, and has meant, the loss of some of these liberties, which makes compromise difficult.
(more…)

Obama: Using Taxpayer Money to Buy Votes

If you’re like me you may have missed a story a couple weeks ago that has broader ramifications than you may have originally thought.

You may recall that “sequestration” is the collection of automatic budget cuts proposed by the White House and agreed to under duress by Congress as part of the debt ceiling negotiations. The cuts go into effect on January 2 unless Congress and the President act. Kind of like a spending cut time bomb: the White House extracted this concession in exchange for its agreement to increase the debt ceiling, with the hope it could get Congress to accept other less terrible cuts and tax increases later. That plan has backfired, however, and we’re left with the real possibility of the president’s sequestration time bomb going off. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said these cuts would have a “catastrophic” effect on national security, “like shooting ourselves in the head.”

As a result, businesses, especially defense contractors, are now preparing to lay off up to one million workers. A friend I spoke with yesterday told me at his company no one knows if they’ll have a job come January 2. Usually these workers would not have to wait until the day the layoffs occur to know their fate. Under a Federal law called the “WARN Act,” companies with 100 or more employees must give workers 60 days notice before a layoff of the lesser of 1/3 or 500 people. Failure to provide the notice can result in significant exposure to employee lawsuits. To avoid these costs, companies would need to notify workers of a pending layoff by November 2, 2012.

Well, that’s terribly inconvenient timing for the president. Friday November 2 is the Friday before the election. It’d be a real bummer for a million voters to get pink slips four days before voting. Not wanting to let a good law get in the way of re-election, the Obama administration on July 30, through Jane Oates, assistant secretary in the Labor Department, issued “guidance” advising companies they need not comply with the WARN Act if they’re contemplating sequestration layoffs. Effectively the administration advised defense contractors to not tell employees they’re about to get fired. Never mind the reason behind the Act that employees should be given a fair heads’ up. According to Obama, that law “shouldn’t” apply if the Department of Labor says it doesn’t.

But it gets worse. Many companies saw the advice from the Department of Labor and said they were going to provide the notices anyway, since ultimately whether they violated the law, and had to pay related penalties, would be determined not by the Department of Labor, but the courts. These companies’ exposure was estimated to be as much as $4 billion, plus inestimable other expenses (see below). So, having not been convincing enough, on September 28, on the letterhead of the “Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget” the Obama administration went even further and agreed to pick up the tab for these companies’ failing to comply with the law. In other words, if these companies rely on the DOL’s advice, fail to timely provide WARN Act notices, and lay off employees with no warning whatsoever on January 2, Obama has volunteered to pay, at taxpayer expense, all resulting costs, including penalties, judgements and legal fees. Did I say this was at taxpayer expense? (more…)

America: Obama’s Reality vs Romney’s Reality


With sufficient frustrations born of the media’s failing of America by not disseminating truth and facts, and with bewilderment over the media’s blindness to truth and substance, I have compared below the realities of America under Obama and Romney. To be fair, Mitt Romney hasn’t led America, yet, but his history and record is clearly indicative of what we might see under a Romney Presidency. Further and notwithstanding my bias towards Mitt Romney, I have tried to be dispassionate in this comparative.

Romney’s America seems to be more robust and more hopeful, in fact, more Free.


(more…)

Opinion: No, Mr. President, YOU Can’t Change Washington

As we’ve all heard by now President Obama has finally admitted that while hope died out quite a while ago, change has now died along with it.

The clip of Obama’s actual statement is the first video clip at this link below.

Now I try to give people a little slack when they make comments that I feel are being misconstrued. For example, do I think Mitt really believes 47% of the country are freeloaders? No, I really don’t. My Mitt translator tells me Mitt was describing the size of the 47% Democratic base, the fact that lowering taxes is less likely to appeal to many of the 47% of the people who are non-taxpayers, and that some voters are honestly not convincible because they’re unlikely to vote against their pocketbooks. Are those people all Democrats? No. Does that group make up 47% of the populace? I don’t think Mitt really thinks that. In the setting of a fundraiser, where the comments are less precise (remember Obama’s “god and guns”?) Mitt just ran those concepts together. I can cut him some slack on that, knowing I could easily do the same, and I know President Obama and Joe Biden have said much worse. And Mitt made clear he thinks there’s a legitimate debate to be had about creating dependency rather than jobs, and that true success will be in growing the entire economy so that all succeed rather than focusing on redistribution of wealth (which has never worked). But do I think he believes half of the country are freeloaders? Absolutely not. Is there a large percent of Dems who won’t vote for a Republican no matter what? Yes. Those are the people he was saying he can’t worry about trying to please in an election. Of course once you’re president, it’s different: Mitt’s said as much before. If elected he’d be the president of everyone, not a subgroup.

