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…)

Veteran Special Forces Speak Out — We Will Never Forget (#Video)



American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Obama Left Them to Fight Their Guts Out for Seven Hours! (#Video)

In all candor, I actually believe Barack Obama thinks most of us Americans are stupid regarding the decisions he made and his inaction regarding the Benghazi assassinations. Those four Americans absolutely knew help was on the way and that it would be just a matter of an hour or two before they would be rescued. They had no doubt we would answer the call! They knew we would never leave them high and dry. I am furious that the person we grant authority to as commander in chief would leave an American Ambassador and three other great American patriots to fight their guts out for seven hours as he watched through high definition TV screens from a drone!

We will never forget!

Barack Obama, Commander in Chief?


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Women United: “When the SEALs Called, They Got Denied” (#Video)



American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Newspaper Endorsements Unceasing, PRAISE for Romney/Ryan: OH, WI, IA, IL, OR, FL, MA, VA

(Photographer unknown)

They just keep coming…

Newspaper editorial boards across the USA believe in Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Give yourself a little time to read the many endorsements given for our guys the last few days. It’s a real treat.

Additional endorsements may be read here, here, and here.

Cincinnati Enquirer (OH)
EditorialThey just keep coming! Carve out a little time to read these many, fantastic endorsements. Help us share the news, too!
October 28, 2012

http://goo.gl/VZyxd

Presidential Endorsement: Mitt Romney

The No.1 issue in our region and our nation today is how to recharge our economy and get more people working in good-paying jobs. President Barack Obama has had four years to overcome the job losses of the Great Recession he inherited, but the recovery has been too slow and too weak. It’s time for new leadership from Mitt Romney, a governor and business leader with a record of solving problems.
….
Romney’s experience as a chief executive, business leader and governor position him to be the best candidate to lead us into a new era of streamlined but effective government with a renewed focus on maintaining America as the world’s leading economy. The best indicator of how Romney would lead is his record as governor. There we have evidence of a Romney who governs more moderately than he was forced to campaign in the long runup to the presidential election.
….
He came into office in 2003 facing an immediate budget shortfall of $450 million and projections of much worse. It was Massachusetts’ worst recession in decades. Romney’s approach was businesslike, and he didn’t spare any sacred cows. He made deep cuts in local government funding and to education. He didn’t raise state taxes, but he increased fees for many government services, which raised hundreds of millions. He took heat from businesses for closing loopholes that saved them money but cost the state revenue. He blocked companies from transferring intellectual property to out-of-state shell companies, and he barred banks and other companies from avoiding taxes by paper restructuring. The bottom line: He erased the deficit in Massachusetts (which was required by state law) and left office with a $600 million surplus. He replenished the state’s reserve fund two years into his term, pushing it to $2 billion by the time he left office in 2007.

Romney’s plans for recovery revolve around the economic principles of reducing government regulation, cutting corporate taxes and opening more global markets. It’s an approach consistent with who Mitt Romney is – a businessman and a moderate conservative who doesn’t believe so much in government’s making things happen as he does in lifting government interference so they can happen.

If Romney can stabilize and expand the U.S. economy, his greatest foreign policy contribution could be employing reinvigorated U.S. economic muscle to influence the global economy. This is a precarious time for America. We’d expect a President Romney to lead toward the center, to resist the calls for a hard turn to the right that are sure to come from within his party. Romney has accomplished progress with divided government – the Massachusetts General Court (the state’s Legislature) is overwhelmingly Democratic. The gridlock in D.C. is entrenched, and we’d urge him to make a priority of finding the common ground and using his leadership to forge compromise, coalitions and solutions. Romney as president should stay true to who he is – a moderate leader who can work with the left and right, with business and with government, and who will set an example, both as an individual and as the leader of the United States of America.



The Lima News (OH)
Editorial
October 28, 2012

http://www.limaohio.com

The Lima News Endorses Mitt Romney
..
Obama swept into office in 2008 promising hope and change. But change has come too slowly, and for too many people, hope surrendered to despair long ago.

