Posted on 09/14/2012 12:56:43 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Speaking at the one of the largest annual gatherings for social conservatives Friday, Paul Ryan's message was a punch to the gut: If you allow President Obama to be reelected, there’s no going back.
“If we renew the contract, we will get the same deal – with only one difference. In a second term, he will never answer to you again,” Congressman Ryan said at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., on Friday. “In so many ways, starting with Obamacare, reelecting this president would set in motion things that can never be called back. It would be a choice to give up so many other choices.”
Ryan’s speech – three parts critique of Mr. Obama’s record on issues of faith, foreign affairs, and finances and one part testimonial to presidential contender Mitt Romney’s character – was not just the usual stump speech. It was a pointed appeal to a key element of the GOP base that will have to turn out in force if the Romney-Ryan ticket is to prevail on Nov. 6.
Ryan, Mr. Romney’s vice presidential running mate and a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, spoke to a packed auditorium of some 2,000 attendees, plus a handful of hecklers. The summit is a conclave supported by leading Washington social conservative groups and organized by the Family Research Council.
....“On the seven occasions I’ve been sworn in as a member of Congress, I have never taken an oath to the government.....The oath that all of us take is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, under which government is limited and the people are sovereign.”
That moment clicked for Mary Anne Krupa of Chicago. “He articulated what people in government work for and about so well,” said Ms. Krupa,...“I understood why Romney picked him.”
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
“I’ve not heard a peep out of Goode on this that has made it into the media.”
Goode serves only one purpose for the media. Helping re-elect Obama. He will only be mentioned if that publicity serves that purpose. So, for example, if he attacks Romney, then he will get attention. If he attacks Obama, nobody else will ever know.
Romney is at least “evolving” in the right direction on traditional values, unlike Obama who is “evolving” in the wrong one. There is objective difference between Obama and Romney, and Obama is far worse, from the standpoint of life and marriage, as well as the economy. To say that the two are “exactly the same” is patent nonsense. You’re helping Obama win if you sit this out.
Well, that’s good to know!
I can see the point that Romney might very well not advance the abortion and gay agendas as President, or at least that he won't have opportunity to, while Obama certainly will.
” - - - Ryan said in his speech that they intend to repeal ALL of Obamacare if I’m recalling correctly.”
Not so. EVERY GOP-Elite, including Ryan, always adds “replace” to their efforts against Obama”care.”
The average voter knows that we can’t afford Obama”care,” and that “replacing” Obama”care” will be something that we cannot afford either.
Hence, the average voter see “both” political parties as being the same, and will vote for the incumbent.
Thus, Romney/Ryan ‘choose to lose’ by “replacing” something that cannot be paid for.
I dunno, I doubt he’ll get the opportunity if a GOP Congress retains power - which, ironically, is much less likely to happen if Romney loses.
Gotta look at the bigger picture.
Where would you suggest he speak? To the Chicago strikers? An OWS group?
Okay, so let’s think about this, for a minute.
You stated a concern about abortion. Do you recall a GOP-controlled Congress advancing an abortion agenda by sending pro-abortion bills to Bush’s desk?
Neither do I.
So, concerning the stated concern you expressed, that settles that issue.
Now, for the other concerns you mentioned when you moved the goalposts, well, so what? Obama certainly isn’t going to engage in fiscal austerity. Virgil Goode isn’t under any circumstances going to get elected to be able to do so. So that leaves Romney. And your example is a bit non-sequitur, since we’re living in different times. Bush was a big spender, in part, because nobody was paying attention to deficits, and he thought he could be one. He shouldn’t have, true, but he thought this way nevertheless. Nobody in the GOP, even the GOP-Ers, think that way anymore. Different decade, different scenario.
“Each person needs to vote in accordance with his conscience and the conditions in his State. Nobody should mindlessly vote for Romney, especially considering the contempt with which he has treated conservatives.”
Who’s advocating mindlessly voting for Romney? As I alluded to earlier, Romney is the lesser of the two evils. Yes, evil, as are most all politicians, but if the choice is between two evils, I’ll take the lesser of the two.
Romney’s contempt of conservatives doesn’t compare to Zero’s, which is basically anti-American. You’re promoting the non- and un-American Zero by either not voting for Romney or by not voting at all. To paraphrase:
“All that is necessary for (the larger of) evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing”.
False dichotomy rejected.
IF they lose, the GOP-e and Karl Rove failed in their politics -- I did not.
“IF they lose, the GOP-e and Karl Rove failed in their politics — I did not.”
If there’s a false dichotomy here, you just said it. Can you not see that we have to work with the GOP that we have and not the GOP that we’d like to have? Unless of course, you’re an Obamabot and really want the only party where conservatives have (barely) any voice at all NOT to win...
Thanks for throwing away your vote and for bringing us all down to a Brave New World with Zero’s reelection. /s
I can see very clearly that "we" do NOT have "the GOP that we have" -- Karl Rove and the Business Roundtable and the RNC have a party. We have no party.
