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…)

Final Call For Prayer: Election Day

Many Americans will be headed to some form of worship service in this final weekend before the election. In the United States, the freedom to worship is a fundamental right, enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution. Obviously not all of us agree on who should win on Tuesday. But, as we head to church, synagogue, temple or mosque, and as we reflect on the historical importance of what’s happening in our country next week, we here at MittRomneyCentral invite you to make the outcome of the election the subject of prayer and, if it’s part of your religious tradition, fasting.

With Article VI blog and Evangelicals for Mitt, we’ve asked before for your prayerful support of Governor and Mrs. Romney. Those past calls for prayer were made on behalf of Evangelicals, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Presbyterians and members of many other religions. Today the call for prayer comes from a friend of MittRomneyCentral who is a devout Catholic, Art Grant (who, notably, has a member of his faith on both major tickets).

Our past calls for prayer were on the eve of the convention and the debates. At those times we took pains to make clear we were not praying for a victory, but that Mitt and Ann be favored as they carried incredible burdens. We called for prayers that they be able to communicate effectively and with extraordinary capacity. We called for prayers that the American people would be open to their message and have clear minds to make an informed decision when election day came. We believe those prayers were answered. Ann shone in her convention speech and Mitt’s debate performances were spectacular. Days of obfuscation on the part of Mitt’s opponents followed, but in those moments, Americans saw who Mitt Romney is, and what Mitt and Ann Romney stand for.

Today Art goes beyond what we’ve asked before and asks that we pray that Mitt win. With election day upon us, the time for the American people to decide is now, and we join with him. The authors of this website believe it is appropriate to work toward, and even pray for, causes we feel are worthy. Not all agree. While we will strenuously defend the rights of all people, even those who disagree with us, to do vote their conscience and solicit the help of the deity they choose, we obviously believe it would be best for Mitt to emerge victor on Tuesday, and that the country will be better off under his leadership, and so we claim this privilege for ourselves as well. If you don’t agree, everyone can join us in praying that Americans making up their minds will be influenced by the truth of the arguments made and not be swayed by falsehoods; that voters will be inspired; that voters will feel the weight of their responsibility and seek to understand the issues at stake; and that people will understand both major candidates, what they stand for, and where they would lead this country. And if you agree with us Mitt Romney is the right choice, we invite you to exercise your First Amendment rights and fast and pray for him, that God attend his and our efforts, and that, in the best interest of the country, he be elected as the 45th President of the United States this coming Tuesday.

From Art Grant:

If ever there was a time for prayer it is now. No matter your faith, the future of this great nation is at stake and it is time to take a collective moment, close our eyes, get down on our knees, and pray to God that Governor Romney wins this election on Tuesday. This is a call to every citizen who has even a glimmer of understanding of what this unprecedented, unique idea of a country called America is all about, who understands the founding principles that have guided us to this point in our history. For in our own Pledge of Allegiance we proclaim:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

A belief in God has been a part of this country since the beginning, and people from all walks of life, all nations, and all faiths have proven through our relatively short history that if you have faith, work hard, and lead an honest life, you will have the opportunity to be a success in America. Governor Romney not only understands this, he has lived it himself! It is this OPPORTUNITY that is the most unique and precious thing about living in this country, and must be preserved. We succeed as a nation because we can succeed as individuals, as families, as communities, cities, and states. And so we pray, as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, that Governor Romney can prevail on Tuesday.

To Gary Johnson Voters, Ron Paul & Other ‘Write-In’ Voters: Supreme Court Consequences

A front view of the four story, marble-clad United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.
Click on photo to enlarge. (Photo – Mark Fischer)

To: Those intent on voting for Gary Johnson, Ron Paul supporters, and other ‘write-in’ voters…

Take a moment to read the following IMPORTANT article from Matthew D. Carling, Esq. He lays out the case for thoughtfully considering the repercussions of your voting choices. For years to come, America’s course will be determined through coming Supreme Court appointees.

