Paul Ryan to 'values voters': If Obama wins, there's no going back

Christian Science Monitor ^ | September 14, 2012 | David Grant

[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.”

[lentulusgracchus]

My larger point is, with majorities in Congress, we are not helpless before Obama; and therefore, we are not necessarily prostrate before Karl Rove, the GOP-e, and their magickal mannequin.

[Unc1e_Ivan]

Yes, the argument does still stand, because it is the categorical definition of an argument - trying to persuade someone (YOU) with reasons (NOT VOTING ROMNEY) to accept a certain conclusion (WILL ENSURE A ZERO WIN). Seems simple enough.

You mistake my emotional appeal for you to change your course of action as a philosophical appeal to your logical motive, which, semantically speaking, is an entirely different thing.

And try not to miss the forest for the trees here... I said you’re “giving” your vote to Obama, not voting for him literally, i.e. if you sit at home or vote third-party candidate, Obama-voters will have no need to negate your nonexistent Romney vote for a Zero win. So, you’ll have in effect aided and abetted in a Democrat victory.

Okay, now we’re done here.

[lentulusgracchus]

So, you’ll have in effect aided and abetted in a Democrat victory.

With language like that, you've come dangerously close to wilfully mischaracterizing a free exercise of the franchise as a criminal activity.

That said, a false dichotomy is always a spurious appeal, a fallacy -- and therefore, not an argument, but appeal to motive rather than logic. Accusing people of criminality into the bargain shows how far over the line you are.

NOW we're done.

[Unc1e_Ivan]

There’s no false dichotomy here, unless viewed through spoiled brat lenses: I can’t get what I want (a true conservative prez), so I’ll ruin it for everybody else (and campaign against the least leftist of the two viable candidates).

That, my friend, is aiding and abetting in a Democrat victory.

And don’t hide behind “the franchise”. What, are you an employee of the ACLU all of a sudden?

Again, thanks for helping Zero win re-election. It was a nice 236 years.

NOW WE’RE ALL ALMOST DONE FOR, thanks to a few who should have known better.