That is why Lima News is calling for a change of leadership and is endorsing Republican Mitt Romney for president.

We have little confidence that Obama would be anymore successful given another four-year term. Our memory of a euphoric Obama who energized this country four years ago is now replaced by the picture of a slumping president, tired and defensive, during his first debate with Romney.

Today, family incomes are down. The middle class is shrinking and poverty is growing. College students are graduating deep in debt with questionable job opportunities.

At the same time, the government continues to take on more debt. It just wracked up its fourth straight 13-figure shortfall. During Obama’s four years the debt has grown to more than $5 trillion. He now believes the only way to trim the deficit is by raising taxes on the wealthy and eliminating tax breaks.

We feel Romney’s solid resume in the private sector will help here. He understands that reviving the economy and repairing the government’s balance sheet are things that need to happen now, not four years in the future. His five-point plan calls for raising revenue through business expansions — definitely not new taxes — and reducing spending.

Romney has the added benefit of likely dealing with a friendlier Congress. At least one chamber, if not both, are expected to favor Republicans. It is imperative the president and Congress work together. Two years ago, Congress recommended a bipartisan 10-year, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan, only to be snubbed by Obama, who had his own, less ambitious plan.



Green Bay Press-Gazette (WI)
Editorial
October 28, 2012

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com

We Recommend Romney For President

Four years ago, when Barack Obama was elected president, he campaigned on a message of hope and change
.

Many hoped he could bring change for a nation weary of two wars, a nation beset by a mortgage crisis and Wall Street scandal, and, most importantly, a nation whose economic future was so uncertain that massive government bailouts were needed.

However, four years later, the economy hasn’t rebounded. In fact, some say it’s worse, with high unemployment numbers, a trillion-dollar deficit, an even bigger national debt and uncertainty in the business world over the future of our economy. Poverty has increased, the median household income has dropped, and some have given up looking for work.

This nation cannot wait four more years to see if Obama’s policies will work. It needs to turn to someone who has a proven track record in the business community and will offer the steady hand to a teetering economy.

For that reason, the Green Bay Press-Gazette is endorsing Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who we believe is the best choice to turn around the U.S. economy. We believe the Republican candidate’s experience as CEO of Bain Capital, governor of Massachusetts and work with the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City will be assets to turning around the economy.

Romney’s five-point jobs proposal looks to strengthen the middle class by creating 12 million jobs in his first term. Romney aims to reach this ambitious goal by achieving energy independence by 2020, expanding trade, improving education, cutting the deficit and helping small businesses.

Romney proposes 20 percent cuts in the marginal tax rate for individuals, which would reduce the top bracket from 35 to 28 percent, and cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 28 percent. He would get rid of the death tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. He would eliminate taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for those earning less than $200,000.

Romney would cut the deficit with smaller government and addressing the national debt. The deficit was at $1.09 trillion as of Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which is a slight drop from the $1.3 trillion deficit Obama faced when he took office. He had pledged in February 2009 to “cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office.”

Despite all this, we can’t we can’t ignore the state of the economy today. It is the overriding factor in people’s lives. How they pay for health care, how they pay for their mortgage, how they pay the bills, how they pay for retirement are all chief concerns that need to be answered. They are concerns that cut across are classes and are paramount in deciding who should be in the White House.

How long can Obama blame his predecessor for the current financial woes without taking any responsibility for some of the economic duress and gridlock? At some point, the problems a president inherits become his problems if he hasn’t been able to solve them.

At that point, then, we need someone else in the White House who can solve them. We believe that person is Mitt Romney.


MUCH more! Click here.

Obama’s Math Mish-Mash, Romney’s Expertise, Speaks on ECONOMY in Ames, Iowa

Mitt Romney has criss-crossed the nation many times listening to and speaking with small business owners and everyday Americans deeply concerned about the economy. He’s pictured at such a meeting at Brewery Bar IV on June 19, 2011 in Aurora, Colorado. (Photo – John Moore/Getty)

A couple of nights ago, President Obama admitted his MATH challenges to Jay Leno. Do you think his deficiencies just might have something to do with his economic challenges? Like his bullheaded thinking that government is the engine behind America’s economy? (Notice: I did not use Obama’s “bull******” word.) What about his failure to understand that continually spending more than we take in has put us on the rickety road to ruin? Does his aversion to arithmetic prevent him from grasping that he’s added almost as much debt held by the public as all prior American presidents in history? How about the President’s choking on things like, oh… say, a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET?

