Last night's debate did it for me.
I thought Michelle Bachman was great. She is conservative, consistent, courageous,and courteous. Over the next four years she will provide excellent leadership to the Republican Party.
Newt was Newt. His description of Obama's failure to allow the pipeline from Canada was fantastic. His scorning of the whacko liberal judges was over the top but stimulating and refreshing. His defense of Fannie and Freddie was horrible. His defense of his $1.6m "consulting fees" was even worse.
Ron Paul was inspiring with his Libertarian domestic views and totally frightening with his view of the world and his isolationism.
And then there was Mitt. No screw ups. Great answers. Terrific temperance. And then he closed me with his philosophy of leadership.
Mitt said under Obama's leadership we were a declining nation and under his Presidency we would regain our position of leadership.
Post debate with Hannity, Mitt gave his formula for making the next century, America's Century. It follows:
"We need to make this century the American Century. It will require leadership in two critical areas to make that happen. The first input pertains to our nation's values and principles. Our values must be based on freedom and opportunity. Our society must return to a 'merit based' society, and it must be built around strong family units."
"The second requirement for American leadership is to restore an American economy that leads the world. The essentials include restoring a climate of innovation, entrepreneurship, and providing a business friendly environment."
Contrast this to Obama's recent tirades of condemning his Republican opposition for wanting to "go back" to those practices that got us in trouble (Obama hates the pre-Obama America). Obama's vision is clear. More government (taxpayer) spending on teacher's unions, more government (taxpayer) spending with construction unions, more government (taxpayer) spending with green energy cronies (Solyndra), higher taxes on job producers (the spending has to come from somewhere), and more government regulations and control (picking winners). These are the "new" reforms espoused by Obama that have worked so well over the last 3 years. In his view we just have not done enough spending, taxing, and regulating to assist his cronies and contributors (the governing class which is the real 1%).
Contrast that to "going back" to Romney's proven American values (freedom, opportunity, merit based outcomes, and striong families) and American economic leadership (business led innovation and entrepreneurship) with a government that gets out of the way of producers and encourages moochers to participate in the American dream. Just how difficult is this choice?
Mitt Romney was an effective counter balance to the Democratic controlled Massachusetts' legislature when he served as Governor. He was an effective CEO at Bain and Company and then at Bain Capital. He volunteered to rescue the 2002 US Winter Olympic organization and did a great job there. Given a Republican House and Senate I am convinced Romney can be trusted to return this country to it's rightful place of world leadership. I am also confidant he is the man to expose Barack Hussein Obama, and his Chicago style of corrupt politics, as the phony incompetent that he is.
Think about it,
Jim
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That makes two votes. You and me...Earl Stubbs
ReplyDeleteI have been 51-49 Mitt vs. Newt until the debate. Mitt was my man in 08. He and wife looked great on the cover of Parade. I think he won the debate Thursday, especially when he refused to unload on Newt. I cringed when Newt compared Fannie and Freddie to credit unions. Ouch. I would like to see Newt debate BHO ... just once. However, I think Romney can handle him. The media would have us believe that BHO is an accomplished and skilled debater, forgetting or ignoring that the hapless John McCain (who makes Perry look like a debating champion) beat him in at least one debate and came close a second time.
ReplyDelete