Elk County Forum

     (http://syndication.nationaljournal.com/images/romneyfamily.jpg)

     (http://westsiderepublicans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Paul_Ryan_and_Family4.jpg)

                "America's Comeback Team."

by Guy Benson & Aaron Goldstein

I must confess that I spent the afternoon putting together an article titled, "Why Romney Won't Pick Ryan".

Never have I been happier to be wrong.

By picking Ryan, Romney has both elevated and embraced one of the leadings lights of 21st century American conservatism. More than any other Republican, Ryan has articulated a spirited defense of the free market, fiscal responsibility, what limited government should like and how we pay for it.

By picking Ryan, Romney has shown he's not content to play it safe and willing to take a risk to win the election to restore America's greatness.

By picking Ryan, Romney has put Wisconsin in play.

By picking Ryan, Romney has chosen a running mate that has gone toe to toe with President Obama and got the better of him as was the case during the 2010 Health Care Summit in Washington, D.C. When Obama publicly insulted Ryan to his face during a 2011 speech at Georgetown University, Ryan called an impromptu press conference and said, "Rather than building bridges, he's poisoning wells." Ryan strikes fear in the heart of Obama.

By picking Ryan, Romney may force Obama to drop Joe Biden in favor of Hillary Clinton or some other more formidable opponent because Ryan would wipe the floor with Biden in a debate.

By picking Ryan, Romney has kept the future of American conservatism alive for years to come and may have also picked a future President.
I must confess that I spent the afternoon putting together an article titled, "Why Romney Won't Pick Ryan".

Never have I been happier to be wrong.

By picking Ryan, Romney has both elevated and embraced one of the leadings lights of 21st century American conservatism. More than any other Republican, Ryan has articulated a spirited defense of the free market, fiscal responsibility, what limited government should like and how we pay for it.

By picking Ryan, Romney has shown he's not content to play it safe and willing to take a risk to win the election to restore America's greatness.

By picking Ryan, Romney has put Wisconsin in play.

By picking Ryan, Romney has chosen a running mate that has gone toe to toe with President Obama and got the better of him as was the case during the 2010 Health Care Summit in Washington, D.C. When Obama publicly insulted Ryan to his face during a 2011 speech at Georgetown University, Ryan called an impromptu press conference and said, "Rather than building bridges, he's poisoning wells." Ryan strikes fear in the heart of Obama.

By picking Ryan, Romney may force Obama to drop Joe Biden in favor of Hillary Clinton or some other more formidable opponent because Ryan would wipe the floor with Biden in a debate.

By picking Ryan, Romney has kept the future of American conservatism alive for years to come and may have also picked a future President.

Any way you slice it, this is a game-changer. As I wrote earlier this week, Paul Ryan is one of the sunniest, most likeable conservatives on the scene today. He's also the party's top wonk and is completely fluent in fiscal issues. I predict that Democrats will publicly gloat over this pick ("he'll be so easy to demonize!"), even as they privately worry. Paul Ryan is earnest, smart, articulate, attractive, calm, good-humored, and exceptionally gifted in explaining his case in persuasive and unthreatening terms. He's from the Midwest, has blue collar appeal (unlike Romney, he did not grow up wealthy), and has a beautiful young family. The Left will launch vicious and totally dishonest attacks, as they have throughout the last two years of budget debates. But never before has Paul Ryan enjoyed a larger platform from which to make his case to the American public: The country is going broke, a fiscal calamity awaits, but we can avoid it if we take responsible, urgent action. This campaign is about to get a major (and needed) injection of seriousness.

It's time to brush up on Paul Ryan's budget -- on what it does and does not propose. Let's also recall that Ryan's bipartisan Medicare reform (which he co-authored with liberal Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden) does not affect anyone over the age of 55. Period. This message will need to be hammered in multiple ads and played on a loop in Florida, as "scare granny" tactics from Democrats will be off the charts. Medicare's own bookkeepers warn that the program will be insolvent within 12 years without meaningful reforms. Barack Obama has no plan on this front, aside from robbing $500 Billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, and empowering an unelected panel of bureaucrats to ration care. Paul Ryan is very adept at making this case, and every bit of that skill will be essential over the coming three months. Barack Obama's reckless budgets have been unanimously defeated for two consecutive years, and the Senate has not produced a budget in over 1,200 days. The president -- by his own administration's admission -- has no plan to deal with our long term debt, which threatens to swallow our economy and change the very nature of the American idea. Whether we like it or not, this is a debate America must have. Paul Ryan is one of the very best -- if not the best -- conservative communicators on the biggest issue of our time. Buckle up, guys. This is going to get intense.

      (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NCF6UqM9fT0/UCkjbLGkw7I/AAAAAAAAb-k/9lmaYwP-lM8/s1600/American%2BFlag%2Bflying.jpg)

Who Built America?
By Rep. Paul Ryan on 8.13.12 @ 6:15AM


The rebuilding begins this November.

President Obama recently made a stunning remark about business owners in America's free enterprise economy. After dismissing the hard work and ingenuity of successful individuals, the president said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Who? Ultimately, the government.

Yet this was only the latest version of the president's four-year disparagement of American entrepreneurialism. In 2008, then-candidate Obama said he intended to "spread the wealth around" -- not his own wealth through voluntary transactions, of course, but the earnings belonging to American families through coercive redistribution. In April 2009, he claimed that the founding principles on which America was built are too weak to withstand 21st century pressures. He called our free economy a house built upon sand, destroyed when the financial storm of 2008 hit. America must be reconstructed, he asserted, upon a "new foundation" of "pillars" hewn from the solid rock of big government.

The agenda he promoted demonstrated in a practical way what his rhetoric meant. He pushed unprecedented stimulus spending, a government-driven health care overhaul, further distortions in the U.S. financial sector, an expensive cap-and-trade system to restrict American energy, and more. His transformative proposals were based on a vision of a government-centered society that conflicts with the foundational principles of freedom and equality rooted in our Declaration of Independence. To support his expansive new vision of government without limits, the administration sent Congress four massive annual budgets that called for crushing levels of debt. The Democrat-controlled Senate, cognizant of the political peril of voting for such reckless spending, taxes, and new debt, gave up on budgeting altogether. The U.S. Senate unanimously rejected Obama's budgets, without passing any budget of its own for over three years.

The failed leadership and the dismal results from a president of such great promise have been disappointing. The moment of truth in front of us is of course not entirely his fault. Both political parties have failed the American people over the years, and both political parties have -- time and again -- prioritized political gain at the expense of principle. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity in the year ahead to chart a new course, build a broad coalition for reforms that apply our timeless principles to today's most pressing challenges. It begins by reclaiming the core of what makes America exceptional: our commitment to freedom.

Economic freedom empowers entrepreneurs who have ideas and imagination, investors who take risks, and workers who hone their skills and offer their labor. Our exceptional country was built with the ingenuity, capital, and sweat contributed by individuals who risked it all to provide a brighter future for their families. America was founded on the shared belief that government's primary role is to safeguard our God-given freedoms, as individual initiative and a strong civil society are what make prosperity possible. America is exceptional for this very reason: No other country in the history of mankind was founded on such a powerful idea.

The president's policies have stifled this commitment to economic freedom, which has resulted in millions of Americans facing painful economic hardships. In the president's revealing rhetoric, we gain insight into why the economy remains so anemic and the future looks so bleak: Success is a function of government beneficence, not individual initiative.

His outlook not only makes for terrible economics, it also reveals moral confusion. The question that separates the prevailing sentiment in Washington from that of our Founders is a moral one: freedom and individual initiative, or big government alternatives?

President Obama's comments reflect an ideology that casts the private sector as an arena driven by greed and indifference to the well-being of others. In government-directed economies, the collective takes priority over the individual. The moral ideal is equal results.

Enforcing this contorted view of equality requires sharp class division -- the wealthy versus the middle class versus the poor. In this narrative, success is a zero-sum game. There is only so much wealth to go around, and one person's gain is another's loss.

The ideology of classes in historically inevitable conflict has never fit the reality of America. Our free and open economy works because the amount of wealth is not fixed. It grows with hard work, investment, and saving; all can prosper. Unlike in the European vision of big government, prosperity in America requires limits on the size and scope of the state, to ensure that no group faces government-imposed barriers to its opportunity to rise. America's Founders wrote our Constitution of self-government and limited powers to protect our natural rights and foster a level playing, so all could freely pursue their happiness.

Embracing the politics of class division, President Obama's principal solution to the nation's fiscal and economic problems is to raise the barriers to success with higher tax rates and greater centralized control over our economy. As a fiscal and an economic matter, the argument unravels as he remains unable to explain how the tax increases he's put forward can ever catch the spending increases ahead, and how such polices improve incentives for entrepreneurial investment and job development. Given such problematic realities, his appeal is more often moral in nature. Higher taxes are our patriotic duty. We're all in this together. Forcing the rich to pay their "fair share" is the right thing to do. Yet, on moral grounds, the president's argument cannot withstand scrutiny.

Every successful individual knows that his or her achievement requires a community of persons working together. We strengthen our bonds with each other as we offer our unique gifts to others. Customers reward the best and most efficient producers by buying their products and services. We work to advance the common good through our free association with each other, not because a coercive government directs our actions. Each human being has inherent dignity and unique gifts. Individuals thrive as they voluntarily share those gifts and talents with each other, in mutual assistance to meet their neighbors' needs. We could never do this if we were isolated individuals as caricatured in the president's distorted view of America's commitment to free enterprise.

Of course government has a critical role to play in establishing neutral rules that enable open competition, and in securing peace and order with courts, a standard currency, defense forces, first responders, teachers, infrastructure, and a safety net for the most vulnerable. Government can help create the space for innovation and prosperity, but government can not fill that space. Activist government overreach and ongoing economic stagnation have shown us why Washington should never try to displace what is best left to civil society.

There are pernicious side effects from Washington's ever-increasing intrusion into sectors of our economy and into aspects of our lives. Big-government economics breeds crony capitalism. It's corrupt, anything but neutral, and a barrier to broad participation in prosperity. Both political parties have been guilty of this trend. Most recently, Washington has pursued polices that pick winners and losers in specific sectors of our economy, and that favor well-connected corporations and union bosses with bureaucratic access, tax loopholes, and regulatory waivers. Think Solyndra, bankrupt after a $500 million taxpayer guarantee, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which continue to stifle the recovery while draining billions from the Treasury.

The moral case for individual initiative in a free economy holds that people have a God-given right to use their creativity to produce things that improve their lives. A free economy and strong communities honor the dignity of every person, reward effort with justice, promote upward mobility, and build solidarity among citizens. The president's vision of a collective, government-centered society -- reflected in his troubling rhetoric and failed policies -- divides class against class and belittles fair rewards for workers, entrepreneurs, and investors -- those who have built America into the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

We face a defining choice in November. For four more dreary years, President Obama will pursue his economically and morally bankrupt approach -- if we let him. Governor Romney, on the other hand, has embraced the vision of our exceptional nation, which Americans have always held, to guide our policies in the 21st century. He will follow a better path, consistent with the timeless truths of our nation's founding. A Romney administration would not put its faith in nameless government officials, but would trust persons and communities to determine what is in their best interests, and to make the right choices about the future.

We don't need to change the nature of America. We do not need to disparage our success, deny our exceptionalism, or transform America. We need to recommit to our founding principles and rebuild what has been broken. The comeback begins this November.

Romney: Obama fosters 'culture of dependency'The Washington Times
by: Seth McLaughlin
Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/romney-obama-fosters-culture-of-dependency#ixzz23UCOzRXt

Republican challenger Mitt Romney said Tuesday that President Obama is "encouraging a culture of dependency" by gutting the work requirement in the landmark federal welfare reform law, and his campaign went a step further, saying the White House overstepped its legal authority last month to issue waivers of the law to the states.

Speaking at a campaign stop in the Chicago suburbs, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said the administration's announcement that states would be eligible to receive waivers letting them modify the law's work requirements for aid recipients undercuts the intent of the law that Mr. Obama's Democratic predecessor, President Clinton, signed in 1996.

"President Obama in just the last few days has tried to reverse that accomplishment by taking the work requirement out of welfare," Mr. Romney said. "That is wrong. If I'm president, I'll put work back in welfare."

The White House called the attack "categorically false" and said the announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services was designed to give states flexibility to write their work requirements for those on welfare — something they said several Republican governors have requested.

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/romney-obama-fosters-culture-of-dependency#ixzz23UBwOllQ

        (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4oPelwalVOo/UCoE18t_QLI/AAAAAAAAcKY/-C51FfLfBJA/s1600/8-14-12%2B2.jpg)

Paul Ryan: Mitt Romney's Line in the Sand
By David Limbaugh
8/14/2012

Mitt Romney has outdone himself in choosing Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate. The conservative base is ecstatic, and that will translate into voter intensity and high turnout.

Our country faces an unprecedented debt crisis, primarily driven by our entitlement programs. We have more than $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities -- a staggering, incomprehensible number -- and we are on a collision course with national bankruptcy.

Obama has offered no solutions; his Democratic majority in the Senate has failed to produce a budget in 1,200 days; and they have both obstructed the Republicans' proposed remedies. It's as if it's a game with these people and our crushing national debt is but a trifling matter.

Obama is not only obstructing budget reform; it's almost as if he is trying to make matters worse. He has added a new major entitlement, Obamacare, and has continued to amass annual budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion, and his latest 10-year budget revealed he would continue to do so. Instead of reducing spending, he has demanded yet more "stimulus" spending and is ushering in the largest tax increase in U.S. history, which is guaranteed to further smother growth and probably worsen our debt problem.

Not too many years ago, both parties acknowledged that our entitlement commitments were a sword hanging over our heads. But when President George W. Bush tried to begin discussions on Social Security reform, Democrats ridiculed and demonized him and told seniors he was after their nest eggs.

But in 2008, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., dared to make the third rail of politics his calling card and to serve it up on the national stage. He presented a credible, comprehensive and workable plan to structurally reform entitlements.

Ryan earned national attention because he addressed the issues candidly, soberly and with such a command of the facts and attention to detail that Democrats couldn't shame him off the stage. Though he was calm in his presentation, he pulled no punches in warning that in the absence of major reforms, we would sustain a Greek-style financial collapse.

Ryan has been the Antiobama; he has provided the main adult leadership in the room, while Obama has been acting like a child in a candy store, spending every federal dollar he can get his hands on.

Ryan hasn't just provided issue papers; his plan was reduced to actual legislation and was passed in the House, only to be flatly rejected in the Democratic Senate and viciously and disingenuously mocked by President Obama.

Obama knows that Ryan has been his financial nemesis; he singled him out for ridicule during his farcical bipartisan health care summit. He has castigated Ryan during national speeches.

Ryan's inclusion on the GOP ticket guarantees that the financial issues threatening our republic today will remain front and center. As long as Ryan is around and playing a prominent role, Obama simply cannot effectively duck the issue.

Indeed, Romney's selection of Ryan signals his irrevocable commitment to tackling our entitlements problem and solving our financial crisis. It loudly signals that these issues, along with related economic issues, will be the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

It would have been easy for Romney to have avoided the entitlements issue, and some GOP advisers were urging him to do so, arguing it is a political loser because demagoguery will prevail over fiscal responsibility.

But Romney chose the path of statesmanship. He decided not to underestimate the American people and instead trusted that if properly informed, they would understand the gravity of the situation we face and support the right choices.

By choosing Ryan, Romney has drawn a bold line in the sand, telling the American people that his administration will tackle these problems no matter how much ridicule they receive from Obama and other Democrats.

Romney isn't promising to adopt Ryan's plan entirely, but it is obvious he embraces the underlying principles it contains: entitlement reform, discretionary spending reductions, a responsible national security budget and tax reform, which, when coupled with strong spending reductions, will lead to economic growth.

Obama has yet to present any semblance of a plan to reduce spending, restructure entitlements and bring our short- and long-term budgets into balance. He has offered only class warfare and fear-mongering.

The Ryan selection will force Obama and his party out of the closet and to offer some plan of their own instead of just ripping the Republicans' plans. It won't end the demagoguery, but it will smoke them out -- and expose the incoherence of their ideas.

Mitt Romney's best chance of winning this election is to draw the starkest of contrasts between his vision and Barack Obama's record. Choosing Paul Ryan was the best possible way to do that. Kudos to Mr. Romney. Game on.

