How Mitt Romney Won My Vote

Townhall.com ^ | October 8, 2012 | Mike Adams

[Kaslin]

Note: The author would like to thank the Psalmist, Switchfoot, and Samwise for inspiring this column.

Back in May of 1999, I made a decision to leave the Democratic Party. It was an easy decision. I had been a Democrat for 11 years. I voted for Dukakis when I was a committed leftist. But, later, when I became a pro-life conservative, there was no room for me in the party. So I became a Republican and also joined the NRA. I've been a straight shooter ever since. Excuse me if that last line sounded heterosexist. I’m a work in regress.

As a committed conservative - one who many people think should be committed - I place ideology above party loyalty. It is true that I will not vote for any Democrat under any circumstances, not even if they seek my vote for local dog catcher. The image of Florida Democrats interpreting "chads" is burned in my memory forever. Mike Adams clings to a grudge longer than Al Sharpton clings to a discredited rape victim. But that doesn't mean I will always vote Republican. Each candidate has to work to earn my vote. That is especially true if I view him as a member of the establishment, rather than a product of a grass roots movement.

Mitt Romney is not nearly as conservative as I would like him to be. So I did not feel comfortable supporting him going into the Denver presidential debate. I'm sorry to talk about my feelings. I know I'm a member of the NRA but I still have feelings. Just ask Ingrid Newkirk of PETA. I send her Christmas cards every year - although I know she does not appreciate that they are home-made and feature pictures of the deer I kill during the holiday season.

Sorry to digress. Now, let’s get back to my feelings.

Some people will say that the Denver debate changed their vote from Obama to Romney. But I am not among them. My vote was changed from going-to-sit-this-one-out to Romney. But it did not take a 90-minute debate to do it. It only took one line. He didn't have me at "hello." He got me when he scolded a boyish eye-contact-avoiding president for over-spending. Specifically, he got me when he looked right at Obama and characterized the current spending problem as “immoral.”

It was a home run. And it cut right to the heart of the nature of our spending problem. It is more than just a spending problem. It is a moral problem. To fail to grasp the depth of the moral deficit that makes possible our fiscal deficit is to misjudge the American political landscape altogether. It is to misapprehend the nature of the American constitutional experiment altogether.

Our nation is rooted in a deep tradition of respect for property rights. It is a tradition that was well understood until the Greatest Generation gave birth to the Gratest Generation (mis-spelling intentional) - a generation that now controls our nation's purse strings. That generation has turned its back on core principles expressed by our Founders. In the process, it has jeopardized the existence of the republic.

Our Founders knew that our rights had a necessary moral component - a necessary moral dimension. In saying they were given by our Creator, they implied as much. But they implied much more than that. The most obvious implication is that God-given rights may not be taken from us by man.

But that idea is lost on the current political class. And they need to rediscover it.

Our Founders would have been shocked to see a budget devised by promise-breakers who knowingly lie to future generations in order to attain the power necessary to fund their deception. The promise-breakers know the collapse is inevitable. But they expect to be gone before it actually happens. Much has been said about a generation that has killed millions of its own offspring. More must be said about the millions it has robbed in order to ensure perpetual comfort and to avoid financial sacrifice.

In Denver, Romney spoke harshly to the current leader of that generation. His words echoed over the mountain tops and traveled through the valley in the shadow of debt. They reminded some of us that the shadow proves the sunshine. And that means there is some good left in this world and that it is still worth fighting for.

[Prov3456]

"conservatives being willing to vote for whomever the Party nominates"

Wow, that's certainly not what conservatives in Missouri are doing. When the GOPe (Roy Blunt, John Danforth, Jim Talent, Reince Priebus, etc) demanded that Akin withdraw, Missouri grassroots conservatives replied, "No, thanks" (not so polite). We are so WITH Todd Akin that he has regained most/all of the ground his misspeak lost, and we believe he will win the US Senate race.

[MNJohnnie]

Refusing to act when it allows evil to triumph is a complete betrayal of conservative principals.

Dress up your refusal to act any way you choose, it is not principled.

[MNJohnnie]

Refusing to confront evil, and there by being a passive ally of it, is not a conservative stand.

I think it time for you die hards to admit your position has more to do with your sour grapes that your candidate did not win the GOP nomination then anything resembling principal.

[William Tell]

My daughter was considering voting Libertarian in the coming Presidential election.

I pointed out to her that there was at stake a protection for our Republic put in place by our Founders; that is, the Electoral College.

The Electoral College assures that the winner of the Presidential election has the support of a wide base of the states of the union. The winner can't simply dominate half a dozen large liberal states. There is no way to win with such a narrow base of support.

A second beneficial effect of the Electoral College is that it acts to negate the effects of voter fraud. Under the present system, liberals must arrange to steal votes in states where their influence is not dominant. They would have to steal votes in red states, where elected officials would be able to detect and thwart their efforts.

If the Electoral College were eliminated, the liberals would be able to steal millions of votes in Kalifornia, Illinois, New York, and other liberal dominated states.

If, by stealing votes in liberal states, the libs are able to accomplish having Obama win the "popular" vote, with Romney winning the Electoral College vote, there will come a ground-swell of support for eliminating the Electoral College. Should that happen, every future Presidential election will be won by the candidate whose party can steal the most votes in states that they control. If it is a given that conservatives will never steal as many votes as liberals, then it will be a given that conservatives may never win another Presidential election.

By voting for Romney, even though my daughter thinks that her vote won't count, she will do her part to preserve the Electoral College and protect what remains of the integrity of our elections.

