Mitt’s Big Night

Mitt Romney accepted the Republican Nomination tonight before a packed Tampa Bay Times Arena and a worldwide TV audience. Before taking the stage, a number of Romney’s friends told stories of Romney’s kindness and generosity. Ted and Pat Oparowski told how Romney developed a friendship with their son David before his death from non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Pam Finlayson talked about the kindness the Romney family showed her after the premature birth of their daughter Kate, helping them through their struggles. These stories were powerful and showed a side of the candidate you rarely get to see.

Other speakers took to the stage to praise Romney’s business acumen and excellent work with the Salt Lake City Olympics. I absolutely love that they embraced his time at Bain Capital and highlighted successful businesses helped by Bain and the positive impact those businesses had on people’s lives. It’s good to celebrate success and I’m really glad the Romney campaign did that.

Two speakers from Massachusetts told of his time as Governor: Budgets were cut, a deficit was turned into a surplus, and education improved. Did you know Romney didn’t take a salary as Governor? I didn’t.

A secondary theme of tonight’s speeches: Mitt Romney is a turnaround artist.

GOP Rock Star Marco Rubio was the final speaker before Romney. Rudio’s introduction made the case for electing Romney:

Do we want our children to inherit our hopes and dreams, or do we want them to inherit our problems?

Mitt Romney believes that if we succeed in changing the direction of our country, our children and grandchildren will be the most prosperous generation ever, and their achievements will astonish the world.

The story of our time will be written by Americans who haven’t yet been born.

Let’s make sure they write that we did our part. That in the early years of this new century, we lived in an uncertain time. But we did not allow fear to cause us to abandon what made us special.

Romney delivered the best speech I’ve heard him deliver. I was a late-comer to the Romney bandwagon but how he’s run his campaign, the selection of Ryan as his running mate, the professionalism and strong message sent by the speakers and themes of this campaign have me convinced Romney can win and that he has the potential be an excellent President.

Some highlights of Romney’s speech:

Many of you felt that way on Election Day four years ago. Hope and Change had a powerful appeal. But tonight I’d ask a simple question: If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn’t you feel that way now that he’s President Obama? You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had, was the day you voted for him.

And:

That business we started with 10 people has now grown into a great American success story. Some of the companies we helped start are names you know. An office supply company called Staples – where I’m pleased to see the Obama campaign has been shopping; The Sports Authority, which became a favorite of my sons. We started an early childhood learning center called Bright Horizons that First Lady Michelle Obama rightly praised. At a time when nobody thought we’d ever see a new steel mill built in America, we took a chance and built one in a corn field in Indiana. Today Steel Dynamics is one of the largest steel producers in the United States.

And:

Today the time has come for us to put the disappointments of the last four years behind us.

To put aside the divisiveness and the recriminations.

To forget about what might have been and to look ahead to what can be.

Now is the time to restore the Promise of America. Many Americans have given up on this president but they haven’t ever thought about giving up. Not on themselves. Not on each other. And not on America.

What is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound. It doesn’t take a special government commission to tell us what America needs.

What America needs is jobs.

Lots of jobs.

And he ended with this:

That America, that united America, will uphold the constellation of rights that were endowed by our Creator, and codified in our Constitution.

That united America will care for the poor and the sick, will honor and respect the elderly, and will give a helping hand to those in need.

That America is the best within each of us. That America we want for our children.

If I am elected President of these United States, I will work with all my energy and soul to restore that America, to lift our eyes to a better future. That future is our destiny. That future is out there. It is waiting for us. Our children deserve it, our nation depends upon it, the peace and freedom of the world require it. And with your help we will deliver it. Let us begin that future together tonight.

An excellent speech and a strong case for election. It’s been a good convention. We’ll see what the Democrats have to say next week. Less than seventy days from now we’ll make our decision. I pray we make the right one.

70 comments

  1. It was a positive speech with a positive direction. He didn’t over promise and he showed through the other speakers the kind of leader he is. We need a leader, we need a business man. I predict the DNC Convention is going to be a lot of whining.

    • Rick Day says:

      I hear they are just going to do nothing but read comments from some of the conservative blogs regarding the heritage of the president, sprinkled with early footage of GOP Congresscritters embracing an issue, only to un-embrace it if BarryO thought a good idea as well.

