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…)

Why Mitt “Wins the War”

PPP did a snap poll immediately after the debate tonight. The respondents scored it a slight lead for Obama at 53% to 42% (yeah, it was another +6% Democratic oversample and PPP is a democratic pollster … but I think that just strengthens my arguments). That 11% edge is smaller than the numbers Obama got in the 2nd debate, and MUCH smaller than the numbers Mitt received after the 1st debate. (FYI … CNN’s snap poll scored tonight’s debate it a bit closer at 48%-40% in favor of Obama).

That’s bad news then, right?!?! … that Romney didn’t “win” the debate? Not at all. Mitt continued to rise in the national and swing-state polls over the last week despite Obama’s “win” in the last debate. The last two days especially, Democrats have been shocked and are panicking that the President didn’t get a bounce in the polls from that.

Here’s the secret though … People’s judging of who “wins” debates is solely based on who is the most aggressive candidate that night. Snap polls showed that Joe Biden “won” the VP debate over Paul Ryan … but Biden turned off MANY voters with his style and condescension. Obama wasn’t as bad as Biden was, but his intimidating stares, his incessant attacks at Romney, and his petty condescension will NOT play well with undecided voters … especially with undecided women.

Don’t believe me? That same PPP poll linked above has the following interesting question and cross-tab.

“Did the debate tonight make you more or less likely to vote for BO/MR, or did it not make a difference?”

Among Independents for Obama: More likely 32%, Less likely 48%, No Difference 20% … for a net of MINUS 16%

Among Independents for Romney: More likely 47%, Less likely 35%, No Difference 18% … for a net of PLUS 12%

That’s a HUGE advantage among Independents for Romney based on TONIGHT’S debate. Yeah, Obama sure “won” tonight, eh? Team Romney is fighting to “Win The War” … and will take some lumps in individual battles to make sure the end goal occurs. He was confident, optimistic, and Presidential. Obama was petty, insulting, and snarky. Quite the contrast!

In the CNN snap poll mentioned above (which was a +4% D sample) asked:

“Who did the debate make you more likely to vote for?”
Romney 26%
Obama 25%

That is THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION IN THE POLL, really the only one that matters, and Mitt came out on top. Another interesting and important question from CNN:

“Who spent more time attacking his opponent?”
Barack Obama 68%
Mitt Romney 21%

Nothing happened tonight to blunt Mitt’s momentum. Obama was swinging for the fences, but failed to connect. Romney easily cleared the credible Commander-In-Chief bar and avoided ANY gaffes. His last few answers and rebuttals were awesome, and his closing statement was EPIC!

We need to work to help make sure it happens, but Mitt’s well on his way to winning this race. Romney has ALL the momentum, and that’s why Obama was attacking desperately. That alone was telling.

UPDATE 12:02 Central … Over at The Ace of Spades there’s an article “Romney Wins the War, Again” that looks like we copied one another. He published it 30 minutes earlier, but I swear I didn’t see it or steal his ideas. Maybe I’m ready to be a big shot blogger if we’re on the same wavelength like that, eh? :)

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 …

Amid Autumn’s Heated Campaign, Do Romney/Ryan Families Find Time to Chill?

With the Romney’s attending church today in Belmont, MA and the Governor spending time preparing for Tuesday’s presidential debate, I thought it might be relaxing for Romney/Ryan supporters to look back on the week. Let’s see if the Romney and Ryan families are finding time amid the heated campaign to enjoy October, a bit of Mother Nature’s beauty, and just chill…

Kick off your shoes and take your time.

Here’s an autumn Romney/Ryan photo essay

With cold rain falling in sheets, Governor Mitt Romney rallied stalwart supporters at a campaign event in Newport News, Virginia. Oct 8, 2012 (photographer unknown)


The chill in the air didn’t stop the crowd from coming to see GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney campaign amid the hay bales in Van Meter, Iowa. Oct 9, 2012 (Photo – Evan Vucci/AP)


GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan and wife Janna size up pumpkins for just the right jack-o-lantern at the Apple Holler Pumpkin Patch in Sturtevant, Wisconsin. Oct 7, 2012 (Photo – Mary Altaffer/AP)


October 11, 2012 – Ann Romney writes, “Bought Craig some vanilla fudge at Kilwins in Sarasota today. Can you believe he doesn’t like chocolate?!” (photographer unknown)


Janna Ryan (left) watches as her husband, Paul Ryan helps his daughter, Liza, dip a caramel apple. Ryan’s other children, Charlie and Sam, eagerly await their turn. (Photo – Mary Altaffer/AP)


Paul Ryan indulges in a fall rite of passage – the tailgate party! He’s pictured loading his plate at the Bowling green University vs Miami University of Ohio football game in Ohio. Oct 13, 2012 (Photo – Mary Altaffer/AP)


Paul Ryan makes a toss in a game with son Charlie before a football game at Doyt Perry Stadium in Bowling Green, Ohio. Oct 13, 2012 (Photo – Sentinel-Tribune, Enoch Wu/AP)


Ann Romney, bundled up to stay warm, took a detour on the way from Hudsonville, Michigan to the Detroit suburb of Franklin to visit the Peanut Shop in downtown Lansing. She bought some trick-or-treat goodies including cashews and cinnamon almonds she said were Mitt’s favorite. She also picked up some ‘sour jelly pumpkins’ for the grandchildren. Yum! The Detroit News quoted her saying “I love it here.” Oct 12, 2012 (Photo – AP)


At The Peanut Shop in Lansing, Michigan, Ann Romney takes time to greet sisters Jenna, left, whom she wished a happy 4th birthday, and Audrey Carrier. Oct 12, 2012 (Photo Dale G. Young/The Detroit News)

Did you happen to see Ann co-host on Good Morning America last week?