Carling’s background:

Matthew D. Carling is an attorney specializing in appellate law in the states of Utah and Nevada. He has previously been a prosecutor for the District Attorney’s Office of Lincoln County, Nevada, has served as a defense attorney, and also as Judge Pro Tempore for the North Las Vegas Municipal Courts. He received both his Juris Doctor and Master’s of Business Administration from Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.

(Carling has given permission to reprint his article in full.)

The Purist Vote: How Obama’s Foes Might Extend His Legacy for Decades
November 1, 2012
By Matthew D. Carling, Esq.

(or) The Purist Vote: American Conservatives Playing Russian Roulette

Every four years, American voters eagerly line up to choose their favorite candidate for President. We brim with hope for a leader who sees the world like we do—someone a lot like us. But once our ideal contender is eliminated from the field, disappointment often turns to disgust. Voters by the thousands remove themselves from the political battlefield and refuse to participate further. It’s either my nominee or nothing.

Consoled in the belief that one vote won’t matter, the disenfranchised gently beguile themselves into apathy. Surely four more years of any single administration cannot possibly unravel the rich heritage of our nation. Others withdraw out of a need to take a moral stand, indignant over the flaws they would otherwise feel they are endorsing with their vote. Some even choose strategic revenge, hoping to punish less-pure conservatives with four more years under a stanch liberal president — a small price to pay if the lesson finally awakens such “useful idiots” from their folly. After all, how much damage can one president leave that can’t be undone by his successor?

These might be valid points except for one detail. A president’s most lasting legacy is not usually the bills he signs into law, his executive orders or even the wars over which he presides. It is his unique role in shaping the entire third branch of government, the Supreme Court, which has power to overrule the others. Indeed, his nominations to the bench can alter our society for generations.

Consider George W. Bush. With the retirement of Justice O’Connor and the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Bush reshaped the Court with his nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both thoughtful and mostly conservative jurists. Whatever Bush’s faults, these two acts could benefit our nation immensely for generations to come. President Obama, on the other hand, countered by replacing two activist jurists (Souter & Stevens) with two more: Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor, each fully in step with the current Administration’s societal and political agenda. These appointments have not disappointed the progressive left.

How much does this matter? For most people it depends on the issue. Until recently, for millions of Americans in major cities across the nation, owning a handgun was severely restricted if not banned entirely. For decades, Second Amendment advocates had wistfully dreamed of the Supreme Court striking such laws, but were afraid to bring forth a case. What if they lost? Might the Court instead end up nullifying the Second Amendment? On June 28, 2010, with Bush’s appointees the Court finally acknowledged the original intent: that no government, whether federal, state or local, may deny a citizen the right to keep and bear arms.[i] The victory, however, was a narrow one—only 5 to 4. If one more left leaning justice had been appointed, it would have gone the other way. Dissenting, Justice Stevens argued that owning a personal firearm was not a “liberty” interest protected by the Constitution. Likewise, Justice Stephen Breyer stated, “the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.” With a single vote, this suppressive notion would have been the majority opinion.

In just the last decade, this same narrow margin has preserved school choice laws at the state level, but unfortunately tipped the other way and failed to roll back eminent domain abuse. The constitution’s safety in the court is fragile indeed.

Don’t stop now. Click here!

Obama II: My Halloween Nightmare

On Halloween night six days before we choose our next president, I must confess that I realized inside me there resides a real fear of what would happen if Obama won next Tuesday. In the spirit of Halloween I decided to give in to that fear, like going to a horror movie, and allow myself to be really, really frightened by the specter of an Obama re-election. So here’s my Halloween Nightmare: Obama II, the sequel.

Like in a horror movie, things may look fine on the surface, but then the ominous music starts playing and you know something’s just not right. This close to the election I feel like I’m watching the American public in the role of that poor teenager, innocently wandering in the dark alley by himself, not knowing the danger right around the corner. The entire audience knows it’s there, and it seems anyone with half a brain would know as well. Yet the teenager doesn’t see it. And so the drama builds…will the hapless teenager keep moving toward danger, or will he turn at the last moment? The suspense is killing me.