So now, since I’m in a generous mood, I think it’s appropriate to analyze President Obama’s latest misstatement.

Now admittedly as a Mitt fan I’m happy to zing President Obama a bit on the face value of his words, just as Obama fans like to do to Mitt. And lest anyone misunderstand, let no one say Mitt’s any more prone to misstatement than President “you didn’t build that” Obama or Joe “put y’all back in chains” Biden.

Part of Obama’s statement is honestly shocking: the candidate who entered office on a wave of “hope and change” and “change you can believe in” has now come to the conclusion, even calling it the “most important lesson” he learned in the last four years (seriously?), that he can’t change Washington from the inside. Ouch. (more…)

Slaughter in Syria: Romney “Work with partners, arm Syrian opposition groups”

Massacre in Haoula, Syria, May 25, 2012: Men were killed on the streets while women and children were shot and stabbed in their homes. (Photo AFP/Getty Images)


While Americans are busy with Memorial Day activities, shock and horror at the news of massacre in Haoula, Syria is resounding on news reports today.

On mid-day Friday, May 26, 2012, Syrian soldiers and pro-government forces burst upon the rebel-controlled village and began slaughtering residents. Video and photos show rows of dead and mutilated small children among the victims. 116 were killed and 100 were wounded.

The UN Security Council today held an emergency meeting in New York to discuss the attack.

Calling the Syrian regime’s latest slaughter “horrific”, Governor Mitt Romney released the following statement:

“The Assad regime’s massacre of civilians in Haoula—many of them young children—is horrific. After nearly a year and a half of slaughter, it is far past time for the United States to begin to lead and put an end to the Assad regime. President Obama can no longer ignore calls from congressional leaders in both parties to take more assertive steps. The Annan ‘peace’ plan—which President Obama still supports—has merely granted the Assad regime more time to execute its military onslaught. The United States should work with partners to organize and arm Syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves. The bloodshed in Haoula makes clear that our goal must be a new Syrian government, one that contributes to peace and stability in the Middle East and that truly represents the brave Syrian people.”

(emphasis added)

Follow @YayforSummer

~ Addendum from Ross:

Looks like Mitt was right about Iran when he stood up for freedom while President Obama stood silent, and Gov. Romney has again voiced his support for freedom while our President allows tyranny to go unchecked now in Syria.

If you want to add the Freedom for Syria PicBadge to your Facebook, click here or here for Twitter.

Baier’s ‘Running with Romney’ VP Series Part 3: Rep Paul Ryan (VIDEO)

Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI) answers a question as Governor Mitt Romney looks on during a Romney rally at an oil company in Milwaukee, WI. April 2, 2012 (Photo Steve Senne/AP)

The third segment of Running With Romney, a series of potential VP interviews by FOX News’ Bret Baier (Special Report) aired today. The spotlight was on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan:

At age 28, Ryan was elected to Wisconsin’s 1st congressional district but he quickly moved up to become the youngest chairman of the House Budget Committee in 2011. Speaking about his budget plan, Ryan says, “We knew that if we offered solutions, that they were going to demagogue those solutions. But we feel that we have a moral and a legal obligation, that if we don’t like the direction the president’s taking the country, we should do something about it.”

Republican strategist Mike Murphy noted a downside if Romney chooses Ryan as his vice presidential nominee, saying, “Paul Ryan budget genius, very important in the Congress, good guy, Romney’s close to him, talks to him a lot. The downside is you nominate Paul, one, you take a real player out of the Congress. And two, you’re going to re-litigate the Ryan plan which has policy advantages but some political baggage.”

Ryan reiterated what he has previously stated when asked about becoming Romney’s running mate. “If they ask me to consider it, then I’ll consider it. But that’s months away from that kind of decision being made as far as I know. I like my job. I think I can make a big difference doing what I’m doing.”

Part 3 – Congressman Paul Ryan


View additional segments by clicking on names below:

Part 1Sen. Marco Rubio

Part 2 - Sen. Rob Portman


► Jayde Wyatt

Obama’s Latest Misstatement: Gaffe or Another Window to the Soul?

UPDATE:

On my way home from work tonight I heard the following exchange between Hannity and Ann Coulter, with Ms. Coulter arguing in part what I state below: judicial activism is not a court finding a law unconstitutional, but finding new rights or failing to enforce existing constitutional rights. Often she’s a bit extreme to be taken completely at face value, but I think she’s right to point out the judicial activism that concerns the right is not what apparently concerns the left:


ORIGINAL POST:

If you thought the open mic comment to new Russian President Medvedev was pretty bad, President Obama has created some competition for himself in the gaffe department. Or was it another window to his soul?

