People are constantly faced with choices in their lives. At times the choice which appears to be the correct one to make may in the long run reveal itself as not that good of a decision and the same is true vice versa. This is especially so when faced with the choice of whom to support amongst several candidates during a primary. Although some folks have become discouraged over the years when the choice they’ve selected turned out to not be as originally envisioned, it’s important to continue making decisions and choosing the candidate which appears best at the time. At other times, one choice is obviously negative and although the other option may not be perfect, it is definitely the better of the two - as explained all the way below.
Since no-one is perfect and it is impossible to agree with one’s candidate/supported official 100% of the time, even when making a correct choice it is often accompanied with many gray areas which at times overshadow the white. Prior to the 2010 elections Arlen Specter, Republican Senator of purple-blue Pennsylvania was approaching a reelection and wavered on a decision before ultimately shocking and angering Republicans when he cast his vote in favor of Obama’s stimulus plan. This was the first time he sided with the Democrats on a major bill and his action resulted in conservatives and Tea Partiers to declare war on Specter at every cost. Their mission appeared noble and correct, and Pat Toomey is now the Republican Senator of Pennsylvania after barely winning the general election with a single point in the 2010 mid-term elections; a year in which Republicans swept victories across the country. He is surely a better representative of conservative values in the Senate than Specter had been.
However, the price tag it had cost for conservatives to place Toomey in the Senate had turned out be unexpectedly sky-rocketing expensive and resulted in many to question whether the goal was worth the consequences. When Specter saw he would be unable to win the Republican Primary, he made a mad dash to save his seat, switched parties, and provided the Democrats with the 60th vote which led to the passage of their infamous Obamacare. Thus, although we now have a solid conservative in the Senate who replaced a RINO (not an outright liberal) we are now weighed down with Obamacare which threatens to overtake a sixth of the private sector and is currently awaiting judgment on its constitutionality by the Supreme Court Justices.
Incidentally, two of our current conservative Supreme Court Justices, Roberts and Alito, are currently on the bench thanks to Specter, after Senator Santorum had made the choice to support Specter for reelection in ’04 when he was challenged in a primary by Pat Toomey. At the time, Senator Santorum was faced with the difficult choice whether he should support the incumbent Senator Specter and his senior colleague who although was a less conservative choice than Toomey, was far more probable to be successful in keeping the seat red during an election where the balance on Senate was up in the air and anti-Republican emotions were thick. This surmise turned out pretty accurate since Toomey barely managed to eke out a 1% victory in 2010 when the public was outraged at Obamacare and looked favorably upon the Tea Party candidates.
Maintaining the Republican control of the Senate was by far not the only factor which Santorum focused on when making his decision. He was also strongly aware that Bush would be nominating at least two and possibly three justices for the Supreme Court and that Specter who headed the judiciary committee would be extremely influential whether Bush’s proponents would ultimately be approved by the Senate. Santorum therefore opted to support Specter after receiving his word that he would support the conservative candidates for the Supreme Court which Bush would propose, something which will influence U.S. history for years to come as is visible now with the Obamacare hearings.
Santorum’s support of Specter indeed resulted in two strong conservatives on the bench, although it may have likely cost him the nomination in the current GOP presidential primary. In addition to having been hammered for supporting Specter in’04 for actions taken years later and were impossible to foretell six years earlier, his act resulted in Specter’s former opponent and the current Conservative Senator of Pennsylvania and Santorum’s home-state, Pat Toomey, to act favorably towards Santorum’s opponent – the author of Romneycare. In fact, immediately after Santorum announced he was suspending his campaign yesterday, Toomey released an official endorsement endorsing Romney, causing many to speculate whether the endorsement would occur regardless prior to Pennsylvania’s primary and whether it was one of the causes which led to the Santorum campaign suspension.
The above two examples clearly illustrate how when one makes a choice which appears to be good, it isn’t necessarily all good as is later revealed. It shouldn’t however leave us disheartened for ultimately many good also emerged from those choices. Additionally, many decisions are pretty clear-cut where one option is definitely bad. Even if the other one doesn’t necessarily turn out to be all that good, we still know it is better than the alternative.
Supporting a candidate doesn’t necessarily mean that one agrees with all they’ve done or stand for, although a candidate usually will have some supporters who do identify with them to an extreme. Many supporters of a specific candidate usually support the candidate because they identify with them on a single issue while many others don’t even have that. They simply support a certain candidate because he’s the better choice than the alternative. This was visible numerous times amongst this primary and is very typical. After Palin chose not to run, a majority of her supporter split between Cain and Newt. After Bachmann, Cain, and Perry exited the race, their supporters too turned to find a second or third ro fourth choice amongst the remaining candidates. This led to the momentum to shift from Perry to Cain to Newt to Santorum as voters were forced to reevaluate the field once it was clear the person they supported wasn’t running at all or any longer. I too have first supported Palin, and when she announced she wasn’t running though long and hard until turning to support Santorum approximately a month prior to the Iowa caucuses.
With Santorum now having suspended his campaign, the primary is sort of wrapped up despite the many voters including myself who haven’t yet received the opportunity to cast their ballots. Unlike the primary where the choices were plentiful - at least at the start, the general will boil down to two choices; four more years for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Obama has already been in office long enough for everyone with an open mind to recognize the damage he’s wrought upon this country. Obama is clearly not only the bad choice but an utter disaster for this country. Any alternative will be far better and less to the left than the Marxist Obama.
Romney’s Attorney General will not be someone like Eric Holder who looks the other way when the Black Panther sets a price-tag of a million dollars on Zimmerman’s head and refuses to take responsibility or even answer basic questions regarding Fast & Furious. Nor will Romney chose the dopey Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, the unqualified leftist Janet Napolitano as his Secretary of Homeland Security, and so on and so forth.
The choice now has boiled down between two people; Obama and Romney and it is time to unite under the better of the two – Mitt Romney. There are many who have announced that they refuse to vote for Romney and are planning to sit out the 2012 election, all the while talking of setting him up with a conservative in 2016. It is okay to talk of 2016, but only after the 2012 elections have taken place and giving Romney a chance at the presidency, if he reaches it. He may or may not make a good president but he’s not a definite Obama, and if conservatives will dislike him so greatly we can challenge him in 2016 just as we would put out a conservative against Obama.