But unlike those horror movies, where the fear is contrived and you can calmly go home afterward, my fear is real. The threats to our economy and freedoms are real, and there may be no going home afterward. Obama II may be a nightmare we don’t wake up from. Why am I so worried? What is this ominous music I’m hearing? Tonight I give in to the fear and try and give it a voice. Tonight I try and give a name to what lurks in the dark corners of my mind:

Maybe I’m worried that the next four years will be like the last four. I sat and watched from my position as an attorney for startup companies and venture capitalists as the economy slowed, investment ran dry, and people just didn’t get jobs back, even after reports of an improving economy.

Maybe it’s the fact so many people gave up looking for work. They don’t count in that 7.8% unemployment number anymore but they’re still unemployed.

Maybe it’s the passage of Obamacare, with its thousands of pages, new taxes and failure to reduce costs. When it seemed our economy needed an energy boost, the president was sucking more blood from it.

Maybe it’s the statements I hear from founders of large and small companies that if Obama is re-elected they’ll move those companies, either out of my state or out of the country.

Maybe it’s my dismay at Obamacare’s constitutionally-questionable mandate that some employers do things against their conscience and pay for their employees’ contraception.

Maybe it’s the use of constitutionally-questionable executive orders to do an end-run around Congress on immigration law.

Maybe it’s President Obama’s convenient conversion on same sex marriage.

Maybe it’s my worry about the fiscal cliff, and that President Obama has shown no ability to work with Congress in the bipartisan manner we’ll need to avoid the real horror movie of that un-natural disaster.

Maybe I’m horrified by all those rounds of golf President Obama played. Not that I object to a guy taking a break, but when I saw what happened in the first debate, I saw a pattern. President Obama only shows up when it really suits him, like when his job’s on the line. Maybe I’m worried nothing will motivate him if he’s re-elected and has no accountability. And maybe I’m not only worried about what President Obama won’t do, but what he will do without accountability to the voters.

Maybe I’m worried with no attention being paid, and no real admission of culpability, there’ll be a Benghazi II. How do you avoid repeating a problem you don’t take responsibility for?

Maybe I’m worried about what Supreme Court justices a 2d term President Obama would appoint. Would they interpret the constitution as it was intended, or would they fall in line with the other liberal justices on the court to act like a new legislature rather than limiting Federal power.

I realize I’m letting things get away from me. Mitt’s still neck and neck with President Obama, and maybe we won’t be forced to live through Obama II. There’s a good chance, given the polling data, Mitt even wins in a landslide. But tonight, on Halloween, I’m letting myself be terrified. I’m just sick that this nightmare has any chance of really coming true.

Romney: More to Gain Than to Lose in Last Debate

Well, the final Presidential debate will be over in less than 24 hours.

I’m sensing a certain level of stress among some Romney supporters in the lead up to this debate. Sure, it’s human nature to feel anxious just before a big event … especially when we are so invested in Mitt’s success. But I’m not nervous one bit, and here’s why ….

Governor (soon to be “President Elect”) Romney has much more to gain than to lose in this debate. It’s Obama that has the tough job tonight. The non-incumbent challenger generally has a low-bar to clear in these debates. They only have to 1) show that they can credibly be Commander-in-Chief and 2) avoid major gaffes. Mitt has shown that he is more than capable of achieving this based on his first two debate showings.

Much of the “who won the debate?” game is about expectations. Obama was widely expected to be a superior debater/communicator, and it was a race-changing event when he lost the first debate so dramatically. This set up debate number two, where Obama had reset his bar down to the floor. As such, many observers felt that he “won” the second debate (by a much narrower margin than the 1st debate, and more on style than on actual issues according to polls). But the President’s “win” was really more of a “most improved” award … we’ve seen no bounce in the polls for him at all.

