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 ...
Maybe I’m just young and stupid, but why exactly is ‘health of the mother’ such a huge hurdle to jump?
you think a baby should be killed because some lady has a cold or a stuffy nose?
You realize, of course, that in the pro-life cause there is a huge difference for years between “health of mother” and “life of mother”, don’t you?
Dude, I’m pro-life too. I’m just relatively young, so I’m not exactly up to date on the jargon.
What evidence is there that when Romney says ‘health,’ he means anything but a grave or disfiguring illness? Has he ever specified that he intends a difference between ‘life’ and ‘health’? Because until today, I’ve not been at all aware of such things.
Romney is an old warrior. He knows the jargon. He knows the discussions. He knows exactly what he said.
BTW, I appreciate your honor in not blasting me after I assumed you were read into this more than you were. Forgive me for my not giving you the benefit of the doubt. I’m sorry.
No worries. I know that things can get kind of inflamed when we’re passionate about matters. I do my best to remain calm, but sometimes things get out of hand.
And I’ll take your word for what he meant, then, at least for the sake of argument. I’m not at all happy about that, whether he means it or whether he’s just waffling, but I think I’ve got to take what I see as the pragmatic approach. Even if we assume the worst about Romney, Obama is even worse than that (as you mentioned in earlier posts), and he’ll be far more amenable to conservative and pro-life pressure than Obama will.
Of course, if he gets into office and shoves pro-abortion things forward, he can probably consider my vote lost.
You do realize of course that you are not in agreement with the pro-life organizations’ views on this:
https://www.abolishabortion.com/feed/romney-opposes-pro-abortion-health-mother-exception
Although Romney had made his position on abortion clear throughout the campaign — opposing abortions except in cases of rape or incest and contrasting that with President Barack Obama’s position supporting 100% of all abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason — some pro-life voters wrongly assumed Romney had changed his position.
However, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, tells conservative radio talk show host Bryan Fischer that she confirmed with the Romney campaign that the candidate did not meant to say “health” and that his pro-life views remain the same.
“If that were his position, he would never have received our endorsement, that’s for sure,” Dannenfelser told the American Family Radio host. “I have heard clarification from his spokesperson, restating what his position really is, which is rape, incest, life of the mother. That is his position. Those are his exceptions.”
“Governor Romney has made it clear that he is the pro-life candidate in this race — which is why the SBA List Board of Directors voted unanimously to stand behind him in April. It is the responsibility of all pro-life voters to now unite behind Governor Romney. Together we can put a pro-life leader in the White House,” Dannenfelser said.
“And I’ll take your word for what he meant, then, at least for the sake of argument. “
You shouldnt. see #46.
Yeah. And then there's all the other stuff Romney does.
I'm sure Ryan believes what he is saying. It would be nice to think he could say the same about his handlers and his lead candidate. I don't think Ryan can deliver them.
We're all on our own. Each person must do as he thinks best, according to the circumstances in his State.
The Republican leadership, counseled by Karl Rove, have chosen with great determination a very weak candidate -- Donna Brazile, a giant 'Rat, told the rest of the ABC News crew on their Sunday-morning show six months ago, that Romney was, and is, the weakest GOP candidate of all, and that every time Romney won, Obama's Armies of the Night rejoiced.
If Romney offered a correction, would you believe him and be satisfied?
Abortion and gun control. willard is on the wrong side of both issues and I won’t be able to vote for him as a result. From where I’m sitting, I think the election is not going particularly well for willard. Although I really don’t think its going to boil down to the south. I think its going to be decided in the midwest. If VA and FL go for hussein then it was a rout anyway.
Unfortunately if willard does lose, we can expect the willardites to spend the next few years blaming those of us who refused to line up for the willard wagon for that defeat. Rather than placing that responsibility belongs: on the shoulders of the gop and their abysmal candidate.
Oh well. At least with 20:1 odds it’ll be a fair fight.
Sorry SCP, but the events of the past few days have converted me into a very grudgingly ABO voter. The President’s primary job is to deal with foreign policy and federative issues, and the differences between Obama and Romney have become very clear on these.
I understand where you all are coming from, however, and can understand why you still would not like Romney. I’m not going to join in the chorus of attacks on Goode voters that characterises many on here at FR.
But at this point, I just can justify not voting for Romney on the argument that “yeah, well, we *really* should elect a true conservative!!!” Yes, you’re right, we should.
But we won’t. I think the large bulk of conservatives in this country have shown that they’re not going to vote for a principled third party (yet, at least). As such, continuing to harangue them about it isn’t going to do much. It really IS between Romney and Obama, and as bad as Romney is, I at least want Obama out worse than I despise Romney. At least Romney wouldn’t be apologising to Islamists and allowing them to attack our embassies with impunity - something dealing with the President’s primary constitutional role.