Standing in front of a backdrop of straw bales, pumpkins, and a tractor, Ann Romney speaks with supporters at the Franklin Cider Mill in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. She spent the day campaigning through the state. (Photo – Charles V. Tines/The Detroit News)

There’s more! Click here.

Incredible Video: Joe Biden Interrupts Paul Ryan 85 Times During VP Debate

I’m so glad The Blaze took the time to piece together all the rude snippets of Joe Biden’s debate performance.

The guy was so out of line, it’s almost painful to watch. But if you have tolerance for that sort of thing, watch it below:

VP debate: Remember this… Biden Says “I Always Say What I Mean”

During last night’s VP debate, Joe Biden told us, “I always say what I mean.”

He always says what he means.

Remember that, America.

Okay! Take a look at the top 10 worst lies V.P. Joe tried to foist on Americans during the debate in Danville; click here.

Joe is on record saying plenty of memorable things; here are a few:

Aug 14, 2012 – Vice President Joe Biden tells a Virginia crowd, Romney’s plan would “put y’all back in chains.”

Aug 1, 2011 – As a follow up to Democratic Rep. Mike Doyle suggesting that dealing with Tea Party and fiscal conservatives was like negotiating with terrorists, Biden reportedly piled on by saying, “They have acted like terrorists.”

July 5, 2009 – In an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” Biden conceded that the White House team “misread how bad the economy was.” His confession came as unemployment hit 9.5 percent, despite the administration’s insistence that it would hold to 8 percent with the stimulus plan.

Click to enlarge.
(AP Photo – Carolyn Kaster)

July 16, 2009 – Biden gave a blunt summation of the administration’s approach to stimulus spending: “People, when I say that, look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?” he said at a stop in Virginia. “The answer is yes.”

July 16, 2009 – An open microphone caught Biden saying, “This is a big f—ing deal” to President Obama during a nationally televised Washington signing ceremony for the president’s health care law.

June 26, 2010 – Biden called the manager of a custard shop outside of Milwaukee a “smartass” after the man asked him to lower taxes. Biden made the comment after the Kopp’s Frozen Custard shop manager told him that his dessert would be on the house if he lowered taxes. “Why don’t you say something nice instead of being a smartass all the time?” Biden said a few minutes later.

More…

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.” –Joe Biden, apparently unaware that FDR wasn’t president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and that only experimental TV sets were in use at that time, interview with Katie Couric, Sept. 22, 2008 (source)

“You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent…. I’m not joking.” –Joe Biden, in a private remark to an Indian-American man caught on C-SPAN, June, 2006 (video)

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” –Joe Biden, referring to Barack Obama at the beginning of the 2008 Democratic primary campaign, Jan. 31, 2007 (source)

By cartoonist Bob Gorrell



Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

VP Debate: Biden’s Bad-Mannered Buffoonery Blows It, Ryan Resolute

Vice President Joe Buffoonery Biden proved once again at last night’s vice presidential debate in Danville, KY, what an embarrassment he is for the United States of America. (photographer unknown)

With his derisive laughter, zombie eye-rolling, feigned incredulity, exaggerated theatrical gestures, continual interruptions, and over-all condescension, Vice Presidential smirk monkey Joe Biden negated any gains he hoped to make at last night’s V.P. debate. Biden’s performance sealed the deal for him… as the simpleton from Scranton and America’s permanent political huckster. Debate moderator, ABC’s Martha Raddatz, failed to control all-show Joe and left many yearning for Jim Lehrer.

Although GOP Vice Presidential candidate 42-year-old Rep Paul Ryan is 27 years younger than 69-year-old Biden, he was resolute, reassuring, and ready to take on the smart-aleck. Ryan was clearly the adult seated at the debate desk in Danville.

Polls from CNBC and CNN revealed Ryan won.

Here’s just a sampling of Twitterverse take-aways (comments from FOX News contributors at end of article):

Lots more! Click here to continue.

VP Debate: Our Challenges are Not Laughing Matters, Joe.

photo credit unknown

Americans face a very stark contrast in our choice for the future. Thankfully, we have competent and responsible leadership in Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, for it is surely lacking in Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Tonight’s VP Debate as a follow on to last week’s Presidential Debate clearly supports the point; Paul Ryan is earnest, intelligent, knowledgeable, competent and respectful. Unfortunately, Joe Biden is not. Never before in modern history have we seen such disrespectful, irresponsible, and immature behavior in a Vice Presidential Debate. The problems we face today are not laughing matters!

