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…)

No More ‘Summers of Recovery’ for Obama… His Plan? “Buy Thingamajigs”

Whacked with yesterday’s woeful jobs report, President Obama traveled to Minnesota to jazz up voters and remind America of his current economic stimulus strategy. He pushed his going-nowhere-in-congress mortgage refinance redistributionist strategy. You know, the one he hyped in his last State of the Union address.

Well, yesterday Obama upped the ante.

To prove he’s a real solutions guy – someone who really thinks out of the box – he went a step further by proposing a groundbreaking new idea…

“Buy furnace thingamajigs.”

“I assume there are some folks here who could use $3,000 a year,” Obama said. “Let’s get that done right now. That means they’re — you know, if you got $3,000 a year extra, that helps you pay down your credit cards. That helps you go out and buy some things that your family needs. Which is good for business. Maybe somebody will be replacing some thingamajig for their furnace. They’ve been putting that off. but they got that extra money, they might just go out there and buy that thing.” ~ Barack Obama, June 1, 2012

Oh, yeah. That’s the solution. Let’s get that done right now.

Reminds me of another one of Obama’s brilliant ideas.

In the summer of 2008, while running for president, Obama revealed his energy plan for America. A plan where “we could save ALL the oil they’re talking about getting off drilling”:

“Inflate your tires.”

Looks like this isn’t going to be another one of Obama/Biden’s “summers of recovery.”

It’s going to be the whizbang summer of distraction with doohickeys, whatchamacallits, whoseamajiggers, and thingamabobs.

Our Gizmo-getter-in-Chief has got to go.





Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer.

Why Mitt Is Still the One

I can admit it: last week was tough. But the CPAC speech, the straw poll and Maine’s results over the weekend confirmed that Mitt is still the front-runner, and for good reason. I seriously can’t imagine Rick Santorum as POTUS. But I can imagine this guy:

And now I think it’s time for us to remember why we’re supporting Mitt, who I can easily imagine as president, and do what we can to convince our fellow Republicans.

Mitt’s speech at CPAC was a home run.

Not much still gives me goosebumps, but Mitt’s speech did (click on the link for the video). He was right on point, and we need him in the White House. No more Clinton-esque surprises with interns. No more Obama-esque surprises trampling religious liberties (and if you think contraception is the last of the controversies with Obamacare you need to think again). It’s all the more clear we need to elect someone with the leadership and vision to keep this country rooted in what made it strong: individual liberty, not government assistance. And that person, unlike our current president and all of the other candidates, needs to have the sheer ability to run the executive branch. Rick Santorum? Hardly. He hasn’t even run a national campaign and is just the latest flavor of the month, who is just now being vetted. The person we need is Mitt Romney.

(more…)

February 7th Caucuses and Primary LIVE CHAT and Results

[Chat has moved back to the side bar ---->]

UPDATE 1: The polls have closed in Missouri and the race hasn’t been called for Santorum yet which means either it’s unexpectedly close or there were no exit/entrance polls.

UPDATE 2: Rick Santorum wins Missouri, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens in Missouri during their caucus that actually matters on March 17th.

UPDATE 3: Looks like Mitt couldn’t win Minnesota with 0 effort… Campaign seems to have given it and Missouri to Santorum perhaps in hopes of getting Newt out of the race?

UPDATE 4: Secret Service saves Mitt from a glitter-bombing

UPDATE 5: Colorado goes for Santorum as well. Looks like the delegate count didn’t change much though.

Romney Dominates Nevada Caucus; Entrance Polls Tidbits

Well, the final results aren’t final yet . . . but it’s clear that Romney won this important swing state’s caucus, and won it big. (Update . . . Romney did get just over 50%, but the entrance poll results have just been revised this morning, so much of what you see quoted below is somewhat off from what the linked poll says NOW. Sorry, I’m not going back and re-calculating things at this point).

He’s got 43% of the vote with 43% of precincts reporting, but the results of Clark County (Las Vegas) as not coming in as fast as expected. Don’t fret though Romney fans, Mitt will win a majority of the votes and I’m guessing he’ll be somewhere between 52-55% of the total vote when all is said and done. If things track as closely as they are in the entrance polls, Clark County should go for Mitt by over 60% (and they’ve nailed the non-Clark County…rest of NV…percentage at 43%, exactly how the real results have turned out)

Debunking the “Romney won Nevada because of the Mormon factor” myth:

Yes, Mitt dominated among LDS voters with 90% choosing Romney, BUT (and it’s a very big “but”), EVEN IF NOT A SINGLE MORMON WENT TO VOTE, ROMNEY WOULD HAVE WON THE STATE WITH A 42%-26% margin over Gingrich.  Romney won Catholics 52%-19% over Newt and “White Evangelical/Born Again” by a solid margin of 46%-26% over the former Speaker.