My hope is that we get Obama out in 2012, and that by 2016 conservatives will have figured out that either the GOP needs to re RADICALLY restructured, or else it needs to disappear and be replaced. I think a Romney administration will be a great disappointment to most of these folks adamant for him on here and elsewhere, and maybe they will finally be willing to consider some alternative options.
Make no mistake, I’d love to see Romney be primaried and lose in 2016, or else have his party pulled out from under him by then. But for now - Obama has to GO. This isn’t just a matter of theoretics, it’s a matter of national life versus death at the present time.
One point I’d make is that whoever wins, will bring coattails with them that will affect downticket races. This has always been the case, and always will, and not just because of straight ticket voting.
Thus, if Romney loses, there’s a good chance that a lot of good, conservative Republicans on down their respective tickets will lose, as well. Which in turn means that Congress and the statehouses and the governourships will be Democrat enriched.
And THAT’S where a lot of the things you’re worried about really take place. As President, Romney wouldn’t just get to “make policy” on abortion and gun control. He could really only sign or veto bills presented to him by Congress, and would have to get his appointments through Congress. The downticket races will affect whether it is the Democrats or the Republicans crafting the bills that will go to his desk and whether a bad judicial appointment gets filibustered successfully or not.
So do we want Democrats sending gun ban bills to Romney’s desk, or do we want Republicans sending bills that will synchronise conceal-carry to all 50 states (as Romney said he wants in a recent NRA interview, take it for what you will)?
I agree with you about abortion and gun control. Homosexualism is also a huge issue for me.
So far as the current state of the campaign, I’m fairly convinced that Rasmussen does not change his standards to be partisan. He has it as a dead even race, so that’s pretty much how I see it.
It’s surprising that Romney is not farther behind given that he’s barely been fighting yet. He has allowed Obama to far over-spend against him here in Ohio, and it’s still even.
With the foreign affairs fiasco of this last week, I don’t see how Obama can survive, but it’s no telling what Americans think anymore. If I were the Republicans, I’d be targeting senior citizens and the not yet senior boomers like crazy with Obama’s failures in this area. They are the cold war generation and they will understand how Obama has weakened the nation. They won’t like it.
But, will Romney do it? Who knows. He’s not shown much gumption yet.
So, it all depends on if and when Romney decides to fight.
I’ve not heard a peep out of Goode on this that has made it into the media.
In a perfect world Ryan would be on top of the ticket, but alas dear xzins, this is not a perfect world.
The Tea Party is gaining strength and influence in the GOP but is not yet mature enough to field its own candidate for national office, in the meantime we must make the best of our choices.
Not voting is an abdication; even if you decide not to decide you have still made a choice. That is, your choice not to vote is still a vote--for obama.
I will vote. Just not for Romney. But, I’ll attack Obama and only deal with Romney when he issues any kind of dumb statement on life, homosexualism, gun control, etc.
I simply reject that my vote is for anyone other than for whom it is cast. I’ve gone through that discussion so many times, and all it does is divert you and divert me from attacking Obama.
“I just can justify not voting for Romney on the argument that “yeah, well, we *really* should elect a true conservative!!!” Yes, you’re right, we should.
But we won’t”
No only wont we in 2012, but if Obama wins, we wont ever be electing the kind of conservative they demand ... ever.
Obama’s 2nd term will shift the policies so far left, and embed Obamacare and Obama’s regulatory statism and social policiy liberalism so far in, it will be the end of conservatism as we know it. Not just gay marriage and roe v wade for another generation, but much more beyond that. Andwith the dependent class expanded, the demographics shifting, its game over for the America we knew and loved.
Conservatives will be obsolete after Obama as the Czar of Russia was in the USSR. There will be no turning back.
“I just can justify not voting for Romney on the argument that “yeah, well, we *really* should elect a true conservative!!!” Yes, you’re right, we should.
But we won’t”
No only wont we in 2012, but if Obama wins, we wont ever be electing the kind of conservative they demand ... ever.
Obama’s 2nd term will shift the policies so far left, and embed Obamacare and Obama’s regulatory statism and social policiy liberalism so far in, it will be the end of conservatism as we know it. Not just gay marriage and roe v wade for another generation, but much more beyond that. Andwith the dependent class expanded, the demographics shifting, its game over for the America we knew and loved.
Conservatives will be obsolete after Obama as the Czar of Russia was in the USSR. There will be no turning back.
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.