      Oh and some of that great stuff Newt and Co said about Romney during the Primary.

      Maybe they will let Ron Paul take a prime time speaker’s slot.

      It’s hard to whine when one is guffawing, good madam.

  2. Bob Loblaw says:

    I don’t think he’s as big of a butthole as I did before the speech. I think that was their goal. He didn’t run from Mormonism and that was smart. He got “real” last night in a way that I am not used to from him. I thought the speech hopped around a lot from substance to personality and back again. It wasn’t a real good flowing speech. I had a hard time finding its core. But maybe all it was about was making him, in Apollo Creed’s words in Rocky IV: “he’s a man, he’s not a machine!”

  3. Noway says:

    A good effort, a good week all ’round for the Repubs. I’m not sure it’s enough, though. The Dems will trot out pathetic, down and out folks who will be harmed by Repub policies and ‘cuts’ and the nation will do a collective ‘awwww’ and find the Repubs harsh. Elections are won on emotions and not logic. In my opinion, of course. Someone please give me a reason to think Romney will actually win.

    • Three Jack says:

      The dems will also trot out ‘victims’ of Bain Capital to juxtapose all the successful entrepreneurs featured last night. And maybe Kirk Douglas with a chair in response to Clint and his prop.

  4. nicholastjohnson says:

    Winning the nomination was a foregone conclusion. Why then did the RNC and Romney campaign go out of their way to disenfranchise the very people they will need to defeat Obama in November?

    In this article, the author explains why the Republican party may have cut off it’s nose to spite it’s face.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brad-linzy/ron-paul-revolution-republican-convention-mitt-romney_b_1843390.html?just_reloaded=1

    Most of the people in this forum have been rather hostile towards Paul and his supporters, but, with the nomination in the bag, I’m curious if you all think the RNC handled the situation appropriately.

    Here’s a video of some of the offenses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE

    And, just for kicks, here’s a 1 minute video of Marco Rubio telling the truth – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqrYc7CVTzg

    • bgsmallz says:

      So you and the author are upset that Ron Paul supporters didn’t have a chance to make a ceremonial protest at the convention and the result of which will be voting for a Libertarian candidate, effectively handing Obama a second term…

      and who is cutting off its nose to spite its face again?

      Your more than welcome to be affiliated with a third party and vote libertarian…that is anyone’s right in this country. Unfortunately, the recent history of 3rd parties in America is that they typically hurt the major party closer to their views more than the party that is more antithetical to them. Which is more beneficial to the long term vision of libertarians? Electing Mitt Romney or electing Barack Obama…because every vote comes with opportunity costs.

      • nicholastjohnson says:

        A “ceremonial protest”?!? Really?

        Regardless of who you liked for the nomination, the rule change will hamstring every single grassroots organization anywhere in the country.

        If the rules they put in place this week were in effect during his time, Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have become President. The ’76 floor fight wouldn’t have happened, and Reagan wouldn’t have gained party popularity.

        And, because people didn’t want that, you’re calling it a “ceremonial protest”? Amazing.

        • bgsmallz says:

          Ronald Reagan received 46% of the votes in the GOP primaries and won 10 states outright in ’76. Claiming that the ’76 floor fight was the key to his rise in popularity or would have been prevented by the new rules is ignorant. (claiming Reagan was a grassroots candidate is also pretty arguable..but alas..)

          The mistaken belief of Ron Paul supporters that their candidate in 2012 has any similarities to Reagan in 1976 and their seemingly unending sense of self-importance and true believer status is the exact reason I really have zero problem with some of the tactics taken during the convention. There is a reason the liberals in the media focused so much attention on a candidate that only received 10% of the primary votes and it is because he is so out of touch with the majority of Americans that it helps discredit the party to make him seem more like a mainstream GOP voice. Ron Paul is not the voice of conservatives or the GOP. His overall views, while having much to offer, are not sensical, let alone practical, and he and his supporters insistence on taking the spotlight and fighting others in the party are helping Obama win.

          • nicholastjohnson says:

            Had to literally laugh out loud at “media focused so much attention on [Ron Paul]”.

            Yours is an interesting perspective, to be sure.

            • bgsmallz says:

              My perspective is called “reality”.

              Feel free to google Ron Paul. Which other candidate that receive 10% of the votes in the primary season has that many current news stories on them?