Debunking the “See, the poor won’t vote for Romney” myth:

On CNN’s coverage tonight, the anchors/pundits seemed to be getting as much mileage as possible out of the fact that the only economic demographic that Romney did NOT win was those that make $30,000 or less (which were only 10% of the voters in NV last night).  They were trying to tie this to Romney’s “I’m not concerned about the very poor” comment and even went on to conclude that this “underscores the fact that blue-collar workers, who you can’t win without their support, do not see that this is a guy that will fight for them.”  SERIOUSLY?!?!?  I realize that these pundits aren’t statisticians, but it’s pretty straightforward to figure out why he didn’t win this demographic.  First off, he hardly “lost” this demographic.  Paul and Newt both got 31%, and Mitt got 30%, a virtual 3 way tie for first.  Secondly, the age of the voter is VERY determinative of income when looking at your youngest age group especially.  Voters aged 18-29 were only 8% of the vote (quite similar to the 10% in that income of $30K or less), and Paul won that group 40% to 39% over Romney.  Paul has been wining the young college-aged voters in almost every state . . . it’s his base and he’s definitely turning out this group of folks that do not typically vote in a GOP primary.  Good for Paul. But these college kids are a HUGE portion of the “makes less than $30,000 year” group, and I don’t think anyone would consider college kids “the very poor,” they are just in a temporary low-income stage of their lives.

“Strong Moral Character;” Mitt good, Newt Very Very Bad:

In perhaps the most revealing entrance poll finding, those that felt a candidate having “Strong Moral Character” was their number one trait they sought in a President, Mitt got 54% of the vote … Newt got 1% of those voters.  No, that is not a typo, ONE PERCENT (Paul got 32% and Santorum got 13%).  Looks like Nevada voters are pretty good judges of character, eh?  THIS IS WHY YOU’RE LOSING NEWT!! YOU BLAME MITT FOR YOUR LAGGING VOTE TALLIES, BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR BUDDY!

Debunking the “Strong Conservatives and Tea Party voters don’t like Romney” myth:

Like New Hampshire and Florida, Romney, once again, won self-identified conservatives and supporters of the Tea Party in Nevada.  This time though, he won A MAJORITY of these groups.  Romney beat Newt 54%-21% among conservative voters and 50%-23% among Tea Party supporters.  Yet I still see pundit after pundit say that Romney still has a lot of work to do to appeal to conservatives (while they “obviously” love Newt).  CAN THEY NOT READ A POLL?!?  Among “very conservative” voters he Mitt still won 49%-24% over Newt, and even beat him 39%-30% among those “strongly supportive of Tea Party.”  Some narratives are hard to kill, but when a state in the Northeast (NH), Southeast (FL), and West (NV) all show Romney winning conservatives and Tea Party supporters I think it’s proof positive against that media meme. The real take-away/new-media-narrative should be that Newt has work to do to appeal to as many conservatives as Romney has been.

Odds and Ends:

The Economy was the number one (even by a majority) issue on voters minds, and Romney carried these voters by 62%.  By an even larger margin, the candidate quality of “Can Defeat Obama” was number one, and Romney absolutely dominated here with 73% of the vote.  WOW!  ”Right Experience” was the top quality to only 15% of voters, but Romney cleaned up here too with 55% (Rick Santorum pulled in a whopping 1% here).   Romney also continues to dominate the Suburbs winning with 69% there; historically this is a key demographic for winning a general election.

Turnout Issue:

Newt and some liberals keeps saying that Mitt’s trying to suppress turnout in order to win.  When we look at the field compared to 2008, however, I don’t think it’s any surprise that turnout is lower.  Last time around there was much more diversity, and much more famous personalities in the field.  You had a Pro-Choice candidate with strong personal appeal/popularity in Rudy Giuliani, War Hero John McCain, popular actor Fred Thompson, and folksy former pastor Mike Huckabee in addition to Mitt and Paul all in the race this far into the process.  Substituting character-challenged Gingrich and personality/experience-challenged Rick Santorum in place of Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee is beyond even comparing apples and oranges. They all had more money and organization that either Newt or Rick too and that is how turnout is driven. Like all of Newt’s complaints/excuses, this one rings hollow as well.

