Why Mitt?

Since I have endorsed Mitt Romney for president, I was asked this past weekend by a friend which other candidates I would support should Romney take a dive. I really don’t think he will but I did give it some thought and it really is a process of “de-selection” in the Republican field, not one of “selection” – I could have supported (and will support) any of them except one – Ron Paul.

While Paul is right on many issues, I could not support him for one reason – his stance on Israel and I can’t buy into the hate many of his supporters are selling.

I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to support Israel for political reasons, like the fact that they are the only democracy in the region and they are our only reliable ally in the Middle East. I also base my support on religious and scriptural grounds because I happen to believe what is written in Chapter 11 of Isaiah, verses 11-13:

11And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

13The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.

I believe that these passages foretell the destruction of the nations who fail God and abandon Israel. We are working on accomplishing both of these disastrous feats. Obama has not set foot in Israel during at any time in his life, leading many to believe that he is 1) immersed in sympathy for Islam or 2) actually a Muslim. Paul would even be worse.

I’m also a little frustrated with the criticism of Romney from the right. There are those who are in dangerous proximity of hypocritical behavior for a few reasons.

How many of us have criticized Obama and his administration for being academic and never having anything other than theoretical experience in the business world? How many have said that the government needs to be run like a business or that we need a president who is less a politician and more of a business leader?

I know that I have, so let’s look at the resumes of the top 4 non-Paul contenders in the Iowa Caucuses today:

Rick Perry:

  • 6 years in the Air Force
  • 6 years farming cotton with his father
  • 27 years in elected office (starting in 1984)

Rick Santorum:

  • Law degree in 1986, 9 years of various law work and “think tanks” wrapped around 16 years in elected government
    • 2 terms in the House (4 years)
    • 2 terms (12 years) in the Senate (1994 – 2006)

Newt Gingrich:

  • Academic professor for 8 years, Ph.D. in 1971
  • 20 years in elected office
  • 11 years as an author, lobbyist, lecturer and head of various “think tanks”

Mitt Romney:

  • Graduated in 1975 cum laude from with a dual MBA/JD, in the top third of that class, and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class.
  • 24 years in business with various firms including private equity
  • 3 years running the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
  • Governor of Massachusetts for 4 years
  • Ran for senate in 1994, president in 2008
  • Supported various Republican causes for the last 4 years.
  • Total time in elected office – 4 years.

If the words “I wish we had someone in office who understood business” ever came out of your mouth or you have ever condemned Obama for being an academic, a lawyer, a community “organizer” or a career politician, it would seem that to support anyone but Romney is hypocritical. There are “conservatives” who say that Romney is just like Obama and a if you are going to vote for Romney, just cut out the middle man and vote for Obama but the resume’s of the other Republican contenders look far more like Obama than does that of Mitt Romney.

Romney has spent the most time in the private sector and the least time as a politician of any other candidate in the race, including President Obama. Romney actually used his law degree in furtherance of his business acumen, not as a primary career or a prop for a political future.

This is not an election on social issues – it is an election about what socialist approaches to those issues are doing to our nation. Being anti-abortion or socially conservative won’t matter if we can’t get a bit in the mouth of government and pull back on the reins.

Romney is about to be attacked from the right and the left as a “job killer” at Bain Capital – but here’s the Catch 22 on that line of reasoning; the very reason that private equity firms exist is to invest in companies, streamline them for maximum earnings and sell the resulting value for a profit.

What the left and the right are currently pillorying Romney for are exactly the skills and drive necessary to cut government down to size. How many of us have complained about the inflation of employment in the public sector while the private sector continues to shed jobs?

How many conservatives have wished for someone with those skills to run for president?

There is one candidate that has the private sector acumen, that when combined with Republican control of the Senate and House, can transform government.

Mitt Romney.

20 thoughts on “Why Mitt?

  1. OK, so I agree with the reasoning for NOT voting for Ron Paul, but can I ask a question? You said:

    “While Paul is right on many issues, I could not support him for one reason – his stance on Israel and I can’t buy into the hate many of his supporters are selling.”

    But weren’t you one of those telling me that, as long as the guy agrees with 80% of what you want…? And didn’t I say that, if that 20% is fatal to your ultimate goals or the survival of this nation, it was not enough to vote for a person just because they agree with you 80% of the time?

    So, which one of us was correct ON PRINCIPLE? I know, I know, that can sound ugly, but it is not meant to be posed that way. I am asking a friendly but sincere question to find out whether or not you now see what I was trying to say then?