                          (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ND8DSjV80SA/UCn-4YtgMWI/AAAAAAAAcJE/F_Dv59KnE38/s1600/DWS%2Bwith%2Bhands.jpg)

CNN's Wolf Blitzer Torches Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on Medicare Falsehoods
By Guy Benson
8/13/2012

         

Let me say this right up front: Congratulations to Wolf Blitzer for being a relentless, responsible journalist. If you value the truth, this interview is a pleasure to watch. If you have even an ounce of human compassion for the in-over-her-head target of Blitzer's inquisition, it's positively brutal:

Poor Debbie. She's totally out-gunned and has nowhere to hide. Her talking points are pitifully hollow and cannot withstand even basic questioning. She stubbornly rejects the (correct) premise that the Romney/Ryan Medicare reform plan exempts everyone over the age of 54, and plays fast and loose with numbers -- conflating 55 and 65 on several occasions. When she is brow-beaten into finally acknowledging -- if not admitting -- the truth around the 3:45 mark, she quickly realizes her "mistake" and reverts back into denialism. When Blitzer asks her to specify exactly how current or soon-to-be seniors would be impacted by the GOP plan, she cannot. Because they're not. The Left is intellectually bankrupt on the very subject they claim will allow them to crush Mitt Romney in November. They despise the bipartisan solution Republicans have offered, but they have no alternative of their own.

Dear Democrats, Medicare is slated to go bankrupt in 2024. You say it's wrong for future seniors to be denied Medicare as it currently exists. Okay, what's your plan, guys? We know that your actions have already cut Medicare by $700 Billion to pay for part of Obamacare. We also know that Obamacare establishes a government panel to ration care for the elderly. And yet the 2024 deadline is still coming. Again, what's your plan, Democrats? Mr. President? Anyone? I confronted Wasserman Schutlz on this very question last summer, and she gave an incoherent and inaccurate response. Also, here's video of Paul Ryan destroying DWS' talking point about seniors (read: future seniors) having to pay $6,000 more per year for healthcare. A debt crisis is on the near horizon. Entitlement programs are going under. Twenty-three million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or have given up home. GDP growth is slowing. The president and his allies have no plans, so they're forced to invent smears and argue against positions that their opponents don't hold.

I'll leave you with this clip of my debate with Sally Kohn on Fox News. The topic: Whether comparisons between Paul Ryan and Ronald Reagan are apt. Sally, like many liberals, must pretend that she adores Reagan -- arguing that he was far too liberal to win the GOP nomination these days. (Remember, every Republican is either dumber or more evil than the last). This assertion is laughable, and her characterization of Reagan's record is flat wrong. Kohn also offers some, um, creative "interpretations" of what the Romney/Ryan plan would do:

The Romney/Ryan plan does not raise taxes on anyone, let alone 95 percent of the country.

UPDATE - Just a reminder: I do not pick on DWS because she's an easy target. I hold her to account because she is Barack Obama's hand-picked leader of his party. She's not a fringe player. She's the DNC Chairwoman, installed at the request of the president of the United States. This seems like a good commercial for Mitt Romney: "I picked Paul Ryan. He picked Debbie and Joe. I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."

                               (http://www.trbimg.com/img-50272362/turbine/la-na-romney-vp-ryan-20120812-001/600)


Romney denounces Obama's "campaign of division and anger and hate"
By: John Hayward
8/15/2012 08:09 AM


In a speech in Chillicothe, Ohio on Tuesday, Mitt Romney had strong words for the ugly campaign Barack Obama is running:

It wasn't supposed to be this way. In 2008, Candidate Obama said, "if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters." He said, "if you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." And that, he told us, is how, "You make a big election about small things."

That was Candidate Obama describing the strategy that is the now the heart of his campaign.

His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the Presidency. Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower.

This is what an angry and desperate Presidency looks like.

President Obama knows better, promised better and America deserves better.

Over the last four years, this President has pushed Republicans and Democrats as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces.

If an American president wins that way, we all lose.

But he won't win that way. America is one Nation under God. American history has been a story of the many becoming one – uniting to preserve liberty, uniting to build the greatest economy in the world, uniting to save the world from unspeakable darkness. Everywhere I go in America there are monuments that list those who have given their lives. There is no mention of their race, their party affiliation or what they did for a living. They lived and died under a single flag fighting for a single purpose. They pledged allegiance to the United States of America. So, Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America.

Romney didn't think much of Obama's record in office, either:

*Unemployment has been above 8 percent for 42 straight months. We will put Americans back to work!

*Half of recent college graduates can't find work or a job that matches their skills. We'll get good jobs for our kids.

*Nearly one out of six Americans are in poverty today. This is a disgrace we will end.

*And President Obama has amassed five trillion dollars of debt – nearly as much debt held by the public as all other Presidents combined. We will end this moral failure.

After four years, it's clear that President Obama's policies aren't fixing these problems, they're making them worse. That is why Ohio will lead the way by electing a new President on November 6th.

He said he thought Obama's performance was so disappointing because "I just don't think President Obama understands what it is that drives our economy." Romney's own understanding of American economic excellence included a pointed jab at Obama's infamous "you didn't build that" dismissal of the entrepreneurial spirit:

America runs on freedom. Free men and women, pursuing their dreams, working hard to build a better future for their families. This is what propels our economy. When an American succeeds, when she wins a promotion, when he creates a business, it is that individual, that American that has earned it, that has built it. Government does not build our businesses, the American people do.

*The American people also build the government. We pay for it with our taxes. We choose who will lead us with our votes.

*Do you want a president who believes that your rights come from God, not from government?

*Do you want a president who honors your right to pursue happiness, not as government commands, but as you choose?

*Do you want a president who will work every day to bring us together, not tear us apart?

*Do you want a president who will celebrate success, not attack it?

*Do you want a president who will never, ever apologize for the greatest nation on earth?

*With your support, I will be that President.

Romney did a very good job of presenting the substance of his campaign platform:

My plan focuses on five things.

First, energy independence. We will achieve North America energy independence by 2020, by taking full advantage of our oil, our gas, our coal, our renewables and our nuclear power. Abundant, inexpensive, domestic energy will not only create energy jobs, it will bring back manufacturing jobs.

Second, we must give our workers and our children the skills they need to succeed. Our nation cannot continue to fail in public education. For too long, we have let the agenda of union bosses steer the agenda of our schools. It is time to put our kids and their parents and their teachers first, and the union bosses behind.

Third, trade must work for America. We are one of the world's most productive nations. Trade creates jobs and raises take-home pay for American workers. We must open more doors for trade in Latin America, where there is a growing middle class. But when any nation cheats, as China has cheated, we must make sure that there are clear and compelling consequences.

Fourth, we will do what politicians in both parties have been promising for years, but have failed to do. We will cut spending, shrink deficits, and put America on track to a balanced budget.

Fifth, we will champion small business. Unlike President Obama, I won't raise taxes on small business. I'll make sure regulators protect the public, but that they stop killing our jobs. I will remove the crippling uncertainty that is preventing businesses from hiring.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama was making jokes about Romney transporting a dog on the roof of his car 30 years ago, and Joe Biden was telling an audience in Virginia that (Joe thought he was in North Carolina) Republicans want to "put y'all back in chains."

                   (http://www.nedhardy.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2012/june/obamacare.jpg)


                  (http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/obamacare.jpg)

August 17, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Give 'Em Hell, Mitt!  
Romney needs to stay on the offensive in the Medicare debate.
By Rich Lowry

               (http://www.mulvaneyforcongress.com/images/obamacare_chart.png)

On Medicare, the Romney campaign is borrowing the strategic logic of a long-ago military legend.

Taking command of the French ninth army in 1914 as it retreated before the Germans, Marshal Ferdinand Foch uttered his immortal words: "Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I attack."

The best Mitt Romney ad of the campaign is the current spot on President Barack Obama's cuts to Medicare. It points out that the president took $700 billion from Medicare to fund "Obamacare," robbing one unsustainable entitlement to create a new one. The ad is truthful, unadorned, and — for any senior who feels protective of Medicare — damning.

In the Medicare debate, schoolyard rules apply: Punch the bully in the mouth twice as hard.

It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with people who insist you are going to "kill people" (Paul Krugman's words). If Vice President Joe Biden hasn't yet said that the Romney-Ryan Medicare premium-support plan will lead to the reinstitution of chattel slavery, just wait until the next time he gets worked up before a largely African-American audience.

Never before, though, have Democrats passed the largest Medicare cuts in history immediately prior to launching their tried-and-true assault. This time, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle a danger to America's seniors.

               (http://theworldtrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/design-obamacare.jpg)

Confronted with Obama's Medicare cuts, Democrats and their friends in the media resort to denial.

On Meet the Press the other day, I asked Rachel Maddow if she supported the $700 billion in cuts, and she simply wouldn't say. Here was the Oxford-educated pride of liberal punditry professing to have no opinion on a primary means of funding what she considers a glorious legislative achievement.

Others pooh-pooh the significance of the cuts. They supposedly hit only "nonessential services." This may be the first time in the debate over entitlements that Democrats have deemed anything related to Medicare "nonessential."

What Democrats mean is that $156 billion of the cuts fall on the Medicare Advantage program. They have always hated this feature because it gives seniors access to private-sector coverage options. But seniors like it.

                              (http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ObamaCare.jpg)

The Obama cuts also rely on grinding, year-after-year reductions in payments to doctors and other providers. This is a way to maintain that there are technically no changes in "benefits," though access to and quality of care inevitably will be affected.

No one concerned with the health of Medicare would go about it in this fashion. But "Obamacare" was helter-skelter legislating, a desperate attempt to make the numbers temporarily add up.

Medicare's actuaries consistently sound the alarm about the consequences. A May 2012 report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said, "The large reductions in Medicare payments rates to physicians would likely have serious implications for beneficiary access to care." It also noted the punishing effect on hospitals, skilled-nursing facilities, and home health agencies, which "would have to withdraw from providing services to Medicare beneficiaries, merge with other provider groups or shift substantial portions of Medicare costs to their non-Medicare, non-Medicaid payers."

                       (http://www.earstohear.net/images/SCOTUS-Obamacare.jpg)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314240/give-em-hell-mitt-rich-lowry

                            (http://grrrgraphics.com/data/images1/obama_care_cartoon_large.jpg)

With every word he utters, with every action he takes, we hear that Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma is playing to his base.  Whether he's extending unemployment benefits, increasing the number of people receiving food stamps; cutting the interest rate for student loans; giving a pass to illegal aliens; promoting public and private sector unions; funding Planned Parenthood; supporting same-sex marriages; and refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers, it's all done for the sole purpose of energizing the nitwits who elected him in 2008.

It's unintended irony when people refer to Obuma's base because among the word's multiple definitions are "morally reprehensible; lacking dignity; mean-spirited; selfish; and cowardly."  That pretty much sums up those who are willing to turn a blind eye to Obuma's war on capitalism and his promotion of class, race and gender warfare, so long as his groupies receive their puny little bribes.

Just a few of the inconvenient truths these weasels are willing to overlook are: one, that Obuma's agenda will inevitably slaughter the golden goose; two, that his profligacy is sending America spiraling into bankruptcy; and, three, that his gutting of the military ultimately diminishes our nation's influence in world affairs, where it has traditionally served as a bulwark against the evils of communism, Nazism and Islamic terrorism.  Such vital matters aren't even a blip on their collective radar.

Although I have often likened left-wingers as termites and rodents, Obuma's supporters more closely resemble parasites mindlessly devouring their host.

Because those who join Alcoholics Anonymous and successfully attain sobriety must first agree to turn their lives over to a Higher Power, I have long wondered if it would work as well with those poor souls who have gotten intoxicated on the fermented Kool-Aid of liberalism.  The problem, of course, is that they would first have to wise up and quit picturing Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma hovering over us mere mortals.

Speaking of hovering, because Obuma has long made a practice of surrounding himself with dunces like Eric Holder, Valerie Jarrett and Katherine Sebilius, in order to appear intelligent, and dwarves like Timothy Geithner, Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman, in order to appear taller, he's going to have his work cut out for him when it's time to debate Romney.  For one thing, he's not as bright as his opponent and he's certainly not as good-looking, and, without his Teleprompter, he's about as spell-binding as Porky Pig.  As if all that isn't bad enough, he's shorter than Romney.  That's why I'm betting he will be wearing elevator shoes for the event and perhaps an earpiece into which David Axelrod can feed him his lines.

Although I am still confident that Mitt Romney will win the election, I find it annoying that even after three years of this administration's lies and incompetence, Obuma remains personally popular with so many people.  I mean, even if you support his policies, as apparently many people do, why is it that more people aren't turned off by his obvious arrogance, narcissism and hypocrisy?  I mean, if you had neighbors, in-laws or people in your workplace, who shared those qualities, I'm sure most normal people would go out of their way to avoid them.

In spite of all that, according to the polls, Obuma is running neck-to-neck with a genuinely decent guy like Romney.  I'm afraid that says less about Obuma than it does about the typical American voter.

On top of everything else, Obuma wants to condemn Romney for being wealthy, although he is not as wealthy as such Obuma supporters as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Barbra Streisand or George Soros.

Obuma condemns Romney for outsourcing American jobs, even though the liberal Washington Post points out that's an outright lie, while Obuma has personally overseen the out-sourcing of billions of American tax dollars to such places as China, Finland and Brazil, to name a few.

Whether it's because of his traumatic upbringing or his later political influences, which, by his own admission, included racists, radicals and communists, I sincerely believe that Obuma has several screws loose.

So when I say "Screw him!" it's hardly my intention to insult the alleged leader of the free world.  I'm only suggesting that the White House handyman should get busy tightening up those loose nuts before Obuma comes completely unglued

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LiPufkiy3Qo/UC862NLxQtI/AAAAAAAAcjY/wXi6ruku-Gc/s1600/Romney%2Bexplains%2Bto%2BRyan.bmp)

Ryan unspun
By: David Harsanyi
8/17/2012 04:39 PM

By naming Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan to the Republican presidential ticket, Mitt Romney offered Democrats an opportunity to reject demagoguery and engage in a serious intellectual debate about the future.

Or so says conventional media wisdom. To this point, however, no such luck. The path of least political resistance, it seems, is to scaremonger the electorate with half-truths and outright lies. Mitt Romney might be running on his own budget—though he has embraced many of the components of the Ryan plan—but that hasn't stopped Democrats:

1. No, the Ryan budget isn't extreme

Jim Messina, President Obama's campaign manager, who, among countless partisans has probably never actually read Ryan's budgets, calls his plans "radical."

A common distortion was forwarded by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who not only claims that Ryan's budget "would kill people, no question," but that Ryan's plan would "cut discretionary spending to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge." Life under Calvin Coolidge–high growth, low taxation and peace–is nothing to sneeze at, but Ryan's plan, alas, would only bring non-military discretionary spending back to 2008 levels. It would cut subsidies and federal bureaucracy by 10 percent and reform compensation plans of federal employees.

Now, if we're talking about discretionary spending as a percentage of the entire budget, you don't have to be a Nobel Prize winner to see that Krugman has a point—though, an equally misleading one. Since mandatory spending has grown at almost six times the pace of discretionary spending over the past 20 years, one could easily argue that Obama will keep discretionary spending at levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge. Or, in this president's case, it might be more apt to mention Herbert Hoover.

Many conservatives believe Ryan's budget is too tepid as it doesn't balance the budget for over a decade. The plan only reduces spending from the current 24 percent to 19.8 percent of GDP. As economists have pointed out, this would bring federal expenditures down to the average of post-WWII levels. In the Ryan budget, federal spending increases every year during the next 10, and revenue rises every year afterwards. The budget expands from $3.6 trillion in 2013 to $4.9 trillion in 2022—a trajectory which can be considered an extreme "cut" only in Washington.

2. No, his plan doesn't favor the rich

What would a day of campaigning be without some class envy? Messina also claims Romney had "chosen a leader of the House Republicans who shares his commitment" to a "new budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy..."

Flawed theory or not, there are no special tax cuts in the Ryan budget "for the wealthy." Any time Washington enacts across-the-board tax reform or growth policies, the rich (who pay most income taxes) are likely to benefit. Ryan's plan, though, only extends tax revenues we've had for the past decade—the ones, in fact, that Barack Obama supported to extend in 2010.

What Ryan's plan does is reform the current six-strata tax-rate system into two, a 10 percent rate and a 25 percent rate. It fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax (which Democrats support) and cuts corporate taxes rates (which Obama has said he'd be willing to entertain) to reflect rates used by competitive nations. To keep revenues stable Ryan (and Romney) have proposed closing loopholes (disproportionately used by wealthy Americans).