We conservatives have proven our power the last couple of years by successfully challenging lots of incumbents in primaries and Romney is aware of it.. He won’t want to face a primary from his own party and will probably go along with whatever conservatives in Congress present him. Obama, on the other hand, is aware it’ll be his last term and will have no need to appease to any voters except for his leftist base who will replace Karl Marx with Barack Obama. If we thought he was radical in his first term, a second Obama term will be so much more disastrous it defies description. I plead with you fellow conservatives, w can look ahead to the future but at the same time we MUST REMEMBER THE HERE AND NOW AND MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR 2012. WE MUST SAY NO TO OBAMA AND THUS SAY YES TO MITT ROMNEY.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Last week Wednesday - the day he received Jeb Bush’s endorsement - Mitt Romney had said the following:
"I keep hearing the president say he's responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression," Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. "No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson."
Nice to hear Romney give credit to Bush, however, he’s said the contrary only a short while after Obama became president and was extremely popular across a majority of the electorate. In remarks Romney made at the National Republican Senatorial Committee Spring Dinner on 03/31/09 he said the following:
“But I also think it is important for us to nod with the President when he’s right. He will not always be wrong. And he’s done some things that I agree with…. I think it’s a good thing for him to protect our financial system. It took Secretary Geithner a long, long time to figure how he was going to do that, and actually he has zeroed in on the bank rescue plan.”
Admittedly, majority of his speech was “severely conservative” since he was addressing a conservative audience. We know, however, that Mitt can talk conservative talk in the morning and switch to a liberal message several hours later.
Coincidentally, the above comments came on Etch-A-Sketch Day, further highlighting the only consistent thing about Mitt Romney; his inconsistency.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Critics of Senator Santorum’s Economic Plan are entitled to their Own Opinions but not their Own Facts
A considerable number of conservatives have expressed criticism at Rick Santorum’s manufacturing plan. Incidentally, many of them have a horse in the race – someone other than Santorum - and that’s pretty understandable and perfectly fine. It’s still a free country where people may publicly disagree with the president and anyone else they so much as desire. When taking someone’s plan to task, though, it would be most beneficial to be factual especially if attempting to promote a rival candidate. If one’s disagreement is full of falsehoods and non-factual information then not only won’t they be successful in convincing many that their argument is correct, they present themselves to the public as possibly uninformed and more likely to be purposely misleading.
For those unfamiliar with Santorum’s "Made in America" Plan it is one portion of his economic plan and is in itself a lengthy and detailed plan. The Plan includes but is not limited to pushing for a balanced budget amendment, removing unnecessary burdensome regulations, granting permission to increase of energy production, providing authorization for the Keystone Pipeline, simplifying the tax code, reducing taxes to the Reagan-era pro-growth top tax rate, and completely eliminating the corporate income tax for manufacturers from 35% to 0%. For the complete details please check out the link provided above.
It is the last item I’ve mentioned – the elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers - at which many have expressed their opposition and for a variety of reasons. I’ve decided to review the criticisms and then explain the facts surrounding this one aspect of Santorum’s economic plan, since lots of untruths are circulating.
A popular argument is the notion that Santorum is playing class warfare by favoring one group over the rest of the country. A second misconception which has circulated widely is that his plan favors big unions. A third criticism often put out is that the problem manufacturers face is not increased taxes but burdensome regulations and that Santorum’s plan doesn’t address it. A fourth claim is that this is a minor tinkering of the tax code which will result in nothing but increased taxes in another sector to make up for the loss in federal income.
All of these complaints appear quite serious, except that none of them are based on the facts.
Firstly, Santorum’s plan is unrelated to class warfare. Class warfare is pitting the poor against the rich, employees against employers, and so forth. Class warfare is usually achieved through placing a strong emphasis on the bounty others have and comparing it to the state of those who have less in order to create strong emotions of envy and unfairness in those with less. The politician then promises to punish those better off – such as taxing the rich guys – while extending help to the little guy via handouts aka tax-cuts/tax credits by spending other people’s money in order to “make things fair.”
Secondly, Santorum’s plan doesn’t turn employees against employers or anything of a similar nature. It simply eliminates the corporate income tax for manufacturers of all sizes and stripes as an incentive for manufacturing companies which have left the USA and gone to countries with fewer burdensome regulations and lower taxes to return to American shores. His plan will once again make the USA a country where it is financially worthwhile to manufacture goods rather than making them elsewhere and then having the goods shipped over. The elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers thus benefits the owners of manufacturing companies in order to benefit the overall economy of the US. The economy will receive a much-needed boost since the creation of many businesses will lead to the employment of millions who’ve previously watched their jobs be shipped overseas.
Santorum has put forward an actual plan (and not a twitter hash-tag like Newt’s 2.50) for a sector of the economy that’s crumbling and shrinking at a time when million are unemployed and many have despaired of finding a job. Santorum has also clearly explained why manufacturing requires additional reductions over local retailers and other companies who will also watch their taxes being cut. This is because your local pharmacy isn’t disappearing to China and neither will your grocer. It is manufacturing and jobs that are disappearing from this country and in order to be competitive with the rest of the world one has to look at the global rate and adjust accordingly.
This is the exactly what Obama and the left so strongly oppose; the trickle-down theory which keeps government out of the lives of the people.
Those who describe Santorum’s plan as pro-Union have portrayed his plan as though he were out to specifically favor union workers/bosses over the rest. This is completely untrue and those using this argument are either uninformed or purposefully misleading. The only method for unions to benefit from Santorum's plan is if they are successful in signing up more workers into their membership. This may occur since Santorum’s plan will lead to a greatly increased number of American workers, yet is far from guaranteed to happen since Santorum has also promised as a president to push for “right-to-work” on a national level.
Even if unions do increase their membership levels, then that in its own right will be proof of the success of Santorum’s plan. It will provide clear data that removing government from the picture has led to business owners hiring many workers, thus creating a considerable number of new jobs and new union members. This may indirectly lead to benefit unions but so be it if that’s one of the results of an improved economy and millions of new jobs. Unlike Democrats who only seek to benefit specific voting blocs and political donors, Santorum is out to create equal opportunity for all Americans.
Manufacturing currently costs over twenty percent higher in the USA than in other countries excluding labor costs because of regulations and taxes. This has caused and continues to cause many manufacturers to flee the country. Those who attack Rick’s plan to eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers as a worthless solution while explaining that the key to increasing manufacturing is cutting regulation, have proven that they are unable to walk and talk simultaneously. The argument displays their ignorance and lack of research in a day and age when information is available at one’s fingertips. Or worse yet, some are attempting to purposely omit Santorum’s heavy focus on regulation, somehow thinking that if they ignore it then it doesn’t exist.
For the sake of those truly uninformed, here’s a link to a video in which Rick Santorum speaks to voters in which he labeled the removal of all unnecessary regulations as Step Number One and only then continued to Step Number Two which is the reduction of the manufacturing tax to zero.
