Why I Will Vote for Romney-Ryan in November

http://www.freerepublic.com/~mkjessup/ | 17 August 2012 | Mark Jessup (aka mkjessup)

[mkjessup]

I've been on FR since 2003. Hard to believe next March will be my 10th year here, assuming I don't get zotted for one reason or another, lol

To that handful of detractors who would LIKE to think this is my opus, guess again suckers - I would never give you the satisfaction of it. Now that we have that out of the way, why this vanity?

First of all, I'm posting this in News/Activism not because this is sourced from a network, newspaper, etc., but because I've noticed that nobody else worries about posting their vanities in the 'Personal/Blogger' section, so WTH should I?

Now for the purpose of my writing today: after a great deal of soul searching and I might add, a goodly amount of prayer, I have come to the conclusion that my vote in November must and will be cast for the GOP ticket of Romney and Ryan. I did not reach this decision easily. Even a casual review of my past posts will reveal that I have reviled, ridiculed, lambasted and sneered at Mitt Romney with the best of them. I've posted my own home brewed graphics to the laughs of my fellow FReepers, I have been steadfast in saying 'no damn way' would I ever even consider voting for that liberal Republican from Massachuetts, no way would I reward the GOP elites with my vote after they've pissed on conservatives from sea to shining sea. The Party of Reagan is no more, let no one deceive you. We as conservatives are more at home in the Tea Party, and yet what was for a short while the natural home for conservatives, i.e. the Republican Party is an unfamiliar neighborhood, a place that sometimes looks like the place we remember, but upon a second glance, we realize that everything is different now, everything has changed.

Now there are good and Godly conservatives who in a perfect world, WOULD be viable candidates for the Presidency, there is no need to list them all here, we all have our favorites and we all know who we would prefer to be voting for. Our own Tom Hoefling would be a better President than the miserable Kenyan sonuvabitch that is stinking up the White House right now, hell *I* would be a better President than that despicable usurper and liar, and so would most of you, my fellow FReepers.

Now I can recite (and in the past, I have) endless reasons as to why I could not and would not vote for Mitt Romney. In many ways it galls me no end to have reached the conclusion that my own Constitutional duty is to vote for a guy that I had sworn never to vote for. It really REALLY starches my shorts however I have had to question my own perspectives, my own views and ask myself the question, "can I honestly justify another four years of what one of my heroes Senator Joe McCarthy would certainly have labeled a 'Communist regime'?

I cannot do that. I do not like the presumptive GOP nominee, I do not agree with many of his past positions. However I cannot deny that one and only one of the two major party candidates for President is going to be sworn in next January. It will either be that treasonous little bastard 0bama, or it will be Mitt Romney. Anyone, and I mean ANYBODY, who thinks that Tom Hoefling, Virgil Goode, or any other non-'Rat/non-GOP candidate is going to be sworn in as our 45th President next year, I will personally bet $100,000 against that happening at any odds they wish, because that is how likely it is that NEITHER 0bama or Romney will end up being elected in November. I won't lose one dime on that sort of wager.

So how do I justify voting for the GOP and Romney this time around? Well, some things I do NOT believe about Romney is that he hates America, that he hates our capitalist system, that he wants to weaken our national defense, sell out our allies and reward our enemies. I don't agree with nor support his religious faith. But his belief in the tenets of Mormonism is quite frankly between him and God. Now while it is easy to find all sorts of things about the Mormon faith that fly in the face of basic traditional Christianity, if the choice is between a closet-crypto Muslim in the White House, and a church going, charitable, prayerful Mormon who doesn't cheat on his wife, doesn't smoke dope, doesn't even drink (is that true? I'm not sure but I think Mitt is a tee-totaler), I'm pulling the lever for that Mormon guy.