3. No, Ryan's plan does not destroy Medicare

Rep. Steve Israel of New York, a representative of the hyperventilating wing of the Democratic Party, recently claimed that Romney and Ryan partnership was a "nightmare for seniors who've earned their Medicare benefits. For the last 18 months, we've said Republicans will have to defend the indefensible—their vote to end Medicare." Messina says that the duo would end "Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system." And Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, has been running around from one media outlet to the next casually claiming that Ryan's plan would destroy Medicare for today's seniors.

No, no and no. The Wyden-Ryan Medicare plan—co-authored by a liberal Democrat—wouldn't affect anyone over 55. Seniors who've earned their Medicare benefits would not see a change, and those under 55 would not have to ever see a change either—unless they voluntarily took part in a more competitive plan. Even then, Washington would pay premiums as you made choices, which, if you believe in the basics of free market economics, would bring down prices and improve service.

Moreover, the liberal Urban Institute recently found that the average citizen will pay $149,000 in Medicare taxes but take out $351,000 in medical services during retirement. So it seems that in reality, the party unwilling to reform a program before it reaches the point of unsustainability is the one acting as the agent of its destruction.

4. No, he's not at war with women

The phony "war on women" attack is a vital part of any left-wing campaign against social conservatives. Democratic congressman Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania says that Ryan "believes we should ban all birth control as well. He voted for that." Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that Ryan "supported the 'Let Women Die Bill,' which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency, lifesaving abortion care, even if she could die without it."

Naturally, Ryan has never voted for anything resembling those accusations. He did vote for the "Protect Life Act," which would have rewritten provisions in Obamacare to prohibit federal subsidies for abortion—something liberals claim is already codified in law–and insure that Catholic hospitals would not have to chip in for abortions. He also supported a bill that would have dulled the HHS Mandate that Catholic hospitals provide free condoms.

5. No, he's not a congressional obstructionist

According to Gallup, Congress' approval rating hit an all-time low recently. The president, trying to exploit this sentiment, blames gridlock on GOP-led Congress—featuring Ryan. Is it fair? Hardly. The House has passed dozens of bills that focus on economic recovery. And a reminder: Obama's serious was rejected by everyone in both the House and Senate. While Ryan's budget passed the House with a 228-191 vote.

The president went a way overboard, in fact, in a stop in Iowa last week, saying: "So, if you happen to see Congressman Ryan, tell him how important this farm bill is to Iowa and our rural communities. It's time to put politics aside and pass it right away." The House of Representatives had already passed a stop-gap measure to help drought-ridden farmers. In fact, the House has passed a budget, while a Harry Reid-led Senate hasn't passed one in over three years.

These are but a few examples of the mendacity surrounding Ryan's record. The media has ratcheted up the harsh tone all around—either by misrepresenting Ryan's positions or just insulting him. Take one-time political journalist Charles Pierce, now with Esquire, who called the presumptive Republican vice presidential candidate, "The zombie eyed granny-starver, Paul Ryan, Pericles Of Janesville." (In the Urban dictionary—the definitive source on all nonsense—none of the three definitions for "zombie eyed" seem to work for Ryan.) Or read Erika Christaki, writing the "Ideas" section for Time magazine, who says that Ryan's budget is un-Christian. Jesus, she points out, would as "best as we can tell" support a 50 percent tax rate—maybe even higher.

We will leave guesswork on Jesus' preferred top marginal tax rates to the brighter minds and theologians at Time magazine, because, when it comes to Ryan, there an abundance of easily disproven falsehood to tackle right here on Earth.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314244/joining-battle-james-kemp

Paul Ryan: Joining the Battle  

Ryan understands the spirit of enterprise that made America prosperous and free.

By James Kemp

I was nine years old when I attended my first political convention. It was 1980, we were in Detroit, and I will never forget walking into the main auditorium and seeing sign after sign with my last name on it: "Reagan/Kemp!"

Suddenly I understood. As we later joked, Dad hadn't been missing my soccer games just because he thought soccer was a socialist import. He really had been busy at work. Politics, and especially ideas, was Jack Kemp's passion. And his distinctive politics of optimism, inclusion, freedom, and growth were already making a mark on the Republican party.

Fast forward 16 years. I was standing at the podium with my dad at my second Republican convention, looking out at the cheering crowd in San Diego, and trying to take in Senator Bob Dole's unexpected decision to choose my dad as his vice-presidential running mate.

Last weekend, when I watched Paul and Janna Ryan with their three young children as Governor Romney announced his selection for VP, I was reminded of that heady moment in 1996 and the emotions my family now shares with theirs. But even more, I thought of 1980 in Detroit, and I knew exactly what Liza, Charlie, and Sam were thinking: Their dad has been doing some real work in Washington, D.C., every week he's been gone from Wisconsin.

Thirty-two years after the first "Kemp" signs appeared at a Republican convention, the torch has been passed to the next generation of champions of the American Idea. For those who were skeptical of Mitt Romney's leadership and vision for this great nation, his selection of Paul Ryan should remove any doubt.

The Kemp family has known Paul Ryan for nearly two decades. He worked for my dad, Bill Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Vin Weber from 1993 to 1995 at Empower America before going on to become a congressman at age 28. Seven terms in office later, Congressman Ryan has forged his own path serving his country.

Surveying the challenges of the day, Paul became chairman of the House Budget Committee, an often tedious and thankless job. In the face of national economic weakness and a climate of debt, doubt, and despair, he provided a blueprint for recovery and growth, drawing on America's strength, not its fears. Paul offered up his ideas not because they were perfect but because he wanted his challengers to make them better. That is how great ideas grow greater and how true leaders lead.

Obama isn't working. It's not him; it's his ideas. And unless he is willing to come forward with new and better ideas — and to debate Ryan on the merits of those ideas — he will lose in November.

The exchange of ideas is key to what my father stood for. Politics can and should be civil. But the debate must take place. You must stand in the arena and defend your ideas.

Paul Ryan has done that. Last October at the Kemp Leadership Award dinner, I introduced Paul as the middle linebacker of the House, and Washington Redskins all-pro middle linebacker London Fletcher gave the keynote speech. Middle linebacker is the most brutal position in football. Like London, Paul has bloodied his nose but hasn't missed a game. Neither London nor Paul is out there looking for personal glory. They are lunch-pail guys: They put on their hard hats, go to work, and succeed.

And Mitt Romney has done that too. He knows how to look at a problem and find the right resources to fix it. In Paul Ryan, he has found just the right running mate, a leader who shares his vision for America and who understands the spirit of free enterprise that has made our country great, prosperous, and free.

More than ever, our country needs principled leaders, men and women who can translate the American Idea of optimism and hope into visionary policies of freedom and growth. This is the historic calling of the 2012 campaign. Hopefully, years from now, the children who stood at the podium during Romney's announcement will look back at this election and say, Thank you.
— James Kemp, the son of former congressman Jack Kemp, is president of the Jack Kemp Foundation.

The Co-Presidency Talks at the 1980 Republican National Convention  

Most people thought the 1980 Republican National Convention would be a bit of a snoozer. Presumptive presidential nominee Ronald Reagan had nearly pulled off the improbable feat of snatching the 1976 nomination from the incumbent, Gerald Ford, four years earlier, and he had ripped through the competition throughout the primaries this time around. How did the convention end up becoming one of the most interesting places in the space-time continuum, then? There was still one bit of lingering suspense when the GOP headed to Detroit for the convention: who would be Reagan's running mate?

Reagan's camp had an offbeat choice to fill out the ticket: former President Ford.

     (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/co-presidents.jpg)

By having Ford run for the vice-presidency, the Republicans could trot out a "dream ticket" against Jimmy Carter. Ford's midwestern roots would provide some geographic balance for a Californian like Reagan, and Ford obviously had tons of Washington experience, something Reagan lacked.

The plan quickly hit a snag, though. Ford was apparently amenable to the idea of jumping back into the political ring, but he wasn't going to just roll over and be Reagan's second-in-command. Ford allegedly agreed to run, but only if he would be given such vastly expanded power as vice president that he and Reagan would form a team of de facto "co-presidents."

The idea didn't sit well with Reagan's advisers, but Ford had a pretty strong team to make his case. Ford's representatives in these negotiations included Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, and Dick Cheney, who had been Ford's White House Chief of Staff. Ford's team allegedly wanted a heavy say on foreign policy matters; rumors later emerged that Kissinger would have become Secretary of State in the co-presidents' cabinets. As one might imagine, Reagan and his team weren't too keen on giving up their foreign policy powers. (The same problems supposedly derailed talks of a deal for John McCain to run as John Kerry's vice-presidential candidate in 2004.)

On the Wednesday afternoon of the convention, Ford sat down for an interview with Walter Cronkite, and by the end of the recording, the whole nation had received signs that the "dream ticket" might be coming together. Excitement built throughout the convention's halls, and the deal seemed imminent.

According to both Reagan and Ford's camps, though, by the time the country got the news, the idea was already all but dead. Reagan had realized that getting Ford on the ticket probably wasn't worth giving up so much autonomy, and Ford had concluded that such an arrangement probably wouldn't work anyway.

           (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/reagan-vp.jpg)

In the end, of course, the Reagan camp chose George H.W. Bush to fill out the ticket. The choice was a sensible one, particularly since Bush had run a (distant) second to Reagan in the primaries. Like Ford, Bush would help give the ticket geographic balance and provide valuable experience in the federal government. Unlike Ford, he wouldn't want to become a co-president. Still, for a few hours in 1980, it looked like we might have ended up with a team of presidents, which has to be one of the most fascinating "What if?" scenarios in American political history.

     (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d4IQeSwxj4s/UDKTSsaGH0I/AAAAAAAAczE/aceEUVoUlZU/s1600/8-20-12%2B4.jpg)

America Ready for Paul Ryan's Adult Conversation
By Star Parker
8/20/2012

There's a line of thinking on the political left that Mitt Romney served them up a great softball in picking Paul Ryan as his running mate.

According to Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, "Ryan brings to the Romney campaign the tea party's style of magical thinking, a blissfully simplistic, ideologically driven world view that seems to think candidates can win votes by promising to reduce popular government services."

Republican candidates, they say, are ducking for cover to avoid being branded with budget reforms that Ryan, as Chairman of House Budget Committee, has proposed, particularly for Medicare and Medicaid.ul Ryan's Adult Conversation


Vice President Biden, eloquent as always, told a mostly black audience in Virginia that Republicans want to put "y'all back in chains."

Although Biden has taken flak for this nauseating remark, he should get credit for summing up how Democrats really think. That government running your life makes you free and that anyone who proposes freedom and choice wants to put "y'all back in chains."
Earlier this year, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, sent a report on the nation's budget to House budget committee chairman Ryan.

Here's what he said:

"The explosive path of the federal debt that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects under what many observers would view as current policies underscores the need for policy changes to put the nation on a sustainable course."

"The aging of the population and rising costs for health care will push spending for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs considerably higher as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)."

Elmendorf concludes that without major increases in revenues and/or substantial cuts in spending "the resulting budget deficits will increase federal debt to unsupportable levels."

So Paul Ryan's high crime is being courageous, honest and leveling with the American people about the tough realities facing us.

He, like most Republicans, believes that raising taxes, when our economy is growing at half its historical average, and with the unemployment rate 40% higher than its historical average, is economic suicide.

So Ryan takes on the major culprits in driving our long term fiscal crisis – entitlements spending.

Is this "magical thinking?" No, it's guts.

And what courageous measures do Democrat critics take on? No major spending reform proposals and no across the board tax hikes, which Elmendorf suggests as the alternative.

Just the usual class warfare rhetoric. Tax the top 1 percent, who already pay 39 percent of income taxes, and who alone could never cover the huge deficits that CBO is projecting .

In 1975 10% of the population was on Medicaid. Now it is double that.

Ryan's idea of block granting federal funds for Medicaid to states would give local latitude and responsibility to promote innovation to make more productive use of limited resources.

A new study published in the journal Health Affairs reports that 31 percent of physicians refuse patients on Medicaid. Yet, when innovative business models emerge to deliver care in underserved poor communities, they are attacked by the left.

The Center for Public Integrity, funded by George Soros, has posted on its website that Ryan's budget plan is a "Path to the Poorhouse." Yet it also attacks Dental Health Maintenance Organizations, a recent business concept to organize dental practices, making it feasible to accept Medicaid reimbursements and provide dental care in poor neighborhoods.

There is a saying that you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Paul Ryan is courageously delivering truth to the American people, boldly and clearly.

He can't make anyone drink the water. But if honesty and courage is no longer what sells in America, we can be sure that the future is not pretty.

Romney's bet, and I think it is a good one, is that the American people are ready for Paul Ryan and an adult conversation.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Xsp8mrw2v5Q/UDPnCZrTGTI/AAAAAAAAc3s/i5LdVxBAR9g/s1600/8-21-12%2B2.jpg)
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/22/john-stossel-who-is-paul-ryan/

Who Is Paul Ryan?

By John Stossel
8/22/2012

I wanted to like Paul Ryan.

Before he was nationally known, Rep. Ryan visited me at ABC, and we went to lunch. He was terrific. He was a rare politician, one who actually cared about America's coming debt crisis and the unfairness of entitlements. He even talked about F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"! If only more politicians thought that way.

But then the housing bubble burst. Ryan voted for TARP. Then he voted for the auto bailout. Who is this guy? I thought he believed in markets!

At Fox, when I got my own TV show, I asked him about that.

"I voted for TARP because I believed we were going to fall into a deflationary spiral, the economy was going to collapse. ... The purpose of voting for that auto bill was to prevent the auto companies from getting TARP dollars. ... Now TARP has become this revolving government slush fund. Never was intended ... ."

But in your ideal world, should government have bailed out the auto company?

"No."

Whew.

I wish he had voted against those bills, but the political class was in near panic, and Ryan is a politician.

It's a reason I don't like politicians.

But at least Ryan speaks against bailouts now.

"We're reaching a tipping point in this country where a majority of Americans are getting their benefits and livelihoods from the federal government ... .

Why does this put us on a road to "serfdom"?

"Because we're moving from a society where the goal of government is not to equalize opportunity but to equalize the results of our lives. ... The more we ask government to do for us, the more government can take from us. ... Government is doing so much in our lives that we have less freedom to govern ourselves."

I like hearing a politician say that.

I told Ryan that I fear that most Americans don't understand economics and actually prefer a government that "takes care" of us.

"No. I think people believe in the American idea, (that) our rights don't come from government. ... And so we do not want a government where they give us our rights and redistribute, regulate and ration our rights."

Hope he's right.

In 2008, Ryan proposed a "Roadmap for the Future," a budget plan that would slow the growth of government. It was timid. It wouldn't eliminate the Education Department or other useless government agencies and wouldn't balance the budget for decades.

Yet even Republicans said his plan was too radical. Newt Gingrich called it "right-wing social engineering."

Last year, I invited Ryan back on my show to talk about that. By then, "the needle had moved." Ryan's Roadmap helped change the discussion. Many Republicans woke up. Newt apologized for his comment. The Republican Study Committee proposed bigger cuts.

Now, said Ryan, "I would call (my plan) mild. I was trying to get consensus. We've moved the center of gravity. We've taken on what they call the third rail, these entitlement programs which are the big drivers of our debt. We showed the country that there is a different way to go and that we can get back toward limited government, economic freedom. And I feel pretty good where we are and how we brought this conversation forward."

He should feel good. For 50 years, the needle did not move at all. Americans accepted the welfare state. Now, more understand.

"We have one more opportunity in this country. ... It is not too late to revive and reapply the American idea. But there will come a point where that moment might pass us."

Countries can get off the road to serfdom. Canada did it and prospered because of it. It won't be easy for America, but if we do it, Paul Ryan deserves much of the credit.

"What I've learned in southern Wisconsin (is that) people are ready to be talked to like adults, not like children. And they know we're in a debt crisis."

     (http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/609/480/90043638-mitt-romney.jpg)

Electoral college model predicts big Romney win

By: John Hayward
8/23/2012 09:06 AM



Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry, of the University of Colorado, have a system for predicting the Electoral College outcomes of presidential races. Their model has accurately forecast the winner of every presidential race since 1980. According to an article published by UC-Boulder, they even got the Perot-flavored election of 1992, and the Bush-Gore photo finish in 2000, right.

This year, the Bickers-Berry model shows Mitt Romney winning with 320 electoral votes to Obama's 218, with a 20-vote margin of error. A popular vote margin of 53-47 percent in Romney's favor is predicted.

The Bickers-Berry model draws upon a wide range of state and national economic data, rather than collating public opinion polls. It anticipates little lasting effect from factors such as the location of the party conventions, the vice-president's home state, the party affiliation of state governors, or – according to Bickers – "gaffes, political commercials, or day-to-day campaign tactics." He finds the focus of voters upon big issues "heartening for our democracy."

