Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Why Conservatives must not give up politics

moron2

Larry P. Arnn is the 12th president of that rare thing — a conservative university, Hillsdale College, which actively promotes Americans getting educated about our Constitution.

The following are excerpts of Arnn’s answers from an interview by Hugh Hewitt for the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show, conducted on the day after the election, November 7, 2012:

[The election on Nov. 6] indeed turn out to be a terrible election from the standpoint of constitutionalism. Its results will bring about hardships and set back the time frame for reviving the kind of government our Founders bequeathed to us. [...] But I very much disagree with the idea that this election marks a decisive event in our politics, or a point of no return.

[...] the reason you can’t retreat into private life and give up on politics—is that the cost of doing it is overwhelming. If you don’t live under good laws, life becomes truncated and less happy, injustice becomes customary, civilization is compromised. And one cannot acquiesce in that. One has to be involved. And since politics is natural to us—man is essentially political, as Aristotle says—and since we do live in the greatest modern country—founded that way at least—we owe it a lot. And many of the people who have seen the republic through to where we are today have gone through things that are worse than this. So first of all, it’s a duty not to give up. But second, there are good reasons to know that the game isn’t over.

One of them is that the election is shot through with contradictions. The obvious contradiction is that we have a divided government. The presidency and the Senate are in the hands of one party, and the House of Representatives and most governorships are in the hands of the other. A second contradiction is that a large majority of people continued to say in the exit polls that they were against raising taxes in order to cut the deficit. One might be cynical and put that down to an irresponsible refusal to pay for existing benefits—to get more and more “free stuff.” But for a long time now, opinion polls have pointed towards the existence of a broad majority of Americans who favor smaller government. This obviously contradicts the re-election of the president and the Democratic gains in the Senate. The country is still a house divided against itself, and that’s dangerous. But it doesn’t mean that there’s been a resolution. It means in fact the opposite: there is not a resolution. That resolution still has to be made, and the making of it lies ahead of us, and not behind us.

Lincoln’s argument was that either slavery is right or freedom is right, and that the country couldn’t long stand if it was divided on which was so. There was an argument that slavery should be allowed to spread and be protected as a good thing, and there was an argument that slavery violated America’s principles and should be kept from spreading. There’s almost an exact parallel today, because the people who founded our country believed and wrote—and established a Constitution to provide—that there must never be unlimited rule by any man or group of men over other men. And our government is getting to a place where it threatens to become limitless.

Not only that, but government itself has become a strong force in elections: Much of the money funding the party of big government comes from inside the government through public employee unions—not to mention corporations, so many of which receive a form of welfare from the government. This new development represents a dangerous corruption of the election process—and elections are the only means left to Americans to limit government. It’s a real problem.

[...] just think of what our Constitution is doing right now—the protection it is providing. In 1946 in England, following Churchill’s ouster as prime minister, the Labor government got its first outright majority, and within a year it had nationalized 15 or so major industries. It was able to do that all at once. Compare that to what occurred here. President Obama only had that kind of united power for two years, because our Constitution divides power. He did, in his first two years, push through Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, which are significant. They will do a lot of damage, and we are stuck with them for now because of the election. But despite the election, one part of the government remains in the hands of the opposition. That means that no big new legislation is going to go through. So the Constitution is working, despite the uncharted waters [...]

[...] the principles of Progressivism that animate our government today, which are antithetical to the principles of the American Founding, lead to policies that cannot work, will not work, and result in obvious injustices. That is its weakness, and that provides cause for hope. But by the way, there is a parallel with the great twentieth century tyrannies: The modern bureaucratic form of government cannot remain accountable to the people, so in the fullness of time it will become despotic. That’s not the intention of anybody who runs it today, or at least not very many people. But that is its direction.

The experts who run the modern bureaucratic state think they are architects of a perfectly rational society. They think of themselves as scientists, and of the running of government as something more like science—the science of administration—than politics. They think they can coordinate society comprehensively so that no one is left out. That’s why they think of their work as something good and as something high. The problem is that what they are trying to do defies human nature—the human nature that led James Madison to write famously that men are not angels, and that led the Framers of the Constitution to divide government in order to limit government—and so what these experts are doing will ultimately lead to despotism.

But [...] there are many indications that there’s a deep and even intensifying opposition to bureaucratic government today. People don’t like it, and they don’t trust it. They want less of it. And I don’t believe that yesterday’s election signified any change in that. Now, how to harness that opinion politically is the challenge. No one yet has been able to capitalize upon it.

