Why I am So Hard on Romney

I was 17 years old in 1976. So, I mercifully missed having to vote in the election of Jimmy Carter. But, the Lord blessed me. With my first vote in a national election, I was able to vote for the greatest American President in our lifetimes, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

With that vote, the standard was set in my mind and heart, as to what an American President should be.

Watching Ronaldus Magnus as a young, impressionable 20-something, making his way in the world, I marveled at his grace, humor, and unflinching, steely reserve in the face of America’s enemies, foreign and domestic, whether princes and principalities, or those unseen forces that dwell in the dark recesses of our society.

I have been looking to elect an American President like that, ever since.

Needless to say, I have been sorely disappointed.

That’s not to say that I was and am, not supportive of George W. Bush.  He was the right man to be in that chair in the Oval Office on September 11, 2001.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Carter, Clinton, or, God forbid, Obama, was president during the worst Terrorist Attack on our soil in American History?

I refuse to even consider the possibilities.

That being said, Dubya remains a good Christian man, who loves his country. Although, his record of spending as president leaves something to be desired.

However, his record of spending OUR money pales in comparison to Barack Hussein Obama’s.

After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement (which isn’t even accounted for in the chart). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn’t the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.

In 2011 and 2012, the pace of spending was slowed when a new emboldened breed of Republicans took back the House promising to end the binge. The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve.

If Obama’s failure as president was simply judged by his horrible economic policy, which has trashed our country like the aftermath of the Frat Party in National Lampoon’s Animal House (without the fun), that would be bad enough.

However, culturally speaking, he has taken our country in a Liberal, Marxist, and Godless direction.

From his declaration during his campaign,in a private meeting with donors, that we Americans living in the Heartland were bitterly clinging to our guns and Bibles, to his bowing to our enemies and embracing of the granddaddy of Islamic Terrorist Organizations,  the Muslim Brotherhood, to his  repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and his crowning achievement: his destruction of the greatest Healthcare System in the World, Obama has consistently governed against the wishes of the majority of the American citizens he is supposed to be serving.

His darling wife hasn’t exactly been a peach, either.

While other First Ladies have embraced causes such as poverty, child hunger, and illiteracy, Michelle Obama decided that American parents were not caring for their children properly, and decided to be their surrogate parent, under the guise of fighting chldhood obesity. And, if that wasn’t enough, last year, she and her Food Police decided that the fittest among us, our Armed Forces, weren’t eating properly and, is now going to make them eat arugula, or something. Heck, even the Subway Sandwich Shops are putting avocado and raw spinach on their sandwiches, now.

Then, there’s her remark during the 2008 campaign that “For the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country”. And, as an Honor Guard passed by her and the president, during the solemn 10th anniversary remembrance of 9/11, she leaned over to him, and said, “All this for a flag.”…and, the President of the United States nodded in agreement.

So, why am I so hard on the presumptive Republican nominee for President?

America is in desperate need of a leader…a man in the mold of Ronald Wilson Reagan, possessing not only traditional American beliefs and values, but, also possessing the courage and conviction necessary to stick his neck out for those beliefs and values, and not put them on the back burner for the sake of poltical expediency.

In 1984, President Reagan said:

Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.

Yesterday, The Examiner reported the following:

Speaking with reporters in Nevada, Mitt Romney refused to enter the Chick-fil-A controversy that has occupied most of the nation’s attention this week.

During the press conference, Romney was asked whether the Chick-fil-A controversy – or the controversy about Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – should be part of the national conversation.

“Those are not things that’s not part of my campaign.” he answered shortly, after explaining that he wasn’t in the business of telling people what to talk about.

Lacking the courage of his convictions?

And, that’s why I’m so hard on Romney.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Why I am So Hard on Romney”

  1. War Planner Says:

    K.J.

    This is an absolutely great post. I have followed you here and on HG and noted the anguish with which you have transitioned to halting support of Romney after the primaries. I both feel your pain and respect your judgment — and am grateful you lend your voice to ousting Obama.

    There are a lot of us who (1) want to eject the current idiot-POTUS and (2) want to continue to seek more conservative leadership in the coming years. Electing Romney (as opposed to returning Obama to office) will just be our starting point. There is much work to do and we’re in this fight for the long haul.