Additionally, Santorum is the only GOP candidate to have opposed from the start the burdensome regulations the government enforced on the people based on the bogus global warming facts. His support for increased energy production through additional drilling, nuclear energy plants, and all other forms of safe energy had never wavered. Newt and Romney, though, supported government regulation - as recently and to the far extreme as having supported Obama’s Cap & Trade.
As for the last misinformed case against Santorum’s plan, his Made in America plan does indeed eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers. In today’s topsy-turvy world where Obama “cut taxes” for people who pay no taxes, cutting taxes is seen as the government sending (back) a check to people/companies and thus thought of as a federal expense. This is not the case here and whenever true tax cuts occur. Tax cuts aren’t refunds. They simply allow the company to keep more/all of the money which they’ve earned. As for the government making up the money they’ve received until now through the raising of taxes of other groups, Santorum’s plan includes tax cuts for ALL as can be viewed here. He thus won’t raise the taxes of another group because he’s cutting everyone’s taxes.
The question of how the government will manage with fewer taxes is null and for two reasons: Firstly, lower taxes leads to increased government revenue since it jumpstarts the economy. Even though manufacturers will pay zero % on corporate income tax, the tremendous growth of newly employed people who will pay the new lowered rate of taxes, will lead to considerable federal income.
Secondly, and equally importantly, a large focus of Santorum’s economic plan is to cut government spending with five trillion in the next five years thus reducing the amount the government will require to operate. Santorum plans to shrink continuously the size of government while working with all states to accept a Balanced Budget Amendment. Newt supporters who use this argument of “how will the government manage with reduced funding” when discussing Santorum’s plan is pretty ironic when considering their applause for Newt for similarly saying that he’ll cut taxes and reduce government expenses to match the money that comes in.
Santorum has had the guts in the past to create actual reform – he had written the successful welfare reform – and continues to present actual details in the actions he will take. He doesn’t just throw platitudes and empty promises, but addresses all the issues facing this nation including but not limited to the economy. Santorum focuses on the importance of energy Independence, the need to bring jobs back to America, and so much more including the freedom –grabbing Obamacare. The success of his campaign therefore isn’t hinged solely on the price of gasoline as Newt’s is, or the unemployment levels, as Romney’s is. He can successfully battle Obama on every topic since he’s the only one who provides the contrast to Obama we so desperately need.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Santorum has put forward an economic plan, a path to increase our energy, and his views on foreign policy. There’s one plan which he hasn’t put forward, as the others have, and I commend him for that. It’s the type of plan he had fought against in blue Pennsylvania both as a Senator and as a congressman. That plan consists of sweeping moral values under the carpet because it’s not too popular especially amongst the youth and thereby bidding goodbye to a normal society.
Santorum had been extremely outspoken on the conservative view of social issues during his representation of the state of Pennsylvania, he did not lose his seat because of social issues. He lost his reelection run for the Senate – after winning twice – because of his strong support for Bush on the Iraqi Surge and his calls for serious sanctions on Iran before they become nuclear. The Democrat Party pounced upon the vehement anti-war and anti-Bush emotions at the time and spent millions upon millions in ads against Santorum depicting him as a lover of war and warmonger. Indeed, many Republicans had lost their seats that year, including Rick Santorum who represented a purple/blue state. As an aside, since his warnings about Iran had gone largely unheeded, Iran is now mere months away from amassing nuclear arms and the world is currently deep in debate whether or not to bomb Iran.
Many conservatives are concerned that if one speaks in defense of moral values than it is impossible to win. This is inherently false. Firstly, speaking of social issues doesn’t mean the candidate ignores all other issues. Santorum has a great economic proposal, discusses it far more often than he does of social issues, and released a powerful video last week in which he makes the speaks directly to the voters explaining why they should support him for economic reasons.
Secondly, many are making the argument that Gingrich is every bit a social conservative as the former senator from Pennsylvania and that they therefore both carry “the same historical advantage “social conservatives have proven to have. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with Newt. Newt Gingrich had melted the phone-lines of Republican candidates in 2010 warning them to not dare mention they support a single conservative social issue. This is in exclusion of Newt’s past lack of values and morality in his personal life and his fuzzy political record regarding social issues. Keep in mind as well that Newt served as a representative of a conservative district within a conservative state while Rick Santorum represented a blue state.
Newt’s advice and position on social conservatism has thus placed him at a historical disadvantage as explained by Jeff Bell in the link provided above. Bell proves that including social issues in one’s campaign agenda has proven throughout the last hundred years of American history to serve as an advantage to Republican presidential and congressional candidates. From 1932-1964 social topics were off the table, and Republicans won only 2 out of 9 presidential elections and had control of Congress for only four years. Comparatively, from 1968 when social conservatism became alive again, Republicans won 7 out of 11 presidential elections. Far more states support social conservatism than states that don’t. Read the entire article for additional surprising information.
The left and media desire to silence the conservative voice on social issues and have therefore resorted to the use of force against morality. They’ve passed hate-crime legislation so they can threaten conservatives who dare to speak out against immorality and have turned to courts and legislation to redefine marriage. They’ve thus forced through the legalization of gay marriage even in states where the people have voted against it, thus proving they don’t care what the people truly desire. They are now attempting to make contraception the new civil-liberty rights as though women are unable to purchase it on their own and are helpless if their employers don’t cover for their irresponsible and/or immoral behavior.
Santorum had said he wanted to throw up when listening to Kennedy’s phony separation of church and state speech in which Kennedy misinterpreted the true intentions of the founding fathers. Indeed, thanks to Kennedy’s revised definition, the liberals have been able to force their ideology upon the American people such as banning all religion from all public arenas including the mention of G-d’s name in public schools.
Lastly, If the last hundred years of history in is country is not enough to sway your belief that social issues are a detriment, or you dismiss it as merely coincidental, here’s proof from the last couple of years. Think of liberal California which is the bastion of liberalism. Despite their liberalism, the people of California have spoken out against their legislators and supported proposition eight which overturned the legislation which legalized gay marriage.
Here’s an even more recent example and one which I’ve experienced from up-close.
I am an Orthodox Jew from Brooklyn and live near NY9 of which the disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner was forced to resign. Both parties chose candidate to represent them in a district where the GOP hadn’t won a nomination in close to hundred years and was sure to lose once again. If this was the case when they put forth polished politicians, then it was certainly a given if an unknown candidate without any charisma, money, or political experience were to compete. Yet, this is exactly the type of guy the GOP had put forth for they had no-one else willing to run; a non-politician with limited money, no professional smile, and absolutely zero experience in running a campaign.