CONGRATS MITT AND NEVADA!! ANOTHER GREAT WIN FOR ROMNEY!!

Mitt Romney doesn’t care about poor people? WRONG!

In the 24 hour news cycle, the story of the day has been Mitt’s comments to CNN in the early morning after his Florida win. While I think even the most ardent Romney fan would admit that this could and should have (and will be) phrased more adeptly, the liberals have taken and run with the partial quote that he’s “not concerned with the very poor” … It looks worse in print that in the context of the interview:

Mitt cares deeply about the poor, and his actions speak louder than words. How many “journalists” have bothered to mention that Mitt has given over $7,000,000 (SEVEN FREAKING MILLION!) to charitable organizations in just the last two years? Records from before then show the Romney’s consistent giving millions upon millions to organizations that care for the poor. By contrast, Joe Biden gave only $3690 to charity in an entire decade … that’s PROOF of someone that doesn’t care about the poor. From 2001-4, the Obamas made nearly a million dollars, but donated LESS THAN 1% of that income to charity.

Or what about when Mitt gave cash out of his pocket to the lady in South Carolina who said God guided her to follow Romney’s campaign bus to find help to keep her lights on? The EXACT SAME CNN REPORTER (Soledad) even reported about that a couple of weeks ago … does she have no memory?

Mitt doesn’t care about poor people? Demonstrably false and easy to debunk (and this is without even delving into fact that Mitt, as a Mormon Bishop for several years, dedicated much of his time to caring for the poor in a very “hands on” fashion). If Obama and team push this theme it will come back to bite them. Mitt’s done more to care for the poor than any snarky reporter or any of his political rivals.

Recall Vic’s post from a couple days back that highlighted Romney’s life of service and included the following YouTube:

Additionally, Brit Hume on Fox News today adroitly argued that anyone who wants to “make hay” or be offended by this out-of-context quote wouldn’t be voting for a GOP candidate anyways. I’d have to agree.

Romney Names Sen. Norm Coleman as Special Adviser on Policy

Fmr Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman


Former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, a prominent figure in the Republican Jewish community, will serve as Mitt Romney’s Special Adviser on Policy:

“I am happy to announce Senator Coleman as an adviser to my campaign,” said Mitt Romney. “His advice will be critical as I lay out my vision for improving our economy at home and strengthening our partnerships around the world.”

“The United States is facing an important moment in our nation’s history,” said Senator Coleman. “Whether it is turning around our struggling economy or maintaining our relationships with international allies, the next President must have the experience and leadership to keep America strong at home and abroad. Electing someone who has not been tested by the fire of experience results in failure. The last three years have proven that. Throughout his life, Mitt Romney has displayed the leadership that will be needed to get our economy back on track and to preserve, and in some cases mend, our relationships with allies around the world. As a strong supporter of Israel, I am also confident that he is the best candidate to restore America’s relationship with Israel.”

Background On Senator Norm Coleman:

Senator Coleman Served In The Senate From 2003 To 2009. He was a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, and Ranking Member of the Near East Subcommittee. As Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Coleman led a major investigation of the United Nations Oil for Food scandal. Senator Coleman was the Mayor of St. Paul from 1993 to 1998. Prior to his election, Senator Coleman served as a Chief Prosecutor in the Minnesota Attorney General’s office and as the Minnesota Solicitor General. Currently, Coleman is the Chairman of the American Action Network, a Senior Governmental Advisor at Hogan Lovells, and a member of the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

(emphasis, italics added)

This is wonderful news. Welcome aboard, Senator Coleman!

► Jayde Wyatt

New Poll: Romney Trounces Huntsman in Utah

KSL-Deseret News PollI wouldn’t normally consider a huge Romney lead in Utah anything but expected; after all, the former SLC Olympics CEO carried the state with a whopping 89% to John McCain’s 5% in 2008′s primary. This poll, however, is different than most others because it includes former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. as a potential presidential contender. Huntsman is a household name in Utah, and to see such a poor showing come from the people that know him best is rather telling.

This isn’t the first time Romney has competed well against rival Governors in their own states. These might ring a bell:

  • Romney Beats Palin in Her Own Alaska, Wallops Pawlenty in His Native Minnesota
  • Poll: Romney Edges Christie in New Jersey


  • Exit question: In a GOP primary, would Romney ever be so vulnerable in his native Michigan? …What about in Massachusetts (where he governed)?