    [for the record, I STILL think 80%+ of what Paul is arguing is the best course for this nation – even a non-interventionist foreign policy. But, when I did my homework and discovered what I believe to be Paul’s true motivations, I realized I can’t support him because that 10-20% where we disagree falls under that “fatal to my goals and the nation” heading. So, at least in my eyes, I haven’t flip-flopped on Paul, I just learned what I hadn’t known before – and I learned it because I did my due diligence as a responsible citizen – which, unfortunately, is also why I can’t stand with you in support of either Mitt or Newt.]

      • I agree. While my first choice has never been Romney, there hasn’t been another serious (electable) candidate to step forward. I still kinda lean toward Newt, but he carries waaayyy to much bag to be electable. I have believed all along that Romney would win the nomination simply because I believe he is the candidate ordained by the GOP to do so. Maybe they’ve known all along that he had the best chance of beating Obama.

      • Well, I don’t fully agree with Utah’s position that Obama was elected because people did not understand “change” or that Obama “wasn’t W”, though both of those points are certainly valid. I believe the GOP lost to Obama/Biden because the Dems had a better strategy , better organized media access, and the GOP had a terribly weak ticket in McCain/Palin. The GOP cannot make this mistake again. If they are to win, they need a winning strategy and ticket. If you believe that America has already lost, then I would say America lost when the two-party system began back with Lincoln. The simple truth is that this is indeed all about “winning” for your side, liberal/progressive, conservative, libertarian, or whatever.

        • “If you believe that America has already lost, then I would say America lost when the two-party system began back with Lincoln. The simple truth is that this is indeed all about “winning” for your side, liberal/progressive, conservative, libertarian, or whatever.”

          YES! I agree with you – 100%. Now, if this is the manifestation of the problem (I still think the root is in the corruption of every individual’s heart – mine included), how do we follow the founders’ lead and chain down our ability to even use a Party system (2, 3 or otherwise)?

          • I’ll put that question right back to you. I do, by the way, agree with the corruption comment, but the corruption has become so widespread and accepted as SOP that we are in danger of losing our political system (good or bad) as we know it. The Tea Party crowd (or ultra-conservatives) try to prove a point by holding up good legislation. The uber-libs (or progressives) try to prove a point by holding up good legislation. How do you get the fools to pass legislation that is good for the country?

          • Please define “good legislation.” If we mean good for the country, that’s your answer. But if we mean “good” for their Party and/or political interests, then we don’t. We die like every other corrupted Republic has done in the past. Unless/until we focus on the preservation of individual rights and liberty with the same passion and zeal as Patrick Henry had, then this experiment in self-governance is all over but for the “dancing on the end of the rope” – which I contend is what we’ve been doing for 3-7 years now. How long we kick will depend on how hard the few remaining REAL Americans decide to keep fighting. When they quit, we’ll fold and others will take over. History is VERY clear on this, and we do not have some magic exemption from this rule (not attacking you, FL, more the willful idiots who refuse to acknowledge all of this).

  2. M., no offense, but I don’t really buy into all this end-of-the-Christian-world-as-we-know-it propaganda (I suppose we view the Biblical references differently). I tell you, I seriously had a few friends that swore Obama was the anti-Christ and was some sort of precursor to the end times. I said then and I say now; I just can’t imagine a president having the power to do so much damge to the U.S. or Israel. That said, I just feel Paul has the ability to get the Independent vote. I’m not so sure about the others. I think this voting bloc is important because there are more registered Independent voters currently.

    At the same time, apparently it is Newt who is leading in the national polls. I’ll vote for Newt. I’ll vote for Romney. Hell, any one of them. Yes, I am one of the ABO Occupiers. For now, I’ll wait and see…….

    • I’m still not so sure Obama isn’t the anti-Christ and yes, I will vote for Romney or Newt if it comes down to it. I have already attested to the fact that I’m a staunch ABO Occupier.

    • If you do not believe in the Christian view of the end of the world, then what other parts of Christ’s Gospel do you pick and chose your way through?

      As for BHO being the anti-Christ: your friends need to read scripture. Prophecy tells us the anti-Christ will come out of somewhere that was once in the Old Roman Empire. Best thinking on this is either Rome or Turkey, but now one knows for certain other than he will be a son of Rome.

      As for imagining a President with enough power to damage both Israel and the U.S., I give you “W” AND BHO. “W” didn’t help this nation, certainly not the cause of individual rights and liberty. BHO has been little better. However, if you read and believe prophecy, then you needn’t worry about Israel, you need to worry about any nation which stands against her.