One obvious theme to strike is that people didn’t vote for, and don’t support, higher taxes and bigger government. But conservative statesmen have to get better. Calvin Coolidge once said that great statesmen are “ambassadors of providence, sent to reveal to us our unknown selves.” What that means is that great statesmen are not going to be around very often. I’d say that the standard of conservative statesmanship today is improving, but too few prominent conservatives are skillful at explaining the problem of the modern bureaucratic state. This form of government proceeds by rules, and rules upon rules, and compliance with those rules becomes a key activity of the entire nation. That results in bureaucracy, and in the inefficiencies of bureaucracy. Constitutional government, on the other hand, proceeds by clearly stated laws.

Not grasping this is an important failure of conservative statesmen today. During the first presidential debate I stood up and slapped my leg, and my wife said to sit down and be quiet, when Mitt Romney said that business and prosperity require regulation. What he should have said instead was that of course we require laws in order to be productive and to live safely, but that laws are different than regulations. Laws are passed by elected (and thus accountable) representatives, they cover everybody equally, and we can all participate in their enforcement because they are easy to understand. Not one of those three things is true of the regulations imposed by independent boards such as those established under Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Romney was not able to make that distinction, and yet that distinction is at the heart of the choice Americans must make about how they will be governed.

[...] there are some fine young conservatives in Congress and serving as governors who give one hope. They understand the urgency of the situation, and that makes them better.

[...] let me close with a word about Churchill. The service that he did in 1940, when his nation stood up against Hitler alone, was preceded by a service equally great. In the 1930s, British politics were ugly and ill-directed. Churchill’s own party leaders conspired to deprive him not only of his seat in Parliament, but of his livelihood writing for the public. One of his colleagues, an official in the Foreign Ministry named Ralph Wigram, was threatened with transfer to a remote place without medical care—his son had birth defects—if he continued speaking with Churchill. Churchill, Wigram, and Wigram’s wife Ava stood up to this kind of thing, year after year. First a few, and then many, and then legions joined them. Finally the British people realized the truth, and then all over London billboards appeared with the words in large black letters, “What Price Churchill?” He was called to lead in 1940 because he proved in the 1930s that he could do so.

That same year, Churchill asked one of his assistants, John Colville, to find him the precise text of a prayer he remembered from the siege of Gibraltar. It reads:

Fear not the result, for either thy end shall be an enviable and a majestic one, or God will preserve our reign upon the waters.

We might follow Churchill in saying that prayer in hard times. We might cultivate the strength that it can give.

To the reasons Arnn gave, I’ll add another one:

Conservatives far outnumber liberals in America. In 2010, 62% of Americans identified themselves as conservatives.

Of course, the question is why those 62% didn’t translate into a victory for Mitt Romney on last November 6.

Was it massive Democrat voter fraud? The GOP tying its own hands because of that stunning 1982 agreement it made with the Democratic Party not to prevent or contest vote fraud? How about the thousands of U.S. military votes that were uncounted or missing? Was it the Ron Paulists who stayed home? Was it the partisan media and public schools who brainwashed Americans? Or was it because too many of those 62%, while they say they’re conservative, are dependents on Big Government?

I don’t mean to be disrespectful to Dr. Arnn. But until and unless Conservatives find out why we lost the election and how to fix the problems, his rah-rah chins-up cheerleading only means Conservatives will continue fruitlessly expend our time, money, and energy — like caged hamsters furiously running on wheels, but going nowhere.

~Eowyn

Thank God it is (Almost) Over

Dave

I do not know about the rest of you, but I am all but used up. This seemingly interminable campaign is finally and mercifully coming to an end, and the relief I am feeling is approaching orgasmic. I have not enjoyed a decent night’s sleep in nearly two weeks, and the antacids I have dropped could probably fill a fifty-five gallon drum to the rim.

I have no idea what is going to happen tomorrow, as I think this thing could go either way – and for a whole host of reasons.

I realize many of my conservative friends truly believe Barack Hussein Obama will be going down in a Carter-esque defeat.

I honestly wish I shared their optimism.

Thirty-two years have passed since the voters of this country quite rudely threw my former governor out of the White House after only one term, but much has changed in the over three decades  since. As much as we might want to believe otherwise, we are just not that America anymore, as the takers are now nearly equal in number to the makers.

What continues to concern me is how high the POtuS is still riding in the polls. This goober should not even be in contention at this point, yet there he is, breathing right down Mitt Romney’s neck.

I can only hope people are flat out lying to the pollsters, because the alternative is just too bitter to contemplate.

And there is still that gnawing feeling deep down in my gut that keeps telling me the last chance to save our America via the voting booth came and went in November of 2008. If there really is one last-ditch chance remaining, this is most definitely it.

I hope and pray my fellow Americans are going to turn out in sufficient numbers tomorrow to send the Kenyan Muslim commie fraud packing in January. Should they do so, there will still be a flicker of hope for our America, albeit a dim one. After all, when it comes to the historical life-span of free republics, history is not exactly on our side.

