I attended the Mitt Romney fundraiser event in Medina early this evening.
In his remarks, focused on the economy, Gov. Romney drew a sharp contrast between himself and the President.
Romney believes in the American entrepreneurial spirit and told several anecdotes about people he's met during the campaign who are entrepreneurs, innovators and job creators. "That's what makes the economy work. That's what the American economy is". Rooted in the founding principle of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", he explained, our strength and prosperity derives from free people pursuing happiness in their own way.
"But this President doesn't get it. Every time he has a chance to choose between a government answer and a free enterprise answer, he chooses the government answer ... and it makes us weaker".
Romney elaborated on the economy, energy policy, health care and foreign policy. But the above points are the crux, for me, of what this election is about. We have exactly two choices that matter. One choice is to retain our current President, who is instinctively hostile to free enterprise, wedded to the delusion that he can regulate and redistribute the nation into prosperity and happiness, and determined to permanently replace economic liberty with government direction whenever he can get away with it.
The other choice is to replace the current President with one who viscerally understands that society prospers and jobs are created only when people are free to pursue their dreams to innovate and create; a President who is committed to steer the nation back toward that path.
The stakes have never been higher in my lifetime and it really is that simple. If the latter choice sounds better than the former, please donate to the Romney campaign here: https://secure.mittromney.com/donate/victory/?sc=EWA004&fid=6965.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 04, 2012 10:07 PM | Email ThisAnd you are right Stefan, this is a very important election. The most important in my lifetime too. Fortunately, at this point, it looks like Mr. Obama is going to go down in flames. I can't wait for the healing to begin.
Posted by: Oscarphone on June 4, 2012 11:54 PM..and that is what I am really appreciating about Romney. What a breath of fresh air when I hear him speak about these things. You can tell he 'gets' the private sector in a way that Obama never will.
He even 'gets' America itself in a way Obama never will. I really don't even think Obama likes the job he has right now, except for the lavish parties. Romney clearly wants to lead.
I think the tide is turning and people are waking up to the fact that Romney is a guy who has much experience in turning troubled institutions around. And isn't that exactly what this nation needs at this time in our history?
America cannot afford to make the wrong choice this time around.
This excellent piece shows why Obama will lose. Check it out; it's a good read--
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-obama-will-lose-in-a-landslide/
The Treaty of the Seas, placing the second amendment in jeopardy with the removal of guns from citizens are the front end. Furthermore, the dollar's days will be numbered as the Standard currency. This Obamination has to go, otherwise We are Greece and the soon to be disintegrated EU.
Posted by: KDS on June 5, 2012 09:19 AMI would like to see his grades, from HS on in Math also. It's all so twisted and rather sad to see how the collective intelligence of the electorate has slipped to elect this scam artist - but as Barry has bloviated before - you can't make this stuff up !
Posted by: KDS on June 5, 2012 09:26 AMObama can't even screw in a light bulb without starting a new bureaucracy with a catchy acronym and appointing a czar to oversee the program.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 5, 2012 09:26 AMA good example of why Ron Paul, nor anyone like him, will ever be elected.
Normal Republican lie. After all, with health care, Obama chose a private sector base approach and not a government based approach.
Strangely enough, modeled after Romney's own plan.
Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq on June 5, 2012 11:11 AMGood reason why the US is going to be forced to learn the hard way how to cut spending. Our 'limited government' party is full of people that think it is okay to keep growing it.
We need a party that embraces capitalism, not just gives lip service to it.
Posted by: Lysander on June 5, 2012 11:12 AMElections are a contest between two actual candidates, not between actual candidates and a fantasy of the perfect candidate. Romney wasn't my first choice at the outset either, but he is by far the best choice between the two candidates who have a non-zero chance of winning. You want a different candidate? Get to work for one in time for him or her to be nominated in 2016. In the meantime, it is still 2012. If you claim that you believe in capitalism and liberty and contend that Romney "is no better than Obama" then you are a tool or a fool or both.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 5, 2012 11:34 AMHe certainly "got" America when he ran the Salt Lake Olympics. In particular, he "got" $1,500,000,000 from the federal government to bail out the troubled Olympics that he took over.
And his 2 years in France trying to convince French people that Mormonism was better than their religions? I guess that's "getting" America, too.
Posted by: Bruce on June 5, 2012 11:36 AMAnd it is not just healthcare that Romney refuses to chose the free market. Look at the auto industry bailout. Financial industry bailouts. Social Security. Etc...
Posted by: Lysander on June 5, 2012 11:39 AMMostly what he's done is throw gasoline onto the fire. Time for him to take his game (or lack thereof) and go home.