Conventional wisdom is that Obama is supposed to trounce Governor Romney tonight, since the topic is Foreign Policy. The problem for Obama, is that his supposed foreign policy superiority is already “baked into the cake” of his poll numbers/support. Obama’s problem arises from the fact that his foreign policy successes begin and end with “Bin Laden is dead.” Sure, that’s a HUGE point, but it’s sort of hard to talk about THAT for 90 minutes straight. And no voter is going to change his mind to vote for Obama on this issue. “Hey yeah, Obama got Bin Laden … I had forgotten that. I guess I’ll vote for him now.”

Even those formerly on Obama’s foreign policy team decidedly do NOT see this as a strength for him (be sure to read that scathing rebuke!).

The debate will give Mitt an opportunity to, once again, unexpectedly impress voters on the depth and breadth of his international experience and knowledge. The media have painted him as a lightweight on foreign policy, someone out of his depth. Mitt can and will highlight his substantial foreign exposure through his public, private, and religious experiences.

The wildcard issue for tonight is Banghazi … and not in a good way for Obama.


Despite the President’s higher foreign policy numbers in general, this recent Ohio poll (that was even a +8% Dem sample) showed Mitt UP 49%-47% on the question: “Do you trust Barack Obama or Mitt Romney more on the issue of Libya?” Mitt did miss an opportunity to fully expose Obama on Libya in debate #2. Don’t expect a replay of that tonight …

Mitt and Women’s Issues: Told in Part By Ann

The latest straw man to be set aflame by Democrats in the presidential election is Mitt Romney’s supposed lack of energy for womens’ issues. If anyone shows a lack of energy, showing up for only one of two debates, and frankly only about half the time generally, it’s President Obama. For Barack Obama to ask women rely on him to defend their interests in this election is laughable. So let’s clear the air right now: Mitt Romney stands strongly for equal pay for equal work and workplace opportunity.

Let’s hear first from the woman who knows him best, Ann Romney:

President Obama’s Grand Accomplishment Not That Impressive

In the debate the president’s great claim to advancing women’s’ issues was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which extends the time women can sue for discrimination well after they’ve left their job. While it has a marginal benefit to those women who find out much later they were discriminated against, it has some unintended side effects, such as increasing risk and insurance costs to businesses since they will be subject to suit, well-founded or frivolous, for a much longer period. It also reduces good businesses’ ability to fight frivolous lawsuits, since the relevant witnesses may also be long gone by the time an aggressive trial attorney decides to file suit. It can also result in punishing shareholders of companies who had nothing to do with past discrimination. It was, prior to the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and will remain, whether Mitt Romney or President Obama is elected, against the law to discriminate in pay and workplace advancement. The law President Obama claims as his grand achievement just made it easier to sue, in some ways benefiting the cause of trial lawyers as much as women. Let’s also note this act was signed by President Obama in 2009 and he’s done nothing else of note in the four years since.

Mitt’s Record vs. Democratic Rhetoric

Meanwhile Mitt Romney has a demonstrable record of fighting for women’s rights. When asked in the second debate about his stance on equal pay for equal work, Mitt pointed out he worked to make sure women were equally represented on his cabinet in Massachusetts. He was ranked number one in terms of having women represented in positions of authority. Still the Democrats seized, not upon the substance of his comment or performance, but on his chosen wording, and are trying their best to manufacture an issue out of it. He said he’d had his staff look for qualified women when the applicants came in predominantly male, and they came back, he said, with “binders full of women” qualified for the job. It’s easy enough to understand Mitt was referring to binders full of qualified women’s names and resumes, but that’s just not good enough for Democrats, who clearly aren’t looking out for women’s rights as much as to promote a stereotype of Mitt Romney unencumbered by facts. Kind of like the undeserved stereotypes women have been fighting for years. So I ask, who here is part of the problem versus part of the solution?