The Associated Press notes that "the model does not account for sudden changes in the economy or unexpected developments in states split 50-50." There appear to be quite a few states fitting that definition at the moment. The Bickers-Berry model has Obama losing almost every swing state, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida.

Interestingly, the model predicts different partisan effects for two key economic factors: "Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income." That's obviously not good news for President Obama, who has made double-digit unemployment a permanent feature of the American landscape.

The forecast that has Romney winning with 320 electoral votes is based on five-month-old economic data, with an update planned for September. There are reports today that jobless claims are starting to rise again. Maybe Romney will do even better, when even more dismal Obama economic data is plugged into the Bickers-Berry model.

On the other hand, the professors note that it's hard to predict if the public will judge the economy in "absolute" or "relative" terms – in other words, will they consider the totality of the Obama record, or will they accept a possible uptick in a few key indicators during October as encouraging signs that the President is turning around?

              (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TdNwu2jjGsM/UDaJtewKaCI/AAAAAAAAdEw/_7JTKCPODko/s1600/8-23-12%2B15.jpg)

I hope you saw the August issue of A Line of Sight that published yesterday.  I particularly wanted to draw your attention to the endorsement of Romney-Ryan by award winning radio host Craig Silverman.  .   

Silverman's support of Romney is particularly notable as he publicly supported Barack Obama in 2008, has spent most of his life as a Democrat, is Jewish, a member of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, and a self-identified "moderate."
http://alineofsight.com/policy/mitt-romney-for-president

.....Warph



Mitt Romney for President
20-Aug-2012 | By Craig Alan Silverman

I support Mitt Romney for President and Paul Ryan for Vice-President.  For most of my life, I have been a Democrat and I very publicly voted (live C-Span, live radio, NY Times) for Obama-Biden in 2008.  As I studied Obama's performance as President, I could no longer support him. 

That was not ideal for the longevity of award winning drive time Caplis and Silverman radio show broadcast on Denver's KHOW 630-AM for eight years.  Our radio show was somewhat premised as a left v. right dialogue.  Management pulled the plug on the show about six weeks ago. So be it. 

I have another career and plenty to do.  I am a small business owner (Silverman and Olivas, P.C.), and a Denver trial lawyer who is a proud member of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association.  My social policies are libertarian.   I am a fourth generation Jewish Denverite who graduated from Denver's George Washington H.S., Colorado College and the University of Colorado School of Law. 

Some of the groups of which I am a constituent may be displeased with my endorsement, but so be that too.  This is not a close choice for me and if you are paying attention, it should not be a tough choice for you either.  I am enormously disappointed in President Obama and his administration. 

The economy remains bad.  The debt bomb keeps growing.  Iran is on the verge of having nukes.  The power of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism is expanding rapidly.  Our Justice Department is full of politics and political correctness.  Fast and Furious is a disgrace.  AG Eric Holder needs to go.

I want leadership in the White House.  I want a government with a budget that makes sense.  I do not want problems perpetually kicked down the road.  I want major legislation to be debated in the public, and not rammed down our throats without even being read by anyone other than the special interests who wrote it. 

I want a leader to stand up against sharia law and jihad – and to make clear how antithetical these concepts are to the American way.  I thought Barack Obama was ideally situated to speak some necessary truths to the Islamic world.  But this President has not, and he will not in a second term.  The world is teetering on the brink as a result.  We need some Reagan-like truth telling about repressive systems of government and ideologies which are evil.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  I feel deceived and let down by Barack Obama.  His autobiography turns out to contain a lot of fiction.  What does it tell you about a man and his campaign when the truth is repeatedly distorted around an issue as solemn as cancer? 

Barack Obama ran as a positive bipartisan person.  Now, he is so negative and partisan.  Obama claimed he could work with the other side, but he is way too far over to the left.  This President is a super big spender and we simply cannot afford that any more

If we re-elect Obama, we get the same big spending, dysfunctional government.  This is no time for that.  Mitt Romney worked well with Democrats in Massachusetts.  Some people put down Mitt Romney as a Massachusetts moderate, but that works for me.  I expect it will work better for America.

Vice President Biden played the race card in Roanoke, Virginia and every decent person knows that.  The divide and conquer strategy disgusts me.  It scares me to have Joe Biden one heartbeat from the Presidency.   Paul Ryan is so much smarter and better.  Paul Ryan is a serious and decent man who represents a new generation. 

I disagree with Romney and Ryan on some social issues, but there are other, more pressing problems and priorities for America and the free world right now.

I urge other people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 to make a change in 2012.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S9HdmpbNGE0/UDqy4P9GkeI/AAAAAAAAdaE/vnwPf_4ZuiI/s1600/33.bmp)



(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-56eslRLGOrA/UDqqsyiz9aI/AAAAAAAAdYs/QGlJggRhOqU/s1600/30.bmp)



(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-86XHRVmsaTM/UDqnwVUld1I/AAAAAAAAdXU/h2EEh55DJQM/s1600/37.bmp)



(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ybyst1k6S1w/UDqhqlZedII/AAAAAAAAdV8/SAGADsYAltY/s1600/31.bmp)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RJXRsn4zQsQ/UDPR_fuUzrI/AAAAAAAAc0w/vPrat1popGM/s1600/Romney%2Band%2BRyan%2Bwaving.jpg)


More Kemp, Please

By Quin Hillyer on 8.21.12 @ 6:11AM


The next step in Romney-Ryan messaging.

Paul Ryan is doing very well indeed on the stump so far in the early days of his vice-presidential candidacy. He can and should do even better, and the Romney-Ryan ticket also should better frame its overall message.

First, just to be clear: Asking Ryan to do better takes some gall, because he's the best communicator on really complex issues that Republicans have had on a national ticket since Ronald Reagan left the scene. His demeanor is just about perfect; he's likable, believable, knowledgeable, understandable, and persuasive; and his one-on-one political skills are first-rate.

But with a few tweaks, Ryan can move into the realm of the inspirational. He's not quite there yet.

Ryan is doing well at criticizing Barack Obama in just the right tones. He is doing well at making the case for saving Medicare. He is doing well at making the case that he and Mitt Romney are serious about fighting a crushing debt load and focusing on job creation. Yet, quite curiously for somebody who wrote speeches for Jack Kemp, the small things missing from his message so far are exactly the Kempian messaging touches that need to accompany his already Kempian can-do attitude.

No conservative was better than Kemp at spreading the message that it is conservatives whose policies are compassionate. The message of compassion, framed rightly, is absolutely crucial for two groups of swing voters: first, the lower-income range of blue-collar workers; and second, suburban professional moms and moderate, unmarried single women who together, according to some detailed polling analyses, create the largest single bloc of persuadable voters -- negative about Obama, but previously unenthused about Romney. Reading between the lines on the latter group, it seems they are non-ideological and thus against Obama not because of any aversion to what he believes, but because he hasn't produced good results and hasn't governed or campaigned like a unifying figure. They are, however, very concerned that policy be compassionate, in whatever way compassion can best be achieved.

What Kemp did so well was to draw the link, explicitly, between compassion and opportunity. He used the language of compassion (and Ryan should explicitly use the word "compassion") in a way that virtually equated compassion with "opportunity society"-style policies. There is a real compassion in taking the heavy boot of government off of entrepreneurs and small businessmen. Consumer Product Safety regulations, for instance, that hurt second-hand stores and even music students, along with taxes on medical devices like pacemakers and prosthetic limbs, are exactly the sort of burdens that would be removed by compassion involved in limiting government.

Ryan is doing a good job talking about problem-solving -- but it sounds like he is more interested in solving the problems of government accountants than in offering a sense of why individual citizens' own lives will be better in a Romney-Ryan opportunity society. (Note: The "opportunity society" phrase itself is old enough by now to sound a little hackneyed, so he probably needs a new label; I use it here merely for convenience of expression.) His demeanor is, to his credit, marked with a can-do ebullience; but his words are not the words of Kempian uplift.

Consider, for instance, this snippet from Kemp's 1996 speech accepting the vice-presidential nomination (Ryan himself may have written it, for all I know): "Our appeal of boundless opportunity crosses every barrier of geography, race and belief. We may not get every vote, but we will speak to every heart. In word and action, we will represent our entire American family." Boundless opportunity. Speak to every heart, and represent the entire American family. This is the language of inclusion, of caring, and of optimism -- without ever equating compassion with what government can give to somebody.

Later in the speech came this:

Democratic capitalism is not just the hope of wealth, but the hope of justice. When we look into the face of poverty, we see pain, despair and need. But, above all, in every face, we must see the image of God. The Creator of All has planted the seed of creativity in us all, the desire within every child of God to work and build and improve our lot in life, and that of our families and those we love.

And in our work, in the act of creating that is part of all labor, we discover that part within ourselves that is divine. I believe the ultimate imperative for growth and opportunity is to advance human dignity.

Dr. Martin Luther King believed that we must see a sleeping hero in every soul. America must establish policies that summon those heroes and call forth the boundless potential of the human spirit.

So far, this is a spirit of outreach, of human connection, that Ryan has not articulated. But everything we see of Ryan indicates that it is a spirit fully consonant with everything he believes and with how he lives. And it is a spirit that a man of his superb political talents can communicate, not least because he can do so in all sincerity, with the perfect comfort of someone doing nothing other than being himself.

As for the ticket as a whole, it has yet to lay out a compelling vision -- a "picture, about how it's gonna be," to borrow a line from a treacly pop song -- that citizens can see, and aspire to, in their own minds' eyes. The vision doesn't need to be a gauzy, Reaganesque "shining city on a hill." The secret to Reagan's vision wasn't that he provided an image, but that he joined an image with substance. His subtext was that in a time of malaise, he wanted to let Americans be Americans again, rather than the "wee, sleekin, cowrin, tim'rous, beasties" (with apologies to Robert Burns) into which Jimmy Carter and the Soviets threatened to turn us.

The vision does, however, need to be almost palpable, and it needs to match the Romney-Ryan ticket's strengths. Romney and Ryan clearly are problem solvers, guys who are competent and knowledgeable, and guys who believe that the American character is that of a people who still believe they can achieve their goals if only others, or government, wouldn't get in their way. Fortunately, Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute already has identified and outlined exactly the sort of message that melds the Romney-Ryan strengths with the Kempian opportunity society in whose soil Ryan's roots are so deeply embedded. The key, says Brooks, is "earned success." The pursuit of happiness is achieved is rewarded, Brooks said, not with manna from heaven, but through the knowledge that one has accomplished success and has the chance to accomplish more.

As Reagan used straightforward language to connect the dots between his policy prescriptions and his vision of bright and noble city, so too should the Republican ticket explain that giving future senior citizens a choice, just as they have a choice for prescription drug programs, will give them a better system while saving Medicare for the future. Getting government out of the game of subsidizing piggy banks such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as Ryan bravely tried to do more than a decade ago and still would do today, would leave both taxpayers and homeowners less at the mercy of profiteers and bad lending practices. Promoting competitive best practices in the private sector, as Romney did with Staples, creates far more jobs than following the red-tape-strewn dictates of government planners.

The Obama administration has acted as a wet blanket on private enterprise; a Romney administration should be portrayed as one that won't get in the way of earned success, but that will act with a firm belief, as Kemp said, that there is a "sleeping hero in every soul."

Done right, this is the sort of campaign that, against a bad economy and a failed administration, can turn a tight-as-Lycra election into something that approaches a Republican romp.

The Romney-Ryan ticket has made a very good start. Here's betting that it has the right stuff to turn "very good" into "superlative," and to deliver on abundant promise.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tCD6PeIFhHA/UDsFvjsUenI/AAAAAAAAdew/qMSCykbyZy8/s1600/Mitt%2BRomneys-we-did-build-this-campaign.jpg)

Bless the Turnaround Specialists!

By Terry Paulson
8/27/2012


If you have not already summed up the Democratic talking points to usher in four more years of liberal "hope and change," you soon will as the political attacks drone on. One that remains a liberal favorite is how Mitt Romney's years at Bain Capital ushered in bankruptcies, cut thousands of jobs, and contributed to the deaths of some who lost healthcare coverage in the wake of these "greedy" takeover efforts. .

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger claims: "Not only did Bain Capital save America, but no matter what turn Mitt Romney's political career takes, Bain Capital may stand as the best of Mr. Romney's lifetime contributions to the nation's economic well-being. If only he'd tell the story. ...It was called the Greed Decade, with asset-stripping barbarians at the gate. Virtually everything about this popular stereotype is wrong. Properly understood, the 1980s, including Bain, were the remarkable years when an ever-resilient America found a way to save itself from becoming what Europe is now—a global has-been."

Mitt Romney does tell his story. Take time to read Romney's own defense to Obama's false attacks at mittromney.com.

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/06/obamas-false-attacks?cct_info=1|25219|7946991837|138422374|7794059974|b|24458078854|tc||g|||&cct_ver=3&cct_bk=bain%20capital&gclid=CLS8vLC55bECFSIbQgodvRIARw

What did Bain Capital do? Like others, they took invested funds and re-invested them in smaller successful companies that needed more capital to grow from good to great. Companies like Staples, Sports Authority, Steel Dynamics, and Bright Horizons.

Bain Capital also looked for companies with potential that were on the verge of bankruptcy because of ineffective leadership and vision. They bought the companies, investing capital and new leadership in an effort to turn the company around. Many succeeded and ultimately became profitable again, hiring many new employees. Some, like the GS Technologies steel mill and the Ampad paper plant in Marion, IN, eventually failed and were closed. But the influx of funds and new leadership kept those operations and positions viable for many additional years.

What do turnaround practitioners do? They provide expertise over a broad spectrum of services from recovery, cash-flow and financing to the actual turnaround of an ailing concern. Some are called "Company Doctors" or "Business Rescue or Change Consultants." They temporarily replace a company's leaders taking over the decision-making process of the organization to guide it back toward profitability and a secure future.

Their job is not to lose jobs or bankrupt companies; it is to turn them around. Like a paramedic, the talent lies in making critical decisions quickly in order for the patient to have the best chance at recovery. Operating in the eye of the storm, the turnaround leaders must deal equitably and effectively with angry creditors, scared employees, wary customers and very nervous board of directors and investors. This is no assignment for the faint-hearted.

Will all succeed? Of course not, the free-enterprise system that has helped forge America's economic capitalizes on "creative destruction." While we often hear about the greatest entrepreneurial successes — Microsoft, Starbucks, and Apple — we rarely hear about the countless failures and the workers, leaders and investors who lost jobs and capital when they failed. Constantly, underperforming or outdated companies fall by the wayside as more innovative ones take their place. Workers who keep upgrading their skills to meet the challenge of change find a place in that future by adapting. Those who rest in sending around resumes for outdated skills or trust in government entitlements do not.

Mitt Romney has shown his expertise as a turnaround specialist at Bain Capital and with the 2002 Winter Olympics. He is a leader ready to make the tough decisions America is facing. His selection of Rep. Paul Ryan speaks to his wisdom of getting the right leaders on the bus. Both have been men of action--something needed in Washington now.

Some Democrats have defended Bain Capital. Democratic mayor of Newark, N.J., Cory Booker, knows Newark needs more business and investment, not more government. Though repudiated by the Obama Campaign team, Booker rejected the Bain attack ads on NBC's "Meet the Press: "I'm not about to sit here and indict private equity.... I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses."

Let me end with the closing comment from Daniel Henninger's WSJ column:

"Voters don't want one man's story. They want someone who understands how the next 10 years can produce an American economy that offers the opportunities for them that the 1980s produced for Mitt Romney." The Democrats want to see Romney's tax returns; Romney wants your own tax returns to improve. Do you want more of the same inept leadership and uncontrolled spending, or do you a turnaround specialist ready to make the tough decisions in the White House?

        (http://www.foundersintent.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/obamacare.jpg)

GOP winning national Medicare debate two weeks after Romney picked lightning rod Ryan

Excerpt: Republicans are winning the political debate on entitlement reform and Medicare, issues long dominated by Democrats, in the wake of Mitt Romney's selection of running mate Paul Ryan. A poll released last week shows seniors nationwide back the GOP proposals on Medicare overall, with tight battles in some key swing states.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/26/gop-winning-national-medicare-debate-two-weeks-after-romney-picked-lightning-rod-ryan/#ixzz24npU0NFD

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q-n4qLtTqPc/UDaAiG0M-2I/AAAAAAAAdCs/dVWfMx0CwrE/s1600/Paul%2BRyan%2Bwith%2BR%2Bsymbol.jpg)

Knowing Congressman Ryan

By Manon McKinnon


The thrill, by one who knew the young Paul.