Posted by: Michele on June 5, 2012 11:58 AM
Obama's Claim of Increasing Domestic Drilling Not Accurate, Say Energy Analysts
The increase in domestic drilling was almost entirely in areas for which the Obama administration exercised no authority, as oil production on federal land declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011, according to a study by the Institute on Energy Research (IER), a free-market energy think tank. But oil production on state lands increased that year by 14 percent and increased by 12 percent on private lands.
Once again, President Downgrade is taking credit for things he's not entitled - I believe that particular 'truth' stretching habit is called LYING.
And of course the hapless lefty lemmings repeat it as their mantra of the day.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 5, 2012 01:30 PMOil Production on Federal Lands Has Declined Under Obama
While President Obama has been touting in recent days that his administration is promoting oil drilling in the United States, oil production on federally owned lands has in fact declined by 17,000 barrels per day since he took office in 2009.
This figure comes from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on domestic energy production. That report found that domestic oil production fluctuates from year-to-year, on both federal and non-federal lands. But 96 percent of the increase in production since 2007 has taken place on non-federal lands.
"Oil production has fluctuated on both federal and non-federal lands over the past five years," the report said. "About 96 percent of the increase took place on non-federal lands, but the overall federal share of total U.S. production fell only by about two percentage points over the 2007-2011 timeframe."
... "Over the last three years, I've directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states," he said.
However, according to CRS, domestic production on federal lands has declined under Obama, down by 275,000 barrels per day since its 2010 peak.
Obama also claimed that his administration was opening up increased areas off-shore, saying that "we are drilling all over the place" and that America was producing more oil than it could handle.
"We're opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore," Obama said. "So we are drilling all over the place--right now. That's not the challenge. That's not the problem."
While total domestic oil production is up by 230,000 barrels per day since Obama took office in 2009, none of that increase has come from federal lands, CRS reports. In fact, production is down sharply on federal lands since the BP oil spill in 2010, due entirely to the reduction in off-shore production.
Since 2009, off-shore oil production has fallen by 35,000 barrels per day. Like the overall production figures, the true off-shore decline is obscured by an increase in production from 2009-2010.
If one excludes the trend of increased off-shore production, Obama inherited and measures the decline in off-shore production from its highest point during his administration, off-shore oil production has fallen by 285,000 barrels per day.
**Emphasis mine
Really, how hard is it to get FACTS?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 5, 2012 01:38 PMThanks to you very easy. Thanks!
From your post, "total domestic oil production is up by 230,000 barrels per day since Obama took office in 2009"
My comment "Oil drilling in the US has increased under Obama" appears to be 100% accurate.
Posted by: Lysander on June 5, 2012 02:15 PMthen again you also seem to thnk I am lying and to support your claim that I am lying you cite the exact fact needed to SUPPORT my claim.
You all should calm down, I am not trying to support Obama. I am merely pointing out the things you attack him on he is no better or worse than Bush or Romney. And that is not praise for Romney and Bush were no good either!
For us to move forward as a country we can not sit and play there game where they pit us against each other. We must attack BOTH teams for their pro big government views.
Posted by: Lysander on June 5, 2012 02:19 PMBy the way Stefan, I used your link to make a donation and was pleased to see Romney's site using CVV authentication. The fraudulent charge made by Obama for America on my account was reversed this month.
Posted by: Palouse on June 5, 2012 02:20 PMthen again you also seem to thnk I am lying and to support your claim that I am lying you cite the exact fact needed to SUPPORT my claim.
You all should calm down, I am not trying to support Obama. I am merely pointing out the things you attack him on he is no better or worse than Bush or Romney. And that is not praise for Romney and Bush were no good either!
For us to move forward as a country we can not sit and play there game where they pit us against each other. We must attack BOTH teams for their pro big government views.
Posted by: Lysander on June 5, 2012 02:27 PMhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303640104577436300587354714.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read#project%3DROMEMAIL%26articleTabs%3Darticle
http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/06/04/governor-mitt-romney-lent-state-money-solar-company-that-last-week-filed-for-bankruptcy/6LYIlRBVgyr07qMu0dSNXJ/story.html
Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq. on June 5, 2012 02:58 PMhttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/mitt-romney-didnt-flip-flop-on-the-auto-bailout-this-time/258134/
He did not flip flop on the auto bailouts... he was always in support of them!
Posted by: lysander on June 5, 2012 03:04 PMFalse. Bush passed the drilling permits at the end of his term that resulted in the increase during Obama's term.