I admit my female radar is sometimes deficient, as my cells carry around just one X chromosome. So I realize there are some women’s issues I will not understand as well. I agreed when Ann Romney said in her convention speech that some things are harder on women in ways men do not understand, in particular Obama’s flailing economy that has disproportionately affected women. But I think that trying to turn Mitt’s words into an issue when his actions speak much, much more loudly, insults everyone’s intelligence, and this insult is aimed principally at women. Again my radar may be deficient, but even mine is on alert when hearing this Dem attack. I use as my backup my wife’s comment to me this morning that she couldn’t even stand to watch the news reports of people trying to attack Mitt in this way. Her radar was going off, but not for the reasons the Democrats thought. It’s because they’re trying to make something out of nothing.

But if you still find me hopelessly handicapped by my maleness, let’s also let Mitt’s former lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey, respond:


(more…)

What They’re Saying About the Presidential Duel in Denver – Obama: “Four Snore Years”

The first debate is over!

It was remarkable…

for Romney.

The day after the first presidential debate of 2012 in Denver, CO, this headline from the Boston Herald says it all… (Oct 4, 2012)

I was going to begin this article by saying Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama went eyeball to eyeball last night in Denver, but that wasn’t the case. It was a night of Romney focusing on Obama, looking directly into his eyes, while Obama’s eyes were oft-times focused… downward… as if he was willing the lectern to morph into his teleprompter. And, in my opinion, as if he knew Romney was on to him. The Boston Herald headline above encapsulates the evening.

Romney seemed to relish the opportunity to speak to Americans without the filter of the nefarious news media. He was the man we know and admire – very well-prepared, precise, focused, in control, filled with conviction and compassion, showed humor, aggressive while affable, and was completely at ease.

Obama was flat, subdued, distracted, passive, at times churlish and bewildered that his royal-highness-stature-and-personality wasn’t cutting the mustard. At one point Obama asked moderator Jim Lehrer to move off a topic (a first!).

From the get-go, Obama attempted to set the campaign narrative as not what has happened in the last four years, but what will happen if he’s given four MORE years. He couldn’t be standing on shakier, flakier ground.

Some Obama proponents today are claiming moderator Jim Lehrer was weak or favored Romney. Not so. Obama was given four more minutes of speaking time – over Romney. The Governor delivered far more substance in his allotted time than Obama with his extra OVERtime. And, Lehrer appeared at times to attempt to coach Obama via his questions, trying to prompt him to give a more cogent response.

Last night’s debate aptly illustrated by Gary Varvel, Oct 4, 2012

Clash of the titans? The only titan present in this race is Mitt Romney.

I’m delighted at what is being said about the Duel in Denver (from Mitt Romney Press):

Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter: “And I Think That Mitt Romney, Yes, He Absolutely Wins The Preparation. And He Wins The Style Points.” (CNN’s “CNN Live,” 10/3/12)

ABC News’ Jake Tapper: “It Was Not A Strong Performance By [President Obama].” ABC’s JAKE TAPPER: “Well, I’ve covered President Obama for about six or seven years now and I’ve seen him inspire crowds of tens of thousands and then I also recall the summer of 2007 when he was listless and flat and uninspired and his campaign manager had to knock some sense in him and get him back in the game. Unfortunately for the Obama campaign that’s the Obama I saw on the stage tonight. It was not a strong performance by him.” (ABC, 10/3/12)

Bloomberg’s Joshua Green: “Dominating…” “On Wednesday night, Mitt Romney attempted a hostile takeover of the presidential campaign … dominating President Obama.” (Bloomberg, 10/3/12)

Politico’s Glenn Thrush: “How Tough A Night Was It For The Incumbent? He Even Muffed Some Of The Basics Of Debate 101…” “How tough a night was it for the incumbent? He even muffed some of the basics of Debate 101, struggling to find the right camera to address once or twice during the mostly civil 90-minute exchange.” (Politico, 10/3/12)

