Posted on 10/06/2012 6:51:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
He tried ignoring his base in the primary when it was rallying behind marriage in North Carolina and rallying behind Chick-fil-a when it was under attack, and that didn’t work. Then he tried just scaring people into voting against Obama, and that didn’t work.
Finally, Mitt Romney tried conservatism at Wednesday night’s debate—and that did.
The result was Romney – that’s right, the guy that was once named the No.8 RINO in the country by Human Events – provided the country the most teachable moment on the differences between Republicans and Democrats in a presidential election since before Al Gore invented the Internet.
No, he wasn’t perfect. He still bought into the Left’s “soak the rich” redistribution of wealth flawed premise. He still got caught lauding the virtues of government regulation. And he is still the guy that provided the blueprint for Obamacare.
But Rome wasn’t built in a day.
When Romney was on, he was really on. He invoked the 10th Amendment. When was the last time a GOP presidential nominee did that? The answer that gave him the highest marks from a CNN focus group featuring undecided voters in the swing state of Colorado was Romney contrasting our philosophy of government from the Democrats, including Romney citing our founding documents like The Declaration of Independence.
Be still my beating heart.
Romney made me forget he was, well, Romney. I found myself cheering him on for the first time since, well, ever. Why? For me it’s not about personalities, factions, or partisanship. I’m just not a person motivated to vote for any hackneyed Republican because the Democrat is so bad anymore. Been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt. All that gave me was more big and immoral government and a loss of brand integrity.
The ruling class wants it to be about those petty things so it doesn’t have to provide what the American people are clamoring for—leadership. So if only Nixon could go to China and Nebuchadnezzar could praise Daniel’s God, then I’m certainly not going to muzzle the ox while it’s treading its grain. Yes, Romney’s record in Massachusetts is still heinous. And yes, there are times I trust him about as much as I trust the secondary of my Detroit Lions. But I’m also thankful that Romney chose the biggest stage in the world to defend vital parts of my belief system. Besides, given his past, it’s not like he doesn’t owe us one or a few.
See, for me this is about principles. A good friend of mine who is a national leader in the pro-life movement told me after the debate Wednesday night, “I never thought I’d be cheering on Romney.” I told him, “You’re not cheering on Romney. You’re cheering on our principles because Romney finally decided to run on them.”
Most of us become Republicans because of the principles in the party platform, and we recognize that those who don’t are usually the worst Republicans. After this debate, I sensed conservatives more united than we had been since the Scott Walker recall. That’s because principles unite us, while tactical obfuscation and “architect” electioneering divides us. The party establishment thinks we want their candidates to be perfect, when really all we want them to be is Republicans.
This was different than Romney’s well-chronicled and convenient etch-a-sketches in Republican primaries the past two election cycles on issues conservatives care deeply about. This was a candidate going on a national stage and doing what John McCain, George W. Bush, and Bob Dole were either incapable of doing or unwilling to. This was a guy willing to draw some stark worldview differences between himself and his Democrat opponent, while pointing out exactly why his Democrat opponent failed.
Remember when McCain-Palin spent four total debates four years ago never challenging the Democrat meme that free market economics is what led to the banking crisis? Remember how you got so mad you wanted to dislodge your own eyeball without anesthetic out of frustration? Remember screaming at the television set, begging and pleading the GOP ticket to actually defend what you believe for once?
Wednesday night our pleas were answered from an unlikely source, but at this point I’ll take it where I can get it. You can tell Romney was effective because the Left is claiming he transformed himself into a moderate to defeat Obama. No, we’ve seen Romney as a moderate. It’s called the 2012 Republican presidential primary. And we’ve seen Republican presidential candidates running as moderates, and we all have the collective scars to prove it.
This was Romney finally throwing caution (and hopefully his incestuous batch of defeatist consultants) to the wind and proving once for all that unlike McCain he’s willing to do what it takes to become president. What it takes is drawing stark distinctions between Republicans and Democrats and meaning it. When voters see stark distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, Republicans win. When voters don’t, Democrats do.
Conservatism works every time it’s tried.
Now that Romney has gone from sprinkling to full immersion conservative baptism under fire, let’s see if he follows through the final four weeks of the campaign. If he does, then for the first time I believe he could actually become the next President of the United States, and Republicans down ballot all over the country will benefit on November 6th.
Finally, for more of my thoughts on the impact of the debate, and what it means in the race moving forward, you can click here.
it is our job to push him to the tea-party conservative way
however the numbers of abortions due to ALL 4 of these is barely 0.5% to 1% of the total number of abortions.
we should focus first on the saving of the largest number -- the babies killed for no reason other than "birth control"
For Incest and rape, remember that these are a tiny number -- and I agreee that there is no justification for the abortion and it is a sin, but focussing on this instead of the larger number of babies which we can save is wrong.