@29 So you're comparing a tiny $1.5 million loan from years ago at the state level (was it repaid? The article doesn't say - please report back on that) to a $535 federal government loan that was put on hold because it was of questionable validity at the end of the Bush administration that the taxpayers will be on the hook for while executives were rewarded with large bonuses? And THAT is what you call hypocrisy? Good luck with that.
Posted by: Palouse on June 5, 2012 03:10 PMRon Paul, your guy will not be running, so stick a fork in that notion. I hope part of his platform is adopted into Romney's platform for the good of the country. Voting for president has always been for the lesser of two evils in our lifetime - you know it and I know it. There is no question about it, unless you are a statist moron or a useful idiot liar; that Mitt Romney is clearly the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: KDS on June 5, 2012 05:45 PMwith 24% of the vote in Scott "awesome" Walker 61%
Barrett-Obama-wouldn't-even come-to-help-me-because-he-knew-better 39%
I want candidates that are more fiscally conservative than what we have now! Romney is NOT that candidate. To promote him in any way is to promote growth of government. I am opposed to that. Are you?
Posted by: Lysander on June 5, 2012 09:52 PMI have had enough. have you?
Posted by: Lysander on June 5, 2012 09:54 PMOkay, Travis, humor me. Who are you going to vote for and how will that get us a President who is "more fiscally conservative than what we have now!" ?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 5, 2012 10:15 PMI have to concur with him on this article. Most Americans haven't heard Romney defend private enterprise and the entrepeneurial spirit. Mitt believes in it and is passionate about it. He makes a compelling case and is a good advocate fo the cause.
I was frankly more "anti-Obama" than "pro-Romney" when I entered Maydenbauer Center, but the man made a believer out of me. I can't wait until he really introduces himself to the country and his voice is heard loud and clear.
Posted by: johnny on June 5, 2012 11:22 PMAre you in favor of a smaller government than we have? If yes, please explain how voting for Romney will help us get a president more fiscally conservative than the government we have now?
Posted by: Lysander on June 5, 2012 11:26 PMYou believe in the man trying to take your money, rather than the long history we have of the man speaking out and governorning for larger government spending?
If he wins you will find yourself wishing you had not been duped, or searching for excuses for the man you helped put in office. Lets stop the cycle and push for people that actually will decrease the size of government.
Posted by: LYsander on June 5, 2012 11:29 PMIf Romney wins and accomplishes a third of what he boasts of doing I will laud him as a national hero. But I won't be holding my breath until that day.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 6, 2012 07:36 AM
To think Mitt Romney could screw us up worse than Obama is a joke. He's an American, he's not a Socialist and he doesn't hate our country...
works for me.
Posted by: steve on June 6, 2012 09:00 AMAll of these things are examples of anti free market 'solutions'. Please do not overlook them and think he is good for america.
Posted by: Lysander on June 6, 2012 10:04 AMWall St and the megabanks knew we'd have no choice but to vote against Obongo, so they got away with placing another limpwrist at the top of the R ticket. We can count on them to again pacify us by placing a real conservative in the number 2 slot.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 6, 2012 02:58 PMHe is only for capitalism if it is crony capitalism that will help him and his freinds get rich. He is not for a free market capitalism that would reduce governments power.
@46:
I am glad you agree Romney is a socialist. Please do not support either of the socialist candidates. Thanks.
Ovebama is a fabian socialist, narcissist and statist. Valerie Jarrett is his brain, per Edward Klein in his latest book "The Amateur".
Romney is not a socialist - don't be ridiculous. I believe he will downsize the Federal government, but Congress has to OK it. By your definition, Bush-41 and 43 were socialists as are 90% of the reps and Senators in Congress.
IF there was a third part candidate with even a remote actual shot at being elected, this could be a different conversation, but since there isn't, it's Romney all the way.
And by the way...he doesn't need crony capitalism to get rich...
He's already rich!!!
Who? Ron Paul? Yes, he is a hypocrite! Sponsors or co-sponsors bills filled with pork and then when the bills have enough votes to pass, he votes against them to keep his dirty little (not so secret), secret. A win/win for him, right? Don't be fooled by the Dr. Demento or the sheeple that flock in lock step to his "cause".
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/earmarks.php?cid=n00005906
Posted by: Rick D. on June 6, 2012 10:14 PMI may vote for a Romney/Rand ticket but not likely.
Steve @49:
You have fallen for their trap. You can chose not to vote or vote for a third party and stop supporting the two big government candidates. It does not bring quick change but if enough of us do it, it will bring eventual change. Falling for the trap will NEVER bring change.