Take a look:

Leno: Here’s Samantha from Colorado: “When you help your daughters with their homework, is there a a subject you struggle with?”
Obama: Well, the math stuff I was fine with up until about seventh grade.
Leno: Yeah.
Obama: But Malia is now a freshman in high school and — I’m pretty lost.
Obama: Fortunately, they’re great students on their own. and, you know, if something doesn’t work, I’ll call over to the Department of Energy and see if they have a physicist to come over.

How about we call Mayflower moving company and get the math mish-masher out of the White House? We’ve got someone running for president whose passion for numbers, economic analysis, and results is part of his DNA. Undergirding it all is his passion for helping people. It’s helped him turn around failing businesses, a state in trouble, and an entire troubled winter Olympics.

How did Romney learn so much about numbers, economic analysis, and business? Glad you asked! Here’s how:

Romney attended Stanford University for a year before serving 30 months as a missionary for his church. He then headed to BYU (where Ann was attending) to study English and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree. Mitt wanted to pursue a business career, but his Dad advised him that a law degree would be helpful to him, even if he didn’t become a lawyer. So, he enrolled in a grueling, newly-formed, joint four-year Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated by Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. It was a rigorous, dual course of study. (He and Ann were married by then and were busy parents to two small children. Ann also determinedly finished her undergraduate work by taking night courses at Harvard University Extension School. In 1975, she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree with a concentration in French language from BYU.) With hard work, discipline, and dedication, Romney graduated in 1975 cum laude from the law school in the top third of the class. He was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent in his business school class.

★ Also worth noting: We’ve got a vice-presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, who also runs arithmetic circles around Obama and Biden.

You’ll like this: Romney for President today launched four excellent new videos on SterlingBusinessCareer.com. It’s a NEW website highlighting Governor Romney’s successful achievements in the private sector. When you stop by, you’ll hear from folks who worked at businesses benefitting from Romney’s work. Romney for President says, to date, the campaign has released 17 different videos documenting The Gov’s private-sector experience. The videos have been viewed over 125,000 times.

Here’s one of the new vidoes: ‘Uniquely Qualified’

Learn more about Romney’s record of building, fixing, and growing business; see the other three new videos here.

If you missed it, Romney delivered a fantastic economic speech today in Ames, Iowa. Watch it here!

★ While Romney was standing with a stalwart crowd of patriotic Americans in blustery, chilly Iowa today, speaking on matters of great importance, and while further incriminating news about Benghazi was breaking, President Obama put on his suit to rock with MTV host Sway Calloway. No calling in (like he does for those pesky security council meetings); MTV deserved his presence! Listen to this hard-hitting question and how Obama rambles trying to give a presidential answer:

Get More:
Music News


Now, contrast that with Romney’s speech today. Here’s a helpful transcript:

Obama’s Credibility is Severely Degraded by Battleships and Benghazi

Mr. Obama’s condescending comments in the debate last Monday evoked embarrassment for him as his stature seemed to diminish right in front of my eyes. As if this much younger man with virtually no leadership experience 44 months ago feels so elevated as to lecture a proven, seasoned leader such as Mitt Romney. Mr. Obama’s hubris knows no bounds. The nature of narcissism is such that humility is rarely felt by a man that places high value in the power he thinks he possesses.

The WSJ editorial board published a short column titled, A Game of Battleship? Mr. Obama’s supreme confidence in slamming Governor Romney on the size of the Navy serves to only compound a growing sense among Americans that Obama’s credibility is eroding.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities.