Romney ay not be the conservative we want and need, but he may be a tad better than the alternative. Since the same
people own both paraties we have no choice in 2-12!
In reality it's a sort of depreciation of the value of the Presidency. We bring in a new suit with a different team ~ and they make other stupid mistakes.
I think this sort of thing will ultimately lead to a total parliamentary system. It's getting too expensive to keep in place a permanently elected gang of thieves ~ we need to be able to remove them pursuant to a vote in Congress to hold an election.
I am against baby killing of all stripes on a religious basis. On a legal basis, again there can be no justification for the taking of a life unless someone believes that their own life is in danger -- what I mean is this, I'm not a woman and I cannot demand a woman to sacrifice her life -- those who DO, are saints and I salute them
My numbers of 0.5% are taken from the statistics of Polish abortions -- Poland allows abortions only for rape, incest, mother's life and health and foetal defects -- and abortion % is 0.16 -- in 2010 there were 413,300 births and 644 abortions in the country (so abortions under the excuse of rape etc. -- I don't know the break up of these)
In contrast, out of 4,317,119 births in the US in 2009 (all numbers taken from ) there were 676,823 -- an abortion rate of 20%
US population is approximately 9 times the size of Poland's -- hence if we ONLY allowed abortion in case of rape,incest,mother's health and life and foetal "defects", the number of babykillings that would be allowed would be 6,100 -- in stead we have 676,823 --> so one can conclude that out of all the abortions int he US, 99% are not for incest/rape/mothers life/mother health/foeatl defects
THAT's where I get my numbers from -- in contrast, in the US or Russia ti is 20% or more.
Using those numbers, I guestimate that legitimate abortions for mother's health and life are 0.5%
Look at the bigger picture -- we want to save lives. If we fall for left's game of using the 1% to justifiy the 99%, we fail those 99%.
For now we must focus on the ending of frivolous abortion (the 99%) -- next, when we have the Presidency, Congress and the Senate, then baby killing (instead of adoption) for incest, rape and "foetal defects" is to end -- and note for the latter, I believe it is your and my responsibility as society (NOT government's) to help the parents with children with disabilities
Finally we are then left with a pregnancy that can harms a woman's health (physical) or endanger her life -- for this, I cannot demand her to do this, even though I believe it is wrong to take a life. I can help her through this difficult decision, ask her to think about it, to change her mind, but I cannot demand it of her, I'm sorry. Such a situation is one of a horrible decision, but it is the woman's decision.
Baby killing with the justification of mother's life/health is still horrible, but as I gave in the stats above, this is 0.5% or at max 1% of all abortions --> I am sympathetic with the mother's in those situations and think those who do not kill are saints, but I am HORRIFIED at mothers (AND fathers) who kill their babies for "birth control"
That's been his excuse all along for not abjuring RomneyCare. Let the states experiment ...
We know what the steps are next January. Open the Affordable Care Act. Select All (2700 pages). Delete. Save. Then start typing ... but what to type?
Do NOT let the left say "they want mothers to die " -- you think they will care about the fact of what Muawiyah has said? Do you think it would work in the MSM? No. We must not give the left the chance
Save the 99%, then work to save more babies.
You need to vote for Mother Theresa
BTW, when it comes to chosing among the innocent who to murder I'd suggest you keep that one to yourself ~
It can work if we save 99%
No, we need to work slowly -- if we go for all, we get shot down by the liberals.
Would you want to be able to quickly pass a law to save 600,000 babies a year? I would still be horrified by the 60,000 killed, but it would be the next step.
Instead if we are intransigent we risk the entire 660,000 dying...
And note that the legality doesn't mean we condone it.
You and I are following incompatible philosophies on the matter.
And you want to save babies just as I do. I believe that by not giving the left the opportunity to stop anti-abortion laws by saying "oh, what about the 1%"? we say more babies NOW
The rest we must work to once this first, biggest hurdle is crossed
It's like the horrible choice of an army fighting the enemy -- we can defend all and lose everything (which we will if we go INITIALLY for everything) or if we defend the 99% we save the 99% now and then go on to saving the remaining 1%
We then save 656,000 out of 660,000 babies -- we can work to saving more
If we hold out for everything, then we lose everything and next year instead of 6000 babies being killed, 660,000 gets killed -- and mark my words -- I'm still appalled by the 6000 and will continue to work to save all, but let us cut the legs under the left by saving the 656,000 first.
Over there they have a slogan "UP AGAINST THE WALL" ~ which is where I'd rather see them ~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.