Picture all of America on a gigantic airliner, streaking through the sky, when word comes back from the cockpit that Captain 0bama has never even flown a plane of this size or any size, he's been reading the instruction manual from a hidden teleprompter on top of the instrument panel, we're headed for a bad patch of CAT (Clear Air Turbulence) and the illustrious fake pilot is going to try and fake his way through that turbulence, and it is a foregone conclusion that "we're all gonna die!" - but up in first class (of course, lol) Mitt Romney stands up and informs everyone that he IS a licensed pilot, and that he can get our airliner away from the turbulence, down to a safer altitude, get us back on the proper heading, and land safely at our destination. He offers to take the controls. SOME passengers question him "have you ever flown a plane like this?" and he answers honestly "no, not quite this size, but I AM a pilot, I HAVE flown in difficult circumstances before, and I've got more skills than that fake pilot up in the cockpit that we are about to crash with". Who the Hell is going to argue against that logic? No other pilots on board. No parachutes. And indeed, a fool and an oaf at the controls of the cockpit. WTF do we have to lose?

And another analogy that I've already posted recently, which is that conservatives need to do what the Western allies did in World War II, they did not particularly like Joe Stalin, in fact they knew him to be a rotten communist sonvuabitch but the "enemy of our enemy was our friend" (or at least a convenient ally) and the GREATER enemy was in Berlin, in the form of Hitler and we needed Stalin and his troops to attack the Nazis from the East, and that is why we sent them tons of lend-lease assistance to help them accomplish that. And what kind of fools would have urged a different course in that war? A course of telling Stalin and Soviet Russia that they were "on their own" and they would receive no assistance from us? Can you imagine for just a moment if Nazi Germany had prevailed on the Eurasian continent, the Swastika flying all the way from London to Vladivostok?

Now having painted that sort of grim picture of alternate history, I think we can agree that for all of Mitt Romney's faults, he is not a Joe Stalin, he may be a liberal but he is no Communist.

Can we say the same for 0bama and his crew of America-hating scumbags?

Now a powerful factor in my decision to support the GOP ticket was in fact, the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney's VP running mate. Now Paul Ryan is nobody's fool. If there was anybody I wanted to have the ear of 'President Romney' it would be Vice President Paul Ryan. Everyone keeps saying "if Romney would just move to the right", well I believe Paul Ryan is the best person to accomplish that task. They seem to have a good chemistry and that bodes well for the success of their ticket. The polls show Romney-Ryan up, and 0bama and the 'Rats freaking and shrieking as their numbers decline.

Now I have myself made the argument in the past that the only difference between Romney and 0bama is that 0bama is driving us to the edge of the cliff at 100 mph, and Romney is going to reduce our speed to a thrifty 55 mph. And even IF that were to be proven true, I'm not in any hurry to reach the edge of that cliff.

Now in closing, I ask the following question: how many of us would clench our teeth and pull the lever for Gerald Ford, or Bob Dole, or any other establishment RINO if it meant the end of 0bama? To get that filthy Communist out of the White House, I would (to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill) 'consider writing in the name of the devil himself', and so for that reason my friends and FRiends, I will support and vote for the GOP ticket of Romney & Ryan in November, not because everything about it excites and pleases me, but because I cannot be a party to another 4 years of the Kenyan traitor staining and besmirching the Office once held by the greatest President of all history, Ronald Wilson Reagan. I submit that Reagan would vote for Romney. We can be assured that Sarah Palin is going to vote for Romney. So will Newt Gingrich. So will Rick Santorum. So IF I am making a mistake by casting my vote for the GOP this year, I will be in good company.

Thanks for your kind consideration.

Mark Jessup

[ansel12]

What a bunch or Romneylike, anti-Reagan crock, Reagan was always pro-life, he didn’t “evolve” into it, and yes that bill he hesitantly signed in his first six months in office in 1967, he regretted greatly, as it was abused. I have never heard that Reagan was famous for scandals. None of this has anything to do with the anti-Reagan Romney.