With all the people who have known and worked with Paul Ryan during his years in Washington, there are surely hundreds of stories to go with Governor Romney's choice for vice president in 2012. Here's mine.

It was very early on a Saturday morning down by the Chesapeake Bay and the local ospreys were already up, hunting and making those ridiculous chirps which are so unworthy of such a majestic bird. There was the first bare sign of light from the bedroom window overlooking the fields, but not yet enough to see if the deer were out for breakfast. For some reason I decided to get up and as usual turned on TV for the latest news, then headed for the kitchen -- and heard....

...reaction...Romney...surprise...secret...Paul Ryan... (WHAT??! TURN IT UP! ) selection...running mate...PAUL RYAN....

OMG!!!! IT'S PAUL WHO HAS BEEN CHOSEN FOR VICE PRESIDENT!! I grabbed the phone and called the friend who I knew would be as wildly excited as I was. Though it was not yet 6:00 a.m. she was lying in bed holding the phone and answered "Can you believe it?"

That friend and I worked with Paul at Empower America, a think tank founded in 1993 to study and develop serious conservative policy. The Clintons were in the White House, the conservatives were out and there was much work to do.

The enterprise started out in an unfinished office with the usual construction mess and with a staff that had to make do with whatever they could find. One of these was a very young Paul Ryan who I found sitting on a crate and working on an old computer that rested on some plastic drums. He was working on economic policy.

Paul came to Empower America as a policy analyst to work for and with some serious thinkers and doers: Jack Kemp on economic and monetary policy, Bill Bennett on social and cultural issues, Jeane Kirkpatrick on foreign policy, and Vin Weber on politics and strategy. Paul was incredibly dedicated to his work with a knowledge of issues that was more than impressive and the bosses knew it. But along with that the staff knew how kind, how unpretentious, how helpful -- and how good Paul was to work with. I think every staff member -- high or low -- counted Paul as a friend. And as for work ethic, one evening when I was anxious to call it a day, Paul told me he had to hurry to his next job waiting tables at Cactus Cantina. And now the policy wonk by day and waiter by night is on his party's Presidential Ticket!

From Empower America Paul headed to Capitol Hill as a staffer and when the chance came, as an elected member of the House of Representatives. One day as he was moving into his new office, a few of us stopped by to say hi. By nature congressional staffers are quite protective, and we were not expected nor particularly welcome for just barging in and saying we are his old colleagues here to wish him well. But a voice came from the inner office "I hear you, Manon, come on in!" Happy day.

I last saw Paul at his mentor Jack Kemp's funeral. As he entered the National Cathedral he was met by officials to escort him to a place of honor on the front row. Heading down the aisle Paul spotted the old Empower America staff sitting together and stopped -- as his escorts kept going. He said, "Oh, look! It's the whole gang!" and then called everybody by name. When Paul Ryan ascends to the vice presidency and spots a bunch of old friends somewhere, I think he'll let the Secret Service keep going and do the same thing -- greet his pals. Go, Paul and go America's Comeback Team!

            (http://iowacaucus2012.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/mitt-romney.jpg)


My Dream Speech for Mitt Romney

By Dennis Prager
8/28/2012
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2012/08/28/my_dream_speech_for_mitt_romney

My fellow Americans, my fellow Republicans: The 2012 election is not an election between two men but between two entirely different visions of America. President Obama and I are simply the standard bearers of opposing, and may I add, irreconcilable visions of what America is and should be.

The Republican Party and I represent American values as they have been understood since the founding of our country. The Democratic Party and President Obama represent different values. This does not make any Democrat, let alone President Obama, less American or less patriotic than anyone of us here. But millions of Americans who love our country hold values that emanate from elsewhere.

How could it be otherwise?

Given the influence of academia, Hollywood, and the news media, of course many Americans have embraced more of the French Revolution's values than those of the American Revolution.

And, to make things worse, too many Americans of the last few generations never learned what American values are. Schools stopped teaching them. And parents often did as well.

Let me be specific:

American values are not a matter of any individual's, or newspaper's, or professor's opinion. We can surely have different opinions about how to realize those values or how to apply them in any given situation. But American values exist beyond personal opinion. They have been enshrined for nearly all of American history on our coinage and our bills, not to mention in our hearts and in our minds, and emblazoned on the walls of Congress.

They are: Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum (From Many, One)

The Democratic Party seeks to replace liberty with equality. Not equality before the law -- that we all believe in. Not the equality of human worth -- all Americans believe that all men are created equal. But the Democratic Party and this president believe in material and social equality -- and for them this equality is a greater value than liberty. That is why they seek to control more and more of Americans' lives -- in other words, take away more and more of our liberty -- for the sake of some Utopian ideal of equality.

The basic liberty to keep the money you have earned is the most obvious example. For most of American history, when some our fellow Americans honorably earned more than others, they were not resented, they were emulated. But in the eyes of today's Democratic Party and in the eyes of our president, such Americans are to be resented -- and as much of their money as possible must be taken from them -- in the name of equality (sometimes referred to as "fairness").

Our opponents do not value prosperity as much as they value equality.

And instead of a society rooted in God-based values, the Democratic Party seeks a society as devoid of reference to God as possible. God can barely be mentioned in our nation's classrooms. I do not think it is a coincidence that in a little more than one generation, we have gone from students saying a blessing for their teachers to too many students abusing, sometimes even cursing, their teachers.

In the moral confusion that inevitably flows from devaluing God, many Americans have replaced the sanctity of the unborn human with the sanctity of rodents and fish.

And this president and his party have also rejected the third great American value, E Pluribus Unum, which has created the uniquely successful American experiment in rendering blood, race, ethnicity and national origins insignificant -- by replacing all of them with one unifying American identity. They seek to replace "From many, one" with so-called multi-culturalism, with a cult of "diversity" and with the hyphenation of all Americans.

That is why, my fellow Americans, the upcoming election is not merely an election. It is a referendum on whether America retains its unique value system or not.

Big and bigger government is not an American value -- because the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

Handing our children and grandchildren unprecedented debt is not an American value -- because selfishness and irresponsibility are not American values.

Dividing Americans by race and class is not an American value -- because race and class are not American values.

And a weakened America is not an American value either. Indeed, given the unique role America's military strength has played in spreading liberty, a weakened America is not a moral value either. No peace movement on earth and no peace studies program in the world has done for peace what the American military has done for peace.

A vote for Paul Ryan and me is a vote to return America to its values, the values that are the reason this country became the greatest nation on Earth. Unlike our opponents, we are proud to say -- here and abroad -- that America is exceptional.

My fellow Americans, few elections in our history have offered Americans such a clear choice.

And the clearer Americans are about these differences, the larger will be our margin of victory.

"Bad-Dog Media"
(http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2933/funny_cartoon_baddog.jpg)


The Exact Opposite of Truth



Media coverage scarcely resembles the actual GOP convention.


TAMPA, Florida -- The Republican Party has spared no expense to accommodate the hundreds of journalists who have come here to write dishonest stories aimed at preventing the GOP from winning this year's election.

If you've been following major media coverage of the Republican National Convention, you know that the party's presidential candidate is Todd Akin, who will campaign this fall on a platform of undiluted hatred and evil, with the able assistance of his running mate, Martin Bormann Jr. The Akin-Bormann ticket was personally selected by RNC Chairman Rush Limbaugh and endorsed by Karl Rove after consultation with a secretive cabal of right-wing Mormon billionaires. The Republican delegates who are assembling this week in Tampa are mere dupes hired by the Koch brothers to provide the superficial appearance of a "political convention" debating a platform and nominating candidates.

Such is the narrative subtext of most of the GOP convention coverage, which is provided by a political press corps that is overwhelmingly composed of people who would never vote for any Republican under any imaginable circumstance. It has been estimated, based on data analyzed by the conservative non-profit Media Research Center, that Democrats outnumber Republicans among journalists by a ratio of at least 7-to-1, perhaps even more than 10-to-1. This lopsided partisanship has consequences that are, on the one hand, blindingly obvious to Republicans and yet somehow, on the other hand, utterly invisible to most of those inside the news industry.

Most journalists never notice liberal bias for the same reason that fish don't notice water -- it is all around them, it is all they've ever known, and they take it for granted. And just as the fish out of water flops around desperately at the life-threatening loss of its accustomed environment, most journalists react with a frantic horror at reporting that lacks the partisan slant which is understood as "objectivity" by members of the press corps. Only when one's mind is trapped inside that weird worldview, for example, is it possible to take Chris Matthews seriously.

In case you didn't realize it, the only claim Matthews has to being a journalist is that he is a partisan Democrat. Matthews never worked a day as a reporter, never covered a city council meeting or a homecoming parade. After evading the Vietnam-era military draft by enrolling in the Peace Corps, Matthews moved to Washington and worked on the staff of various congressional Democrats before unsuccessfully running for Congress as a Democrat, later joining the White House staff as a speechwriter for Democrat Jimmy Carter, then spending the Reagan years as a top aide to Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neill. Somehow, this ultra-political background as a partisan operative qualified Matthews for the job of Washington bureau chief for the San Francisco Chronicle. Such is the biography of the man who has been employed for the past 15 years as a "journalist" by NBC, hosting his own show on the network's little-watched MSNBC cable franchise while appearing regularly on the broadcast network during coverage of major political events.

Matthews made a guest appearance Monday on MSNBC's Morning Joe program, which provided him an opportunity to lecture GOP Chairman Reince Priebus that Republicans were playing "the race card" by, among other things, criticizing President Obama for waiving work requirements for welfare. "When you start talking about work requirements, you know what game you're playing and everybody knows what game you're playing," Matthews scolded Priebus, in a bizarre rant that also referenced Obama's "African name" as a burden the president has "got to live with." Video of the Matthews-Priebus encounter immediately went viral online, cited by conservatives as yet another example of liberal bias in the media, equal to the infamous 2008 declaration by Matthews that while listening to Obama speak he "felt this thrill going up my leg."

Matthews is an extreme example of a general phenomenon, the gaudy tip of a much larger (and usually, more subtle) iceberg of bias. Consider, for example, the question of what constitutes a newsworthy controversy. Politicians occasionally say thoughtless or offensive things that make headlines and may require an apology for the foot-in-the-mouth moment. Seldom, however, do reporters demand that Democrat politicians denounce and repudiate another Democrat's gaffe. By contrast, when Missouri's GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin made atrociously stupid comments about rape and abortion, Akin's blunder became for several days the most important political news in the country. Even though Akin's remarks were swiftly repudiated by nearly every Republican of note, much of the news coverage created the impression that Akin was speaking officially on behalf of the GOP, and that the "extremist" Akin -- rather than moderate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is in fact the party's presidential nominee -- was symbolic of Republicans everywhere. Inside the liberal media worldview, only Republicans must answer collectively for the errors and embarrassments of their individual members.

To a liberal journalist, the offensive words of Todd Akin tell Americans everything they need to know about what the GOP stands for, while scandal-plagued or gaffe-prone Democrats are viewed as an aberration. No reporter for the New York Times or CBS News would tolerate, for example, coverage that inferred from the late Ted Kennedy's career that Democrats endorse drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter as a matter of policy. Yet Akin's comments were immediately seized on as a significant national story that symbolized a Republican "war on women." Meanwhile -- almost entirely unnoticed by the mainstream press -- actual Republican women are among the most articulate and outspoken critics of Obama's policies.

Monday afternoon, I bumped into an example of this phenomenon. Walking through the lobby of the Sheraton hotel, I spotted a familiar-looking woman sitting quietly near the elevators. I'd met her briefly at a convention-related event Sunday, but had forgotten her name and, overcoming my embarrassment at having to ask, was surprised to find myself talking to the former lieutenant-governor of New York.

Betsy McCaughey has a Ph.D. from Columbia University and has gained recognition as an expert on health-care policy, authoring a recent Encounter Books "Broadside" called The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It. McCaughey spoke Monday at an event hosted by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, where she described her analysis of research that she says demonstrates that Obamacare "is likely to cause an estimated 40,000 unnecessary deaths each year" among hospitalized Medicare patients. Policy experts might dispute McCaughey's analysis and I lack the expertise to evaluate her research, but as soon as she described it to me in the hotel lobby, I recognized it as newsworthy. Democrats have repeatedly accused Republicans of scheming to kill old people through Medicare cuts, a tactic that included a TV ad showing Paul Ryan literally pushing an elderly woman off a cliff. Yet here was a scholarly GOP politician citing research data in support of a conclusion that is the mirror-reverse of that perception -- to summarize McCaughey's research quite bluntly, Obama's plan will kill Grandma.

True or false, right or wrong, it is certainly a startling claim and one might suppose that McCaughey's research would be considered as newsworthy as anything a Missouri Senate candidate might say. Yet it seems that almost none of the major political journalists covering the Gingrich event Monday deemed McCaughey's analysis worth reporting. A blogger for Esquire's website gave McCaughey some skeptical and derisive coverage, and her remarks at Gingrich's event were briefly quoted by a reporter for the local Tampa paper. Other than that, however, McCaughey was a non-story, ignored by the press who seemed unimpressed by this remarkable woman saying that 40,000 senior citizens will die as a result of the president's policies. After I interviewed her for my blog, McCaughey sat unnoticed by other reporters in the restaurant of the Sheraton, a hotel swarming with media types whose alleged purpose for traveling to Tampa was to find news.

Betsy McCaughey, however, didn't fit the narrative subtext that liberal journalists are here to report. She is neither evil nor stupid, and Republican policy experts with Ivy League doctorate degrees are not newsworthy -- especially when such experts are women in a party whose policies (according to the liberal narrative subtext) are fundamentally hostile to women.

Hundreds of reporters have come to Tampa with plans to cover something other than the actual Republican convention. Instead, they are here seeking "proof" of their own preconceived partisan prejudices and it is amazing (as I sit here in the lavishly appointed Media Filing Center downtown) to see how the Republican Party has spared no expense in welcoming its most ferocious and dangerous enemies. If you believe what you see in most convention coverage, you will think of Republicans as the Evil Party of Greedy Haters, a frightening conclave of grim and ferocious extremists. Everything the GOP does here in Tampa will be portrayed as insincere, corrupt, scandalous or (best of all) "controversial." When Democrats convene next week in Charlotte, however, everything Obama and his supporters do will be portrayed as warm, wonderful, and honest. The reporters delivering these contrasting depictions of the two parties do not consider themselves as engaged in partisan advocacy. Rather, in the minds of the liberal media, they are simply reporting the objective truth.

Republicans watching from afar are no doubt sadly familiar with this kind of bias. And they'll be happy to learn that the Media Filing Center here at the convention in Tampa is open 24 hours a day, providing liberal journalists the facilities to lie around the clock.

Lifelong democrats that supported Barack Obama are now supporting Mitt Romney.

WATCH their stories and see why:



http://gopconvention2012.com[/font][/size][/b]

(http://www.gopconvention2012.com/wp-content/themes/rnc/library/images/footer-rnc-badge.jpg)

     (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Sxluwy6Ldh4/UD5ucEqRE1I/AAAAAAAAd-w/SAPjd0F79eQ/s400/1%2BPaul%2BRyan.jpg)


http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/29/my-long-lost-paul-ryan-intervi

My Long-Lost Paul Ryan Interview
By Daniel Allott on 8.29.12 @ 6:09AM

The future VP nominee talked about his faith and the difference between be-ers and do-ers.


"I think politicians who divorce themselves from their faith are being hypocrites. I can't see how one can do that. ...We're taught that in business, that in raising our children, in how we conduct ourselves with our family, in everything we do, our religious principles need to be in the forefront of our minds. That should apply to people who hold public office, to politicians."
--Rep. Paul Ryan, December 2004

A few weeks after the 2004 election, my brother and I interviewed Rep. Paul Ryan for a TV series on Catholic political figures and their faith. The role of faith in politics was at the forefront of the political debate. Senator John Kerry's narrow loss in the presidential election was widely viewed as partly the result of the former altar boy's inability to credibly reconcile his Catholic faith with his support for abortion and same-sex marriage.

Our interview with Ryan, who had just won his fourth term in Congress, never aired. I highlight parts of it that offer insight into the faith of the only Catholic nominated for national office since the culture wars erupted who does not disown the core moral theological doctrine of his church.

Ryan's abortion position has been much in the news. Ryan once described himself as "as pro-life as a person gets." Democrats are labeling Ryan's position -- anti-abortion except when the mother's life is at risk -- as extreme and making it a cornerstone of their case against Republicans. But Ryan's view reflects that of his church. "I've always been pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and ends at natural death," Ryan explained.

I think the Pope's (John Paul II) consistent leadership on this issue has been very important. His unwavering support for life is very important because the Pope is our rock in this. If he had not advocated a consistent position on life throughout his pontificate, I think the entire life movement would have been damaged.