Our system of government is very different from the parliamentary systems of other countries throughout the world. Ours, by design, is close to a "winner-take_all" approach. The president's party control's the executive branch almost completely. Similarly, the majorities of each House of Congress controls that House.

Third-party efforts only serve as spoilers for the party that has most in common with that third-party. Those who support third-parties fail to deal with the reality that they will NEVER be a winning party if they can't even win a majority of either of the existing parties.

[Henry Hnyellar]

Name a chosen leader that maintained 100% agreement with 100% of their voters on 100% of the issues. Get in the real world please.

[MNJohnnie]

If Obama is reelected by 2016 we will be so far over the fiscal cliff there will be no climbing back. Romney sees the chart below as a problem. 0bama thinks the problem is we have not spent enough!

FY 2007 is the last Bush/GOP Congress budget. FY 2011 is the last 0bama/Dem Congress

Obama added planks favoring Gay Marriage and taxpayer funded abortion on demand up to birth to the 2012 Democrat Party platform.

By contrast the 2012 GOP platform is the most Conservative one in their history.

No matter how much you hate Romney, no one with a brain would refuse to see the stark difference between Romney and Obama on both fiscal and social issues.

With Romney Fiscal and Social Conservatives have a seat at the table, while Obama will actively promote everything real Conservatives are against.

By 2016 everything Conservatives claim to be so passionate about will be legislated.

As Roe V Wade should of taught Conservatives once something is legislated it become almost impossible to undo.

Once 2016 rolls around the Judiciary will be so packed with Obamabots anything Conservatives DID manage to legislate would simply be undone by Judicial Fiat.

If Obama is reelected there will be nothing left to win.

After another 4 year term of Obama the USA will be a European style 1 party state with a state directed media, that will allow just enough political window dressing from a “loyal opposition” to keep their peon classes passive.

And those of you who feel your political sour grapes are more important then the future of your country will have been the active allies of that destruction.

[Tamzee]

Thank you, that’s an excellent summation on why we have to fight hard to protect the Electoral College. A good example is Pennsylvania. The state on the whole is very conservative and we hold our own with local and some state-wide races, yet the winner-take-all system gives our electoral votes to the democrats because of massive vote fraud in Presidential years in cities like Philadelphia. If the country as a whole worked in that manner with the popular vote for Presidency, every White House going forward would be hard left-wing.

[wbarmy]

It wasn’t the booing Israel for me. God has quite pointedly expressed what happens to those who curse His chosen. The booing God makes me afraid for the very country. If those idiots could not understand, at a visceral level, what that sounded like to the rest of the country, then we deserve what will happen to us as a country.

[tnlibertarian]

Thank you for posting that information.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Those who support third-parties fail to deal with the reality that they will NEVER be a winning party

Not everyone who votes third-party thinks they'll win.

[UltraV]

“when Mitt loses”

Half the country is on board with you on that.

[Tamzee]

You’re very welcome.

I was going to vote for Romney simply to save our country from Obama, but then started researching Romney’s years as Governor and was thrilled to see a lot of conservative history that isn’t well known. Fiscally, religiously, socially, and with regard to national defense... I think he will surprise a lot of people once he is in the White House.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Actually, those of us sticking to our principles are silent because unlike many, we choose not to crap on Jim’s floor. When he chose to support Romney, we had a choice. Act like DUers or retain some decency and take our opinions on the subject elsewhere

Jim doesn't seem to have asked for that:

"what happens to those who now buck the management and continue to work to defeat Romney? Those that even now are still posting threads to tear down the GOP nominee?" - icwhatudo, /focus/f-news/2920626/posts?page=99#99

"They’re all going to have to wrestle their own way through it and come to their own decisions. It’s not as easy as it looks." - Jim Robinson, /focus/f-news/2920626/posts?page=124#124

[JustSayNoToNannies]

a lot of conservative history that isn’t well known.

Care to share?

[MomofMarine]

Thank you for this. My son is planning to vote Libertarian and I have not been able to explain the damage he will do as clearly as you just have. Hope you don’t mind my forwarding this to him.

[UltraV]

Hey, if it makes you feel that way...

[GlockThe Vote]

Good post. Obama has to go. He and his evil marxist regime will impose misery on tens of millions if he is re-elected.

[Randy Larsen]

Also known as taking the high road.

Very honorable.

[Randy Larsen]

Another honorable reason!

[i_robot73]

The whole ‘ally of the devil’ screed is the biggest load of dog squeeze that’s ever been typed into this forum. It falls on its own fallacy in the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil, and I for one don’t pucker to kiss his anus just because it’s ‘our’ guy’s starfish.

There’s no sour grapes; only knowing elevating one biz suit in place of the empty suit won’t do a damn thing about the problems we face even now (let alone in the 10 yr. plan Ryan touts). ‘My’ guy lost, maybe fair/square...but don’t expect to me to be a part of the lemming pack, just because of the symbol after his name.

His record is there for all to see. Believing he’s going to govern as a Conservative (whereas I’d rather much vote for Constitutionalist myself)... you might as well enjoy the (R) Kool-aid, but it won’t be happening.

Boeher and McConnell have already proved they’re ineffective, there will be ‘no need’ to remove them from their positions whence Mitt is in; and the game will continue...only slower than the last. Nothing gets rolled back, nothing is de-funded and removed and nothing meaningful is done to restore FREEDOM and our Republic.

Skip the Pres. selection and fight for the local/House/Senate seats. At least getting more Tea Party types elected will throw a monkey wrench in the GOPe machine that maybe MORE will start to sit-up and pay attention.