The Donkey Party, on the other hand, handpicked an Assemblyman who was an experienced fundraiser, had many political connections, and loaded with charisma. To top it off, the Democratic candidate was a Jew and NY9 is a district where 33% of its voters are Jewish. It was thus clear to all from the start that Weprin, the Democrat candidate, was heading to a landslide victory.
However, one seemingly minor item went unnoticed to the Democrat party heads in their nomination of their candidate. They were surely aware of it, but didn’t dream of the effect it would have on the voters. Weprin, the Democrat candidate, had voted several months earlier to legalize gay-marriage in New York. Prior to the vote in the Assembly, Weprin had stood up and addressed the Assembly. He said that he asked his Rabbi if he would officiate a wedding between a Jew and a gentile, to which his Rabbi replied, “Absolutely Not.” Weprin then used this to “prove” that just as no law would enforce his or any religious leader to do the above until now, the current law won’t mandate any religious leaders to act against their belief. Weprin finished off in expressing pride on his vote for this “civil rights” bill and encouraged others to throw their support behind it as well.
Listen closely, my fellow conservatives. The election between Turner and Weprin took place last year. It came on the heels of the success of the Tea Party in 2010 which was instrumental in obtaining many seats in Congress through the focus on the economy and Obamacare. The Republican candidate in NY9, Bob Turner, could’ve chosen to focus on the economy –as was actually expected of him. Instead he chose to also spend considerable focus on something Gingrich said we dare not touch in 2010 especially in non-conservative districts; social issues. And as is now known to all, Bob Turner is currently the Congressman for NY9 and is actually gearing up to run for the Senate since his seat is disappearing due to redistricting.
Social issues have proven time and again to help conservative candidates, not the other way around despite the media attempts to spin it as such. And to repeat once again, supporting moral values is NOT a contradiction to being a fiscal conservative, correct on foreign affairs and many other issues.
In addition to social issues, Santorum shared the conservative viewpoint in his opposition against amnesty, TARP, government mandates, government take-overs, and phony global warming-turned-climate change to name a few. Although Newt now speaks the conservative talk, his record shows he’s walked the liberal walk in all of the above.
G-d desires morality. No religion in the world’s history except the liberal religion has proclaimed that marriage is anything else but between a man and woman/women. Thanks to liberalism many school children are now taught against their parents’ will that same-gender marriage is equal to traditional marriage!!
Why would someone who believes in a G-d who runs every aspect in the world want to throw morality under the bus simply because it has become unpopular amongst some? Why wouldn’t you stand up and support a candidate who respects morality and isn’t afraid to defend G-d’s will in public? All we need is the courage to stand up for what’s right and you’ll be pleasantly surprised that a majority of the country still respects a moral society.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
It is truly difficult to write an article which combines “Mitt Romney” with “phony,” “flip flopper,” or some similar terminology, not because it’s a complex point to prove, but the contrary. There are so many examples that it’s impossible to be all inclusive in a single article. Even a quick review of each topic and all his false or contradictory statements results in a list so overwhelmingly powerful, it is best compared to a gushing waterfall which storms day in and out without an end.
Indeed, many journalists and bloggers who have spent months attempting to cover a complete list of two-faced behavior have come to the conclusion that it’s a job that will always remain unfinished for the list is ever-growing. I’ve therefore opted to zero in on a few specific recent examples which were extra-outrageous, mind-boggling, and simply breathtaking in their audacity.
Let’s begin with one of Romney’s purposefully phony behavior which requires almost no additional explanation once presented with the facts.
The Romney campaign has repeatedly stressed that Romney is the only DC outsider in this race and that Romney's firmly opposed to earmarks. His campaign has played this game while simultaneously slamming Santorum (& Newt) as Washington insiders who fought for earmarks. A seemingly unrelated and separate focal point of the Romney campaign is Romney’s having led the Olympics in ’02 out of the red straight to success. They fail to mention that the true saviors were the taxpayers since Romney didn’t balance the budget; he simply used his inside connections with Washington to procure 1.3 billion dollars in federal bailout money.
These two campaign strategies are thus extremely contradictory and it seems the Romney team simply hopes the voters don’t make the connection between Romney’s cries against earmarks and his boasts that he arranged billions for the Olympics despite them often taking place mere minutes apart. It surely seemed quite successful since despite his team reiterating this contradictory message repeatedly throughout the primary, no one in the media has thought it to be necessary to take his bluff to task.
During the Arizona debate last month, Mitt Romney played the game once again and accused Santorum for having “fought” for “The Bridge to Nowhere” thereby suggesting Santorum was someone who was desperate to waste taxpayer money on unworthy projects. The obvious question - why on earth would Santorum have fought for a bridge in Alaska, a state far removed from his own – remained unasked.
The truth, of course, is that Rick didn’t fight for it. Like many earmarks, it was an unwanted expense attached to an important piece of legislature which included defense funding. Santorum supported the actual piece of legislature which consisted of lots of important allocations and the earmark was a minor flaw which unfortunately came along with the bill. This is a far cry from Romney’s accusation that pretended Santorum invested energy specifically to arrange funds for “The Bridge to Nowhere” the way Romney did for the Olympics.
Unlike Romney and his phony two-faced behavior, Santorum readily admits to having supported many earmarks in the past, including Romney’s Olympics earmark and his honest and straightforward explanation serves a foil for Romney’s hypocrisy.
Santorum’s reply to Romney at the Arizona debate - why he pretends to be anti-earmarks if he too loved earmarks and continues to boast of his success in obtaining them –highlighted the stark difference between the two. Santorum is extremely honest and speaks openly of past mistakes. Romney, on the other hand, refuses to be up-front with the people and admit that he often asked for his buddies in Washington to bail him out including during the Olympics and Romneycare, and is the extreme opposite of honesty.
The obvious contradiction Santorum had pointed out - that Romney loved earmarks but only those of which he personally benefitted from - hasn’t caused Romney to stumble. Instead, he attacked Santorum and anyone who came to Rick’s defense as whiners since according to Romney’s standards a whiner is someone who dares to expose any of untruths as being such.
Additionally, Romney contradicts himself so often, he hadn’t even realize that his argument during the Arizona debate that Santorum was “busy” with the “Bridge to Nowhere” while he was fighting for the Olympics earmarks was a direct contradiction to his claim that he’s a Washington outsider and staunch opponent of all earmarks period! Perhaps he had realized but thinks that we the people are too stupid to remember what he said just a few moments earlier. That would explain the millions of dollars in ads his campaign had spent to criticize his opponents on their support for earmarks earmarks while simultaneously running additional millions of dollars in separate ads in which they boasted of Romney’s role during the Olympics which amounted to amassing lots of earmarks.