That was President Obama at Monday night’s debate, rebuking Mitt Romney for noting that the U.S.Navy is the smallest it’s been in nearly a century and may soon get smaller. It would be nice to think the President has been up late reading Alfred Thayer Mahan. To judge by the rest of his remarks on the subject, he hasn’t.

F/A-18C Hornet on Aircraft Carrer Deck (photo source: www.Navy.com)

We mean Mr. Obama’s well-rehearsed jibe that “we also have fewer horses and bayonets” than we did during World War I. This was followed by the observation that “we have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Yes, Mr. President. And we have fewer of all of those things, too.

Many historians believe that President Reagan defeated the mighty Soviet empire economically; that by building a strong national defense, the Soviet Union was constantly keeping up until it effectively went broke.

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the Navy counted 529 ships in the fleet, including 15 aircraft carriers and 121 nuclear submarines. In 2001 the Navy was down to 316 ships, with 12 carriers and 73 subs. In 2011 the numbers were 285, 11 and 71, respectively. On current trajectory, Mr. Romney said, “we’re headed down to the low 200s,” a figure Mr. Obama did not dispute.

The USS Wilbur, a guided missile destroyer with Mt. Fuji in background (photo source; www.Navy.com)

The President is right that the ships the U.S. puts to sea today are, for the most part, much more capable than they were 20 or 30 years ago. But that’s true only up to a point. Aegis cruisers and destroyers responsible for defending their immediate battle space are now taking on the additional role of providing ballistic missile defense. The tasks multiply, but the ships aren’t getting any additional missile tubes.
[...]
Concerns about ship numbers may seem passé. They also seemed passé to many in the late 19th century, which is exactly why Mahan wrote “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History.” If we’ve again become cavalier about maintaining the freedom of the seas, it’s because a powerful U.S. Navy has accustomed us to indifference. Weaken the Navy further, and that’s a luxury we’ll lose.

Ultimately, it is the credibility of the POTUS that allows him to retain authority through reelection. One definition of credibility is “worthy of trust.” The complete erosion of trust was so complete with Presidents Johnson and Carter they lost a second chance to serve (President George H.W. Bush lost mainly because his vote was bifurcated with Ross Perot). It has become most apparent to me and many other Americans that President Obama is no longer worthy of our trust. Daniel Henninger’s weekly column in the WSJ is excellent on this subject: Suddenly, a Credibility Gap:

There have been only two events that could be said to have caused significant movement by voters in the campaign. One was the Oct. 3 Denver debate in which Mitt Romney disinterred political skills that stunned the incumbent and woke up a sleeping electorate. Race on.

The other is Benghazi. The damage done to the Obama campaign by the Sept. 11 death in Benghazi of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American colleagues has been more gradual than the sensation of the Denver debate, but its effect may have been deeper.

The incumbent president has a credibility gap.

The phenomenon of a credibility gap dates to the Vietnam War and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. The charge then was that LBJ wasn’t leveling with the American people or Congress about Vietnam. The credibility gap was hardly the only thing that caused LBJ to withdraw from the 1968 election, but it eroded support for his presidency.

Vehicle inside the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11 (photo credit: AFP/Getty Images

Credibility gaps can be unfair things. They generally involve difficult foreign affairs in which presidents possess information and realities never revealed to the general public, presumably for its own good. That may be what this White House believes about Benghazi. But it is also true that only this White House knows why it allowed the Benghazi disaster to drip though the news from September into October, with no credible account of the attack, even as reporters for newspapers such as this one got the story out.

In time it was no surprise that people began to ask: Was the White House hiding something about an event of enormous gravity to protect the president’s candidacy? For much of the American electorate, that would be cause to start marking down a presidency.
[...]
Even by the standards of our celebrified culture, Barack Obama’s personalization of the American presidency has been outsized. He and his political team sought this aura. Hillary and the rest of the cabinet receded, while he rose. In Monday’s debate, Mr. Obama stumbled into a summation of his status: “This nation, me, my administration.” L’etat, c’est me.