              Ron Paul received just over 2M votes in the primary yet gets press out the wazoo. You know who has been closer to being the on a Presidential ballot over the past 20 years? Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, Hillary Clinton, Bill Bradley, John Edwards, Mike Hucakbee, Pat Buchannan, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum…heck, even Steve Forbes got 1.8M votes.

              Rick Santorum was a speaker at the convention, actually won a few states, had just about twice as many votes cast for him in the primary as Paul despite dropping out prior to April’s contests…and his name turns up roughly 31,000 news results on Google compared to Ron Paul’s 204,000!!!

              Ron Paul and his supporters get a disproportional amount of media coverage compared to their actual influence and support among voters.

              Is there a story there? Sure…he almost doubled his support from the last election. Is it worthy of gnashing of teeth and ‘sky is falling’ talk because he didn’t get more chances during the convention to undercut Romney? No.

              • nicholastjohnson says:

                We didn’t make the RNC rules – we just followed them.

                And, when we started to be successful, the party changed the rules.

                As MLK said, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” There could come a time when your candidate and your movement is squashed by the Rockefeller Republican machine. We cannot allow party leadership to divert the meaning of being a Republican.

                He supported abortion, gun control, the DHS, taxes, socialized healthcare, bailouts, the FED, and a national ID card, but you just keep telling yourself that he’s going to save you from Obama. Tow that party line and abandon your principles, if you wish.

                I simply choose not to.

                • bgsmallz says:

                  You have a funny definition of success and of what it means to be squashed by the machine…you are a vocal minority whose views on past, current, and future policy are not widely accepted or supported.

                  The fact that you attribute this to the machine rather than to your beliefs is pretty telling.

                  I get it…you think you are flag bearer of truth. Guess what, most people disagree. Feel free to keep blaming other things beyond your ideas.

                  • nicholastjohnson says:

                    “Started to be…” Typical cherrypicking of words to make a point.

                    So, which RP ideas do you disagree with? Just curious.

                    • bgsmallz says:

                      RP’s ideas aren’t the discussion. What is being discussed is your reaction to Mitt’s speach and the GOP convention.

                      What I disagreed with is as follows:

                      -Your definition of successful, whether it is new found or otherwise.
                      -Your characterization that Ron Paul 2012 is similar to Reagan ’76.
                      -Your assumption that Reagan’s rise to popularity started after the convention/as a result of the convention rather than prior to the convention.
                      -Your disbelief that Ron Paul is getting a disproportional amount of media coverage.
                      -Your proclamation that the GOP rather than Ron Paul supporters are guilty of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

                      I provide support above for each of my conclusions.

                      Thanks!

              • Engineer says:

                I think you are missing the main issue, as the guy who got 2nd most delegates, Paul at least deserved a chance to speak and have his delegates counted. Had the Republican Party not acted so rudely and just given him his well-earned chance to speak, and allowed his delegates to be counted (as they should have been), any issues would have arisen would have already died down. Instead, they denied him an opportunity to speak and changed delegate rules literally at the last minute.

                Then you wonder why people are annoyed. You must be dense as lead.

                • bgsmallz says:

                  Paul didn’t earn the 2nd most delegates. He ended up with the 2nd most after the other delegates encouraged their delegates to select Romney while Paul challenged the process and held a protest outside of the convention.

                  You know what’s dense? Assuming that someone acting like a petulant, sore loser throwing a protest rally outside of the convention center and threatening to break of from the party deserves a platform for those views during the national convention.

                  If you want to be the counter movement to the ‘establishment’ and claim to be the holder of ‘true’ conservatism while bashing the rest of the party, that’s fine and your perrogative. But don’t get ‘annoyed’ when you reap what you sow.

              • caroline says:

                I think you’re missing the story by looking at the number of votes. I think that Paul has created a “movement” albeit a small one. Just my opinion but I think he gets a lot of press because he attracted a lot of young voters and that’s what the press is interested in not really his numbers.

          • nicholastjohnson says:

            If his views are not “sensical” (whatever that means) or practical, why did the convention cheer so loudly when Clint mistakenly attributed a Ron Paul quote to Mitt? “Why put a timetable on a pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, just bring them home tomorrow morning.” /Thunderous applause

            Why does the party put out a video contrary to your opinion? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ1aXD3_cVw

            What exactly are you even talking about? What is ‘nonsensical’ or impractical about his “overall views”?