You may have heard that Monday President Obama appeared to warn the Supreme Court regarding its pending decision on Obamacare. His comments were as follows:

I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

Yahoo called the remark a “challenge” to the Court. Others weren’t so kind. Among other problems with the President’s statement, you may recall that whether Obamacare was passed by a “strong majority” can be called into question. It was a purely party-line vote. But I digress.

I’m willing to assume President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, understands the concept of judicial review, and that courts overturning unconstitutional laws is not “unprecedented.” As a liberal, he may even be among the first to re-affirm that Marbury v. Madison is still good law. But the tone and chosen wording of the President’s comments caused the White House to have to defend itself from some of those “unkind” remarks yesterday. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (the guy distributing the Obama Kool-Aid) tried to make the case the President was “clearly” referring only to commerce clause cases, and with respect to those only those of the past 80 years. Neither qualification, of course, was actually included in the President’s initial comments. When pushed as to whether the president was clarifying his remarks, Carney said “Only because a handful of people didn’t understand what he was referring to.”

Here’s a link to the video should you care to watch. Today he added that the President had been speaking in “short-hand.” I hope that flexibility is accorded both sides in campaign season. We’ll see.

The president’s statement caused Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post to write:

Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”

And she makes clear she’s on his side otherwise. (more…)

Wisconsin: Romney & Ryan, Faith & Freedom, Sen. Johnson Endorsement, Santorum Raises Eyebrows


They packed the hall yesterday at the Faith & Freedom Coalition at the Country Springs Hotel in Pewaukee, Wisconsin…

Governor Mitt Romney and Wisconsin’s beloved homeboy and rising GOP star, Congressman Paul Ryan, both speakers at the event, inspired the crowd with their remarks. While speaking, Romney did not mention his GOP primary opponents and focused on President Obama (he also worked in a good comment about Joe Biden). At the conclusion of Ryan’s speech, he introduced The Gov with another strong endorsement (SEE VIDEO BELOW).

◆ Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum also participated – but the latter did something that raised eyebrows

WAUKESHA, Wis. — The current state of the Republican nominating contest was on display in Wisconsin on Saturday, with underdog Rick Santorum vigorously slamming front-runner Mitt Romney, while the former Massachusetts governor ignored his GOP rivals and focused solely on President Barack Obama.
[...]
Santorum’s rhetoric against a fellow Republican is a departure from the typical remarks candidates have given at previous Faith and Freedom events held this campaign season. The group draws a variety of GOP voters, and one candidate bad-mouthing another is usually avoided. But the former Pennsylvania senator did not tone down the attacks he frequently uses on the stump.

◆ MSNBC Nightly News Report March 31, 2012:

Santorum, speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press today, vowed that even if he loses in Wisconsin, he’s staying in the race:

The former Pennsylvania senator dismisses the notion that a prolonged primary would harm the party’s chances against President Barack Obama in November. Santorum says GOP establishment figures are making that argument to convince voters that “they need Mitt Romney shoved down their throats.”


… 
Santorum said he needs to win Pennsylvania’s primary on April 24.


While speaking at the F&F forum, Santorum and Gingrich both referred to Congressman Ryan, but notice the interesting difference:

While Gingrich called the congressman “a great guy,” Santorum referred to Ryan as “some other Wisconsinite.”

Maggie Haberman (Politico) writes:

Since Ryan’s endorsement, Santorum has been largely silent about the rising Republican Party star on the campaign trail. When asked about the endorsement by reporters, Santorum brushed it off, saying: “What I find out is that most endorsements are worth one vote.”

Besides the lies he tells about Governor Romney, Santorum’s rancorous, uncouth, and gauche behavior serves as a continual poke-in-the-eye reminder of why he should not get anywhere near the Oval Office. For someone who claims he got in the GOP presidential race because of “God’s calling” one would think he’d try to do a better job emulating the supposed caller.

By the way, the Romney and Ron Paul campaigns have filed a joint complaint citing “serious and prejudicial misconduct” from Santorum supporters at a previously-held Missouri county caucus.

Here’s video of Wisconsin’s Faith & Freedom forum:
Newt Gingrich: @5:00
Paul Ryan: @25:20
Mitt Romney: @40:45

Rick Santorum: @1hr:29

◆ After speaking at the F&F conference, Gov Romney and Ryan headed to Muskego, WI, to host a town hall meeting. D.G. Jackson, Romney’s campaign shadow, videoed The Gov and Paul Ryan before going on stage:

The Gov and Ryan also spent time at a phone bank in Madison for Governor Scott Walker.