We are perforce independents, because the GOP-e will not let us play -- I speak as a Texas voter whose primary was delayed by cunning pleaders with suitcases full of applications for writs, bulging with motions -- who engineered the delay of the Texas primary beyond any date at which its outcome could influence the GOP nomination fight.
I see that very clearly.
You got anything else, Short Stuff?
And save your sanctimonious sarc for someone who cares.
Ohhhh. Texas. That explains it. I’m a Virginia Tea Party’er myself.
So, you’re a Paul-bot or Rick Perry fan, then? I would have preferred Perry to Romney, though I think Paul’s foreign policy has its head in the sand.
I’m not a big fan of the GOP, but my argument still stands - by not voting, or by voting for a third candidate, you’re giving a vote to Obama.
Please, for the love of God and Country, reconsider your position! We can’t afford an un-American anti-American like Zero to win, even if it means voting for the (still evil) lesser of two evils like Romney. At least with Romney, our way of life isn’t in peril!
FYI, and if applicable, the Cowboys are my second favorite team - my favorite is whoever’s playin’ ‘em!
Yes -- and that will be true if Romney wins, too.
You can smell the stink of homoaccommodation on him, the stink of the Open Borders Lobby and its greedy multibillionaires lusting to break American wages -- but not American prices!! -- to Calcutta levels with floods of impoverished, desperate immigrants who'll be given Motor Voter cards and driven to the polls by the 'Rat Machine.
You can smell the stink of the regulatory accommodator and Fair Tax conspirators, of the New World Order mandarins, and of a future America that bends in the winds of international despotic politics like a willow-tree in a high wind, shedding the rights of the People and their God-given freedom and their battlefield-won independence like so many leaves and twigs.
Romney/Rove is a huge setback for conservatives, and Turd Blossom's wheeling and dealing will make him, like Martin Van Buren, one of the most hated men in American history.
You can't wash Rove's stink off this election, and you can't drown out, with fair oratory, the clangor of the billionares' money changing hands behind the curtain as they buy whatever they want from the Empresario Rove.
Paul Ryan is a good man, but he's window dressing, a sop to the chumps thrown artfully by Turd Blossom.
It is highly significant that Ryan, not Romney, came to speak to the social conservatives. It almost exactly mirrors the same Rovian smooth move in 2000, when Turd Blossom held hands with the faithful of Ralph Reed's Christian coalition .... Ralph Reed being tied up cleverly by Turd Blossom's pal and errand boy,"Kenny Boy" Lay, with a big lobbying assignment for the Enron conglomerate .... and while the Christian Coalition ate box lunch and listened to Rove lying to them, the candidate himself, George W. Bush, was out to dinner with his advance woman Mary Matalin, making nice with the Log Cabin Republicans and assuring them that single-sex marriage (so-called) was a done deal, and that any opposition to it was (her word) "unfair".
This is rissoles -- rissoles of old box lunches for the conservatives, while the candidate lies down for his real masters.
Again Turd Blossom and his boy insult us -- and you say, unembarrassed, that we must vote for Turd Blossom's boy in November, or else. Or else WHAT ? What will the Great Catamite lie down for, that Romney, Rove's rent-boy, has not already?
No, it doesn't, because it categorically fails as an argument. It is an appeal to motive in lieu of argument, and so therefore not an argument, but only an appeal.
And again, no, my vote does not "count for" Obama unless the election judge counts it and sees that yes, I have voted for Obama. Which I will never do.
We're done here.
I dont disagree that Romney is not good for the conservative wing of the GOP. Romney is another GHWBush IMHO... but you know what? The GOP survived GHWB and so did America.
There is a huge difference between a RINO and a commited leftist like Obama. Obama is locking in a permanent Democrat majority through legions of govt dependents and clients to his panders. And I am warming up to some of what ROmney is saying, as he actually seems to see that as well:
“Frankly, we have two different views about America. The president’s view is one of a larger government. There is a tape that came out today where is the president is saying he likes redistribution. I disagree. I think a society based upon a government-centered nation, where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that’s the wrong course for America. That will not build a strong America or help people out of poverty. … No, I’m talking about a perspective of individuals who I’m not likely to get to support me. I recognize that those people who are not paying income tax are going to say, ‘Gosh, this provision that Mitt keeps talking about lowering income taxes,’ that’s not going to be attractive to them. And those that are dependent on government and those that think government’s job is redistribute — I’m not going to get them.” - Mitt Romney
“I know I’m not going to get 100 percent of the vote, And my campaign will focus on those people we think we can bring in to support me,” he said. “But this is a campaign about helping people who need help, and right now the people who are poor in this country need help getting out of poverty, the people in the middle-class need help because their incomes have gone down every year for the last four years.” - Mitt ROmney
Problem is, if you're a GOP senator, what do you do when the GOP President, the leader of your Party, sends the Secretary of the Navy around to lobby you -- or lobbies you himself -- to ratify LOST or the ICC or any of these other NWO-building, sovereignty-abrogating, unequal treaties?
Obama you fight tooth and nail and spear his SCOTUS nominees through the heart; but what do you do when POTUS sends you another Souter or Stevens?
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.