Reagan was a famously anti-communist Union head, and 1948 was the last time that Reagan voted for a democrat president, after that he always campaigned for the republican. Reagan was a social conservative, a famous hero of the religious right and social conservatives.

Conservatives did not support him “in spite of” he was THE LEADER OF CONSERVATISM, conservatives were his base, Reagan led them to victory over the Romney wing of the party.

Romney was a lefty, pro-abortion guy during the 1960s, and the Vietnam war, after Roe v Wade, after Carter and during the Reagan revolution, after Reagan, during the intense abortion wars, the Clinton years, and half of George Ws term.

You are lying about me having made these points “I think that the points that you make about Romney aligning himself with mainstream Rockerfeller/Country Club Republicans, or cozying up with the ruling Democrat power brokers while he was in business at Bain Capital in Boston” you really are a lying romneybot, I never said it, and that is not what happened.

Your “unsourced rumor” of a Romney family member dying from abortion is a tale that Romney uses to promote abortion, it wasn’t a family member and it was in 1963, Romney was still using it during the Clinton years.

You are really a work, that post of yours is so much bull, it is incredible, you simply deny everything about Romney’s decades of politics, Romney’s leaving the party because of Reagan and so on.

Romney is a failed governor that had to give up his plan to run again, because of his ending his term with 34% approval.

Romney has no personal character, he is a pathological liar and a man with seemingly no shame, conscious, or scruples, like your post.

[MEG33]

2007 race
Dr. John Willke Endorses Mitt Romney

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/willke-romney/2007/10/22/id/321953
Dr. Willke, helped found the National Right To Life Committee and served for 10 years as its president. Dr. Willke serves as president of the Life Issues Institute, Inc., and president of the International Right to Life Federation.

National Right To Life
04/18/12
http://www.nrlpac.org/pdf/POTUS%20Comparison.pdf

Comparison chart Romney and Obama

[2ndDivisionVet]

Hear, hear!

[BeauBo]

Ouch! Looks like I have riled you up personally, so I apologize about that.

What I am trying to demostrate is how selective presentation and phrasing can even make Ronald Reagan look questionable. You don’t seem to have anything good to say about Romney at all and plenty of sweeping negative generalizations. I think that you have exaggerated Romney’s ideology and imputed a lot of motivation to to iedological committment. I have worked with a lot of folks in business and government who are just trying to stay out of trouble and gain some advantage by presenting whichever politcal position will work for that audience at that moment - its common.

You accuse me of lying, for which you should, if you were fair, apologize. Here are the points you made, which I characterized as: “about Romney aligning himself with mainstream Rockerfeller/Country Club Republicans, or cozying up with the ruling Democrat power brokers while he was in business at Bain Capital in Boston.”

1. You wrote: Romney became a supporter of liberal republicans through the 1980s, until 1989 (this is what I called aligning himself with mainstream Rockerfeller/Country Club Republicans)

2.after that, all of Romney’s donations went to democrats (these few years (89-93)were when he was leading Bain Capital in Boston)
3. Romney even did democrat fundraising and voted democrat (this is what I called cozying up with the ruling Democrat power brokers while he was in business at Bain Capital in Boston.) Note: the voting was in the Democrat primary (not the general) for the local Mass. candidate (Paul Tsongas) while Romney was registered as an independent. It is a token freebie to ingratiate with local powerbrokers, and it was a vote against Bill Clinton. It was about twenty years ago - about the same length of time between Reagan voting Democrat in the 1948 general election and being the principled conservative candidate in the 1968 Republican primary.

I was not quoting you verbatim, I was characterizing the points you made and adding some context - and they are what happened. You repeatedly calling these lies and me a liar are way off base.

You state: “Romney was a lefty, pro-abortion guy during the 1960s, and the Vietnam war” He had nothing to do with the anti-war left at that time, but rather he was a clean cut, church going, hard working, good student and a Republican - not what folks then would consider a “lefty”. Objectively, this baseless mischaracterization is much more a lie than any statement that I made (except possibly for his abortion belief at the time - I don’t know).