@50:
Ron votes consistantly against bills increasing spending. If you want to confuse things and ignore him because he direct money back to his district fine. But keep in mind that does not increase spending AND he still votes against it when it matters. Why should his district be punished for voting for one of the very few free market congressmen?
And why are diostracting from the real issue... Romney is a big spender despite some campaign promises to the opposite.
But if you think that your philosophy "Losing, to promote change" is either viable, or rational, then this is where we depart. I'll respect your right to your own opinion. But in my book, change in the proper direction, means WINNING elections and incrementally moving this country back in the direction it needs to go.
People need to see a President embrace the free market, Romney does. People need to see Obamacare overturned, Romney has pledged to do so. People needs to see a grownup in the White House, ROmney is just that.
And far above it all. Romney does appear to be listening. If you had invested the time or money to meet him and speak with him, as I have. I'd think you would note the stark differences between him and Obama.
And the change you desire will come from winning not only presidential elections, but congressional and senatorial and gubernatorial...
Our country will never change by your thesis of attempting to make changes, while being willing to lose elections.
That's just drinking the Kool-Aid, in my book and will never work.
I personally have never won anything, by losing. Neither have you, you just won't admit the logic fault that has led you in this obtuse direction.
Third parties, have NO CHANCE. A vote for a throwaway, IS A VOTE FOR STATUS QUO ie...You vote a third party, Obama wins.
I respect your right, just disagree with the approach in whole.
Steve.
If you truly beleive he will turn us around and bring us torwards a free market, by all means vote for him. His proposed budgets however show that he will increase spending every year and his past has shown he will create new government programs, not elliminate them.
Posted by: Lysander on June 7, 2012 09:14 AM
Posted by Lysander at June 7, 2012 07:48 AM
*************************
But RP is not? Please put the 911 loving /Israel hating nut and his spending in the toilet.
This was his 3rd try and didn't get much farther than he did the last two times.
My only guess is you want free & open drugs. It seems to be the major attraction to most RP fans.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 7, 2012 09:55 AMIf you wish to write me and the millions that do like him as all people that want free and open drugs, feel free. You are very wrong (both because most his supporters do not use drugs, and because Ron Paul is not in favor of free drugs). But I suppose that is easier than trying to defend your long string of candidates who support big government.
Posted by: Lysander on June 7, 2012 11:52 AMBULL. He helps to pass loaded up bills with all kinds of goodies for his state. Then as others have said and yes it's documented. He waits till it has more than enough to pass and votes against it. Knowing it will pass and Bingo he gets the cash. So don't even tell me he isn't.
***********
(not in favor of free drugs)
BULL again. He has said over and over he wants drug laws overturned. Why do you think some many young fools like him.
I find it odd, for you. I've been reading this blog and many of you're posting for sometime now.
It shocks me to see you follow this odd path with RP. Is Romney the best... Nope, but then who is?
Yet I'll take anyone over the O-dumber. We have the power to go after our Congress & Senators if Romney is in the W/H. If it's O-dumber. Forget it.
You should know better.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 7, 2012 12:45 PMThe logic goes like this: The cancer will kill you. The Chemotherapy might kill you. The Chemotherapy could kill the cancer first...
Think of Obama as the cancer and Romney as the Chemo...
choose the chemo.
Posted by: Steve on June 7, 2012 01:50 PMAs for drugs, I think you are confusing legality with cost. Dr Paul recognizes that drugs should be legal, but never advocates that they should be free.
Steve: If Ron Paul supporters stay true to freedom and free markets, then yes Obama will likely win this year but moving forward we might have a better chance of getting a good candidate next election. If Ron Paul supporters abandon principle we may get Romney elected which will still point us in the WRONG direction and roughly the same velocity AND we will less likely have a good candidate to chose from next time.
I refuse to vote for a candidate that will increase the size of government. I am sorry you do not feel the same way. If you are upset and think that will cause Obama to win and the most important thing to you was not to get Obama to win, then perhaps you and more like you should have been supporting Ron Paul.
Posted by: Lysander on June 7, 2012 08:30 PMAs for saying he talks out of both sides his mouth... that is a new one. Even his biggest opponents in congress praise him for his consistency to principles.
But if the best you can do to defend your choice of Romney is attack other people and their supporters, that is fine. It does not do much for your case in my opinion though.
Posted by: Lysander on June 8, 2012 06:13 AMConstitutionally, he uses that argument where it suits him, then flip flops when it suits him. The man is a walking contradiction.
But most importantly...RON PAUL WILL LOSE AGAIN...
He won't even make the ballot in most states.
He has zero chance of actually winning the election and even if he did, he is completely incapable of leading our country, in my humble opinion. He despises our Armed Forces being deployed abroad and while nice that he thinks we all just get along, that's fantasy.