As an aside, if we’re on the topic of earmarks, Mark Levin has put the on the McCain/Romney earmark nonsense. Levin had said (and I like most conservatives whole-heartedly agree): “I would rather take One Hundred “Bridges to Nowhere” then the power-grabbing Romneycare/Obamacare. I would rather take One Hundred “Bridges to Nowhere” then the power-grabbing TARP bailout which was many thousands of times the cost of the “Bridge to Nowhere” and which Mitt Romney has supported and fought for. I’d rather take One Hundred “Bridges to Nowhere” then the power grabbing and several hundred times the cost “Cap and Trade Bill” which Mitt Romney has supported and fought for. For when one looks at the important issues Romney stood on the wrong side of each and every one of them while Santorum supported the conservative view.
It is also noteworthy to mention that most of the earmarks Santorum had proposed weren’t earmarks to benefit him or his buddies, but for the good of the country. They had consisted of national security projects which the left refused to pass, thus leaving the conservatives with no other option but to smuggle them into bills in the form of earmarks. Thanks to Santorum and other conservatives, the Pentagon was able to receive funding for stealth jets and other important weapons.
Romney’s repeated despicable behavior has dulled many when they hear of yet another Romneyism. It is important though to keep spreading the word since a majority of the voters are oblivious to the true facts. This brings me to Romney’s falsehoods regarding Romneycare/Obamacare.
Romney had come prepared with another great-sounding albeit false line to the Arizona debate, ready to fire to at any attacks that Romneycare had been the blueprint of Obamacare. When Santorum pressed Mr. RomneyCare how he’ll be able to take on Obama on one of the most important issues in this election, Romney dumped the entire blame of his and Obama’s actions in saying that if Santorum wouldn’t have endorsed Arlen Specter in ’04 then ObamaCare wouldn’t have passed.
The falsehood of this Romney statement is mind-boggling on many levels. Firstly, if Santorum was supposed to foretell that two years later Romney would create Romneycare and that the future President Obama would use it as a blueprint to create Obamacare another couple of years down the road, and Specter would be the 60th vote in favor of Obamacare, why hadn’t Romney – the then-moderate Governor from Massachusetts – run to save the country through endorsing Toomey?
Secondly, even if Toomey would’ve beaten Specter in the primary, how can Romney now be so sure he would’ve won the general election in the year of 2004 - when anti-Republican emotions were extremely high - if he barely eked out a victory in ‘2010 - the year of the Tea Party revolution? Thirdly, if Toomey would’ve been the Republican nominee and then lost the general (as would’ve probably been the case in blue PA back in’04) then Romney’s statement that Santorum’s endorsement of Specter having provided the 60th vote is utterly false. Obamacare would’ve passed with a Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania, and in addition to Obamacare we would have also lost two staunchly conservative judges which had been appointed to the Supreme Court under Specter’s chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.
Romney has also reiterated at every campaign stop & debate that he supported Romneycare and mandates only on a state-level because of the tenth amendment and expresses his firm opposition to Obamacare which is on a federal-level. He conveniently ignores the many videos floating around internet & the op-eds he’d written where he urged Obama to adopt the individual mandates Romneycare had imposed on the citizens of Massachusetts and enforce them onto the entire nation.
Romney’s cheap blame tactics in saying Santorum carries more guilt for Obamacare than he does is so utterly ludicrous and Drew on Drew Musings has done a great job taking Romney’s nonsensical blame game a step further, thus highlighting the utter foolishness of his claim. Here’s an excerpt of his article written after the Arizona debate where he rightly compared Romney to an internet troll:
Wait, what? How about we blame Specter’s parents. I mean, if they hadn’t had him, he wouldn’t have grown up to be a lousy Senator.Drew also took Romney to task in the same article over several other lies during the Arizona debate including Mitt’s phony claim that he was tough on illegal immigration.
I disagreed with Santorum and George W. Bush’s support for Arlen Specter but this is ridiculous. No one had any clue who Barack Obama was in 2004, let alone he’d win the presidency someday and 6 years later Specter would change parties and vote for a specific bill.
And if we’re going “there” let’s remember Romney endorsed and was endorsed by a very, very liberal Democrat. Oh and take a look at who has endorsed Romney.
Romney once again claimed last night that he “enabled our state police to enforce illegal immigration laws”. This is misleading at best, a lie at worst. But Mitt, like a troll simply makes assertions without any regard for the truth. They both hope you are simply too stupid to catch them.Fortunately, the voters in Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi have proven this week to possess more brains that Romney would’ve cared for them to have.
Romney has also presented a tough facade during the debates in regard to foreign policy and the dangers of a nuclear Iran. As Mark Stein has discovered though, this too is a phony front for in 2009 Mitt sang an entirely different song regarding the dangers of the Islamic radicals. Here’s an excerpt of Stein’s article:
Speaking of persecuting Christians, Andy McCarthy, Nina Shea and Conrad Black were shooting the breeze on Islam and “co-existence” in these parts yesterday. By chance, I happened to come across Mitt Romney’s analysis of the global scene in 2009:Uh, really now. Anyone who still believes jihad and Islam are two entirely separate entities can join Gingrich on his lunar colony.
I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it’s quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world’s great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future. There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism… It’s by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.
Although as mentioned earlier there is no issue in this campaign that Mitt had touched which he hadn’t turned into a bloated lie and it’s therefore impossible to cover it all in one article, here are a few more quick examples which highlight the phony behavior of Romney.
One tiny aspect of the monstrous horrific Obamacare has been discovered to force religious institutions to provide contraception to their employees even though this directly contradicts with many religious beliefs. Although Romney claimed that he opposed the part of Romneycare which similarly forced religious institutions in Massachusetts to provide contraception contrary to their religious beliefs, the facts have shown that Romney had made a turn-about and had indeed supported the unconstitutional act.
Although some attempt to portray his outrageous behavior as a minor issue affecting only religious institutions, it is extremely significant since it limits the people’s rights to liberty which are protected by the constitution yet trampled on with this government bill.
We’ve touched government intervention economically as in bailouts, attempted cover-up of ignorance in foreign affairs, and also the disruption of personal liberties such as imposing health care mandates and forcing religious institutions to violate their beliefs. Socially, too, Romney attempts to turn the tables against the facts.