Until now, it worked. Despite an awful economy, the president’s likability numbers held firm. Many wanted to believe in this larger-than-life president. His clumsy handling of Benghazi, however, has opened a gap in the president’s credibility…
[...]
It may be that voters think both candidates have stretched the truth, but credibility is the coin of a presidency. The political cost of devaluing that coin is higher for an incumbent seeking a second term and higher still for this one. Two weeks from Election Day, Barack Obama has been shown in Benghazi to be a president with feet of clay. It may well take him down.

Contrast Mr. Obama’s loss of trust or credibility with the following statement made by Governor Romney in Colorado this week when he walked out to speak at a much larger audience than he had expected; as reported in The Ulsterman Report:

“Lord, if this is your will, please help to make me worthy. Please give me the strength Lord.”


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Newspaper Endorsements Pour In for Romney/Ryan: NH, MA, WV, TX, MI, VA, NY, D.C.

Photo – Al Behrman / AP

Like a waterfall, newspaper editorial board endorsements for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan continue to pour in…

Foster’s Daily Democrat (NH)
Editorial
October 24, 2012

http://goo.gl/9AhMb

It’s Now Time To Decide

If you had already made up your mind going into Monday night’s presidential debate, nothing said probably changed your mind. But for those who were undecided, there certainly was some food for thought.

But what was lacking on the part of the president was a vision for the future and credibility based on the past. The current commander in chief repeatedly accused Romney of reaching back into history for failed policies of the past both home and abroad. The president summoned images of President Herbert Hoover and others which history has deemed failures. In doing so, Obama tried to gloss over his own history of failed promises — on unemployment, on balancing the budget, cutting the deficit and — as we believe — earning the respect of our overseas allies.

Admittedly, Obama’s failures center mostly around domestic policy — Romney’s strength. But as Romney pointed out Monday night, in order to be strong and respected on the international stage, the United States must be strong economically.

As readers know, there is no doubt on the part of the editorial board here at Foster’s Daily Democrat new leadership is needed from the White House. We believe all three debates — but especially the first — support that notion. We believe that, on balance, the debates have shown Mitt Romney to be the more capable and with a vision for the future — a vision President Obama has failed to offer.

On Nov. 6, we urge voters to give Mitt Romney a chance to offer the nation real hope and change.



Boston Herald
Editorial Staff
October 23, 2012

http://www.bostonherald.com

Romney’s The One

Four years ago the voters put their faith in a man who offered vague promises of hope and change at a time when any change looked like a good idea and hope was in short supply.

What this nation got in Barack Obama was a president who used an economic crisis to further his redistributionist agenda — and, not surprisingly, failed miserably at restoring American prosperity. Oh, he brought change all right — to a government-knows-best philosophy that has given us four years of high unemployment, higher gas prices, a $16 trillion deficit, and a job-killing regulatory environment.
..
Enough! This isn’t the kind of change anyone can believe in.

The other simple fact is that in Mitt Romney voters have not merely a safe and steady alternative but a proven leader and an extraordinarily skilled expert in the art of the economic turnaround.

He did that all over again for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

What Romney knows at the core of his being is that sometimes government must step aside and sometimes it must lead.

Last night the nation saw a man who in the area of foreign policy is prepared to lead, who knows that for the United States to remain safe it must reclaim its place on the world stage.

During the last four years the world has become a more dangerous place. We can’t afford four more years of a leadership vacuum.

Not when in Mitt Romney voters have the choice of a strong, smart hand on the helm, a decent, caring man, who lives his faith, who loves his country and would serve it well. For all of those reasons, the Boston Herald is pleased to endorse Mitt Romney for president.

So much more! Click here.

Debate In Boca Raton: Obama’s Stink Eye, Romney Boosts Presidential Stature

Obama tried to appear intimidating throughout the evening… The President also clenched his jaw plenty of times through the third and final presidential debate with Governor Mitt Romney at Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL. Oct 23, 2012 (photographer unknown)

It’s all about swing states and undecided voters…

After last night’s debate in Boca Raton, one of the much-talked-of “undecideds” DECIDED. She (yes, one of the prized female voters) appeared on FOX News this morning to explain.