GOOD NEWS…

Earlier this morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, Tea Party favorite Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson endorsed Romney:

(more…)

Leading the Turnaround of America

Guest Post by Brad Barth

President Obama entered office with a mandate to change America, with a strong majority of his supporters hoping for major health care reform and a strong majority of the country hoping for major Wall Street reform. President Obama proceeded to push and pass major health care and Wall Street reforms, which jointly yielded the emergence of the Tea Party movement. Republican legislators have since been motivated by a libertarian vision of limited government, which profoundly conflicts with the vision on which President Obama was elected, thereby severely inhibiting legislative progress in either direction.

Legislative stagnation persists during our heretofore slow and fragile recovery, with no apparent end in sight to the strategic and ideological inconsistencies between the two visions. President Obama is unlikely to concede, for two reasons. First, because seeking compromise is unlikely to be productive: by ramming through transformative laws during a recession, he spawned a passionate opposition, which – for Republican legislators – made voting for an Obama-approved bill about as wise as buying a Greek bond. Second, because he genuinely believes in his vision for the country: like many Americans who share his political orientation, our President believes that more closely aligning our social and economic structures with those of Europe will yield a higher quality of life for Americans.

Republican legislators are also unlikely to concede, for two similar reasons.

First, because – as mentioned – a press release announcing a Republican congressman’s support for an Obama-approved bill is tantamount to a press release announcing that congressman’s retirement from the House. (more…)

Illinois, Let’s Do It!

Illinois, you know the future of the country is in your hands.

The GOP All Agree: It’s Time to Replace Barack Obama

The GOP nearly unanimously agrees that our four year experiment with an inexperienced Senator at the helm has been a disaster. I read yesterday an article at Politico whose headline was “CBO: Exploding debt under Obama policies.” That article says public debt is expected (under CBO rules of prognostication) to increase from $10.1 trillion in 2011 to $18.8 trillion in 2022. For the current fiscal year:

…CBO is now projecting a shortfall of $1.3 trillion. In fiscal 2013, the deficit will still hover near the $1 trillion mark — about $977 billion. And while it will fall to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2017, it then begins to grow again to 3 percent of GDP by 2022.

With 5 more years of Barack Obama, without threat of losing a re-election bid, one can imagine how bad it could get. How long has it been since the Senate proposed a budget? How much time do we have to repeal Obamacare before the contraception controversy becomes par for the course, and the Federal government begins telling religious institutions what it must buy for its employees?

And this doesn’t even consider foreign policy.

Picking the Replacement

So our choices to replace Barack Obama are now clear. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul.

While there’s much of Ron Paul’s philosophy on the appropriate constitutional size of government I find appealing, he won’t win an election against Barack Obama. The last two elections in which the GOP nominee was elected were decided by the slimmest of margins. I don’t believe that American citizens are ready to make the radical changes Ron Paul would advocate. And I’m not ready for his approach to foreign policy.

Newt Gingrich.

I’ve written before that while Newt Gingrich seems to be an idea machine, he doesn’t know the difference between a good one and a bad one, which is not a good trait for a president. As an attorney for executives, I have observed that some people actually get things done, and others like to pontificate and tell others what to do. I see Newt in the latter role: wanting to be the professor and tell everyone else what they should do rather than actually getting it done. That is not what I’m looking for in an commander-in-chief.

Rick Santorum.

As for Rick Santorum, there’s a lot about his conservative social stands that I like. But I disagree that Rick draws a sharper conservative contrast with Obama than Mitt Romney, that Rick is the “true conservative” in the race, or that Mitt’s having endorsed health care reform in Massachusetts is a handicap. David Axelrod, Obama’s Communications Director, doesn’t hesitate to point out the many differences between Mitt and Obama. Saying Mitt is in any way like Obama is clearly misleading. Santorum calling himself the “true conservative” is also misleading. There are serious arguments to be made that Santorum is not a fiscal conservative at all. And while he attacks Mitt on social issues (principally abortion and Romneycare), Santorum is just as much a convert to the pro-life movement as Mitt is, and Mitt has made it very, very clear that he is both pro-life and intends to repeal Obamacare. When Santorum claims he “never supported the individual mandate,” that’s not true. He supported Mitt Romney as the “true conservative” candidate in 2008, after Romneycare was adopted. Rick’s conversion on health care reform came very recently, and very opportunistically. And we should not forget that Santorum’s endorsement of liberal Arlen Specter is what allowed Obamacare to pass in the first place, since Specter cast the deciding vote. Rick’s habit of compromising his principles has already harmed our country enough.

Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, in my mind, Mitt has a number of strengths that make him the compelling choice.

Turnaround experience.

Mitt has decades of true executive experience, something unmatched in any other candidate. Mitt has been a governor. He has been a CEO. He led the Olympic games. Mitt’s executive experience has also often been leading organizations needing a turnaround. He’s credited with saving the 2002 Olympics. He’s credited with saving Bain Consulting. He’s credited with balancing the budget in Massachusetts without raising tax rates.

(more…)

Page 1 of 41234