Santorum is known by all as a staunch social conservative. One of his landmark legislative achievements had been his successful leadership role in stopping federal funds to pay for partial-birth abortion. Romney, on the other hand, has claimed to be pro-abortion/life/choice etc. depending on the moment, although his political and personal record is quite the opposite of pro-life.
Santorum pointed out during the debate that his GPA according to NTU’s ratings was fifth out of 50 senators, and that the four Senators who ranked higher than him all came from strongly conservative States while he represented the blue state of Pennsylvania. Since the Romney campaign’s specialty is taking the facts and twisting them upside-down, Romney quickly created a fact in order to out-speak Santorum. What did he come up with? He shot back that he was a proud pro-life governor of blue state of Massachusetts and then slammed Santorum as a supporter for Planned Parenthood for having voted for the fiscal budget under the GOP administrations which included funding for Planned Parenthood.
The level of chutzpah it takes for someone who signed a Planned Parenthood pledge as a candidate for Governor in Massachusetts where he agreed with a majority of their leftist pro-abortion policies to suggest that the Senator who put his entire career on the line in order to fight for the ban of funding for partial-birth abortion is impossible to match. It was self-understood that Santorum was unable to prevent the funding for Planned Parenthood to take place, that the funding for Planned Parenthood was a one-liner in an entire lengthy budget, and that a vote for the budget doesn’t imply he endorsed every individual expense.
Romney, on the other hand, had not only talked the talk in support of Planned Parenthood, but also walked the walk, and in many ways. Since expressing his public support as a Governor wasn’t enough, Mitt Romney wrote a check from his own personal pocket to help Planned Parenthood in their baby-killing mission. Romney, as mentioned previously, is the guy who forced religious institution to pay for contraception and included in his health care bill five billion dollars in tax exemptions for Planned Parenthood. For him to announce on a national stage with a straight face that he was a pro-life governor of blue Massachusetts simply shows how much he values honesty and being truthful to voters; zero.
The pro-Romney audience ignorantly (or pretending to be ignorant) heavily applauded Romney for his audacious remarks and neither Drudge, Hot Air, The Daily Caller, or any other large “conservative” media considered it necessary to write the truth about Romney anywhere on their sites! This is unfortunately not a one-time slip, but a majority of the Romney contradictions –both those mentioned and those omitted of this specific article – are nowhere to be found on media which are considered conservative (they are also absent of the MSM, but that’s self-understood).
One last point.
On stage during the Arizona debate were three candidates who supported NCLB; Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. The BuzzFeed had put up three separate videos of Romney expressing praise of No Child Left Behind . Yet, those who are ignorant of the facts were left with the impression at the Arizona that Mitt Romney opposed it from the start since he slammed Santorum for having supported it as though he himself hadn’t done the same.
Viewers were also left with the notion that Mitt Romney is a DC outsider despite that his entire 02 campaign for the governorship was based on touting his connections to DC and he that he’ll be able to squeeze out many federal grants. If he was “severely conservative” in MA as he proclaimed at CPAC this year, then why did he proclaim in his severely unsuccessful run to the senate that he was someone who’s to the left of Kennedy and why isn't he challenged about his previous statements?
This is so because the media has decided to give him a free pass so that they can unload on him during the general, while the Republican establishment has given him a free pass since he is their choice. He has thus remained largely unvetted and the average American has remained uninformed of the truth. Only those who’ve actively sought information have come across the truth. In a sense it would be simplest to always assume that the truth is the complete opposite of Romney’s campaign talk. Except that his talk, too, changes depending on the state or situation he’s in.
Since we already have a fake phony fraud in the White House and we don’t need another one in there, I support Rick Santorum who is strong and consistent in his position at all times. This article has taken me several days to write and it seemed quite unlikely Santorum would eke out even a single victory yesterday although we now know he won decisively in both Alabama and Mississippi. However, no matter if he’s momentarily up or down in this wild primary he remains my choice over the spineless liar from MA.
Monday, March 5, 2012
It is fascinating to watch more and more politicians come out and endorse Romney as his momentum builds and without a single exception they fail to include in their support for Romney the slightest mention of his governing record. They will tout his electability, organization, private business record, and so on, yet totally skip over his political experience despite it being the basis of his presidential run.
The presidential elections are about electing a future president; someone who will lead the country in the proper direction. Someone who will govern by putting the interest of the people before their own personal interests or the interests of their friends and donors. In observing and studying one's prior behavior as a politician, one can glimpse a very real image of how that individual would govern on a larger scale.
Mitt Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts is so awfully and horribly terrible even his most ardent supporters and endorsers refuse to touch it. In addition to having created his signature-stamp RomneyCare which forced individuals to either purchase health care or face a fine, he also forced religious institutions to provide contraception despite it being contrary to their beliefs! These are outright violations of the basic G-d given freedoms which the constitution demands the government provide protection for all people!
Romney also repeatedly raised taxes on hard-working already overtaxed MA residents, supported Planned Parenthood, and signed the legislature which changed the definition of marriage which had been around ever since mankind was created. He also failed to take any definitive action to crack down on the increasing number of illegals in his state, resulting in illegals having found employment in his very own home!
Although the Romney endorsers tout his business record as the symbol that a Romney presidency will create economic growth, the state of Massachusetts under Romney's leadership ranked 47th in job creation! This once again is proof that although Romney may have been successful in the business world – a world where one is supposed to put their own interests first – he was an absolute failure in the political world – a world where the interests of the people are supposed to be of first and foremost importance.
Mitt Romney's failure to distinct between the business world and the political world is precisely why he was a disaster of a Governor who didn't even bother running for reelection since his chances were nil. Instead of removing unnecessary burdens places on job creators and employees, Romney's entire focus consisted of creating additional connection to corrupted Washington officials so he could receive federal funding to provide payback for his cronies.
Let's not make the same mistake the people of Massachusetts have made in 2002! Say no to Romney – the Governor who did no good!
Sunday, March 4, 2012
If anyone has thought that Romney's 15 million dollars in negative ads per state, or better yet, that outspending his rivals 12 to 1 - on TV ads alone 6 to 1 – was his only venue in which he overwhelmingly focuses on negativity of others, then boy were you wrong.
Skimming through the twitter-lines of the majority of known reporters and media figures, one notices amongst the tweets of almost every single reporters' constant reports of the contents of yet another Romney email which they've received. It seems that their inboxes are spammed almost hourly with loads of pure trash against his rivals (excluding Paul of course.)
Does it stop here? Of course not! Negative ads and emails are only an indicator of the entire Romney campaign objective. Prior to the primaries/caucuses of each state, the Romney team arranges for the Romney surrogates in that state to record robo-calls, go on interviews, and call press-conferences with the media in which they spew vitriolic hatred filled with twisted facts against Mitt's opponents. It's actually pretty comical to watch at times, since the endless negatives only serve as a stark reminder that Romney has got absolutely zero positive incentives for why the American people should vote for him.
