Mitt Romney Cheered in Poland, Endorsed by Walesa

bradenton.com ^ | July 30, 2012 | DAVID LIGHTMAN

[BarnacleCenturion]

WARSAW, POLAND — Fresh from a warm embrace from iconic Polish leader Lech Walesa, Mitt Romney will wrap up a three-country trip overseas Tuesday with a major speech that he hopes will send a message that he's tough and more willing to take a harder line with rogue nations than President Barack Obama is.

Romney arrived in Warsaw late Monday after a day in Gdansk, where he enjoyed the most enthusiastic reception of his six-day trip, which was marred by controversies at the first two stops, in London and Jerusalem. He was greeted in Gdansk by crowds that swarmed in the streets, though some were apparently there for an arts festival and one group held a 10-foot-long banner supporting Romney's primary rival for the GOP presidential nomination, Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.

...

Poland and many other countries will certainly do their best to help the U.S. restore its leadership position," said Walesa, a former president of Poland who last year refused to meet with the visiting Obama.

"After our conversation I am quite confident that you will be quite successful in doing that," Walesa assured Romney. "Individuals who have struggled all our lives really favor the kinds of views and perspectives that you share."

He repeatedly said he wished Romney success.

"I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too. Gov. Romney, get your success - be successful," Walesa said emphatically.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

what's a guy to do?

Act like a man would be a good start.

[Lily4Jesus]

Isn’t that the truth. Their pride come first than country. 4 more yrs of Obama will distroy the USA

[Tau Food]

What do you think Obama will accomplish given four more years?

I think that Obama will face gridlock with a Republican Congress, particularly in the House of Representatives. I think that a President Romney would have a much better chance of passing a liberal agenda than Obama. I think that's so obvious as to be uncontroversial.

[mnehring]

so what's a guy to do?

1. First, we can all acknowledge that on most issues Romney sucks. BUT..
2. Unless some miracle happens (and we can reevaluate if said miracle happens), the reality is there are only two people who will be president, Romney or Obama... so we must...
3. Go to the Constitution and look up the job description for President to see who fits that job the best.. We see that the primary role of the President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. The other duties are to make treaties and appoint judges, etc.
4. Now we look at all the qualms we have with both Candidates. With Obama, it is everything, from domestic to international. With Romney, it is primarily his domestic policies- all of which must require Congress and the Senate victories to have any impact.
5. Which gets us back to 1 critical issue, the role of Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. I'm sure you would agree, that out of the primary job role the Constitution gives the president, this is the most immediate and important. The president is the second step on recovery on those issues, but as CIC he is the entire staircase.
6. So, knowing that Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces is the primary role of the President, who would you rather see our troops have to salute and take orders from on January 22nd and for four years after that?
It is really that simple. If Tom wants to impact the issues he says are most important, he should run for congress where he can actually write bills on those issues- something the President doesn't do.

[mnehring]

I think that Obama will face gridlock with a Republican Congress, particularly in the House of Representatives. I think that a President Romney would have a much better chance of passing a liberal agenda than Obama. I think that's so obvious as to be uncontroversial.

Flawed theory on two points.
1. Obama has already shown he will act without Congress through the use of Czars and Executive Orders. Even so far as taking military action without Congressional approval. (and Congress can't be trusted to have the fortitude to take action against O).
2. Romney will have a reelection to run so there will be some pandering he will have to do to whomever is the loudest and most passionate group. This puts the responsibility in our corner (probably why some don't want to face this this choice). Obama will have no re-election to run so there is no one to pander to but his own ideology. Obama will have no reelection check on his power.

Option 2 gives us a fighting chance IF we take the responsibility and become the "e" ourselves. The so called "e" has no power if they don't get money and votes from us. We have already shown we can influence legislation if we stand up to these so called "e" forces. Case in point, the Kennedy/McCain immigration bill that We The People stopped just by speaking out.

We need to stop complaining about the "e" and start taking control of the "e". I found this graphic a long time ago that sums it up nicely.

[WVNan]

Tau, I’ve had that same conversation with myself for months. I’ve tried every way in the book to figure out a way to vote for Romney and still live with myself. I don’t know what to do. If I have to vote for Romney I will have to get on my knees and ask forgiveness from the Lord. On the other hand if obama wins America is finished, and I could not live with my conscience. It is the worst dilemma I’ve ever faced. How does one choose between two evils? I don’t know and I’m still praying about it.

[pistolpackinpapa]

Oh yeah; you know that. You know you do.

[Tau Food]

If Tom wants to impact the issues he says are most important, he should run for congress

Now, there's an idea.