    With folks like Cruz and Murdoch possibly joining the other TEA Party folks in congress and the very strong farm system at the state level in 2010, we have firmer ground to stand on.

    In the mean time, continue in this vein — your criticisms fall on very sympathetic ears.

    -TWP

  2. lovingmyUSA Says:

    Good post, KJ, but as for me, I could care less–and as you didnt add–that was a question that was two-headed, and included a question about Bachman. It was a “trap” question, and I think he was wise to avoid it. We ALL know his postition of marriage,,,he has stated it OVER and OVER. The question was asked to keep up the whole Chicken shiny object theme…

    I agree with him that he should have ignored it…and as for leadership…his leadership in the companies he has started and created are good enough for me.

  3. INC Says:

    KJ, I agree with you. “Those are not things that’s not part of my campaign,” was a dreadful answer. Romney should have addressed the First Amendment issue at stake with Chick-fil-A, and also have mentioned marriage. I was stunned that he did not. The First Amendment should be part of any presidential campaign, much less that of a Republican.

    The question about the letters Bachmann and other Reps wrote about the Muslim Brotherhood should also have been answered. That is a national security issue. He could have said something to the effect that Bachmann, etc., are taking their responsibilities seriously as members of the House Intelligence Committee (I think that’s the right title), and that is their motivation for writing the letters, etc.

    Romney continues to try to play both sides. He did this in MA by talking like a conservative and acting like a liberal. I have no respect for the man. I have said before that I will vote for him because Obama, his policies, and his usurpation of power are so destructive, but Romney was probably my last or next to last choice of the large group of candidates from last fall.

    Romney and others in his closest circle are from MA, and they are out of touch with how flyover country thinks. He has never dealt and interacted with a constituency that is center right and conservative.

    I think his poll numbers have not shot well ahead of Obama because Romney plays it safe. He is not a leader or a statesman, he is a politician. As has been noted, during the primaries his campaign seemed to be focused as if it was the general election. I cannot remember where, but I read that his campaign’s approach to the nomination was to focus on the numbers needed, and go after the total, and do or say only what was necessary about the issues to get there. I think he was dragged to the right in the primaries only because he had to go there because they lasted longer than he had anticipated.

    He’s still doing this. He is as vague as possible because he sees the path to the Presidency as carefully avoiding taking a stand unless forced to do so. He has shown no inclination to advocate principles and then persuade people why they are important for the country.

  4. INC Says:

    I forgot. I noticed that Politico framed Romney’s refusal to answer those questions as, “Mitt Romney refused to comment on two culture fights being waged by members of his own party.”

    That’s a mischaracterization, but because Romney didn’t address the First Amendment or national security, Politico went there. He should have also had the guts to discuss marriage.

    Then he should have used that to segue into a discussion on the economy. It’s easy to connect the two, but he and his campaign seem to have nonelastic and uncreative minds that are incapable of doing that. Issues are not in their own individual box, but are interconnected.

    His campaign desperately needs someone who can teach them how to connect conservative political philosophy with policy, and why it is best for the country. But I won’t hold my breath.

  5. Gohawgs Says:

    The goal is to oust the Marxist obamanation, it’s a dang shame that the R nominee tapped to do so is a coreless box checker.

    For those that feel that Mitt did the right thing in not providing a substantive answer to a gotcha question, my question to them is when is a LSM question to a R not a gotcha question? Either his team decided beforehand not to answer such a question OR his team didn’t prepare him to answer such a question, either way his team and Mit dropped the ball..

  6. INC Says:

    KJ, I just saw this tonight: Mitt Romney Comes Out in Support of Homosexual Boy Scout Leaders, Members. Andrea Saul confirmed this in an e-mail to the AP. I guess they hope to keep this quietly under the radar. That won’t happen.

    So Chick-fil-A & the First Amendment: “Those are not things that’s not part of my campaign”, but the Boy Scouts, a private organization that has taken so much grief and had to go to court, Mitt is willing to come out against their policy. He’s willing to side with gay activists, but not the families of America and the Bill of Rights.

    Right now I don’t think you can’t be too hard on Romney.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,604 other followers

%d bloggers like this: