Romney-Ryan 2012: A Winning Ticket!

Well, there you have it:

As you can see from my earlier post, I was wrong.  Romney, however, was right.  Ryan is an unbelievably great candidate.  In my earlier prediction, I didn't consider Ryan simply because I didn't believe Romney would be bold enough to choose him.  I am glad to be wrong!

Ryan is the best possible choice for transforming government.  I don't just mean reforming.  I mean TRANSFORMING.  Government has grown so much and is so far from what the Founders intended, mere reformation is not enough.

Ryan is a man of policy and ideas, not simply someone who fills in important boxes on a checksheet.  I was afraid Romney would bow to pressure from certain demographics, and think he had to choose a running mate in order to appeal to "the Hispanics" or "the women" or "the evangelicals" or "the South" or "Ohio."  Nope.  Romney chose a man based on principles of policy and ideas.  This signals two important things:

1) Romney is a man who will govern according to the principles of policy and ideas, and,

2) Romney is confident he can win with these principles, instead of needing to rely on "the Hispanics" or "the women" or "the evangelicals" or "the South" or "Ohio."

In other words, this choice exudes both principle and confidence in principle.

This is a good day for America.  A VERY good day.  Up until now, I was only hopeful that Romney could beat Obama because people dislike Obama more, and then Romney would simply not be as bad.  Now, I am hopeful Romney and Ryan can beat beat Obama and Biden because America WANTS Romney and Ryan, and that together they will repair our nation.

Comments

[Tim Fleming]

These guys are going to screw the poor and middle class. Give tax breaks to the rich and hope it trickles down. It's mr potter and biff tanner running together to go back to the wrong future. They are against gays and women's rights. Their policies are actually the opposite of what Jesus would do. And they call themselves christian? More like deceivers! Your tone of "assimilation" says it all too.

They have no military or foreign policy experience right when we will need it (Iran/Israel/N.Korea)

[Gullyborg]

You, sir, are a moron. No foreign policy experience? What did Obama have when elected? None. Romney, on the other hand, successfully led a 78-nation international effort called "The Olympics." Ever heard of that? What military experience does Obama have? I mean, besides taking credit for the Navy SEALs work and calling people "coprse-man"?

As for economic matters: Romney-Ryan are going to cut taxes for EVERYONE, that means rich and poor alike. And they will surely do a better job than Mr Raise The Debt $4 Trillion While Unemployment Stays Above 8% His Entire Presidency Obama.

Idiot.

[Gullyborg]

Oh, I forgot to mention the Christian comment - I would rather have a man who donates millions of dollars to the LDS than a guy who spent 20 years in the pews of Reverend God Damn America.

Finally - abortion has murdered 55 million people since Roe v Wade. Assuming half would have grown up to women, who is REALLY waging a war on women? More like a genocide.

I got no more use for you.

[Tom Wiley]

More Democratic talking points, just more lies from the Left! Republicans are for EVERYBODY, especially the poor, minorities (including LGBT) We are not for poisoning the air, the water, destroying the planet, etc, etc, etc. Politics of hate don't convince anyone of anything, it just builds more hate!

[MizDi]

Wow. I'd say "I have no words", but that would be lying.

Is it wrong to give tax cuts to everyone except those that pay the lion's share of *all* taxes ... Actually, the whole *zoo's* share? How can you give any kind of a tax cut to the 51% of people who pay no tax at all? When I was in school, they told us you can't divide by zero and come out with an actual number. But then again, I went to public school, so perhaps I only learned math meant for poor/average students ... But that A I got in algebra told me I got that one right ... 'course, that was before the Dems dumbed down all the curriculae across the country to make sure everyone got the best grades no matter how hard or how little they workedso they didn't feelbad about themselves.

Seriously ... If you haven't yet read Atlas Shrugged yet, you really need to ... But please realize it's a *cautionary tale ... It is *NOT* an instruction manual, as so any Dems have seemed to interpret it.

You can only tax the rich so much before they give up, take their money / businesses / jobs elsewhere, and then where will the tax "revenues" come from? They certainly won't come from those who want to work, but can't find jobs. They certainly won't come from those that are able but unwilling to work and so pay no taxes (but still come away with an "earned income credit" anyway). They'll come more and more from what's left of the "middle class", who will then be re-classified as "rich" and then portrayed as the new evil of the week.