So, the best I can do, I suppose is to recognize that a person who backs him, to the point of throwing their vote to the opposition ie...4 more destructive years of Obama, rather than remove him from office, with the lesser of two evils, while attempting to move our country in a better direction, is committed to their ideology very seriously and will not be swayed regardless of the argument or logic.
So the best I can do, is respect your right to throw your vote to Obama, though I believe that will be far more detrimental to our country and our constitutional rights, if the next 4 years remove the shackles from Obama and he is free to really go after the changes he desires, rather than backing Romney.
And if you believe that Congress, is a huge part of the problem, as Ron Paul states it is, why would you rely on Congress's assessment of Ron Paul for consistency??
I'm sorry if calling him a whack job offends you. But if you examine him beyond his talking points, he's not the right guy to lead our military, economy, government or nation of sovereign people, in my humble opinion.
So, given the circular nature of the debate at this point. I don't see much point in further discussion. I will continue to respect your right to vote for Obama-via-Paul, but cannot be convinced that our country will not be worse off for your decision.
Posted by: steve on June 8, 2012 08:34 AMYou state he flip flops on the constitition but do not provide an example. Even his critics do not deny he supports the constitution more than any other in DC.
You can say that people that do not support Romney are really supporting Obama. But you better say it really loud because there are an equal number of people saying that by not supporting obama they are really supporting Romney. Perhaps the truth is that people that are not supporting either of those candidates are not really supporting either of those candidates.
You can also assert that Romney is the lesser of two evils. I assert that saying that is like sticking your head in the sand. The ONLY way Romney is better is if you judge him on some of his campaign promises and ignore others. But even then Obama is better than Romney if you judge him the same way. It all depends on what campaign promises you want to beleive. Realistically both are making promises that their past reveals they have no intention to keep. They are both 'evil'. Neither will move this country in the direction of freedom and neither should be supported.
Congress is a problem but the reason I am able to use them as judge of Pauls character is that they support what I say even though it does not help their cause. They oppose Paul yet still admit he is an honorable man, a person who will not waiver from the constitution even when unpopular, and is for smaller government then they. Whether I trust someone or not, why would they say things if not true?
If you truly want to 'respect my right to vote for Paul' you would not say that i am voting for Obama. I despise Obama which is why I am not voting for him. And in fact because I despise his policies so much, I can not support others that support those policies as well (like Romney).
Posted by: Lysander on June 8, 2012 11:45 AMIf we had a three party system, maybe I'd feel different, but we don't.
If neither parties candidates were incumbent, I'd feel possibly different, but they aren't.
We have THE single most destructive President in the history of the United States running as an incumbent against a viable opposer, who polls indicate has a solid chance of un-seating the incumbent.
Not that I'm a fan of pollsters, but they do have their place. NOT ONE POLL in America, makes any assertion that Ron Paul is even remotely electable, period.
That equates to idealistically throwing your vote away, to me, if you follow through and vote for him.
If you truly hate Obama as much as you say, then you will recognize that of course, the opposition desires to downplay just how significant and intrinsically necessary Ron Paul is, in getting Obama re-elected. Nothing is more important to their side.
If you hate America, as I have come to believe our current president does, then the more people you can count on to vote against his opposer, the more comfortable you feel in your re-election bid. If I were Obama, I'd be slipping Ron Paul some of that lost TARP money, under the fence to continue his campaign...
I'm sorry we aren't going to resolve this issue and no dis-respect is intended personally, but losing votes, to a non-viable candidate in a close, but winnable and clearly pivotal election, isn't going to support making the changes that America needs to make.
The one thing I know about Mitt as a business owner and business man, is that he knows that we have to GROW out of this mess. We certainly have to reduce our spending, but our economy has to be in growth mode. That happens when entrepreneurs like me, are filled with confidence that Government is not attempting to either bleed us dry, or put us out of business.
Mitt gets that. Ron Paul doesn't have a clue about the economy or what truly drives the private captialist market. His talking points are worn thin and he doesn't have a plan.
Have a great weekend, I've enjoyed the debate, but we are at an impasse and I'll refrain from further commentary, you may feel free to have the last word, though I truly hope you re-consider the value of your vote in time for November, for the benefit of our country.
Respectfully,
Steve.
Posted by: steve on June 8, 2012 12:18 PMI suggest you take a closer look at Paul and his ideas so that next time we have a candidate as good as him in the running you do not dismiss him so easily as you have Paul.
Posted by: Lysander on June 8, 2012 12:52 PM