            • bgsmallz says:

              Feel free to continue on as long as you want…arguing against my conclusions/opinions without addressing the facts supporting them is classic.

              I’ll stick with my comments for the day.

                  • bgsmallz says:

                    You guys are so clever with your kool aid and cog talk.

                    It makes you soooooo intellectual to dismiss the arguments of others with unwavering belief that you have the market cornered on independent thought.

                    I’m sorry I got into an argument with such intellectual heavy weights. I’ll put my tin hat back on now.

          • HisIdeas says:

            In a competition, when someone cheats, he gets disqualified, not in Romney case apparently. Romney and the RNC/GOP machine are above the law! Law does not matter, let’s shut down the avid, youthful, fiercely independent thinking Ron Paul supporters out of the political process. Does not matter they follow the Rules and Laws and we don’t, does not matter how serious they are about personal and economic liberty. Does not matter RP supporters went through precinct, county, district, state convention and duly elected by the people and spent $4000 per person to attend the national convention just to be unseated – the same exclusionary tactics to diminish their huge influences every step of the way. GOP have committed massive election fraud against the Ron Paul delegates. 7 state plurality paper work has been turned in for nominating Ron Paul as presidential candidate. Just to be told on the fly RNC changed rule to 8 states! The hypocrisy of Rubio and Paul Ryan & GOP fall in line crowd love to toy with big words like liberty & freedom but in practice, their action is anything BUT liberty. Paul Ryan Voted FOR: TARP/GM Bailout & NDAA Authorizing Indefinite Detention.

            To any people who supported Romney/Ryan Ticket, I have sympathy for you because you feel they are the only choice, but please use facts to defend the record of Romney/Ryan both in support of TARP, Bailout, and Stimulus and anti liberty by supporting NDAA and the PATRIOT Act. If you cannot make a patriotic, conservative stance when you are called upon, then we can only expect you cave into fiat money, and be an enabler of globalist movement that is aimed to the loss of our economic freedom and independence. Romney/Ryan are not to be trusted when their very action proves the opposite of what they pretend to be. And yes, there is something very wrong about not speaking up against it.

      • nicholastjohnson says:

        “The same forces that put Obama in place have now engineered a choice in the 2012 election intended to force voters to side either with a socialist Democrat who wants to impose socialism on the nation or a socialist Republican who has already imposed socialism on his home state of Massachusetts. To say that voters who refuse to support either are somehow responsible for electing one or the other is like saying that people who refuse to submit to the demands of terrorists are somehow responsible for killing the people the terrorists subsequently murder. The guarantee of successful terrorism that results from that perverse logic places everyone’s life in greater danger.” – Alan Keyes

        • bgsmallz says:

          Speaking of perverse logic….what a stupid analogy. Ugh.

          However, if this is your view or the view of Mr. Keyes, then let’s take that analogy a bit farther and agree that there really isn’t a place for you inside either party and you should go to a third party and declare all out war. You wouldn’t be signing up for an Al Qaeda training camp in order to try to change the culture from the inside, right?

          Oh…and just to be clear, those folks that refuse to give in to terrorists are still making a choice and they are responsible for that choice. Mr. Keyes cleverly tries to play the ‘we are innocent because the bad guys created the circumstances’ game and ultimately he is correct in that it is the terrorists that have the blood on their hands. However, we are ALWAYS responsible for our choices and the ramification of those choices, period. We can’t shrug off responsibility because the circumstances are not of our choosing. I’m sure opinions differ on what personal responsibility will attach to a Ron Paul voter over the ultimate outcome of the election…you have your opinion and I have mine. Where we must agree is that there is personal responsibility in that vote and we all must deeply search and examine what the consequences of such will be.

          • nicholastjohnson says:

            Here’s Keyes’ full article. I think it is worth the read.

            “The issue is not what gave us Obama, but what gave us the choice between Obama and people like McCain and Romney, who are like him in all too many ways.

            Nothing done in the voting booth in 2008 “left us with Mr. Obama.” Obama’s election was assured when John McCain sided with those who crossed the Rubicon to socialism by adopting the TARP bank bailout plan. The overwhelming majority of Americans thought it a bad idea to pawn the good faith and credit of the American people in order to assure the profits of those who brought on the financial disaster in the first place. Had McCain taken their side, he would have beaten Obama in spite of himself. That was not the plan. The plan was exactly what happened — McCain took a dive in order to let Obama take the White House.