      As for the end times: I’d advise you to start reading Daniel, Ezekiel and some of the other prophets as well as what Jesus and John had to say about the end times. Prophecy tells us that many secrets were locked away and would only make sense at the very end. It also tells us that, near the end, men will run to and fro, looking for the word of God, yet they will not find it. We run to and fro now, and where do you find the word of God these days that hasn’t been watered down to our liking? Prophecy tells us that Iran, likely allied with Russia, will attack Israel, and that they will be afflicted with a plague that boils their eyes and tongues in their skull and melts the flesh from their bodies before their corpses hit the ground. Until Hiroshima, man had no idea what this was describing. Now we do. Prophecy tells us the entire world will bare witness tot he things that are set to unfold in Jerusalem, but until we had satellites and a 24 hr world news network, no one understood how this could be, either. Prophecy tells us, near the end, men’s thoughts will fly around the world in the blink of an eye. Look at your screen or your cell phone and tell me how that could have been before the advent of computers and cell phone technology?

      There is a lot more, and it has never been taken into account with the most well known parts of prophecy. We must look at ALL of the prophecy about end times and look for ALL of it to have been fulfilled, not just some of it. This has been the mistake of every person who has ever claimed the end was near: they had left things out, which doomed their prediction from the start. But then, if we pick and choose what we care to accept from the Bible, we’ll be just as blind.

      BTW: many devout Muslims are converted when they read Biblical prophecy, as it describes their 12th Imam as the anti-Christ, and they know the Bible came hundreds of years before the Koran. I find that very interesting, as prophecy tells us many will convert near the end. It also speaks of a religion which will force world wide conversion or behead you. Does that sound familiar to anyone else?

  3. Pray tell, why dost thou butt hurt, RINO?

    I just went over to Poli and I could’ve sworn you said you were’nt going to throw yourself to the wolves there anymore. Your friend could aid in your defense. Unfortunately, they wouldn’t get through his post…..

  4. Where in there do I say that it is the end of the world? I never said that, I said “destruction of nations”. That could easily mean that Israel and the US falls under a sharia based caliphate. That would be the destruction of our nation as far as I’m concerned.

  5. Destruction of Nations = End of the World? Nope. It equals, um, I don’t know, I’m searching for the right term, uh, hmmm……. Destruction Of Nations = Sharia-based caliphate? Oh, okay. If we’re going to get into semantics, please describe how the destruction of nations would not be the end of the world as you know it.

    This, after I just defended you. (albeit in my own sick and twisted way)

    • Sorry I’m not the bible-thumping apocalyptic proponent you expected. Civilizations can be “destroyed” in many ways – Rome fell in 476 BC, Italy and Italians are still there but the Roman civilization is no more. There are no more Celtic, Norman or Visigoth civilizations…some think that Hell will come to Earth instead of us going there…

      Many ways that we can be destroyed…doesn’t always have to be in a shower of fire and brimstone but they are just as dead.

  6. black – “Good legislation” is good for the country. Yes, I am aware that we Americans have no exemption from our country failing. That does give me cause to wonder though; if it were to “fail” as we know it, what would it fail to? Would the U.S. become another Greece or Spain, or would it become something more akin to what the United Kingdom has become? Back from my digression – Yes, we do have to continue to fight.

    • OK, next question: by “good” for the nation, do we mean according to one of the Parties, or according to the founding principles and ideals of this nation? Because BOTH Parties are F-A-R from the principles and ideals of our founders, so what they think is “good” for the nation most always ISN’T!

      Second, I have actually given your question more than a bit of thought. I see one of three possibilities. First, the U.S. is spent into bankruptcy (a la Cloward and Pivon), and the resulting crisis is used to force us to accept a North American Union, similar to the Eruo zone (want to know why no one seems to care about the border or immigrants, this could be a strong indicator as to why – it would be counter productive to long term plans).

      Or, we could see a general collapse which, if there are sufficient places left in this nation with a strong enough allegiance to the American experiment, could easily lead to a second Civil War. Results? Bad – either way. We do not have true patriots to lead the way back to liberty – not anymore.

      Finally, as the Russian analyst suggested, the economic collapse that IS coming could be used to force a division of the U.S., possibly using a world court based on the grounds that we caused the global collapse through our own actions. Here again, the last two possibilities would result from the idiots who think they have everything under control not stopping to consider that other idiots don’t care what they think.

  7. Pingback: Republicans Acting Like Spoiled Children [or Democrats] « The Rio Norte Line

  8. Pingback: I Think Ace Has This About Right | The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.