You state: you simply deny everything about Romney’s decades of politics. That is simply untrue. I have a different impression of his motivation in taking his positions - he strikes me as a professional politician who can wheathervane with changes in public opinion and work out deals with the opposition. Massachusetts is one of the most leftist political environments in the whole country. You seem to simply deny all of the many actions that totalled to a lifetime American Conservative Union score of 88 - which is a great lot to deny. I guess they are now just bull because they don’t agree with your absolutist narrative.

You state: Romney has no personal character, he is a pathological liar and a man with seemingly no shame, conscious, or scruples, like your post.

Talk about demonization... this descends into irrational hatred. Let’s face it - he is a squeaky clean choir boy for a politician, and this is unfair.

As always: Obama Must Be Defeated.

[BeauBo]

You want to tell me again why I would believe a nonsense suggest that: "he is more the professional politician, tailoring his positions and messages to the audience, than he is a committed ideologue."

Because it was Massachusetts.

The legislature was and is overwhelmingly Democrat, as is the electorate, press and donor base.

The Govenor does not exert dictatorial control. What was his effect on policy? ACU rated him at 88%. Check out how many vetoes he cast (eight on "Romneycare" alone).

Bottomline: No one could get elected there as a social conservative, so he ran as a fiscal conservative/social liberal (as professional consultants would advise any candidate in that constituency). He honored the deal he ran on. Some believe that elected officials have a duty to represent their constituents.

But above all: Obama Must Be Defeated!

[Diogenesis]

Massachusetts was doing WELL until Mr. RomneyCARE,
author of "Death Panels" and "Taxes as Fees".

"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Very thoughtful post.

[netmilsmom]

Thank you. I’m voting for Ryan and his posse.

[mkjessup]

Well Good Morning Reverend, it's only Saturday but I can see you've been in the pulpit since last night...

Not sure who you have been praying to to come to this conclusion, but the God I serve, you know, the God of the Bible, states that Homosexuality is not just a sin, but an Abomination, and here is Romney abandoning children to these deviants and you think God has led you to vote for this guy?

I serve the same God. And as I recall, that same God we both serve used the King of Babylon as an instrument of His Will, and His Nation Israel was preserved as a result. If God can use Nebuchadnezzar, He can most certainly use Mitt Romney.

Add in the fact that God requires you to stand against Sin and those that Sin, and this certainly would qualify, and that leaves me puzzled as to how you think God is really looking on this choice of yours.

Well it looks like you're just going to have to remain puzzled for a while, perhaps when you have afternoon tea with the Almighty today, you might ask Him about how He 'looks' upon this choice I've made. I will fortunately answer to Him, and not to you, so don't make that reservation for my soul to sail the river Styx just yet.

I pray God gets a hold of your common sense, your conscience, your principles, and your heart and talks you out of this rash decision.

I pray that God will knock you off of that high horse before you hurt somebody, including yourself.

[mkjessup]

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
~ Winston Churchill
Old Winnie didn't think much of giving in.

All the more reason that voting 0bama out must be the default position for any thinking conservative.

Thanks for that Colonel.

[netmilsmom]

Brilliant! The fate of the nation is at stake and some people spend their time coding HTML.

[windsorknot]

I was an ABR guy during the GOP primaries, but now I am ABO all the way!

[mkjessup]

Thanks very much. You remind me of another ‘Dan’ that I know, a FReeper who hasn’t been around in a long long time, I’ll FReepmail you about him a little later on today.

Hope your weekend is a great one FRiend!

[mkjessup]

Sometimes survival trumps ideology.

Yes it does GH, and over the past four years I have often pondered how many of us would have gone ahead and pulled the lever in the general election of 2008 for Rudy Giuliani, if he had been the nominee instead of McCain. How many of us would have stayed home and given 0bama the victory? Giuliani would have at least fought like Hell, unlike McCain who threw the damn election.