            The same forces that put Obama in place have now engineered a choice in the 2012 election intended to force voters to side either with a socialist Democrat who wants to impose socialism on the nation or a socialist Republican who has already imposed socialism on his home state of Massachusetts. To say that voters who refuse to support either are somehow responsible for electing one or the other is like saying that people who refuse to submit to the demands of terrorists are somehow responsible for killing the people the terrorists subsequently murder. The guarantee of successful terrorism that results from that perverse logic places everyone’s life in greater danger.

            I am responsible to God first and above all. If I stand silent now, I let the torrent of lies being used to promote Romney as some kind of “conservative” stand. He will receive support from well-intentioned people gulled by those lies. The credibility he gains from their support will give him the power to reshape the meaning of “conservative” in ways that betray their good intentions. Because of my silence, that result will be, in part, my doing. When he uses that credibility to promote the murder of innocent children conceived during forcible rape, their murders will be, in part, my doing. When he forces Catholic and other religious hospitals to provide abortifacient drugs or close their doors (as he did in Massachusetts), their sacrifice of conscience or good works will be, in part, my doing. When he uses the White House as a bully pulpit to pressure the Boy Scouts into accepting openly homosexual scouts and leaders, the abuses that are likely to result will be, in part, my doing. It may be prudent, in every worldly sense, for me to keep silent. But when I stand before almighty God to answer for my share of responsibility for the (supposedly lesser) moral evils attributable to Romney’s successful bid for power, how prudent will it seem that I avoided the world’s scorn by deserving the condemnation of God, who made and governs the universe this world is part of?

            The responsibility for Obama’s victory or loss burdens the people who support him. The responsibility for Romney’s victory or loss burdens the people who support him. Forces larger than both of us have engineered the situation in which those who oppose Obama supposedly “have no choice” but to support his all too similar opponent. But where there is no choice, there is no election, only a powerful fabrication intended to force good people to betray all that they profess to believe. I guess I would fall prey to those larger forces, and their powerful fabrication, if I did not believe that the greatest force of all is the self-evident truth of God’s superintending power. “Quid est veritas” (What is truth?) Pilate asked, before the election Jesus lost. “I am the way, and the truth and the life” was Jesus’ answer, to the disciple who questioned His way. Judged by the world’s prudence, Jesus was lacking, for he was crucified. Judged by God’s wisdom, Jesus was prudent, for his way is the way of the elect in the only election that matters.

            I think this was the faith of many of the founders of this country, who imprudently pledged their lives, and fortunes, in order to establish the God-acknowledging republic we are in process of destroying. Could it be that we are doing so precisely because of the excessive prudence that stands silent while evil triumphs, more or less? Could it be that the way to end that process of destruction is to elect, here and now, to act for the right as God gives us to see the right, not wait until AFTER an election that has already gone the wrong way (else there would be a choice for good)?

            “There is a way which seems right to man, but it is ultimately the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12). When faced with a crossroads of evil, human judgment makes out only one way or the other. But by the grace of God, we may choose the way of the Cross, which stands above either. Therein lies the imprudent, certain, only way to truth and life and victory.”

      • HisIdeas says:

        If Romney is not capable of winning, it is his problem and your problem, not my problem. We cannot in good conscience vote Romey/Ryan when their voting records shows they are pro-Tarp, pro-stimulus, pro-fiat money and anti liberty. On top of that, we have witnessed first hand how they every step of the way shut Ron Paul supporters out of the process. The GOP machine has used police state tactics, physical injury, false arrest, helicopter of 20+ cops to suppress strong Paul forces…. nothing indicates they are in line with liberty movement. Their
        depictable action says we don’t care what we can bring to the table.

        Stossel:
        “I’m okay with Santotum being squashed, I didn’t like Ron Paul being squashed!”

    • Rick Day says:

      2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

      The teleprompter is something different. That is not good, not good at all.

      And then, the Republicans started eating each other, right on the convention floor.

      Democratic Dirty tricks, no doubt.

  5. gcp says:

    We learned more last night about Romney from family, fellow Mormons and co-workers than we ever learned about Obama prior to his election in 2008.

