Posted on 08/11/2012 10:58:39 PM PDT by smoothsailing
August 11, 2012
Paul A. Rahe
In choosing Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney has opted to go for broke, and he has indicated that he is a serious man -- less concerned with becoming President of the United States than with saving the country from the disaster in store for it if we not radically reverse course, willing to risk a loss for the sake of being able to win a mandate for reform.
I have been unsparing in my criticism of Romney's political record. I unsay not one word about that. If we were to judge him honestly by his conduct as a Senatorial candidate in Massachusetts and as that state's Governor, I believe that we would find him sadly wanting.
I have also consistently been of the opinion that, of the declared Republican presidential aspirants, Mitt Romney was the least unacceptable. In his private capacity, he is a man of excellent character; as a businessman, he was accomplished in the extreme; and, as a candidate, he consistently displayed the discipline required. There were others in the race who had good qualities, but they lacked one or more of the crucial qualities that Romney possesses.
I also hazarded a guess -- that current circumstances might make a genuine conservative of Mitt Romney, that his understanding of the fiscal crisis we face might very well force him to think more deeply about the moral roots of that fiscal crisis, which is to say, about the inner logic of the administrative entitlements state and the moral as well as the fiscal bankruptcy produced by that inner logic. I was accused of wishful thinking, and the accusation was just. For my wish was, indeed, father to the thought, but this does not mean that the thought was wrong.
Governor Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate suggests, in fact, that my suspicions were correct. For by making this choice, Mitt Romney is declaring war. There will be no evasion, no triangulation, no attempt to mask what is at stake in this election. Instead, Romney and Ryan will directly confront Barack Obama and call him to account for putting us on a ruinous course.
This will alter radically the dynamics of the race. The money spent by Obama trying to demonize Governor Romney will prove to be money entirely wasted. The election is not going to be about Mitt Romney. It is not going to be about the sexual revolution. It is not going to be about Bain Capital. It is going to be about the failed policies of Barack Obama, about their dangerous character, and about the sober, sound alternative the Republicans represent.
This will help the Republicans in Senate and House races immeasurably, for it will give Romney and Ryan coattails -- now, without a doubt, the candidates in these other races have something concrete on which to run: repeal Obamacare, pare back the entitlements state, reform our system of taxation, and put our fiscal house in order. No one will doubt the capacity of the Republicans to rule.
I have predicted that Romney will win by a landslide. The choice of Paul Ryan means that Romney has chosen the path that will maximize the significance of his victory and its impact on the races for seats in the House and Senate. As in 1980, this is going to be a national election -- in which local particularities count for much less than usual.
If you still have doubts, remember November, 2010.
“And you are shilling for the radical socialist from Chicago by discouraging GOP voters to pull the lever for Mittens.”
And you’re shilling for the radical progressive from Massachusetts by brow-beating everyone who doesn’t worship the GOPe, doesn’t refuse to be silent or join in on their lies, thus ensuring a decade or more of progressive rule. Good going fighting a futile battle against and for the same thing at the same time. But then again, that kind of space-time paradox would be natural for a Romney/Obama supporter such as yourself. I for one will not go along with the status quo or these pathetic political games which, in the end, signify nothing but idiocy and fury and heat dissipating into the air.
Rationing is coming....whether you like it or not. We can no longer afford Cadillac healthcare for 310 million people.
I like the Ryan plan of vouchers for private insurance. I do not like my Medicare....most doctors do not even want me as a patient.
I like the Ryan plan too, as it’s at least a better approach to what has been a hugely expensive, market distorting, and unsustainable program.
But free markets would drastically reduce the cost of the care people are getting. That, not rationing, is the answer.
Of course you shill for Mittens. Your first response to a utterly true statement was to accuse the person of shilling for Obama. Thus instead of addressing the truth of a claim, or attempting to disprove it, you jump straight to motivations Alinsky style. I do not see anywhere in any of your posts a reason why we ought to sell our souls to Mittens in the name of opposing Obama. The moment you start intimidating people who speak the truth about the poor character of the sacred Republican nominee, is the moment you can stop pretending to be anything more than a slave of your political party.
Frankly, I’d rather take your scorn than to embrace delusions and lies.
I think the only operatives on this particular CONSERVATIVE political forum are Romney operatives.
Romney banned assault rifles. He invented Obamacare. He was prochoice. He never did a damn thing about illegal immigration and he appointed liberal judges. Oh yes, and he was a draft dodger. He has liberal written all over him. why the **** would I ever vote for this liberal? How does he represent me or my values? I see no reason to and several compelling reasons not to.
“Oh yes, and he was a draft dodger. “
Wonder why the HillaryRomneyites are not actively Swiftboating him like they did Kerry? Maybe it’s because they’re on the side of Extortion-care, Massachusetts Style.
I’m afraid I just don’t understand people with your POV.
It’s like being given the choice between being breaking a leg and having it amputted. It’s not even a binary choice, since amputation is the default. It’s what you get if you refuse to make a choice.
So since you don’t like the available choices, you refuse to make a choice and therefore accept the default.
Very strange POV, IMO.