After Mitt Romney’s debate performance, his sweet granddaughter rushed on stage to give him a big hug. Oct 3, 2012 (photographer unknown)

Time’s Mark Halperin: “A Performance That Will Both Delight The Republican Base And Make Undecided Voters Take Note. Was The Dominant Figure On The Stage On Almost Every Exchange.” (Time , 10/3/12)

ABC News’ Russell Goldman: “Romney Came Out Swinging In The First Presidential Debate…” “Mitt Romney came out swinging in the first presidential debate, challenging President Obama over his health care reforms, treatment of the economy, taxes and funding for Sesame Street’s Big Bird.” (ABC News, 10/3/12)

BuzzFeed’s Michael Hastings: “For Weeks, President Obama’s Advisers Have Been Lowering Expectations … Maybe The Expectations Weren’t Low Enough.” “For weeks, President Obama’s advisers have been lowering expectations for the debate tonight, both privately and publicly forecasting that the Commander in Chief could deliver a dud. Maybe the expectations weren’t low enough.” (BuzzFeed, 10/3/12)

Time’s Joe Klein: “Mitt Romney Won This Debate. Barack Obama Lost It. I Mean, He Got His Butt Kicked.” “Well, I’m with all the other talking heads: Mitt Romney won this debate. Barack Obama lost it. I mean, he got his butt kicked. It was, in fact, one of the most inept performances I’ve ever seen by a sitting President.” (Time , 10/3/12)

Bloomberg’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “Romney Made The Most Focused Appeal To Middle-Class Voters On The Basis Of How His Agenda Would Help Them…” “Romney made the most focused appeal to middle-class voters on the basis of how his agenda would help them — on energy, on health care, on jobs — that he ever has.” (Bloomberg, 10/4/12)

Read more and SEE PHOTOS by clicking here.

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…)

U.S. Constitution Day: Romney Will Defend Constitutional Principles Which Secure Liberty

Did you remember?

Mitt Romney did.

It’s the day we remember one of the greatest statements ever written on human liberty…

It’s Constitution Day!

Governor Romney:

Today we celebrate the 225th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution and the ideals and principles on which this country was founded.

As president, I will adhere to and defend those principles, which have secured the blessings of liberty and served as the foundation for the greatest nation the Earth has ever known.

The United States Constitution is the bastion upon which the United States of America stands. Back in 1787, John Adams described the Constitution as being ”the greatest single effort of national deliberation the world has ever seen.”

From Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., Vice President, American Studies and Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics:

To this day, … the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution serve not only as powerful beacons to all those who strive for liberty and seek to vindicate the principles of self-government, but also as a warning to tyrants and despots everywhere. They are the highest achievements of our political tradition…

When was the last time you read the Constitution?

Learn more here.

If you stand with our Founding Fathers, care about getting America back on track, care about preserving freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and an America where civil society flourishes, you must support Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.



Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

Hugh Hewitt – Obama: “Serial Failure”, Romney: “Extremely Well-Qualified”

Hugh Hewitt has written a new must-read book titled ‘The Brief Against Obama’.


Last weekend, while many Americans were watching Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas and swimmers Missy Franklin, Katie Ledecky, and Michael Phelps go for the gold in merry old England, C-Span aired a significant presentation on ‘The Brief Against Obama‘ – a new book written by *radio talk show host and pundit Hugh Hewitt.

With the goal of persuading weak affiliation voters (Independents, undecided voters, wavering Democrats and Libertarians) NOT to re-elect Obama, Hewitt engaged listeners as he spoke about the facts of Obama’s many broken promises. An informative and entertaining speaker, Hewitt’s audience was also treated to a Q&A session. The gathering took place on July 30, 2012 at the Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, CA and later aired on C-Span.