Never, not even once throughout this long and drawn-out primary season, has Mitt Romney shown any passion, enthusiasm , or excitement for even a single specific conservative idea or reform. The farthest he's gone in offering “specifics” regarding conservatism, was the mouthing of the usual and cheap talking-points such as that his administration will cut taxes and remove unnecessary regulation etc. Although it's a smart move from Romney since we all know what he sounds like when he goes into specifics – just think of RomneyCare – it once again highlights his incompatibility with the conservative candidate we so desire.
Does Romney not have even a single conservative idea he can discuss and promote? It sure doesn't seem like it. Furthermore, when pondering why this is so, the only answer is pretty depressing – since Romney wasn't, isn't, and probably won't ever be a conservative. This leads to an even greater question; what are conservatives to do if Romney wins the primary? In every single issue which we will want to criticize Obama, the Democrats will throw it right back into our faces for Romney had done/supported the same!
Since their truly is no answer to this question and many conservatives will indeed refuse to defend Romney, we must double our efforts in preventing Romney in becoming the nominee. It's time to put personal preferences and notions of the perfect candidate aside, for otherwise we will end up with the very worst. Second-best or third-best is still far far better than last or one-before-last. Instead of stamping one's feet in protest of the non-candidacy or weak-candidacy of one's desired candidate, one can and should take positive action to bolster the candidate who can possibly stop the Romney wreck in its tracks before it is indeed too late.
If we can put the important task of stopping Romney above all else than hopefully this will be the last of the many posts on the Internet about the importance of uniting in order to derail Romney, for we will be able to grin and high-five each other across our keyboards with victory in our possession. It may sound impossible or like a dream, but at this stage of the game it is definitely still possible and worth our while to invest energy and time for it may indeed still become a reality.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
A Call For Unity! Washington Caucus this Saturday is our last chance to slam Romney prior to Super-Tuesday!
Romney has received a boost last night after having won Arizona and his home-state Michigan and he appears to be heading into Super Tuesday which takes place next week with a renewed momentum.
There is though one more election prior to Super Tuesday - during which ten states vote. The state of Washington will be holding their caucuses this Saturday, March 3rd, and if Romney loses the state, his momentum won't have a chance to grow before being knocked off its feet.
Conservatives have been split from the start of the primary over who they desired as the GOP primary. Some supported Rick Perry, others supported Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or some other individual which chose not to run. Voting for any of the above except for Santorum or Newt might provide the voter with a momentary feeling of satisfaction. However, that satisfaction will be extremely fleeting if the candidate who is viewed by all as the most anti-conservative wins the voters home-state, and even more so if that victory consists of a small margin.
The only ones left in the race who can still overcome Romney during the primary itself, are Newt and Santorum. The majority of conservative voters are now split between the two with each of them taking turns in rising and falling only to rise once again. It is okay to disagree over which one of the two is better suited to take on Obama or for the role of the presidency and it is also perfectly fine to long for a candidate who is no longer/never had been in the race.
However, we've got to be realistic about the current situation and take positive action in the areas it can have an effect. An overwhelming majority of conservatives agree to the necessity of taking down Romney and it is still possible to achieve this goal.
In addition to his ultra-liberal record, endless flip-flops, and outright lies, his nasty and vicious bullying simply has got no room in our party. All of us, and especially Rick Perry supporters, haven't forgotten Romney attacking and trashing Perry for speaking the truth about social security by calling it exactly that which it is; a Ponzi scheme. Neither have any of us forgotten, most of all of course if you supported Herman Cain, of the sudden mysterious women popping up one after another with harassment claims against the then-front runner Cain.
These are two quick examples from the start of the campaign which have become somewhat covered up in our memories due to the dozens of additional bully tactics the Romney team has engaged in against Newt and Santorum.
The most recent poll taken of the state in Washington was taken by PPP Polling during 2/16-2/19 - prior to the elections in Arizona and Michigan. The poll results had Santorum leading Romney with 11% with Santorum having received the support of 38% while Romney received 27% and Newt got 12% of those polled. Romney's numbers have likely improved somewhat since he's won two states this Tuesday and it's crucial to prevent him from winning this one last state before Super Tuesday.
If conservatives will put their differences aside for just this one day and State and unite behind Santorum so that the results of the Washington caucuses this Saturday are "a Romney Defeat," it will send an extremely powerful message to the GOP establishment. It will show them that we are serious in wanting our voice and message represented and that if they wish to force a liberal RINO upon us they will be forced to sabotage the conservative candidate by spending an average of 15 million dollars in every single one of the 50 states (39 to go)! Even after pouring all that money into negative attack ads and phony oppo research, they are far from guaranteed that they'll be able to secure enough delegates - and the nomination - for their candidate Romney, as we've seen in South Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota.
I therefore plead of all of you, fellow conservatives, to do all that is in within your power to ensure a Romney defeat this Saturday. Please contact all your friends, family, and acquaintances in the state of Washington using twitter, email, Facebook, and good old-fashioned phone calls and ask them to vote for Santorum in order to stop Romney's momentum prior to Super Tuesday. Tell them that conservatives across the entire nation have their eyes turned upon them and are counting on them to provide Romney with the shellacking that he deserves. The voters of Washington may be the ones who will ultimately be credited in the crushing of the establishment and the return of the party to the hands of the people.
United in one purpose we greatly outnumber the establishment. We can do it and we gotta do it. Vote for Santorum in Washington and send the GOP establishment and Romney team a powerful punch which they'll never forget!
Can Romney Really Gloat over his 3.2% Victory in his Home-State? Imagine Obama winning Illinois with a Similar Margin!
Under the Obama-nation we currently reside in, one often hears the following question being asked; do you feel we are better off now that Obama has increased our debt by an additional four trillion dollars? Has the economy become so much better that it was worthwhile spending all those trillions? The answer to both are of course a resounding no.
I've got a similar question to Mitt Romney but with a slightly different twist. You've won Michigan, your home-state with barely a bit more than 3% after you and your super-PACS have spent millions of dollars in negative ads. Do you consider the results favorable? Is this the path you wish to put forward until the convention? Have these results assuaged your guilty conscience for the countless blatant mis-truths you've engaged in at every debate and opportunity possible? You've sent utterly misleading robo-calls using quotes from people that they had said in 2008 as though they were current, and your ads had more holes than truths in them; will you learn anything from the weak victory in your home-state? Or will you continue in your acts of hypocrisy and falsehood?