If (;-)) Tom loses this election, maybe he should do that, but I won't be able to vote for him because he won't be running in my state or district.

And, I don't want to just ignore or evade the important points you make about the role of Commander in Chief. Believe me, I have thought about that issue because it is important, as in vital, that we have a competent Commander in Chief.

We've had Commanders in Chief who were better than Obama (Reagan) and we've had Commanders in Chief who were worse than Obama (Carter). Obama's nothing to write home about.

I don't know how to score Romney. I like his loyalty to Israel (an important ally), but I almost hear him saying at times that we should defer to Israel's judgement. I don't want to turn over our foreign policy to the Knesset or the Israeli Prime Minister any more than I want to turn over our foreign policy to the United Nations. We should decide what we want to do and I want our president to make that clear at all times.

I really don't know what kind of Commander in Chief Romney would make. Is his current trip about foreign policy or about domestic politics? Did he go to England at the beginning of the Olympics to discuss important issues with British leaders or to remind voters here at home that he once ran the Olympics? Did he go to Israel to to discuss foreign policy or to gain Jewish votes here at home? Is he perhaps in Poland to gain the favor of American Catholic voters? Maybe I'm just too cynical, but Romney has over and over and over again caused me to become cynical about just about every move he makes.

I guess I just never know what to believe about Romney anymore. I'm not sure that he has any fixed philosophy other than a desire to be elected and a willingness to be very liberal and very flexible.

I really just can't trust Romney anymore and I can't tell you that I believe he'd make a competent Commander in Chief.

[skeeter]

Do you think Romney is a marxist bent on income redistribution & moslem sympathizer, too?

[Larry Lucido]

Agreed. That, and the Israel trip.

[Tau Food]

Obama is a liberal and he definitely believes in income redistribution. He could be a Marxist (maybe even a Stalinist), but he would deny it. I think he's definitely shown a lack of respect for private property and he's shown a willingness to treat wealth as "communal," but that's true of a lot of liberals, including Romney, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure Obama is real sympathetic to any religion. I suspect he thinks he's "too smart to be religious," but I try to avoid judging the quality of another person's faith. Romney appears to be more religious than Obama, but I wouldn't bet much on it.

I think my candidate is more conservative and more religious than the two of them put together.

[skeeter]

Do you reckon Romney is a marxist, too?

[RaisingCain]

“If Walesa was a freeper, he would be banned for supporting Romney.”

---

If Walesa figured out who Romney is, he probably would decide not to vacation in this country filled with deluded people who swap between liars for their leaders.

[RaisingCain]

“Do you reckon Romney is a marxist, too?”

---

You tell me. He invented RomneyCare, lies about it, and backs the left on virtually every major pet project they have to offer. And he lies about everything to do with himself, all the time. One can’t listen to him without being cynical. He is a damned liar who lies like he breaths, and that is the guy you guys are praising. Voting for Mittens is one thing, but voting for Mittens while requiring everyone bury their heads about who he is is moral betrayal.

[GOPJ]

Lech Walesa probably senses Putin and Obama are close... It'll show more after the election if Obama wins - 'transmitted to Vladimir', right?

[Tennessee Nana]

one group held a 10-foot-long banner supporting Romney’s primary rival for the GOP presidential nomination, Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.
_____________________________________________

ROFLMBO

[Tennessee Nana]

Ann must have borrowed some clothes from Michelle for the trip...

[Tau Food]

Well, Marx lived in the 19th century. I don't personally know anyone who has told me that he or she has personally read much of what he wrote. So, I think it's highly unlikely that Romney would identify himself as a Marxist.

I measure him with a different yardstick. Our Decaration of Independence speaks of our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution (as amended) grants to us rights to life, liberty and property. Our Constitution (as amended) grants to us a right to bear arms in order to protect our other God-given rights. Granted by God, these rights belong to us whether or not our government finds those rights to be convenient or inconvenient. In other words, I believe we have a God-given right to a small and very limited government.

Now, given Romney's history regarding abortion, do I think he has demonstrated a decent respect to the God-given right to life? Of course not.

Given Romney's history regarding Romneycare, do I think he has shown a decent respect for liberty or property? Of course not.

I'm sure you can finish this list yourself. Marxist? Who knows? Liberal? Definitely. Anti-American? Yeah, I'd say so, given our traditions.

I think this would be a good time to give Tom Hoefling another plug. Tom believes deeply in the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to pursue happiness. And, he knows where those rights come from!

[skeeter]

Let me help both of you with that one... no, he's not.

Good god.

[Tennessee Nana]

Some people here on FR would bash Romney if he walked on water, across the Atlantic, to Europe
________________________________________________

Gosh

You mean he didnt ???