    • Rick Day says:

      Obama ran for the office once. Romney twice. Eight years the GOP has had a chance to groom the guy for the Big Job.

      And you are just now learning about him through the words of some speech writer?

      Do you really think Romney wrote ANYTHING in that speech?

  6. bgsmallz says:

    Good speech. One thing I like about Romney is that he is steady and consistent…despite the ridiculous calls that he doesn’t connect with people or is ‘bland’ (which seems better suited to a career in TV rather than a commander-in-chief), he keeps plugging away and refuses to try to be someone that he is not. That sort of honesty and comfort in your own skin resonates when delivering ideas and projecting leadership. The last 3 Presidents that had two terms had one thing in common…they were ridiculed for some sort of perceived personality/character flaw and yet remained steady and content with who they were (and who they were not) throughout.

      • bgsmallz says:

        If your definition of a a person’s being is what positions they’ve taken on policy, I feel sorry for you. Clearly you missed the point…policy positions should evolve. What shouldn’t evolve is a person’s character, demeanor…their essence if you will. That used to be called leadership…now it is called being a flip flopper, a RINO, etc.

        Educate yourself on this:

        Abraham Lincoln was a flip flopper.
        George Washington was a flip flopper.
        Thomas Jefferson? Flip Flopper.
        FDR? Teddy? Reagan?

        Would we say that any of those men had the characteristic of people pleasers? That they didn’t show leadership?

        Get over yourself and the ‘youtube’ culture of today’s politics. Leadership has a definition that goes back father than 1997. One of those characteristics is being directed by trying to achieve what is right vs. what people want you to do.

        • nicholastjohnson says:

          I have no problem with flip flopping on ancillary policy positions (I’ll even generously lump socialized medicine in this category), but there are core principles that cannot ever change.

          1. Protection of 2nd amendment rights
          2. Protection of life
          3. Believing that government is not the solution to problems

          You can evolve on some things, but not the important things. If you can’t understand this, I can’t help you.

          • bgsmallz says:

            Lincoln flipped on his position on whether the US should emancipate slaves. Ancillary, indeed.

            Someone needs to inform the Almighty that the apostle Paul did not have the capability to evolve on his belief that all Christians should be stoned.

            I’ll stick with my original comment…

        • nicholastjohnson says:

          You probably view me as a kook, since I support RP. Maybe, you appreciate a former RNC chairman’s words more.

          ‎”What the Republican National Committee did to Ron Paul was the height of rudeness and stupidity for this reason: Why would you alienate an individual who has the ability to attract a new generation of voters, who are already skeptical of your institution but are willing to at least listen through the vehicle of this individual and the words that he is saying? Why would you alienate them, get on the floor and not let them speak? Not have his name go up on the board and see the number of electoral votes that he receives? This is crazy! … They are afraid of that which they cannot control.”

          -Michael Steele, Former RNC Chairman

          • Engineer says:

            The change to rule 16 didn’t even get voted on.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77W5OKStO5s

            One of the folks there recorded the teleprompter and who would have guessed it, but they read the results off the teleprompter, the loud dissent meant nothing. Thanks to this kind of stuff, beyond local contests, I cannot see myself voting republican (or democrat for that matter) any time soon.

          • bgsmallz says:

            I don’t think you are a kook. Hopefully you understand that I respect you as a neighbor and fellow American. If you feel that my responses are insults rather than arguments, I apologize and chalk that up to my inability to handle the written word.

            Respectfully, I think you are wrong.

            • nicholastjohnson says:

              “In the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle.” – T. Paine

              I’ll say it is applicable today, since we’re ignoring the Constitution.

              I have been asked today on more than one occasion if I will vote for Romney. The question is typically followed quickly with the information that a vote for anyone else is basically a vote for Obama.

              I’ve considered this statement at length, since I vehemently oppose Obama and his collectivist ideals.

              Are those people saying that I should abandon my principles to vote for someone who I think is a detriment to our country because he is less of a detriment to our country than another person? It all boils down to this: “Nick, disregard your principles, support the party!”

              In almost any other situation, I would be vilified for abandoning my principles, but in this instance, you all think it is okay for me to be unprincipled… It almost feels like you’re testing me – like you’re so guilty for your own inability to stand by your principles that you want me to abandon my own to make you feel better about yourselves.