If taxes are raised, you expect that to be across the board (but at a decidedly more upward slant for the rich), don't you, because that would be "fair" (although, to be intellectually honest, so many Dems expect all of "the rich" to have tax increases because "well, they can afford it, and how would I then pay for my iPhone, and my cable and my broadband, and my new video game console and my degree in Black Lesbian/Trans-Gendered Social Roles in Shakespeare's Mysogynist England? Because here are just * so*I many jobs outside the ivory towers are useful ... And they're not even of any actual use there .... But I digress ...)

If tax hikes should be "fair", then tax cuts should be applied equally across the board, too. Those paying the huge portion of the taxes should be able to keep more of their money, too. Remember, if a rich person pays out the appropriate and legal tax rate and pays $400,000, it's still a lot more than the vast population is coming up with. If a leftist wants to pay more to the government, they are free to do so at any time. But the vast majority of leftists (if hey bother paying their taxes at all) will do whatever it takes to pay what they owe, ONLY what the legally owe, and not a penny more.

Even if they do spend it (which is their right because it's *theirs after all*, that money gets spread to people who build things and provide services, and trickles down to the people they employ and people they buy their supplies from. Remember, all those people who make the money paid out by "the evil rich" they are part of the tax base (if they're honest and file their tax returns as they're legally required to do), which money goes to provide all those public services and programs the Dems are so fond of and keep demanding expansion of and more of. Get rid of that money stream and it hurts many more than the rich. It hurts the wait staff at restaurants, and the dry cleaners, and the gas station attendants, and the convenience stores, and the grocery stores ... Well, you get the idea.

I'm sorry, but I believe your view of the "right future" is where misery is spread equally and innovation and excellence are stifled because there will be no reason to strive for more or better, because there will be no incentive/reward for it. A friend of mine grew up in Communist Russia, and what she sees happening here reminds her of where she grew up. She left there to get away from that life!

I cannot for the life of me figure out where Dems get the idea that Jesus was a socialist. Whether I agree with the doctrines of the churches that candidates attend, I will prefer to side with the one who most closely reflects my beliefs and at least exhibits the attitude of doing no harm and are more likely being the ones to actually portray the characteristics of the God they profess to follow.

Obama may call himself a Christian, but at every turn he exhibits attitudes against the Christian principles he professes to believe, and instead appears to work very hard against religious liberty. Dems continually claim that Christians are intolerant of their cause of the day/week/year/decade ... But what they exhibit is that they're just not tolerant of anyone who holds true to religious belief ... Unless they can twist it into something they will "comfortable" with.

Sorry, but Obama's 20-year tolerance for Rev. Wright's heretical teaching, which was nothing more than angry socialism wrapped in the cloak of religious words steeped in black bigotry, coupled with his 2008 statement statement to Rick Warren at the Saddleback Forum that "Jesus is one path to salvation" proved to me that he's no Christian. Someone who's an actual Christian would never say that, let lone believe it.

[Gullyborg]

^ what she said!

[Stacey]

WOW! Thanks for these thought-provoking comments. I will have you know I already voted for President Romney. He will be our next president. If for some reason our nation does see that Obama needs to be catapulted out of the White House and he's elected again, all I can say is...God help us all.

[PAT SOTO]

YOU ARE RIGHT! GOD HELP US!
I LOST MY HOUSE, BUSINESS AND CAR IN OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY, SO DID A LOT OF FRIENDS, AND TWO OF MY NEIGHBORS KILLED THEMSELVES.
I AM HOPING TO FIND FULL TIME WORK, I AM IN MY LAST $500.00.
I AM VERY PROUD THAT AFTER 3 HRS. WAIT, I VOTED FOR ROMNEY/RYAN, AND ALL REPUBLICAN.
WE NEED A GOOD LEADER WHO WORKS WITH BOTH PARTIES TO FIX THE COUNTRY, INSTEAD OF PLAYING GOLF, BASKETBALL AND AVOIDING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND PROTECTING OUR EMBASSADORS OVERSEAS.