For me as a politician, as a person who votes on those issues, I just can't see how one can separate themselves from your religious principles and the laws we vote on, especially with respect to life. We see politicians do that every day up here.

The last Catholic presidential nominee said that he personally believed life begins at conception and ends at natural death, but he wouldn't want to impose those beliefs through public laws. I just can't conceive of how a person could make that statement. That basically means you believe that abortion is a taking of a life that ought to be protected but you're not going to do anything to protect it. I just can't understand how someone could justify that kind of position inside their mind let alone their conscience.

That's why I think it's very important that our church has been very consistent on these issues. And it's very important that when we run for office, we tell people who we are, what we believe and what we're going to do in office. Then we'll never have a position or a situation where we are torn when we act on these convictions while we are in office, while we are serving.

We asked Ryan whether his Catholic faith might sometimes put him at odds with non-Catholic constituents. "I really don't worry about alienating non-Catholics because when I talk about how I, as a Catholic politician, conduct myself in office, consistent with Catholic principles, I talk about our founders, I talk about our Constitution, I talk about the Declaration of Independence, the fact that our country was founded on the belief that we are free to express our religion in the public square," he said.

The separation of church and state is not a phrase that is contained in any of our founding documents. The concept that is behind that phrase is one where the government won't back one singular denomination over another, but that we are free to practice our faith in the public square, and I site constitutional framers, and the principles of our country in defending what I do in office. So non-Catholics and Catholics alike respect the principles and the writings of our founding fathers. And those are what I invoke when I talk about how and why I do what I do in office.

We did not discuss fiscal issues with Ryan that day. But at other times he has talked about how his faith informs his economic views. "The work I do as a Catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best I can make of it," Ryan told an audience at Catholic Georgetown University in April. "The Holy Father, Pope Benedict, has charged that governments, communities, and individuals running up high debt levels are 'living at the expense of future generations' and 'living in untruth.'"

Ryan's approach to fighting poverty, he explained at Georgetown, is rooted in solidarity and subsidiarity, "virtues that, when taken together, revitalize civil society instead of displacing it.... We put our trust in people, not in government. Our budget incorporates subsidiarity by returning power to individuals, to families and to communities."

Much has been made of Ayn Rand's influence on Ryan. The atheist philosopher, Ryan said in 2005, is "the reason I got involved in public service." But Rand's objectivism is not what sustains Ryan. "I reject her philosophy," he said recently. "It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts, and it is antithetical to my worldview."

Some pundits have suggested that Ryan is distancing himself from Rand and emphasizing his faith in order to appear more compassionate to a national audience. But from our interview, which took place only a few months before Ryan's Rand remark, it seems clear that it's Ryan's faith that has always guided his policymaking.

Instead of Rand, Ryan has offered Thomas Aquinas as a fundamental influence. In our interview, Ryan talked about the influence of another popular St. Thomas: St. Thomas More, English martyr and patron of politicians:

We have a study group here in Washington among conservative Catholic politicians called the St. Thomas More study group. We have guest speakers who come in to meet with us about once or twice a month.... So the example that St. Thomas More set is one that many of us here in Congress are not only trying to emulate but try to learn about... trying to respect, trying to study and trying to have the example set out for us. So it's something that many of us have in the front of our minds as an example of how we ought to conduct ourselves while serving in office.

We asked Ryan what he prays for. He said:

I pray for my family, to be a good husband to my wife to be a good father to my children. And then I pray to keep my principles intact. That in my daily life, as a member of Congress, that I follow God will, and that I follow His consistent principles. That's what I pray for, and to have the strength to do that. There are a lot of pressures in every job. There are tremendous pressures in this job as a member of Congress, especially in these times. And so I just pray for the strength to be consistent, to follow God's principles as I know them to be.

Ryan concluded our interview by distinguishing between the two kinds of people who run for office. The primary dividing line, he said, is not between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals or Catholics and non-Catholics, but instead between what he called "be-ers" and "do-ers." Using a formulation that helps explain Ryan's subsequent political rise and offers a forecast of Ryan's future, win or lose, he said:

Some people run for office because they want to be a congressman or be a senator, or to be a governor. And then there are people who run for office because they want to do something. And they want to act on certain convictions and principles, and advance a cause.

We unfortunately have a lot of be-ers in Congress, a lot of be-ers in government. Do-ers are the people who actually advance society, make a difference. And that's the covenant that we as elected officials have with our constituents, where we tell our constituents who we are, what we believe and what we will do. That's the covenant we have with our constituents. And when in office, we have the obligation, the moral authority, to act on that covenant.

(http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/articles/ap/2012/08/29/Ann_Romney_says_America_can_trust_her_husband/_jcr_content/contentpar/articleBody/image.img.jpg)

Off to a Strong Start

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/29/off-to-a-strong-start

By Robert Stacy McCain on 8.29.12 @ 6:10AM

Ann Romney and Chris Christie highlight opening night of the GOP convention.

TAMPA, Florida -- At 5:40 p.m. Tuesday, when the New Jersey delegation cast all 50 of their votes for Mitt Romney, it gave the former governor of Massachusetts 1,150 votes -- six more than the 1,144 necessary for a majority -- and he at last became officially the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Choosing a nominee is, after all, the actual purpose of the convention, but the roll call that marked the culmination of Romney's long campaign (which has been effectively continuous since 2006) was not a primetime event. Instead, TV viewers saw a night of speeches that culminated with back-to-back speeches by the candidate's wife, Ann Romney, and the keynote speaker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

It was a powerful one-two punch to cap the opening night of the Republican National Convention, which saw its first day's schedule cancelled by fears of Hurricane Isaac, the storm that turned away from Tampa and instead headed west across the Gulf of Mexico. The delayed beginning did not lessen the power of the speech by Ann Romney, who told a story of her husband's success that contradicted the narrative the liberal media have constructed about him.

"Tonight I want to talk to you about love," Mrs. Romney told the thousands of GOP delegates gathered inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum. "I want to talk to you about the deep and abiding love I have for a man I met at a dance many years ago."

Republicans in love? Whoever heard of such a thing? The media would have us believe that Republicans are soulless automatons incapable of love. At certain points during Mrs. Romney's speech, one could hear a few reporters in the Media Filing Center sarcastically mocking her words. The liberal media have spent months pushing the Obama campaign's message that the GOP is the Anti-Woman Party, but liberal journalists are scarcely able to conceal their contempt for Republican women like Ann Romney, who used her speech as an opportunity to appeal directly to women without the media filter.

"It's the moms of this nation -- single, married, widowed -- who really hold this country together," Mrs. Romney said. "We're the mothers, we're the wives, we're the grandmothers, we're the big sisters, we're the little sisters, we're the daughters." Mothers "are the best of America. You are the hope of America. There would not be an America without you."

The candidate's wife used her own biography to push back against the media's narrative of the Republican as overprivileged: "I am the granddaughter of a Welsh coal miner who was determined that his kids get out of the mines. My dad got his first job when he was six years old, in a little village in Wales called Nantyffyllon, cleaning bottles at the Colliers Arms. When he was 15, dad came to America. In our country, he saw hope and an opportunity to escape from poverty. He moved to a small town in the great state of Michigan.... My dad would often remind my brothers and me how fortunate we were to grow up in a place like America."

Ann Romney also reminded listeners how she and her husband began their married life: "We were very young. Both still in college. There were many reasons to delay marriage, and you know? We just didn't care. We got married and moved into a basement apartment. We walked to class together, shared the housekeeping, and ate a lot of pasta and tuna fish. Our desk was a door propped up on sawhorses. Our dining room table was a fold down ironing board in the kitchen.... Then our first son came along. All at once I'm 22 years old, with a baby and a husband who's going to business school and law school at the same time, and I can tell you, probably like every other girl who finds herself in a new life far from family and friends, with a new baby and a new husband, that it dawned on me that I had absolutely no idea what I was getting into."

After recounting her husband's record of success, Ann Romney drew a standing ovation when she told the Republican delegates, "This man will not fail. This man will not let us down. This man will lift up America."

When she ended her speech and was briefly joined onstage by her husband, Mrs. Romney had seemingly provided the highlight of the evening, and it seemed improbable that Chris Christie could top it -- but he did.

Christie, a politician famous for speaking bluntly, began by recounting his own humble origins and praising his own mother: "She was tough as nails and didn't suffer fools at all. The truth was she couldn't afford to. She spoke the truth -- bluntly, directly and without much varnish. And I am her son."

A cynic might understand this maternal homage as reflecting the same polling data that has inspired Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a "war on women." Mothers are a crucial swing-vote segment and, with just 10 weeks remaining between now and Election Day, the Romney and Obama campaigns will fight hard for those votes.

Christie's speech was full of fight and patriotic sentiment. "We've never been a country to shy away from the truth," the New Jersey governor told the delegates. "History shows that we stand up when it counts and it's this quality that has defined our character and our significance in the world." Contrasting the policies of Democrats and Republicans, Christie said: "I know this simple truth and I'm not afraid to say it: our ideas are right for America and their ideas have failed America."

Criticizing the failures of the Obama administration, Christie said: "It's time to end this era of absentee leadership in the Oval Office and send real leaders to the White House. America needs Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and we need them right now." He pounded away with rhetorical sledgehammer blows, finishing with a call to "stand up for Mitt Romney" and "stand up once again for American greatness."

Most Republicans left the opening night of the convention in a fired-up mood. The question is whether the message conveyed by Ann Romney and Chris Christie would reach beyond downtown Tampa, leaping over the prejudices of a biased liberal media to gain a fair hearing from the voters who will decide the election now just 69 days away.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7uM0i5Ujrb8/UD5hvIduk1I/AAAAAAAAd5k/2d-6iTh5VNs/s400/8-29-12%2B5.jpg)

Democrats Shaking in Their Boots

http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/08/29/democrats_shaking_in_their_boots/page/full/

By Ben Shapiro
8/29/2012


The Republican National Convention started off as an anxiety-ridden, soggy, depressing mess on Monday morning. By Tuesday night, the Democratic Party and Barack Obama in particular had to be an anxiety-ridden, soggy, depressing mess.

The transition between Monday morning and Tuesday evening was stunning. The Republican Party went into the convention on a low note after Rep. Todd Akin, Missouri Senate candidate, suggested that women's magic uteruses protect them from becoming pregnant via "legitimate rape," enmeshing the GOP in a battle of demagoguery over abortion. Meanwhile, the convention had a legitimate shot at cancellation; it seemed that the entire city was going to shut down for Hurricane Isaac. And controversies over Sarah Palin and Ron Paul not being granted featured speaking slots at the RNC seemed to be fragmenting the RNC base.

And then there was Tuesday night.

Tuesday night the RNC showed that it has something it hasn't had since Reagan: star power and appeal to independents.

Both were on full display in the person of former Rep. Artur Davis. Davis, who is black, was one of the speakers who introduced Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention in 2008; he was, at the time, a sitting congressman from the state of Alabama. A Harvard Law graduate and famed stemwinder, he delivered an impassioned address on behalf of the then-senator.

How times have changed.

"Some of you may know, the last time I spoke at a convention, it turned out I was in the wrong place. So, Tampa, my fellow Republicans, thank you for welcoming me where I belong."

Davis is now a Republican. And he explained exactly why. "In all seriousness," he said, "do you know why so many of us believed? We led with our hearts and our dreams that we could be more inclusive than America had ever been, and no candidate had ever spoken so beautifully.

"But," he continued, "dreams meet daybreak: The jobless know what I mean, so do the families who wonder how this administration could wreck a recovery for three years and counting."

Davis wasn't the only spellbinder on the menu on Tuesday's opening night. Ann Romney appeared to give a joyous and well-calibrated address celebrating American woman and reintroducing her husband to the public as a solid husband and father, a caring human being and a trustworthy leader. Then, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie strode to the stage, clapping his hands in energetic anticipation. To say that the crowd was fired up would be an understatement.

There is juice to the Romney campaign. And Paul Ryan hasn't even spoken yet. The Obama machine no longer has the star power; they no longer have the orators. They have a rotten record -- and it's a record on which they simply can't run.

No wonder they're scared.

                 (http://www.lewiswaynegallery.com/entertainment/21276_2.jpg)

Why 'Mystery Speaker' Clint Eastwood Loves the GOP

by Miranda Green Aug 30, 2012 7:34 PM EDT


'Dirty Harry' star Clint Eastwood is making a surprise appearance at tonight's national convention. Miranda Green on how the movie star earned his Republican stripes.

Actor and director Clint Eastwood may be best known for his "tough guy" roles in westerns and in Dirty Harry, but the California native—and tonight's not-so-mysterious speaker at the Republican National Convention—is no stranger to politics. And despite the primetime spot at tonight's hyperpartisan event, Eastwood's own ideology isn't as easy to pin down: he registered as a Republican in the '50s in support of Dwight Eisenhower, supported ex-California governor and Democrat Gray Davis, and carried out a largely nonpartisan agenda as a mayor himself in the 80s.

(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2012/08/30/why-mystery-speaker-clint-eastwood-loves-the-gop/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1346369976856.cached.jpg)
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, right, congratulates actor-director Clint Eastwood as one of the first 13 inductees into the California Hall of Fame, during a ceremony in Sacramento, Calif., on Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2006. (Steve Yeater / AP Photo)


As he prepares to take the spotlight, here's a brief tour of Eastwood's political evolution:


Middle-Class Roots
Eastwood was born in San Francisco to a middle-class family. His mother was a factory worker and his father a steel and migrant worker. When he was drafted to the Korean War, young Clint got placed as a lifeguard and swimming instructor at a base in California. In 1952, soon after his time with the U.S. Army, he registered to vote for the Republican Party and Dwight Eisenhower, a  moderate conservative and previously a five-star general. About a decade later, Eastwood made his first major foray into acting in the television western series Rawhide, eventually making a name for himself as a master of the genre with early starring roles in a Fistful of Dollars and Hang 'Em High.

Straight-Talkin' Mayor
In 1986, having established himself as an A-lister, Eastwood ran for mayor of his hometown Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., winning handily with 72 percent of the vote. During his one term, the movie star pushed through a nonpartisan agenda focused on fixing problems in the oceanside town and getting "things built." (Sound familiar?) One of his biggest achievements was erecting a library annex that had needed to be completed for 25 years.

"I approached it from a business point of view," Eastwood said of his time as mayor, "not a political one."

His second excursion into politics was in 2001 when he was appointed to the California State Park and Recreation Commission by Gov. Davis, a Democrat, and then again by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.

Crossing the Aisle
After throwing in his lot with Republicans during the Eisenhower era, Eastwood stuck to the Republican Party line, becoming a vocal backer of Richard Nixon during his 1968 and 1972 campaigns and much later endorsing John McCain for the 2008 presidential race.

But Eastwood sometimes crossed the aisle in his political support. In 2002, he endorsed Gov. Davis's reelection bid, and again supported him during a 2003 recall that Davis ultimately lost. (Davis had appointed Eastwood to the parks commission before the endorsements.)

Eastwood has maintained that he is not a traditional conservative, at points labeling himself a moderate. He told Playboy in 1974 that he was a "liberal on civil rights, conservative on government spending."

He also told the magazine his philosophy on government intrusion: "I think the attitude that Big Daddy's going to take over has become a kind of a mental sickness. I don't think government programs should be designed to encourage freeloading," he said. "The government has to help people, to some degree, but it should be encouraging people to make something of themselves."

His opinions today continue to mirror those of a fiscal conservative and social liberal. He told GQ in 2011 that he doesn't "give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else," following up with, "We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of." In the article, Eastwood alluded that he thinks more in line with libertarians than any other political party.

He's No Hawk
Although Eastwood has become well known for his war films, such as Letters from Iwo Jima, he has vocally denounced every war the U.S. has been involved with since the war in Korea. In fact, many of his films have largely been seen as critiques of war, illustrating the horrors and moral repercussions of combat—a stance that likely earned him some friends among liberals.)

In his interview with Playboy, Eastwood confirmed his antiwar political outlook: "The U.S. should not be overly militaristic or play the role of global policeman," he said.

In fact, he said, his feelings on war directly influenced his decision to vote for McCain. Eastwood told the British newspaper The Daily Mail in 2011 that he thought McCain would "understand the war in Iraq better than somebody who hadn't [been through war]," but that he didn't "agree with him on a lot of stuff."

Why Not Obama
Eastwood has never been shying about voicing his lack of faith in President Obama because of what he sees as the president's fear to make bold moves that will fix the economy. Despite having wished Obama well after he won the election, Eastwood says he is disappointed with what he has achieved.