And merely voting in Mitt Romney is not going to be enough in and of itself.

The Senate must flip, too, otherwise there will be no hope of repealing Obamacare, and unless that hideous law is repealed in its entirety, nothing else is going to matter because two years hence, it will be too entrenched to uproot.

Be sure you cast your vote for the American, and encourage your friends to do likewise, lest we as a nation wind up as what you see sitting on the plate at the top of this post – and that in very short order, too.

This is the election you have been waiting your entire life for.

God bless you all, and may God save America.

-Dave

Can an 8th Grader be Smarter than an MSNBC Hack?

They can if they are this 8th grader:

This delightful young girl has an extremely bright future ahead of her – if the American people throw the POS out on his bum next month.

-Dave

(h/t: boortz.com)

Top Five Reasons to not re-elect Obama

Life. Marriage. Israel. Freedom. America.

DCG

Yep, this proves it – Romney is raaaaacist!

Unhinged: Harper’s Mag accuses Romney of ‘sly’ racist jab at Obama

Washington Examiner: Mitt Romney “slyly” proved he’s a racist at the debate while describing his tax plan. Did you notice? No? Anyone? Harper’s Magazine’s Kevin Baker embarrassed himself in accusing Romney of trying to lock down his allegedly-racist base during the debate.

“[Obama]didn’t show a spark of anger, even when Romney slyly found a way to call him a boy, comparing Obama’s statements to the sorts of childish lies his ‘five boys’ used to tell,” Baker lamented. “How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that! Mitt, at long last, has secured his base.”

Actually, the entire debate audience laughed at Romney’s clever, innocuous way of rebutting Obama’s attack. Here’s what Romney said to Obama, per the White House transcript:

I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals.  I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it’s a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it’s just not the case.  Look, I’ve got five boys.  I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. (Laughter.)  But that is not the case, all right?  I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

You just can’t make this stuff up.  How in the world can you conclude that what Romney said is racist?

Guess when you’ve run out of excuses for a record number of people on food stamps, a 30-year low in workforce participation, the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating to AA+ (the first time ever below AAA), a decline in median household income (to a level last seen in 1996), and a president that has accumulated more debt than all presidents combined, you pull the race card. Pathetic.

DCG

This Pretty Much Says It All

-Dave

(h/t: newsbusters.org)

Drinking game alert!

In time for tonight’s debate…

Via Conservativeintel.com

DCG

ROFLMAO

Iowa deli co-owner caters for Obama visit, but his T-shirt tells another story

undefined

Nikki Kahn/THE WASHINGTON POST

Ross Murty, a registered Republican, serves up supper in Davenport, Iowa, on Wednesday.

By , Updated: Wednesday, August 15, 8:43 PMThe Washington Post

DAVENPORT, Iowa — Ross Murty likes business, but he doesn’t like President Obama.And so the co-owner of the Village Corner Deli here agreed to cater Obama’s visit Wednesday — but not before donning a T-shirt blaring the message: “Government didn’t build my business. I did.”

It was a reference to a remark Obama made several weeks ago that his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, has seized upon to portray Obama as anti-business. Obama, referring to the help government provides to businesses by building roads and providing education and other services, said, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”“No one from the government was there when we were sweating it, when we were building this business,” Murty said. Before him was a bank of chafing dishes filled with smoked beef brisket, pulled pork, vegetable parmesan bake and cheesy hash brown casserole provided to the White House press corps covering the president’s three-day swing across Iowa this week.

Murty, 45, a registered Republican, didn’t really have a choice with the catering job. His partner, Bret Dalton (a registered Democrat), accepted the work on Saturday while Murty was away in Chicago watching a Cubs game. Dalton volunteered for Vice President Biden’s presidential campaign in 1988, when he was a student at Iowa State University.

But that’s not why he got the contract.

“One of Obama’s lead people came into the deli Saturday morning,” Dalton said. “I didn’t even know it was for Obama until that night.”

When he found out, though, Dalton had some fun. He called up Murty, who was driving back from Chicago, and asked: “Guess who’s coming to town this week?”

“He was a little stunned,” Dalton recalled. But the two take their political disagreements in stride, and the conversation was all in good fun, both said.

“I would never say no to anybody for any reason,” Murty said. “My partner and I have different views in politics, but business is business.”

The White House performs background checks on contractors for security reasons, but it does not vet them for their political views. Also, the caterers are hired to provide food for the White House press corps, which pays for the food, even though the White House makes the arrangements.

The Obama campaign had no comment on Murty’s T-shirt.