VP Debate – Live Open Chat

Please be courteous in the ChatBox and refrain from vulgar and profane language. Trolls will be banned with extreme prejudice.

Chat has been moved back to the side bar—>

Shameless plugs:
1 – Visit our new comMITTed page. Learn 5 ways you can help Romney’s campaign.
2 – Check out our awesome Romney-Ryan T-shirts and stickers. (Proceeds used for our FB advertising)

Incredible Lies, Piling On, and the Sad State of the Mainstream Media

The following is cross-posted here at MRC with permission by the author, Michael Bush. Michael runs the website Mitt: The Man aimed at showing the more personal side of Governor Romney that many don’t get to see. Michael Bush has also had the rare honor to be a companion to Mitt Romney in 1966 as they served missions for the LDS church in France. You can find Michael Bush on twitter at @Bush46 (retweet this post and give him a follow!) ~Nate G.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had heard of the recent campaign event where Mitt had corrected a crowd who had supposedly been chanting, “Ryan! Ryan! Ryan!” by telling them to change their chant to “Romney, Ryan! Romney, Ryan! Romney, Ryan!”

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at recent campaign event

Knowing Mitt, I was incredulous. In fact, anyone who knows Mitt would know that he would never do what he was accused of doing. So I set it aside and went on to other of life’s pressing concerns. Earlier this afternoon, however, while listening to a recording of Rush Limbaugh’s program from yesterday, I heard a caller set things straight. Timmy from Columbus had attended the event in Ohio and told Rush about the report on MSNBC on the event To him it seemed to be an apparent attempt to achieve maximum embarrassment for Mitt.

Timmy described to Rush what he had actually witnessed, stating that the crowd had chanted “Romney! Romney! Romney!” Timmy assured Rush that it was very clear to anyone there that Mitt was seeking to extend the crowd’s enthusiasm to Ryan. Rush added that this would be more in keeping with the sort of person that Mitt is.

Wanting to know more, I searched out the MSNBC video and saw where the video editors had posted “Ryan! Ryan! Ryan!” as a subtitle on the screen. You can see for yourself here as Mika Brzezinski introduces their version on Morning Joe. You can also see supposed conservative, Joe Scarborough react as described by Business Insider, which seemed to take some perverse delight in describing Joe’s reaction:

“Oh, sweet Jesus,” Scarborough said.

“Sadly, I say this about Mitt Romney: He’s a great man. He’s a great father. He’s a great husband. He’s a great businessman. He’s a great turnaround guy,” Scarborough continued.

“He’s just a horrible politician. One of the worst.”

How big of a deal is this? Jazz Shaw at HotAir.com says not so big:

If you really think Scarborough is trying to get Obama reelected, I honestly don’t know what to say to you. This was really a case of nothing to see here… move along.

Huh? Joe Scarborough does not need to be trying to get Barack Obama elected to be doing a crummy job! What Scarbough should be doing is to deliver news and commentary in a way that reflects reality rather than some perspective that he has arrived at by swimming in the partisan sewage that seems to be flowing through MSNBC these days. Conservative Joe? I don’t think so!

What Scarborough failed to see is that this is all absolutely bogus and is just one more attempt to make Mitt into a gaffe machine, all this to solidify that meme in the minds of American voters.

Finally, in addition to Rush Limbaugh’s caller Timmy, who was at the event, Dan Gainor at Fox News has also called out MSNBC for their faulty reporting. Gainor added in his analysis that a reporter who had been at the event had contacted Huffington Post, which had initially reported the event, and wanted to clarify that “the crowd was chanting Romney’s name, not Ryan’s, and that Romney added his running mate’s name to the chant, not the other way around.”

Update: Joe Scarborough doubles down on his assessment of what happened at the Romney/Ryan rally. As reported on Strokes of Candor:

See, the real version of the rally does not fit Joe’s narrative of Romney being a fool and a horrible politician, and since he tweeted Friday night those opposing MSNBC’s version of the events were liars before the embedded journalists came forward to clear the record, he stuck to his guns. The Blaze broke the story that MSNBC misled viewers with the video but Breitbart ran with it making Morning Joe the topic of conversation Friday afternoon by thousands on Twitter.

Update #2: Scott Johnson at Power Line describes the situation a bit more elegantly than I did. Where I wrote of Scarborough’s “swimming in the partisan sewage that seems to be flowing through MSNBC,” Scott describes Scarborough as “the predictable Stockholm Syndrome effect, as David Brooks’s tenure at the New York Times has had on him,” (Note: See Wikipedia, which describes the syndrome as “a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors”). Attorney and Power Line writer Johnson summarizes:

I think Joe Scarborough is less a perpetrator than a victim in this matter. He is a victim of MSNBC’s own shoddy partisanship and propaganda. He hangs around with a bad crowd. He wants to be liked.

But character is fate. His pathetic response to the controversy suggests that he needs some help. He needs the kind of friend who could pull off an intervention before he terminally embarrasses himself. Or does MSNBC mean never having to say you’re sorry?

Page 1 of 41234