I disagree with Giuliani on as many (or more) issues than I do with Romney, but to choose an America-hating muslim either by design or by default is simply unthinkable. I don't have to love Romney, Hell I don't even have to like him.

Sonny Liston wasn't the most likeable character, either in or out of the boxing ring, but he knocked out Floyd Patterson and became the champion. All Sonny Romney has to do is knock out 0bama once.

[mkjessup]

And Romney, with his liberal policies will destroy the GOP as a home of any conservative thought or leadership for years to come.

That train has unfortunately already left the station. Just to clarify, you prefer to see 0bama get 4 more years?

[mkjessup]

“Obama is evil, but Romney is NOT the answer to Obama.”
Uh, yes, in fact Romney is the answer to Obama. Electing Romney as President of the United States in 2012 is the ONLY legal way to remove Obama from office. It’s not the answer I would have picked. It’s not the answer I want. It’s not the answer I like. But at this time, it is THE answer! The ONLY answer. Doing ANYTHING else except electing Romney as President gives Obama four more years to finish off our country.

Well said FRiend. As I mentioned in a prior post, some may not view Romney as the "answer" to 0bama but I know as sure as the sun rises that the answer to 0bama is NOT more 0bama.

[mkjessup]

That doesn’t describe Mitt Romney at all, Romney knows exactly who he is, and has passionately advanced his politics, with money, fund raising, campaigning, governing, and he has been bold in his speaking for, and advancing liberalism, and now he is the presidential nominee of the republican party.

Romney set out 5 years ago to create the myth that Reagan was pro-choice, he has spread it on TV, radio, in interviews , calling Reagan “adamantly pro-choice”.

Romney despises Reagan, Reagan ran against his father in the presidential primary of 1968. Mitt Romney renounced his republican party membership in 1979, because of Reagan winning the nomination.

After leaving the party because of Reagan, Romney became a supporter of liberal republicans through the 1980s, until 1989, after that, all of Romney’s donations went to democrats, Romney even did democrat fundraising and voted democrat, and then in October of 1993, after Reagan was gone, and Bush defeated for reelection, Romney rejoined the GOP.

In 1994, Mitt was giving to, and fund raising for Planned Parenthood and campaigning on having been anti-Reagan during the Reagan years.

When 2005/6 came, and it was time to take over the GOP at the national level, he did almost an entire reversal of all of his public politics and beliefs, did it work? Read your posts, look at who the nominee is, it worked.

So how do you reconcile the decision of the lady that Michael Reagan referred to as (paraphrased) "Dad's back, and he's in a dress", i.e., Sarah Palin who has pledged to support and vote for the Romney-Ryan ticket? She has apparently recognized that the only vehicle for getting 0bama out of the White House is the GOP ticket this year, so is Sarah a sage, or a sell out?

Do tell us your views on that.

[OldEagle]

" ...so is Sarah a sage, or a sell out? OK, You asked. She didn't want it, so she picked the only one, besides herself, who can beat the incumbent.

[mkjessup]

" ...so is Sarah a sage, or a sell out?
OK, You asked. She didn't want it, so she picked the only one, besides herself, who can beat the incumbent.

It would seem so. I have noticed over the past week or two that there is much angst among Sarah's most dedicated followers that she is not going to be speaking at the convention, however what has been overlooked is the fact that she has expressed her support for Romney-Ryan, she has shown every indication that she will vote enthusiastically for the GOP ticket this year, and for those of her supporters who view her as the epitome of modern conservatism, this must be causing them heartburn at the least, paroxysms of rage and disbelief at the worst.

My view is that if Sarah considers the removal of 0bama from office to be the highest priority this year, who are we to second guess her?

[Diogenesis]

FRiend, in your allegiance to Mr. RomneyCARE and his
liberal anti-Conservative principles, you answer
few questions. BUT they remain.

And Mr. RomneyCARE is NOT the candidate yet.