Heard lots of similar ideas back in 08. I’ve often wondered to what extent (understandable) conservative distaste for McCain contributed to Obama’s victory.
I assume nobody thinks things would be AS bad now with McCain in the White House. Except that the probably still existing, though not as bad, financial mess would in that case be being blamed on Republicans and conservatism in general.
RaisingCain: “If that was true, why does Mitt Romney lie about every aspect of his past, present and future?”
______________________________________________________
Stopped reading right there (how do you know Romney is lying in the FUTURE)?
Most of his lies have been in the past when I last checked. Don’t you believe in salvation?
You’re so concerned about Romney’s past character, but what about Obama’s present character?
I take it you trust that maggot more than you trust Romney?
How in God’s name can you stand back and let someone like Obama win again???
Mitt may also have ‘picked’ Ryan because the GOP-e, anti Tea Party, wants Paul Ryan, solidly backed by the Tea Party, silenced in the House and out of Chairmanship of the Budget Committee and off the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Then GOP-e Boehner can replace him with a RINO.
LOL, got yourself banned!!!! Love it!!!!
What I am telling you is under the WA state plan our premium was very low (below $20 for 4 kids and me)and now I’m in this financial mess which I am trying to resolve (talking to 4 different lenders right now but don’t know)> http://on.fb.me/Oogjij
I pay $0 for my kids now and they get more coverage. No wonder WA can’t afford new enrollees. WA believes in covering kids no matter your income.
This is a choice between eating a sh*t sandwich and eating a sh*t sandwich. No amount of mayonnaise can change that. Hopefully we can secure the senate and all will not be lost.
If Romney loses it is not likely the Senate will change hands.
All “liberals” are natives of Washington, DC the moment they arrive. Not all Republicans arrive in Washington that way. But they do have a remarkable tendency to “go native” over time. Term limits would help quite a bit - but “Who can bell the cat?"
Cynicism in negative superficiality, and is not conservative.
This is all very logical, but the point the anti-Romney crowd would make is that there IS no choice, or what there is what is sometimes called "Hobson's choice", i.e. your choice is purely hypothetical as both alternatives lead to the same thing. To use your analogy, amputation may very well be worse than having your leg broken, but whichever one you choose, you still can't walk.
The counter-argument to your very pragmatic approach is that the USA is slowly and surely becoming more and more socialist every year, and has been for decades. The trend of history is, currently, against us. There is no use denying this, it is true. The evidence is all about you. If nothing else you can tell by the way that the progressives push for legislation and actions today that would have been unthinkable, even to themselves, a decade ago. Now, Romney is quite palpably NOT the man who is going to reverse those trends. He may slow them down. He might even, under pressure from folk like Paul Ryan, arrest some of them. For a while. But he is not a true conservative, and a true constitutionalist conservative is what the country desperately needs if there is going to be even the remotest chance of stopping the country's slide into economic, social and political ruin.
On a tactical level voting for Romney may make a lot of sense, as you say. After all, no matter how flabby he is on certain issues he isn't Barack Obama! However, strategically it might be a very bad move. By voting for him you send a clear message that you approve of, or at least are prepared to put up with, his RINO type stances. That will make it more unlikely that a true conservative candidate will manage to get on the ticket in the next four, eight or twelve years (beyond that it will probably be too late to matter). If Romney fails to get in regardless, it will only further demoralise the GOP. If Romney does win, his non-conservative policies will fail (naturally) but conservatives will still be tarred with that failure (bizarrely), which will make it even harder next time round.
I frankly don't know what the answer to this is, but I do know that we all of us have to make a stand sometime, some place.
Amen. He nails it. And many Freepers will hate it and prefer to burn down the barn rather than save the horses.
I disagree. Sort of.
Let's assume we, by some fluke, were to elect the most constitutionalist conservative imaginable as President.
Would that save the country?
Nope. The country is in the mess it's in not because of the politicians. They have just been giving the people what they want.
A politician who actually ran on the platform of doing what needs to be done would never even make it thru a single primary, much less get elected.
The problem is extremely simple, and equally intractable.
It is, pretty clearly, the expansion of government and the associated spending this requires.
Most Americans, probably, would like to see government reduced in scope and spendingg.
But that is a generalized POV. Meanwhile, special interest groups feeding off the government have very specialized and intense desire for continuation and expansion of their own special programs.
So whenever a politician faces the specifics of cutting spending, he has a vague generalized desire for reduced spending by the public on one side, and intense focused opposition to any specific cut on the other side.
Intense focus will always beat vague generalizations. Nobody is intensely desirous that any particular program be cut, while every such program has its intense partisans.
Result: lots of talk about cutting, no cutting in practice.
I think a case could be made that this is the result of too much democracy, of the politicians paying too much heed to what the people tell them they want. Arguably, what we need is politicians who can do what needs to be done whether the people want it at the time or not. IOW, less "democracy," not more.
BTW, if you break a leg, you can't walk for a while. If your leg is amputated, you'll never walk again. On a real leg, anyway.
BTW. A broken leg doesn't heal if you are forced to keep on hobbling on it, and in matters of national survival the race never stops.
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.