              You say Romney would be able to pick justices if elected – oh really?!? Justices like Roberts? No thanks, I’ll pass.

              I’m left with choosing between the man who wants to shoot me in the leg and the man who wants to shoot me in the head – ummm, Option C, please! Sure, you’re definitely a goner in the head, but you could potentially bleed out even if you take the leg. Why would anyone with any principles want either?!?

              Shouldn’t we all vote for the person who most closely matches our own principles – regardless of that person’s party, race, gender, religion, etc?

              If you don’t have principles, what do you have?

              • bgsmallz says:

                I call this the “Alan Keyes Response”

                You know who is really principled? The Devil. Stalin and Hitler had principles and they never compromised.

                Principles don’t mean crap if they aren’t based on truth.

  7. Rick Day says:

    Today the time has come for us to put the disappointments of the last four years behind us.

    To put aside the divisiveness and the recriminations.

    To forget about what might have been and to look ahead to what can be.

    yah….except…the GOP has been the single source of said divisiveness and the recriminations.

    Translation: had enough of our 4 year Nation Destroying Knuckle Dragging temper tantrums? Expect 4 more years of temper tantrums, if you don’t vote for Mitt.

    Put these words in his mouth instead: “I will lead by example”, Ms. Romney Speech Writer, whoever you are.

    • nicholastjohnson says:

      The GOP does not want to win the presidency. There may be good reasons for it, too. If I had to guess, I would say that there is more money in being the underdog than being the incumbent, but that’s just a guess.

      Romney will not motivate anyone to go to the polls – he is, most clearly, a corporate shill bought and paid for by the big bankers of the world. Watching the convention, I couldn’t help but wonder – how many of those people would say, ‘Anyone but Paul!’? A lot, I’d imagine. But, because of their actions, the person they will get besides Paul is Obama.

      They would rather have Obama than Ron Paul! Why? How can that be? What about him do they hate so ardently?

      So, we’ll have another four years of destruction under Obama, and the GOP will blame the turncoats that just couldn’t pull the lever for Romney. But, in the end, they’ll have no one to blame but themselves. They cheated the very individuals they needed to coddle, they burned the bridge instead of reinforcing it, and because of their hypocrisy and arrogance, both parties will continue to isolate and alienate more and more of the electorate.

      The environment is ripe for a person or people to rise up out of the middle, to boldly renounce affiliation with any party, to stand for the rights and liberties of every individual, to be a party of one, and to lead millions of citizens, each their own party of one. The time for petty partisan politics has passed.

    • Noway says:

      Rick, why are you riled up by the fact that Romney has a speech writer? They all do at this level. Reagan had Peggy Noonan, about the best ever in the business. You can bet Mitt reviewed it before it went into the teleprompter. What is the issue here with you?

  8. gcp says:

    Romney did not win the 08 nomination; Mr. Obama won his party’s nomination. The only church member I saw in 08 was Rev. Wright. The only family members were his wife and children. I didn’t see his half-brother or any other family members. And Obama’s co-workers, where were they in 2008?

    • SallyForth says:

      gcp, Mr. Obama did not win his party’s nomination in 08 either. Hillary Clinton actually won the nomination, but was denied it by the DNC and Ted Kennedy’s machine, who had the DNC rules committee count Michigan and Florida (where Hillary won winner-take-all) delegates as 1/2 persons, took votes away from her and gave them to Obama so they could justify nominating him instead of her. So the guy who lost the primary elections got nominated by party bosses for the general election and now sits in the White House. I don’t think anything the Republicans may have done this year could ever rise to that level of chicanery.

      Unaccountable, unelected party bosses now control our presidency. We the voters only get to vote for the two people they allow on the November ballot. However they did it, the Republicans have nominated a decent man this year, whom they presented to the nation well this week. So voters have a reasonable choice.
      In the future, it would be nice to go to a jungle primary, like our nation’s founders started out with – take the R and D off the ballot, do nonpartisan. I know I’m dreaming……

      • Blake says:

        This is at least the second time you’ve raised this canard. Michigan and Florida held their contests before their allowed dates, which is the reason their delegate counts were halved (which was a compromise; the initial decision was to deny Florida’s and Michigan’s delegations completely, *back in December 2007*). There was no conspiracy to select Obama. Obama worked with the rules as written–including knowing that Michigan and Florida were compromised contests–and won. Hilary came close, but she didn’t win jack. Obama won more delegates, period.