"I loved the fact that Obama is multiracial. I thought that was terrific, as my wife is the same racial makeup. But I felt he was a greenhorn, and it turned out he didn't have experience in decision-making," he told The Daily Mail.

His opinions haven't changed much since 2010, when told Katie Couric at CBS that he doesn't think Obama is "governing."

"I don't think he's surrounded himself with the people he could have surrounded himself with."

As for his thoughts on presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, Eastwood was spotted earlier this month at a lavish fundraiser for the candidate—and tonight's appearance at the RNC is sure to put to rest any speculation of which candidate he is voting for.

Allen West Talks Condoleezza Rice, Space and Mitt Romney in Tampa

By Katie Pavlich
8/30/2012


Rep. Allen West grew up in the inner city of Atlanta and now represents one of the wealthiest districts in the country. Townhall Magazine featured West on the cover of the June 2012 issue.

"I'm living the American dream," GOP Florida Rep. Allen West tells Townhall as he sits in his congressional office in Washington, D.C.

Now a freshman congressman, West grew up in the inner city of Atlanta in a healthy, old-school style, twoparent home. Both of his parents are from southern Georgia. West's father served in Gen. George Patton's III Corps in the European theatre during World War II and worked in a Veterans Affairs hospital when West was growing up. His mother worked for 6th Marine Corps District headquarters.

"My hair has always been quite short and cropped closely," West jokes. ...

"In 1961—when I was born in the inner city of Atlanta, Ga.,—the district that I represent right now [in Florida], someone like me or my parents could not have gone to those beaches," West says. "But that's the greatness of the exceptionalism and that's what the American dream means: that no matter where you come from, no matter where you were born, just based upon your own drive and determination, you can achieve whatever greatness you want in this country. That is what my parents taught me. America is about equality of opportunity."

Fresh off of the speech given last night by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, where she talked about growing up in the Jim Crow South, West explained to Townhall how he relates to her personal story and their shared passion for a strong America. West also talked about the space program and the 2012 election.

Click below to watch the interview with Allen West:

     

[/font][/size]

82 year old Clint "I'm just a rambling Man" Eastwood rambled and wandered
around in a leisurely, aimless manner throwing jabs at a empty chair.  

     
     


He rambled on jabbing Vice President Joe Biden, calling him the "intellect of the Democratic party." "He's just a grin with a body behind it," Eastwood said.

He attacked Obama for riding in Air Force One. "You could still use a plane," he said, "Not that big gas guzzler you are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and stuff like that."

Rambling Eastwood, who praised Romney as a "stellar businessman," later said that he thought it was never a good idea for attorneys to be president, despite the fact that Romney has a J.D. from Harvard Law School. hmmmm...

"When somebody doesn't do the job, you gotta let them go," he said, gesturing to draw a finger across his throat.

Good advice, Clint.

Someone in the crowd shouted out "make my day!" to which he responded, "I don't say that word anymore."

He shortly obliged.

"Go ahead," he said, and the crowd boomed "MAKE MY DAY"

Ramble on Dirty Harry... Ramble on.

....Warph[/color][/font][/b][/size]


     

Hitler Just Found Out Paul Ryan is the VP Pick:


           

(http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/RomneyRyanAccepts2_20120831_005919.JPG)

      Romney Accepts Nomination: 'Now Is the
     TimeTo Restore the Promise of America'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/romney-accepts-gop-presidential-nomination/

           (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aZwb8OVor7A/UEDAR5QVFqI/AAAAAAAAeZs/H7d-Myvw1q4/s1600/8-31-12%2B3.jpg)

The Republican convention.... after a bunch of testimonials from Olympic athletes, businesses saved by Bain Capital, and others about what a good person Mitt Romney... wrapped up with rambling musings by Clint Eastwood, an impressive speech by Marco Rubio, and then the presidential-candidate's acceptance speech which I thought was close to being excellent.

What are your thoughts on the last night of the convention and especially Romney's speech?  Do you think the convention succeeded in its stated goal of introducing Mitt Romney to the American people... and of humanizing him?  Will the convention prove to be a successful infomercial for the Republican party?

Next week, starting Tuesday, will be the Democrats' turn.  I hear it will be a veritable abortion-fest.  Expect to hear from a college student at a Catholic colleges whining for her right to free birth control, from teacher union leaders praising our public schools, from in-your-face gay activists, from Obamacare fans, and from would-be comedians mocking conservatives, moderates, creationists, gun-owners, and the general public in general.  Democrats, especially when they play to their base, sometimes over-reach.  They think they are populist, but they are not, and they may come across in ways they do not intend, putting off more voters than they attract.  But I guess we'll see, won't we.

.....Warph



(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-meiEy8f2URg/UEEW-GKSr_I/AAAAAAAAei4/yE8ekZWjt4Q/s1600/Mitt%2BRomney%2B-%2BPaul%2BRyan.jpg)

Exceptional
By Robert Stacy McCain on 8.31.12 @ 6:11AM

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/31/exceptional

Mitt Romney stakes his campaign on the America Dream.

TAMPA, Florida -- The polls showed a dead heat.... as Mitt Romney took the stage Thursday night to accept the Republican Party nomination, but the polls could not begin to capture the wild chances of improbability in what is sure to be a hard-fought campaign this fall. And the man who introduced the GOP presidential nominee Thursday night was the surest testament to how miracles happen in America.

Marco Rubio wasn't supposed to be there. In May 2009, more than 15 months before the 2010 Republican primary in Florida, the GOP establishment endorsed Rubio's opponent, then-Gov. Charlie Crist, believing him to be the "safe" choice as their party's Senate nominee. Crist had statewide name recognition and a strong fundraising base, and so he was endorsed not only by the state party chairman, but also by the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

One poll showed Crist leading Rubio by 37 points:
(The very Liberal Tampa Bay Times): 
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/2009/06/poll-crist-59-rubio-22-mccollum-41-sink-39.html


Crist had every tangible advantage, but what he did not have was the support of the conservative grassroots, which were just then coalescing into the Tea Party. Crist had embraced President Obama's $800 billion "stimulus" plan, and his endorsements from the GOP Establishment proved to be the kiss of death, rallying a nationwide movement behind Rubio. And so the young senator who introduced Mitt Romney on the closing night of the Republican National Convention was a living embodiment of the miraculous power of the American dream.

Rubio spoke of that dream, describing how as a nine-year-old boy in 1980 he watched the GOP convention with his grandfather, a refugee from Cuba's communist dictatorship. "As a boy, I would sit on our porch and listen to his stories about history, politics and baseball while he puffed on one of his three daily Padron cigars," Rubio told the thousands of Republican delegates gathered inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum. "I don't recall everything we talked about, but the one thing I remember, is the one thing he wanted me to never forget. The dreams he had when he was young became impossible to achieve, but there was no limit to how far I could go, because I was an American."

The crowd went positively wild with cheers and applause, and when they calmed down, Rubio continued: "For those of us who were born and raised in this country, it's easy to forget how special America is. But my grandfather understood how different America is from the rest of the world, because he knew what life was like outside America."

What Rubio was describing was a doctrine known to political philosophers as "American exceptionalism," and the 41-year-old senator went on to describe its foundation in religious belief, that America is "special because we've been united not by a common race or ethnicity. We're bound together by common values. That family is the most important institution in society. That almighty God is the source of all we have.... Our national motto is 'In God we Trust,' reminding us that faith in our Creator is the most important American value of all."

Words can scarcely describe the enthusiasm that swept through the auditorium at that moment. In a skybox suite five floors above the stage, where I was a guest of the Republican State Leadership Committee, I found myself wiping tears from my eyes. They were neutral, objective tears, because I remembered when Marco Rubio was 37 points down in the polls, and here in Tampa I was watching an honest-to-God miracle. If it had been up to the party leadership, Charlie Crist would have been up there on stage. Instead, Crist is now disgraced and discredited, an unpopular loser who will speak at next week's Democratic convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Anything can happen in America and, with less than 10 weeks to go until Election Day, it is impossible to know who will win the White House in November. The Real Clear Politics average of national polls shows a neck-and-neck race, but as of Thursday night it seemed entirely within the realm of possibility that Mitt Romney and his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, might win in a landslide. And if the Republicans do win, much of the credit will go to the ruthless efficiency of the campaign team organized by Romney. No one can deny that Romney and the Republicans put together an excellent convention. The most offbeat moment of the weeklong event in Tampa was a smashing success.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

C'mon: Even the most hard-boiled liberal must admit that Clint Eastwood's Thursday night appearance was hilarious. Rambling and low-key, Eastwood improvised a comedy routine in which he "interviewed" Obama, represented by an empty chair, and drew a standing ovation when he declared, "We own this country."

The night ended with Romney's acceptance speech -- arguably his best ever, although the former governor of Massachusetts has never been famed as a spellbinding inspirational orator. But Romney made the case that inspirational oratory is no substitute for sound policy and competent leadership. "What is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound," said the former CEO of Bain Capital. "It doesn't take a special government commission to tell us what America needs. What America needs is jobs -- lots of jobs." He later mocked the absurdly irrational "hope and change" rhetoric that marked Obama's 2008 campaign: "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family."

Romney closed by invoking an America that represents "the best within each of us," and made a promise: "If I am elected President of these United States, I will work with all my energy and soul to restore that America, to lift our eyes to a better future. That future is our destiny. That future is out there. It is waiting for us. Our children deserve it, our nation depends upon it, the peace and freedom of the world require it. And with your help we will deliver it."

If Mitt Romney is elected president on Nov. 6, it won't necessarily be because America believes in Mitt Romney, but because Mitt Romney believes in America.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_OCIC0v0fCI/UEBbIwVn0yI/AAAAAAAAeQU/mlpqNVa37As/s1600/Paul%2BRyan%2Band%2BObama.jpg)

The Ryan Vision: Let's Get This Done

By David Limbaugh
8/31/2012

http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/the-ryan-vision-lets-get-this-done/

The Democrats and their mainstream media cheering section can huff and puff at Paul Ryan's convention speech, but they can't blow his house down. It was built on a solid foundation.

So powerful was the speech that the liberal establishment is reduced to wailing about alleged lies the speech contained -- dishonest and easily refuted allegations. Ryan delivered a substantive indictment of the Obama administration's failed record and a content-rich, realistic plan for putting this nation back on track to economic growth and fiscal recovery, a plan that includes "protecting and strengthening" Medicare, not "raiding" it.

Don't listen to the naysayers. Ryan began with a humble acceptance of his "calling" and "duty" to help restore America. His message was positive. "I know we can do this," he said, not dwelling on the malaise in which Obama's disastrous policies have placed us but offering a specific blueprint to deliver us from this quicksand.

He carried forward this same theme throughout the speech: He said that when he accepted the nomination, he told Mitt Romney, "Let's get this done"; and in closing the speech, he converted the slogan into a formal offer to the American people, promising that if elected, he and Romney would put America back on a path to fiscal redemption.

Ryan offered a succinct but irrefutable critique of Obama's economic record: 23 million unemployed or underemployed, 1 in 6 Americans living in poverty and one-half of college graduates unable to find work they've studied for or any work at all.

More importantly, he emphasized that Obama has no new ideas to deliver us from this quagmire. Under a second Obama term, nothing would change -- Obamanomics being but a ship trying to sail on yesterday's wind.

Obama's grandiose stimulus plan, involving "the largest one-time expenditure of the federal government," not only didn't work to create jobs but also took us into deeper debt. The money wasn't "just spent and wasted; it was borrowed, spent and wasted." Instead of giving us the jobs we needed, he forced Obamacare on us against our will, and he gave us Solyndra and its ilk -- replete with corporate welfare, political patronage, cronyism and "make-believe markets." Indeed.

Obama's stimulus debacle was a microcosm -- albeit a gargantuan one -- of the ideas that Obama has advanced and that Romney and Ryan would reject in favor of America's founding ideals. Ryan was eloquent in articulating the contrast. Under Obama, he said, the government has tried to divide up wealth. Under Romney and Ryan, Americans -- not government -- would create wealth.

Ryan expanded on the contrast, saying that Obama sees America as a place where everyone is stuck in some class or station in life, victims of circumstances beyond their control, with government there to help them cope with their fate.

The new administration, he assured us, would give us the exact opposite -- a land where government is limited (to 20 percent of gross domestic product) and liberty is championed. He weaved in the story of his own family experiences and his mother -- his "role model" -- to personalize the point. He urged us not to buy Obama's message and record of despair and to reject the stifling notion that we can't do any better -- ideas wholly inconsistent with Ryan's personal experiences and the lessons his parents taught him.

Ryan said, in essence, "How dare you tell me and other Americans we have to accept whatever circumstances we find ourselves in and not try to improve our lots in life?" He said, "I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself and define happiness for myself." In other words, in the America in which Ryan grew up and that he and Romney will try to restore, no government and no politician will predefine limits on economic growth and individual liberties -- above all, the pursuit of happiness.

Ryan said that the American dream is grounded in freedom, not a planned economy in which equal outcomes are sought in lieu of equal opportunity. He underscored not simply that central planning doesn't work but that it's morally inferior, contrary to the claims and "sanctimony" of its leftist proponents.

Ryan promised that they would lead on the tough issues and be men of action -- rather than of endless empty rhetoric -- and would spend the next four years not blaming others but taking responsibility. They would immediately end the current administration's practice of replacing our founding principles and begin to reapply those principles.

Obama tells us that Republicans want a smaller America, but as Ryan conclusively demonstrated in his speech, it is Obama who envisions a limited, anemic America with a finite pie, incapable of a robust economic future.

In Romney and Ryan's America -- as in Ronald Reagan's, Jack Kemp's and Condoleezza Rice's -- "it doesn't matter where you came from; it matters where you're going."

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Vqf3UAzTRCE/UEEBwvULPOI/AAAAAAAAeeY/eLUhqARhojE/s1600/ted-pat-oparowski-finlayson-rnc.jpg)

Friends of Romney convey Mitt's love,
concern Ted, right, and Pat Oparowski

By: Hope Hodge
8/30/2012 08:42 PM

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/30/friends-of-romney-convey-mitts-love-and-concern/

Thursday night's speech lineup included a trio of Olympians, an A-list movie star, and a powerful U.S. Senator.

But perhaps the most impressive address came from an elderly couple who had trouble reading the teleprompter and stumbled a little over their words.

Ted and Pat Oparowski, originally of Medford, Mass., talked about their young son David, diagnosed at age 14 with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Mitt Romney, then a leader in their church, befriended David as he struggled with his illness, buying the boy a box of fireworks at one point to cheer him up, and later, on David's request, helping him write a will so he could give his prized rifle, skateboard, and fishing gear to his friends.

"You cannot measure a man's character based on words he utters before adoring crowds during happy times. The true measure of a man is revealed in his actions during times of trouble," Ted Oparowski said. "The quiet hospital room of a dying boy, with no cameras and no reporters – that is the time to make an assessment."

Romney stayed with the family even at David's death, Pat Oparowski added, delivering the eulogy at the boy's funeral.

"We will be ever grateful to Mitt for his love and concern," she said.

Though the couple's emotional talk brought tears to the eyes of many, it wasn't the only insight of the evening into a man who friend's called deeply caring and generous with time and resources.

Click here to view their speech:



Pam Finlayson, who also was a member of Romney's church, talked about how Romney had come to the hospital to visit her after her daughter Kate was born very prematurely.

"I will never forget that when he looked down tenderly at my daughter, his eyes filled with tears, and he reached out gently and stroked her tiny back," she said. "I could tell immediately that he didn't just see a tangle of plastic and tubes; he saw our beautiful little girl, and he was clearly overcome with compassion for her."

When Kate passed away 26 years later from a congenital condition, Mitt and Ann Romney stopped their work on the campaign trail to reach out to Finlayson, she remembered.

"It is with great excitement and a renewed hope, to know that our country will be blessed as it is led by a man who is not only so accomplished and capable, but who has devoted his entire life quietly serving others," she said.

Click here to view Pam's speech:



In every phase of his life, a stream of speakers said, Romney had embodied compassion, hard work, and principle.

The crowd thrilled when 15 Olympians, including Mike Eruzione, hockey player of "miracle on ice" fame, figure skater Scott Hamilton, and speed skater Dan Jansen took the stage to talk about how Romney had saved the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from the brink of financial disaster.

"Mitt is a brilliant leader who is committed to the highest ideals, and he is a wonderful and caring family man," Eruzione said. "America desperately needs Mitt Romney's leadership today. Please join me in making him the next president of the United States."