What swayed her is key.

Identified as ‘Wendy’, she felt that, even though last night’s debate was about foreign policy, it all kept coming back to the economy. She was impressed with Mitt Romney’s economic expertise and got the salient point he made that a strong national defense depends on a strong military and a strong military depends on a strong economy. When asked about Obama’s performance and especially his meant-to-insult ‘horses, bayonets, aircraft carriers’ comment she replied, “Honestly, he came off like a bully.” Wendy concluded that Obama’s tone was degrading and for her, personally, she did not like it.

Condescension and ridicule is not appealing, especially to many women, and especially when the one doing the condescending and ridiculing has such a failed record. Obama has become the politician he excoriated when he first ran for president.

Obama’s locked-on, aggressive, theatrical glare toward Romney throughout the debate revealed a peevish, insecure president. Instead of making himself look like the Commander-in-Chief, he reduced himself to Commander-of-Stink Eye.


What are others saying about the debate?

They’re saying if one wasn’t aware of American politics and had just tuned in, they would have thought Romney was the President and Obama was the wanna-be challenger. Romney also handily dismissed Obama’s false meme that he’s a warmonger. He’s NOT SCARY.

They’re also saying: Romney “LOOKED AND SOUNDED PRESIDENTIAL.”

“Romney Did What He Needed To Do” … “He Gets The Win” … “Looked Cooler Than A Sometimes Peevish Mr. Obama”

Romney Press:

The Wall Street Journal: Mitt Romney “Wasn’t Rattled, And If Anything Looked Cooler Than A Sometimes Peevish Mr. Obama.” “Mr. Romney was clearly keeping his eye on his main challenge of the evening, which was looking Presidential on issues that offer an incumbent a natural advantage. He passed that test with ease, making no major mistakes while offering impressive detail on everything from the radical government in Mali—make that ‘north Mali’—to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. He wasn’t rattled, and if anything looked cooler than a sometimes peevish Mr. Obama.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/23/12)

New York Post: “Romney More Than Held His Own, Proving Himself A More-Than-Credible Potential Commander-In-Chief. … He Gets The Win.” “President Obama went on the attack against Mitt Romney again last night in their final debate — a tactic usually reserved for the challenger. The president, no doubt, felt the need — given Romney’s recent surge in the polls and Obama’s disappointing record on foreign-policy issues, the topic of the debate. But Romney more than held his own, proving himself a more-than-credible potential commander-in-chief. By that alone, he gets the win.” (New York Post, 10/23/12)

ABC News’ Rick Klein: “In A Debate About Who Should Be Commander-In-Chief, Mitt Romney Was Just As Much In Command As The Man In The Job Now.” (ABC News, 10/23/12)

Time’s Mark Halperin: Romney “Completed The Trifecta Of Appearing As The President’s Semiotic Equal In Every Debate.” (Time, 10/22/12)

The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens: “Mitt Romney Emerges Looking Like A Perfectly Plausible President…” “[Romney’s] most effective turns in the debate came when he brought it all back to the economy. He seemed reasonable and tempered and pragmatic and unruffled and therefore presidential. … But Mitt Romney emerges looking like a perfectly plausible president—which was no doubt all he wanted from tonight.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/23/12)

Governor Mitt Romney shakes hands with Barack Obama after the debate at the Keith C. and Elaine Johnson Wold Performing Arts center at Lynn University on October 22, 2012 in Boca Raton, Florida. Click on image to enlarge. (Photo – Getty Images)

Politico’s Alexander Burns: Romney Had “A Cooler Approach To The Debate That Reflected His Enhanced Stature…” “Romney, for his part, took a cooler approach to the debate that reflected his enhanced stature in a race that has tightened since the first debate in Denver at the start of October.” (Politico, 10/22/12)

CNN’s John King: “After Three Debates, The Trend Line Is Moving Governor Romney’s Way.” “After three debates, the trend line is moving Governor Romney’s way. In all nine tossup states, Governor Romney was in a stronger position this morning than he was the day before the first debate” (CNN, 10/22/12)