        • SallyForth says:

          Nupe, not a canard. Obama lost the primary in both states. After the DNC rules committee counted only half their primary numbers in the Hillary column, they then twisted MI & FLA arms up around their ears that they had to give their votes to Obama, and the DNC magically seated 100% of both delegations at the Denver convention and gave 100% of both states to Obama (who actually lost both). Hillary won more votes than any presidential primary candidate in history: 17,856,501 to Obama’s 17,584,692. She also won more delegates before the party bosses in Washington reshuffled the deck. Sad.

          But that’s all history now, and what I meant to say (free Modify/Delete!!) was that I’d like to see jungle nonpartisan elections, let the voters decide instead of unelected party honchos.

          • Blake says:

            Yes, he lost the primary in both states, *because neither state counted for anything* when their primaries were held. Why bother competing when the result counts for nothing? He focused his energy where some actual legitimate delegates could be won. Maybe if their elections had counted for something, he would have put his back into those contests as well, and he might have gotten a majority of the popular Democratic primary vote to match his majority delegate win. However, the popular vote, much like with the Electoral College, doesn’t count in party presidential primaries; only the delegate count matters. So he focused on winning that, and he did. As far as seating both states for him at the convention, what else would they do?–Hilary had already conceded the primary to Obama, so anything else was pointless.

            As to your final point, couldn’t agree more. I think both major parties’ candidate selection processes are undemocratic. Allowing the GOP and the Dems to behave like private entities is completely stupid. Since they’re the only games in town, either both of them ought to be fully open to the control of the public, or they ought to be done away with completely, by means of a jungle primary or whatever other means would be effective.

        • caroline says:

          No she’s right. The DNC gave Obama delegates from MI that he did not even earn. Hillary actually had more delegates and more votes because she won the big state primaries and Obama only won those red state caucuses. Obama and Edwards pulled out of the MI primary because it was moved up and wanted to pander to IA. Hillary stayed in the MI primary as well as competed in IA.

          The delegates were restored at the RBC meeting but they weren’t given to Hillary who earned them.

          • Blake says:

            Funny that Hillary didn’t say anything about MI and FL losing all their delegates when the decision was made–in 2007. Perfectly happy to let those states be beauty contests at the time. Then, when she’s losing, oh no now it’s a big deal. As I said above, the delegates were awarded to Obama *after* Hillary had conceded, IOW, he was already the nominee.

            Look, I will criticize Obama readily. I think he’s a murderer for killing U.S. citizens by drone without due process. But this is just nonsense election lore, like Nader supposedly costing Gore the 2000 election. It didn’t happen.

    • SallyForth says:

      Okay, gotta weigh in here. A great actor, producer, director did exactly what he intended to do. Eastwood’s casual, rambling demeanor was the behavior of a man who can, by virtue of his celebrity, his accomplishments, and his age, do whatever and say whatever he wants. (It’s probably one of the biggest benefits to getting older!)

      He’s a professional who deliberately used his appearance and his seniority, in order to get away with slapping around you-know-who. He showed the nation that it’s okay to make jokes about our current president, just as has always been done about predecessors. People saw a Hollywood icon doing exactly what he intended to do in such an intelligent manner that it went right over the heads of people who like to think of themselves as intellects.

      Crazy like a fox! On the days that Democrats and their media would otherwise have been picking apart Romney’s speech, they have been instead attacking Clint Eastwood. Like a hero in a cowboy movie, he drew the fire so his buddy could get away unharmed – and Romney picked up a 5 point swing in the polls, according to today’s news. Maybe the Democrats need to find them an Eastwood for Charlotte!

      • jbgotcha says:

        I can’t get over how trapped everyone is in this “winners and losers” paradigm. We watch these orchestrated pageants and cheer for our side like it’s our favorite sports team. They blatantly lie, and the analysis consists of breaking down how “effective” they were at manipulating us. Can’t you see it for what it is? None of these politicians are going to get us out of this mess as long as fall for this entertainment propaganda sponsored by corporate America. I’m so disappointed.

    • Harry says:

      “We own this country . . . Politicians are employees of ours . . . And when somebody does not do the job, we’ve got to let them go.” –Clint Eastwood

Comments are closed.