For those who missed the must-see presentation, here’s Hugh:

@13:52 – “I wanted to write a book that would persuade people NOT to vote for President Obama and I knew it had to be fact-based“… [235 pages of text, 45 pages of footnotes]

I made a very long list of all the promises President Obama made, all of the PREDICTIONS he put forward, and all of the polemics he used. Each chapter of the 25 chapters begins with a quotation or series of quotations from President Obama not earlier than 2007. I’m not interested in what he did as a young man. I’m not interested in his biography. I’m interested in what he promised to do as a candidate or as a President – what he predicted would happen as a result of his actions or the language he used as a candidate or President. And, when I think you stack it up HE DID NOT DELIVER.”

@14:55 – “In fact, he is a SERIAL FAILURE when it comes to delivering on his promises. Therefore, I don’t believe he is OWED your vote or anyone’s vote based upon what he said he would do and DID NOT DO – based on what he predicted would happen and did not happen – based upon what was, in fact, the most hyper partisan set of rhetorical devices that we have seen in the modern presidency.”

@15:19 – Hewitt speaks about A Mormon in the White House? – 10 Things Americans Should Know About Mitt Romney, a book he penned in 2007 underscoring Romney’s extraordinary viability as a Republican presidential nominee – the “enormous capacity Mitt Romney has.”

@18:00 – Mentions his prediction that Romney’s experience at Bain would be twisted by Obama and used against him. He also predicts, in the waning days of this campaign, because Obama is desperate, Romney’s religion will be used against him.

@18:16 – “The only reason I thought that President Obama could win reelection based upon the work I completed in ‘The Brief AGainst Obama’ is if we Republicans … nominated a terrible candidate – if they nominated someone who would not win the confidence of Americans. Luckily, we have nominated an EXTREMELY well-qualified individual who is ready to be President on the first day. And, I think that’s becoming very, very obvious.

@18:43 – Hewitt explains why Romney is such a great nominee and speaks of the enormity of the task of saving the 2002 Winter Olympics: Romney took it “from the edge of despair and disaster to an enormous internationally recognized success. We need that kind of capability.”

@20:37 – Addresses Romney critics who say he isn’t aggressive enough. “I’m very confident about Romney.”

@29:30 – Speaks on the ‘Bradley effect’ and Obama supporters.

@31:25 – V.P. possibilities

@34:00 – What’s the worst thing Obama has done? Listen to this list!

@40:00 – Hugh’s three favorite Obama quotes: “The very best arguments to make against Obama are his own statements.”

@42:00 – Mentions In, But Not Of a book he wrote in 1998. With his HHS regulations, Obama has awakened a sleeping giant – Evangelical, Catholic, and orthodox Jewish voters.

@48:00 – “We don’t want four more years of Chicago style politics. And what happens if he’s reelected [Obama] and he’s not even restrained by the prospect of reelection?”

@51:50 – Buy the book, read it, give it to an Independent or a Democrat.

@53:00 – Excellent Q&A session


Hugh’s extensive experience in politics and law, combined with his sense of humor and story-telling capacity (no teleprompter) made listening to him speak for over an hour a very enjoyable and heartening experience. His endorsement of Romney couldn’t be any stronger. I encourage MRC readers to share these remarks everywhere possible and promote his new book. Readers may purchase ‘The Brief Against Obama’ here. As Hugh asked – get it, read it, then pass it along to an Independent or undecided voter!

*Hewitt is not only the host of a popular nationally syndicated radio show, he is a lawyer (graduate of Harvard College and University of Michigan Law School) and a law professor at Chapman University Law School in southern California where he teaches Constitutional Law.

Additional recommended reading:

On The Brink by David Parker (Hear Mr. Parker’s interview with Hewitt here.)
The Amateur by Ed Klein
The Great Destroyer by David Limbaugh

Don’t forget to see the intriguing new movie 2016: Obama’s America (rated PG) which is based on the book by Dinesh D’Souza and produced by Gerald R. Molen, producer of the Academy Award wining Best Picture ‘Schinlder’s List’. It is currently airing in some cities and is slated to be shown tomorrow (Aug 10th) in additional locations. Additional release dates are also listed here.

Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

Page 1 of 212