Tag: Mitt Romney
If you opted NOT to vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 because he’s Mormon, or was too “moderate” as the governor of Massachusetts, I want to ask you if you are now prepared to set aside your prejudices and unite with various factions of the Republican Party in order to win the White House in 2016?
They had the impulse to confiscate the woman’s expensive ointment to do that which they thought would be for the greater good. They, like so many well-intentioned people, wanted to take something that didn’t belong to them and redistribute it for their ends.
“Even this nation will be on the verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the Constitution is on the brink of ruin this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.”
There is a dangerous myth circulating around the Net that Mitt Romney lost because he was not “conservative enough”, that millions of Republican voters supposedly stayed home on Election Day, and that the way to win future elections is to nominate “the most conservative candidate”. Any GOP problems with women, youngsters, and minorities are being explained away by claiming that “better communication of conservative principles” will solve everything.
But all of these claims are wrong. In this article, I will show you why Mitt Romney really lost the election, and how Republicans can win future elections.
One of the most endearing parallels between Romney and Reagan are their beautiful marriages. Ronnie and Nancy were forever sweethearts. Like them, Mitt and Ann would be content in a cabin in Wyoming in the dead of winter with a fire and a freezer full of moose enchiladas if they could spend that time together. Theirs is exemplary love, the American model of old-fashioned courtship and marriage. That quality alone is the solution to many of our social and economic ills if more people would adopt it into their lives and value it the way the Reagans and the Romneys do.
Furthermore, under Obama’s own plans, even if sequestration does not proceed, the USN’s cruiser, destroyer, and submarine fleets will decline precipitously below today’s already-inadequate levels, as documented by Ronald O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service. Moreover, comparing ships to “bayonets and horses” and thus implying that warships are relics of the past is not just wrong, it’s demeaning for the Navy. So Mitt Romney is right: the Navy DOES need a lot more ships than it has today.
A President Romney would not appease Putinist Russia, sign unequal treaties obligating only the US to cut its nuclear deterrent, give up missile defense deployment plans for no Russian reciprocation, stand silent about Putin’s human rights violations and intimidation of Russia’s Central European neighbors like Poland, or about Russia’s repeated usage of natural gas as a weapon of intimidation.
The most formidable American revolutionaries are armed with resolve, and a love for freedom, and yes, a love for people. Let’s look at the psycho/social characteristics of the most effective fighters in the New Revolution. (Unlike those on the Left–Occupy Wall Street–they are not prone to unnecessary violence or destructive acts.)