Business leaders, including Staples founder Tom Stemberg, talked about Romney's record of success and character while in leadership at Bain Capital, while Massachusetts political leaders including Romney's former lieutenant governor Kerry Healey discussed his work to help the state lead the nation in education.

This extended tribute concluded with a video showing the Romney family as Mitt and Ann raised five boys, showing scenes of the Republican nominee stopping work to play with his sons, and featuring Ann telling of how Mitt chose her to carry the Olympic torch in Salt Lake City, saying that she was his hero.

Romney's job this week was to show a more personable and genuine side of himself to the American people. By the time he took the stage at the end of the night Thursday, his work was all but done.

Click here to view a video of Jane, a liberal democrat who is a friend:


[/font][/size]

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l3rNmPj_Bmk/UEWfm_-kDdI/AAAAAAAAe_E/Ima0A1gE_-E/s400/8-31-12%2B9.jpg)

The Fantastic Romney Video You Probably Didn't See

By Guy Benson
9/3/2012

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Hot Air's Allahpundit are in rare agreement: A video produced for the Republican National Convention that played on the evening of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech should have been featured more prominently in prime time. Why? It was touching, humanizing and uplifting – and it also highlighted Romney's professional accomplishments in a very compelling way. Because the 'likeability' factor is such a major component of this campaign, why wouldn't RNC organizers have moved heaven and earth to ensure that tens of millions of voters would be exposed to such a brilliant piece of biographical art? Before we tackle that question, let's watch it. I realize that 10:30 is a decent chunk of time to invest in a YouTube clip, but c'mon – it's Labor Day, and the video is well worth your time:

 
7 Incredible Personal Stories About Mitt Romney That You May Not Know

Townhall Columnists John Hawkins
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/25/7_incredible_personal_stories_about_mitt_romney_that_you_may_not_know      


Over the last few months, it has been absolutely stunning to see Mitt Romney, of all people, portrayed as some sort of greedy, ruthless, unfeeling corporate raider who plows over everyone who gets in his way so he can make a few dollars more. Of all the criticisms you could aim at Mitt Romney, there is none that has less validity than that one. In fact, the vast majority of people who read this column -- whether they're liberal, conservative, or moderate -- probably don't personally know a single person who has proven to be more generous and compassionate than Mitt Romney. Yes, really. It's okay if you're skeptical -- but, you won't be after you finish reading this column.


1) Mitt Romney saved the life of a 14 year old girl: Imagine what it would be like if we could have this kind of decisive people-centered leadership in the White House..
http://voices.yahoo.com/how-mitt-romney-saved-girls-life-means-11248776.html?cat=9

In 1998 the 14-year-old daughter of one of Romney's partners at Bain Capital, Robin Gay, had disappeared after attending a rave party in New York City. The distraught father was beside himself with terror of what may have happened to his little girl.

Upon hearing of this, Romney stopped all operations at Bain and flew himself and all of the company's employees to New York to conduct the search. Using his contacts with establishments in New York that did business with Bain and an outlay of cash, Romney led a search for the girl from a command post he had set up in the LaGuardia Marriott that involved a private detective, Bain employees and customers putting up posters, handing out flyers, and interviewing prostitutes, drug addicts, and other street people in New York, and coordination with the New York Police.

A break came, after media publicity of the search, when a teenage boy called a tip line asking if there was a reward. He hung up, but not before the police traced the call to a home in New Jersey. The girl was found in the basement of the house undergoing withdrawals from a hit of ecstasy.
Romney, through his efforts, had saved the girl's life.


2) Mitt Romney gave milk to a V.A. hospital: This is the kind of thing Mitt Romney has done for people in need who cross his path.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/09/12/the-incredible-stories-of-character-the-media-isnt-telling-you-about-mitt-romney/

He shared a story of a V.A. hospital in Boston that Mitt Romney stopped at while on the campaign trail running against Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy had made a thirty minute stop at the same location a couple of weeks prior.

After touring the V.A. hospital, Mitt asked to look at their books. After he spent forty minutes going through their books, he told them, "You run a very good place, very tight. Very good." Romney asked to go on another tour of the hospital, and after spending an hour and forty minutes there, the last question he asked was, "So what... what do you -- what are you lacking? What do you need help with?"

The response? "Milk."

Since the press was around, snapping photos and asking questions, Glenn explained that Romney did a really awkward joke where he said, "maybe we should teach everyone here how to milk a cow."

Of course, that's all the press cared to hear and ran with a story that claims "Mitt Romney says veterans should have to milk cows."

"This is where it gets good," Glenn started. "Romney calls him up the next morning."

Romney first apologizes to the man who runs the hospital for any problems the attention from the press jumping on his words brought to the hospital. He next offers to help with the milk situation.

"Friday comes, and the milkman comes," Glenn continues. "This is what the vets needed – they needed 7,000 pints of milk a week. Milkman shows up, 7,000 pints. The head of the V.A. hospital asks, 'Where did all this come from?' He [the milkman] said 'an anonymous donor.' Now, the guy didn't put it together."

Glenn explains that when the next week rolled around, the milkman shows up again, and continued to show up every week for two years. After two years of delivering 7,000 pints of milk a week to the hospital, as the milkman is retiring, the man finally gets him to reveal the anonymous donor.

It's Mitt Romney.

"Mitt Romney was writing a personal check and didn't want anybody to know for two years and provided the vets with all of their milk in Boston," Glenn explained to listeners this morning.

When Romney became governor, he sent a bill through to help the V.A. hospital – it was down to the dollar.


3) Mitt Romney helped a dying 14 year old boy write his will: In a profession filled with people who steal the credit for every good thing that happens and pass the buck at every opportunity, Mitt Romney's humility -- which is a wonderful trait in a human being, but a maladaptive one in a politician -- has kept him from hammering home stories like this in every swing state.

Pat Oparowski talks about the loving friendship Mitt Romney developed with her dying son David, remembering,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/31/old-romney-friend-brings-tears-to-rnc-as-recalls-his-private-compassion/

"David, knowing Mitt had gone to law school at Harvard, asked Mitt if he would help him write a will. He had some prize possessions that he wanted to make sure were given to his closest friends and family. The next time Mitt went to the hospital, he was equipped with his yellow legal pad and pen. Together, they made David's will. That is a task that no child should ever have to do. But it gave David peace of mind. So after David's death, we were able to give his skateboard, his model rockets, and his fishing gear to his best friends. He also made it clear that his brother Peter should get his Ruger .22 rifle. How many men do you know who would take the time out of their busy lives to visit a terminally ill 14 year old and help him settle his affairs?"

David also helped us plan his funeral. He wanted to be buried in his Boy Scout uniform. He wanted Mitt to pronounce his eulogy, and Mitt was there to honor that request. We will be ever grateful to Mitt for his love and concern."

Ted Oparowski summed it up nicely when he said,

"You cannot measure a man's character based on the words he utters before adoring crowds during times that are happy. The true measure of a man is revealed in his actions during times of trouble — the quiet hospital room of a dying boy, with no cameras and no reporters."


4) At one point, Mitt Romney was doing 10-20 hours a week of volunteer church service: At the Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney's friend and fellow church member Grant Bennett talked about the Mitt Romney he knew.


While raising his family and pursuing his career, Mitt Romney served in our church, devoting 10, 15, and even 20 hours a week doing so. ...Drawing on the skills and resources of those in our congregation, Mitt provided food and housing, rides to the doctor, and companions to sit with those who were ill. He shoveled snow and raked leaves for the elderly. He took down tables and swept floors at church dinners. He was often the last to leave. Mitt challenged each of us to find our life by losing it in service to others. He issued that challenge again and again.

What do you think the chances are that the current occupant of the White House would voluntarily shovel snow and rake leaves for the elderly without any television cameras around?


5) Pam Finlayson talks about how Mitt Romney treated her family and her extremely ill child: Pam Finlayson gave one of the finest speeches at the Republican National Convention when she talked about her family's experience with Mitt Romney.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/31/old-romney-friend-brings-tears-to-rnc-as-recalls-his-private-compassion/

Later, when Finlayson and her husband Grant had a baby girl born dangerously premature, the man who decades later would stand at the threshold of the presidency was a steady and supportive presence at the hospital.

"Kate was so tiny and very sick," Finlayson recalled. "Her lungs not yet ready to breathe, her heart unstable, and after suffering a severe brain hemorrhage at three days old, she was teetering on the very edge of life."

"As I sat with her in intensive care, consumed with a mother's worry and fear, dear Mitt came to visit and pray with me," she continued, as the partisan crowd listened in rapt silence. "I will never forget that when he looked down tenderly at my daughter, his eyes filled with tears, and he reached out gently and stroked her tiny back."

"I could tell immediately that he didn't just see a tangle of plastic and tubes; he saw our beautiful little girl, and he was clearly overcome with compassion for her."

The little girl was slated for surgery around Thanksgiving, and Finlayson recalled Romney and his sons showing up with a Thanksgiving feast for the preoccupied parents. Finlayson said she later learned from Ann Romney that the food had been prepared by her husband.

Kate Finlayson survived, and the two families remained close, said Finlayson, who even babysat for the five "rambunctious" Romney sons before the family moved from Boston.

Last year, Kate Finlayson died at age 26 from complications she'd battled from birth, her mom said. And although Romney was in the midst of preparing his bid for the presidency, they remembered their old friends in yet another hour of anguish.

"When they heard of Kate's passing, both Mitt and Ann paused, to personally reach out to extend us sympathy, and express their love," Finlayson said.

"When the world looks at Mitt Romney, they see him as the founder of a successful business, the leader of the Olympics, or a governor," she said. "When I see Mitt, I know him to be a loving father, man of faith and caring and compassionate friend."


6) Mitt Romney and his sons saved a family and their dog from drowning: Mitt Romney saw people in trouble and he didn't wait for the government to save them, he made a REAL gutsy call, and did what he had to do to save their lives.
http://newjerseyhills.com/hunterdon_review/news/tewksbury-family-saved-from-sinking-boat-by-mitt-romney/article_845a5ee6-7399-11e1-8060-0019bb2963f4.html

But way back in the summer of 2003, the then-Massachusetts governor made the news for a very different reason: He helped save a Tewksbury family from drowning in New Hampshire's Lake Winnipesaukee.

The Morrisseys of Tewksbury were motoring their vintage wooden boat through the large lake on July 4 weekend that year when, around sunset and about 300 yards from shore, the vessel began taking on water. Robert Morrissey attempted to dial 911 on his cell phone, only to lose the device in the water as the boat started sinking rapidly.

That's when Romney, who owns a home on the shore of the lake, and two of his sons jumped on jet skis and rode out to assist the six people, along with the family dog, struggling in the water.

The Romneys took two of the passengers ashore, and others in the area helped the rest of the family—and the dog, too — make it back to land without injury.


7) Mitt Romney pays for the college education of two boys who were left as quadriplegics after a car wreck: As you read this, imagine how you'd feel about Mitt Romney if you were Mark and Sheryl Nixon. Americans would be fortunate to have someone like Mitt Romney doing his best to try to help them.

Mark and Sheryl Nixon, along with their sons Reed and Rob and their daughter Natalie, told of a car accident that left Reed and Rob quadriplegics. Although the Nixon family knew of Romney and Romney had served as their Mormon stake president, they weren't well acquainted.

Reed and Rob returned home from rehab in the late fall, near Christmas, Mark said. Around that time, Romney called and said he'd like to do something for the two boys. So Romney, his wife Ann, and three of their sons brought Christmas gifts to the family.

While Romney later offered to pay for Reed and Rob's entire college education, that Christmas Eve visit stands out in Mark's mind, he said, because instead of vacationing in Utah, New England or the Caribbean, the Romney family was visiting the needy.

"That actually, to me, has been more important to me than the financial help he gave," Mark said.

"After the initial experience of showing up, he didn't check that off his list and say, 'I did my duty,'" Natalie added. "He has, year after year, shown up at 5K races to run the event and participate."[/font][/size]

Now I know lies and tall tales, exaggerations and such run rampid during the silly season, but I heard something yesterday  that I found very troubling.
   Because of transportation, storage and distribution problems ,the general long distance public is being asked not to send goods to Sandy victims.  Then I hear Mitt suggesting that people send stuff to the hurricane areas. He doesn't get it!
So then I hear that at a rally yesterday,where ever he was, he sent staffers to a local grocery store to buy $5,000.00 in goods. He supposedly had the staffers pass them out, outside the seating area of the rally and then as the attendees came in, they handed the can, or whatever, to Mitt, who was taking them and bagging them for donation to hurricane victims.
   Can someone tell me if this really happened? If so, I'm shocked he would do such a fake and dishonest thing. I'm all set to vote for him ,but if that's the way he'll do things...well, I really have to wonder. Anybody have any trustworthy information?

Isn't it usually the socialists and big government people who give the orders and take the credit?
It's no surprise that you don't like Romney lending a hand and aiding the Sandy disaster.

You aren't helping with that smart A## answer! You don't understand! NJ and NY Red Cross et al, have specifically asked that hard goods and clothes, food etc. NOT be sent.They have no place yet to put donations or deal with big trucks coming in and no way yet to distribute it.  The electricity isn't even all back on yet. Many roads are not yet out from under the floods.  Trains are just partly running and the subways are only pumped out here and there. You can't even yet get through the Holland Tunnel into NY.
  You really just don't get it do ya! Get off the personal agenda will ya? Make you sound very ignorant.
  . I just want to know if he did it and if so why he would be so uncooperative and make a big political deal out of it. If he did it ,no I don't like it!
  If he wanted to do a $ collection for the Red Cross, Salvation Army and others there, I'd be all for it. But to refuse to cooperate with the Red Cross? Who does that!

I can tell you one that will not donate one red cent to The Red Cross----ME-before one penny goes to the needy their CEO is paid $651,957 plus expenses. Then only pennies on the dollar goes for what people thought they were donating for.
Salvation Army , yes I will and do.

Wrong, Diane.  The Romney campaign was aware of the limitations stated by the National Red Cross organization but then learned that the South Jersey chapter of the Red Cross IS accepting donations of canned goods and other supplies.  The Romney campaign did what they were supposed to by contacting a local agency and confirming the goods could be sent and made arrangements directly with the South Jersey chapter of the Red Cross.  

True, in most disaster cases, the Red Cross usually wants money and/or blood donations.  But as it is, people in NJ are raiding dumpsters for food... so the south chapter is glad to take what they can get.  So far, there has been very little help if any from the government that "We the People, the Tax-Payer" own.  Mitt Romney has a long history of helping others... ie: closing his Bain company to search for a missing girl... et cetera, et cetera.  Check: Reply No. #35 of this thread:
7 Incredible Personal Stories About Mitt Romney That You May Not Know.

Thanks. All I wanted was information that anybody else might have run across as to what was really going on. It matters to me.  Has anything else been verified about making the donations look like they were coming from the rally attendees rather then $5,000.00 from Mitt himself?
   I know Mitt is a very generous person. He can afford to be and as a Mormon he would and should be. It's a big part of their belief system. I've read all the articles too.     
     Jar, Al will agree with your post whole heartedly. He has no love for Red Cross in terms of their fund raising. The volunteers of course are great.

                Mitt Romney closed his campaign in the state where it began -- New Hampshire -- in front of a raucous, energetic, and enthusiastic crowd of over 10,000 at the Verizon Center. Thousands more people were outside of the arena, unable to get into the event.

Romney predicted, "Tomorrow, your votes and work here in New Hampshire will help me become the next president of the United States."

Obama won New Hampshire by 10 points in 2008 but is essentially tied with Romney heading into Election Day, with momentum on Romney's side.

Romney claimed Obama was "offering excuses" while he offered an alternative plan — that Obama wants "to settle" while he could not wait to get started.

"Americans don't settle," Romney beamed. "We aspire and build."

Romney maintained Obama "says it has to be this way, I say it can't stay this way."

"Tomorrow, we get to work rebuilding our country," Romney said.

Romney said Election Day would be a moment of "renewal, purpose, and optimism" for America once he is elected.

Romney and Ryan have been drawing massive crowds in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota in the closing days of the campaign. The Republican challengers have expanded the electoral map while Democrats have played defense in states Obama won by ten points in 2008. ]

On Tuesday, Romney will make stops in Cleveland, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Election Day. [/size

Obuma?  He'll be sitting on his ass watching msnbc, listening to the clowns saying how great he is.

Unbelievable ---go to vote here in Longton at 0900 and the line to show photo ID and get your ballot was 7 deep----never before have I had to stand in a line---one of the workers said it had been that way since they opened at 0700 , and before they opened the doors, people were outside knocking, wanting in to vote. The best part was there were no Blank Panthers standing outside with  clubs & pipes, trying to intimidate the white voters.