Politico’s Glenn Thrush: Romney “Showed An Easy Mastery Of The Details That Has Sometimes Bedeviled Lesser Candidates.” “Rules or no, Romney was at his most effective when calmly articulating his economic case and calling out the president for failing to articulate a detailed vision for his second term. … Romney didn’t embarrass himself on the issues, and showed an easy mastery of the details that has sometimes bedeviled lesser candidates.” (Politico,Politico 10/23/12)

New York Daily News’ Joshua Greenman: “But For The Purposes Of Fast-Approaching Nov. 6, What Happened Was: Romney Did What He Needed To Do.” (New York Daily News, 10/23/12)

Politico’s John Harris: Obama Had “A Nitpicking, Overly Aggressive Strategy … Diminishing The President’s Greatest Asset Which Is The Fact He Is Already Commander In Chief.” HARRIS: “I felt that in a number of times when the president was making his point so aggressively. What was communicated in those exchanges was not strength and confidence but what was communicated was a kind of, sort of a nitpicking, overly aggressive strategy which had the effect of diminishing the president’s greatest asset which is the fact he is already commander in chief.” (C-SPAN, 10/22/12)

Commentary Magazine’s Jonathan Tobin: “Obama Wasn’t Able To Throw Romney Off His Game Or Embarrass Him … It Was Romney That Looked And Sounded Presidential…” “Despite interruptions and attempts to turn even the points they agreed upon into disagreements, Obama wasn’t able to throw Romney off his game or embarrass him. By contrast, it was Romney that looked and sounded presidential, avoiding issues that work to the Democrats’ advantage like Afghanistan and refusing to be ruffled.” (Commentary Magazine, 10/23/12)

Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “Mitt Romney’s Aim Was To Present Himself With The Demeanor And Grasp Of Foreign And National Security Issues Of A President Of The United States. He Succeeded.” (Weekly Standard, 10/23/12)

UPDATES:

Weekly Standard’s William Kristol: “Tonight, Romney Seems As Fully Capable As—Probably More Capable Than—Barack Obama Of Being The Next President. He Probably Will Be.” (Weekly Standard, 10/22/12)

NBC News’ Chuck Todd: “POTUS Is Consistently Trying To Draw Romney Into A More Contentious Debate. It’s What Challengers Do Who Think They Are Behind.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

CNN’s Sam Feist: “Men In The CNN Focus Group Loved Romney’s Answer On Education.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

Politico’s Dylan Byers: “Romney Looks Presidential. Period. & That Is What He Needs From These Three Debates.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

The Wall Street Journal’s Patrick O’Connor: “Romney Is Presenting Himself As The Sober Future President, While Obama Is Attacking The Republican Nominee Like A Man Sliding In The Polls.” “Well, the distinctions seem fairly clear at this point: Romney is presenting himself as the sober future president, while Obama is attacking the Republican nominee like a man sliding in the polls.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/22/12)

Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “I Would Have Thought The Guy That Had Turned Out To Be Mitt Romney Was The President…” WALLACE: “Yeah, let me first give you my general opinion. And that was, I thought in the middle of the debate that if I had been on the desert island for the last four years and I had just been parachuted into this debate, I would have thought the guy that had turned out to be Mitt Romney was the president protecting a lead and that Barack Obama was the challenger trying, somewhat desperately to catch up.” (Fox News, 10/22/12)

CNN’s David Gergen: “I Think Mitt Romney Did Something Extremely Important To His Campaign Tonight: He Passed The Commander-In-Chief Test.” (CNN, 10/22/12)

If you missed the debate last night, here it is:

Debate transcript may be found here.

See great PHOTOS here.

Obama Foreign Policy: Seriously Sub-Optimal

Pictures of Barack Obama bowing courtesy of today’s Drudge Report.

Overview.

