Another thinking American comes to his senses.
I have noticed that the FReepers that hate Romney and are going to "sit this one out" have steadily decreased in their rants, and the ones that are still hold outs are running out of ammo and food and water.
There will always be a few left, like the Japanese soldiers on some lost island.
A couple of things solidified my vote. There was still a slim chance I was going to go third party if Pennsylvania was a runaway Obama state anyway. And then the Dems booed Israel at their convention. Horrifying. I knew then I had to vote Romney. Then, the Sept. 11 massacre and Obama handled it like an idiot. I was proud of Romney’s response. Even my wife - who was always going to go third party (Constitution) - is now voting Romney.
I will digest this later, I am still wavering.
Romney is not my ideal Candidate by any stretch of the imagination. But I fear that sitting it out is a vote for Obozo. The thing that solidified my vote was the Ryan pick and his performance awt the debate.
I love the idea of sending Christmas cards to PETA every year with the pics of your current deer kill.
There are over 600,000 hunters in Wisconsin.
They could really drive PETA nuts with a swarm of such cards!!!
Romney definitely wasn’t my first or second choice but once he became the nominee, I support him and donated to him. This election, more than any other, is about getting a Communist out of the White House. Bill Clinton could be the Republican nominee and I’d vote for him.
I thought you might be interested in this, a coalition of pro-family, pro-life conservatives from Massachusetts on Romney’s conservative efforts there...
An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney
January 11, 2007
Dear conservative friends:
We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.
Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:
• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”
• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.
• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.
• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.
• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”
• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because the could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”
• Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.
• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.
All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”
We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.
Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.
For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.
It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.
For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.
Sincerely,
Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts
Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus
Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute
Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England
James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development
Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage
__________________________
Note: The signatories are all acting as individual citizens, and not as representatives of their respective organizations. Organizational affiliations and titles appear for identification purposes only.
http://aboutmittromney.com/pdf/massleaders.pdf
I pointed out to her that there was at stake a protection for our Republic put in place by our Founders; that is, the Electoral College.
The Electoral College assures that the winner of the Presidential election has the support of a wide base of the states of the union. The winner can't simply dominate half a dozen large liberal states. There is no way to win with such a narrow base of support.
A second beneficial effect of the Electoral College is that it acts to negate the effects of voter fraud. Under the present system, liberals must arrange to steal votes in states where their influence is not dominant. They would have to steal votes in red states, where elected officials would be able to detect and thwart their efforts.
If the Electoral College were eliminated, the liberals would be able to steal millions of votes in Kalifornia, Illinois, New York, and other liberal dominated states.
If, by stealing votes in liberal states, the libs are able to accomplish having Obama win the "popular" vote, with Romney winning the Electoral College vote, there will come a ground-swell of support for eliminating the Electoral College. Should that happen, every future Presidential election will be won by the candidate whose party can steal the most votes in states that they control. If it is a given that conservatives will never steal as many votes as liberals, then it will be a given that conservatives may never win another Presidential election.
By voting for Romney, even though my daughter thinks that her vote won't count, she will do her part to preserve the Electoral College and protect what remains of the integrity of our elections.
Our system of government is very different from the parliamentary systems of other countries throughout the world. Ours, by design, is close to a "winner-take_all" approach. The president's party control's the executive branch almost completely. Similarly, the majorities of each House of Congress controls that House.
Third-party efforts only serve as spoilers for the party that has most in common with that third-party. Those who support third-parties fail to deal with the reality that they will NEVER be a winning party if they can't even win a majority of either of the existing parties.
this was a very good post. I for one am not really pro-Romney as much as I am pro USA which is why I’ll never vote democrat and I sure as hell will never vote for statists.
I’m under no illusion though. I know this guy is a business man and he knows how to balance things out or make it so that things appear balanced. He’s not “the answer”. He’s not Reagan II, he won’t be the perfect fiscal conservative. He might force departments to reduce spending but we won’t be eliminating the Departments of Energy, Education and the EPA, he will just be focusing on making them smaller, more business friendly and more cost efficient. It will be up to the conservative Congress to keep proposing these measures because this guy won’t.
He will make our country stronger both financially and militarily but will we still need to be wary of the propensity for these guys to be generous to get re-elected.
We on the right need to be careful not to fall into the trap that those on the left do. This is a very good man, a very moral man, a very humble man, a very family oriented man and a man that has a very good sense of his place in history and I think he will make a fine leader. His values are right for our country, we just need to make sure we have the right people in place to keep him from having to “reach across the aisle” very often. By training, he’s a business consultant and his job has always been to “get things done”, we just need to make sure they’re done right.