But the Romney campaign seized on the moment, circulating pictures that reporters had tweeted of Murty with his controversial T-shirt. “Mr. President, please stay another day!” the Romney campaign e-mail said.

I hope this guy is a chef, if he is Romney should hire him to cook at the White House

Tom in NC

Ron Paul won’t even get to speak at GOP National Convention

UPDATE (Aug. 17):

Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum will be speakers at the GOP Convention. NJ Gov. Chris Christie will give the keynote speech.

___

Some “big tent” the GOP turns out to be.

In the 2012 GOP presidential primary elections, after Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich all dropped out of the race, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) was the last candidate that remained to compete against Mitt Romney.

Finally, on May 14, 2012, Paul also quit, but announced that his campaign would switch to a delegate accumulation strategy. On May 29, according to projected counts, Mitt Romney crossed the threshold of 1,144 delegates needed to secure the party’s nomination.

Nevertheless, Paul did win 3 states, 10.9% of or 2,049,410 popular votes, and 166 delegates. He is also the Republican candidate that has received the most campaign donations and support from actively-serving members of the U.S. military. Ron Paul has also consistently pushed for auditing the Federal Reserve.

Despite that, Paul won’t be speaking at the upcoming GOP National Convention in Tampa, Florida.

Anugrah Kumar reports for Christian Post, July 16, 2012, that according to Republican National Committee rules, a candidate must have a plurality of delegates in five states to be officially eligible for the nomination at the national convention and be granted up to 15 minutes for a nominating speech.

Paul was hoping that the Nebraska convention would give him a plurality of delegates along with delegates from Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, and Minnesota. But Paul lost it all, results on Saturday showed. Now, it’s up to Romney and convention organizers to decide whether to include Paul in the proceedings in late August.

However, Paul’s insurgent spirit remains strong. His campaign is planning on bringing as many as 500 supportive delegates to Tampa to make his presence known. Paul is planning a rally in Tampa around the convention, and his supporters have organized Ron Paul Festival, an independent event that will include live music, according to ABC News.

Paul had said his delegate count gave him “a tremendous position to grow our movement and shape the future of the GOP.” He believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy and decriminalizing drugs, and says government should not have a role in some of the conservative social causes.

Paul is also asking Romney not to select former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice amid rumors that she could be his running mate. “I don’t dictate anything to anybody, but they wouldn’t be very happy with her,” Paul said in an interview with the Fox Business Network. “She represents a foreign policy quite different than what energizes college campuses today.”

~Eowyn

Conservative anger at Obamacare is at stratospheric levels

In an interview with Newsmax.TV today, pollster Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports says “The conservative interest in the election was already much higher than that of moderates and liberals. It went up to really stratospheric levels right after the [Supreme Court's Obamacare] ruling. We don’t know if that will continue or if it’s just a temporary response to the news cycle.”

The issue has really energized conservatives. What is most important is that Republicans must make the case that the unpopular Obamacare will be a further drain on America’s disappointing economic recovery since the economy still tops the list of voter concerns.

“Anything that can be tied to the economy is going to be an important part of the debate,” observed Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports. “If Mitt Romney and the Republicans are able to make the case that the healthcare law is one reason the economy is struggling, well that will certainly help.” The same goes for energy — and in fact all issues.

It’s the economy, stupid.

More than half of the country — 52% of American voters — believe that Obamacare should be repealed. Rasmussen said:

That number hasn’t changed much over the past week. In fact, it hasn’t changed much over the past two years. From the day the law was passed, a majority of American voters have said we want to see it repealed. And there’s really not much that would change that. The support has been so consistent.

The Democrats in Congress passed it despite popular opposition. They continued to believe that somehow it would get popular over time. It didn’t. This is not a question of re-litigating or re-debating the healthcare law. That is over. The question is now whether the government will respond to a majority of voters or it will continue to move on its own direction.”

He predicted that there is virtually no chance the healthcare law will survive if GOP nominee Romney wins the election. Rasmussen also predicted that even if “Obama is somehow re-elected this fall, and brings in Democrats with him to control the Senate, the law will still be in trouble. It is simply unpopular with voters and that will call for some major change.”

Even the Supreme Court’s popularity appears to have taken a hit by its handling of the Obamacare case.

The percentage of Americans who said the Supreme Court was doing good job went from 36% before the ruling to 33% after the ruling. Those who thought the court was doing a poor job went from 17% before the ruling to 28% after the ruling. Rasmussen explained: “They’re in the growing belief that the justices are pursuing their own agenda rather than being impartial and a growing belief that the court is too liberal rather than too conservative.”

Of course, if the Republicans can screw up this opportunity, we can count on them to do just that as the GOP has a unique talent at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

~Eowyn