I’m not going to hammer on the president for his choice of words on Jon Stewart. I’m not a fan of the Dems’ insulting attempts at faux outrage over things like “binders” so I’ll not do anything but quote our president. But we can safely say, as President Obama did, when Americans die our president’s foreign policy is obviously “not optimal.” And when you look back at the past four years, really, we can’t say what’s happened are mere “bumps in the road,” either, but the result of having chosen the wrong road altogether. Today in the New York Post Amir Taheri put it more succinctly: the president’s foreign policy has “failed.”

So before tonight’s debate about foreign policy, let’s remind ourselves just how sub-optimal this president’s foreign policy has been, and how bumpy the road was. People may criticize Mitt for not having foreign policy experience, but Obama only has four more years than Mitt has, having had none when he started on the job training. The question is whether Barack Obama learned anything during that time, and perhaps the biggest indictment contained in the mess in Libya is that his record indicates he hasn’t learned what he needs to, and is willing to close his eyes to the obvious in favor of a narrative that supports, if tenuously, his world view. Meanwhile I’m sure someone else with a different philosophy, like peace through American strength, would do a lot better.

His One Argument: bin Laden

Let’s start by giving the president partial credit for his one “achievement.” In a true team effort, American intelligence, after years of searching that culminated during the Obama administration, was able to find Osama bin Laden. The president then sent a team of experts into Pakistan to kill him. Still, a number of things still trouble me about this “success.”

First, the president’s beaming over the mission and “spiking the football.” While it’s a comforting thought bin Laden is no longer a threat, call me old fashioned but it does not seem appropriate to throw a party when anyone is killed, even if a confessed terrorist and murderer. The appropriate attitude seems to be one of quiet gratitude, and confidence we were able to accomplish what we needed to protect American citizens from harm. But not elation.

Second, the president’s taking personal credit for the achievement. What happened was a success due to years of work starting in the Bush administration and involving hundreds if not thousands of people from intelligence gatherers to planners of the raid to those who actually executed it. Let’s not forget the president watched it on TV, and was not on the ground personally in Pakistan. He deserves credit as the person at the head of the team, but to the extent he deserves that credit, he deserves as much blame for what went wrong in Libya. And gracious leaders give credit where due. I agree he should be congratulated for making the decision to move forward. He took a risk and it paid off. But I disagree with President Clinton’s assessment that this decision took any special fortitude. I believe Mitt’s right that any president would have made the same decision. So Obama’s credit is for being in the seat at the head of table when the team succeeded, and for calling for the two-point conversion to win the game. He succeeded, and gets the credit for that strategic decision. But it was the team on the field, not him that deserves any glory, and an end-zone dance seems particularly inappropriate.

Third, in his desire to take personal credit, the president shared sensitive intelligence information. He volunteered the identity of the team that carried it out, putting them and their families in danger. And this was one of many leaks, coming per Dianne Feinstein directly out of the White House, of sensitive US information. The president seems willing to compromise security when it suits his political purposes, which I find difficult to condone.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of this one mission does not mean Al Qaeda is really “on the run,” as has been claimed by the Dems. They’re still in Afghanistan and now are in Libya. And whatever the president’s policy in this regard, despite bin Laden’s removal, the date of Al Qaeda’s last successful terrorist attack is no longer 9/11/01. It’s 9/11/12.

Now, to more problematic issues: world hot spots

1. Libya. Four Americans are killed in Libya despite pleas for additional security. Reports out of the State Department, the intelligence community and the White House contradict who knew what when. Immediately after the attack the president made a generically deniable statement about not letting terrorism deter us, but spent the next two weeks allowing the American people to believe it’s somehow the fault of our freedom of speech and an obscure YouTube video, using rhetoric that could suggest we somehow deserve what happened. Why? Again President Obama and the Democrats insisted on “spiking the football” over Osama bin Laden’s death at their convention, such that it’s an inconvenient truth that Al Qaeda is not really “on the run,” especially in Libya where the president is trying to take credit for “leading from behind.” Contrary to his assertions, Libya is not a model for American foreign policy success as it is now the site of the first assassination of an ambassador in 30 years.

Judge Jeanine of Fox lets it out here:

(more…)

Page 1 of 17123456Last »