You seem be unaware of this, Mitt, but the actions you've engaged in can best be described using one word; hypocrisy. Since you and your supporters are oblivious to your hypocrisy, here are two quick examples in a one-time attempt to educate.
Firstly, one of your most compelling cases you've got against Santorum is his reelection loss by 18 points in 06. It sure sounds like a strong point … when you omit all the information such as that his staunch support for the war and his outspoken record against Iran caused the left to paint him in negative ads as a warmonger during a time when anti-Bush and anti-war sentiments were skyrocketing high in liberal Pennsylvania. Yes - Santorum lost his seat. However, the cause behind it is actually a very positive one. It proved that Santorum preferred to lose his seat and job rather than losing his principles.
Mitt, you can focus all you wish on Santorum's loss in 06 but here are the facts - which don't change no matter how many times you lie about them. Santorum had repeatedly proven capable of winning – he was elected twice to the House and twice to the Senate by running as a conservative in a blue state. In fact, the same time Santorum won an election, you - Mitt, lost your first run for Senate as a liberal in the liberal state of Massachussets with the same sweeping loss that Santorum lost his fifth election.
Additionally, Santorum, the conservative, was reelected by the Pennsylvanian people to serve their interests in Washington for many more years than you were able to keep your governor's seat despite (or perhaps because of) your lack of consistency and principle.
Secondly, when a guy tattles on another guy for shoplifting while his own pockets are bulging with stolen items, his actions are far worse for he's not only a thief but a hypocrite too. So too, when you've pounded Santorum for supporting the “No Child Left Behind” Act in ads, debates, and speeches one would've thought you were one of those who opposed it from the start or at least had not had a public opinion at the time. The truth, though, revealed itself to be quite differently.
Videos surfaced of not one but three separate instances where you praised the bill at the time. Your actions are thus far worse than Santorum for he has admitted he's erred with his vote, apologized for it, and vows to repeal it. You, on the other hand, pretended to be righteous while simultaneously accusing him of doing that which you yourself have done. What a shame and disgrace.
Whether Santorum ultimately wins or loses the primary he will be a winner for he will be remembered and respected as a dignified principled individual. You - Mitt, on the other hand, will unfortunately be looked upon as a serial hypocrite, liar, and thug even if you will eventually secure the title of GOP nominee or/and president.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Busted! Two Serial Liars Team Up! Ron Paul giving Romney a free pass in Virginia despite them Two being the only Ones on the Ballot
During the current GOP primary we have been “blessed” not with one but with two utter fraudsters who lie with an ease beaten only by Obama.
The first guy has lied on just about every issue and enumerating them would be far too numerous. Why, just during the last debate in Arizona he spouted numerous lies in response to almost every question. In the span of a short exchange about his record on social issues alone the number of lies he's said is mind boggling.
Romney replied to a question whether he required for religious institutions to provide contraception – something that's contradictory to their religious beliefs – that it was voluntary, yet his response had been exposed thereafter as a flat-out lie. Although Romney boasted a few short years ago that he wished his Romneycare would be implemented nationally, he's adopted a new tone during the campaign saying that Romneycare was perfectly constitutional under the tenth amendment. That too has been debunked since although it might not violate the federal constitution it has been discovered that it violated the MA constitution. Romney's lack of regard of the MA constitution is not a one-time incidence. He's done the same when same-sex legislation was on the table.
If all of this is not enough, here's the absolute kicker: Santorum informed the audience at the debate last Wednesday that he had scored amongst the top five Senators graded by the NTU and that he was the only one of the top five to hail from a blue state - the other four were from deeply conservatives states. Romney, desperate to prove his supposed conservatism and outdo Santorum, shot back that he had been pro-life as the governor from the blue state of MA.
His statement was shocking to anyone who is familiar with his record and had watched the previous debates. Up until this last debate Romney had admitted having been a pro choice governor but explained it away with the reply that he had a change of mind and became pro-life. Perhaps the temptation for a thunderous applause in conservative Arizona was too great and caused Mitt to cave in despite it eliminating the slightest suspicion that his replies are honest. Here's the Planned Parenthood questionnaire Romney had filled out in 2002 with responses that cannot be considered pro-life by any stretch of imagination.
One needs to provide even less of an explanation regarding the fraudulent nature of the other guy, Ron Paul. There is no way one can condone Paul's lies regarding his support for the truthers, his race-baiting and antisemitic newsletters, and his statement that he wouldn't have intervened during World War II despite the 50 million people who were killed with such brutality including millions of Jews and other ethnic groups who were targeted solely because of who they were.
These two obvious fraudsters are denying all talk of an inside deal between the two. It is very simple, however, to see past their false responses and whether there's any truth about an alliance between the two. Here's how:
If Ron Paul would truly desire to win at least a single state, the easiest state would be one with only him and Romney on the ballot, as is now the case in Virginia. How does one go about reaching a victory? Paul would have to support Romney's competitor in the primary in Michigan so that a weakened Romney with no momentum enters Virginia. Furthermore, the sensible act for Paul would now have been to spend his millions in ads against Romney in Virginia in order to bring him down.
This would be similar to Santorum's strategy prior to Missouri where only he and Romney were on the ballot. He invested lots more energy, time, and money in Missouri than in the other states because he wanted to prove his point that he could beat Romney when it's down to a two-man race.
The facts of the day: Instead of Paul shellacking Romney in Virginia or helping Santorum in Michigan, the contrary is true. Paul has pounded endlessly on Santorum, Romney's main rival in Michigan, and hasn't created a single ad to rip Romney in Virginia where it's a two-man race between the two of them. furthermore, a study has discovered that throughout 20 debates Paul had attacked Romney ZERO times yet attacked Romney's competitors 39 times with Santorum attacks totaling 22 out of the 39 attacks! Surely these are all “coincidences.”
The 2012 campaign has revealed that a double standard exists not only the mainstream media, but also in the center-right conservative media. Romney has been able to get away with repeated lies by debates on just about every topic and not one media outlet has found it newsworthy enough to report it, including Fox, Politico, Daily Caller, Hot Air, and Drudge. This free pass has also been extended to Romney's buddy, Ron Paul. Therefore, Mitt's false ethic complaints against Newt remained unchallenged. Similarly, Ron Paul's recycling of false quotes from a George Soros funded group against Santorum, that Santorum was the most corrupt member of congress, was either repeated or ignored by the media but not fact-checked.
It's therefore up to “we the people” to search for the truth, expose these phonies, and educate voters about the candidates' true records for otherwise no one will do it.