Congressman Ron Paul makes a lot of good points about the ongoing “war” in Afghanistan. As a conservative who cares about the Constitution, as well as respecting life at all stages and living within our own means, I would encourage you to listen to his arguments about leaving Afghanistan.
Evan Kenney had just turned 18 and registered to vote for the first time when he campaigned to be an alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention. Lauding Ronald Reagan’s principles and blasting Keynesian economics at the Lynnfield caucus in April, the Wakefield High School senior beat out several well-known Massachusetts Republicans, including the party’s most recent nominee for governor, Charles D. Baker Jr.
But earlier this month, Kenney was one of 17 delegates and alternates disqualified by a Republican committee deciding who gets to represent Massachusetts Republicans at the national convention in Tampa. Kenney and others had failed to deliver in time an affidavit swearing, under the penalty of perjury, that they would support Mitt Romney’s nomination for president.
An affidavit is never mentioned in the Republican Party’s rules for selecting delegates and has never been required of delegates in the past, GOP critics say. Suspicions are steep this year because Kenney and the others are supporters of Ron Paul, the libertarian candidate whose quixotic campaign for president culminated in an effort to take over state caucuses nationwide. The delegates must vote for Romney, based on his strong primary win in Massachusetts, but Paul’s supporters hope to use the convention to draw attention to his agenda, including auditing the Federal Reserve and requiring wars to be declared by Congress.
In Massachusetts, Paul’s Liberty Slate swept the Republican caucuses in April, stealing delegate spots that were expected to go to Romney’s friends and allies, whom he had selected. Massachusetts, a state dominated by Democrats and typically marginalized at national Republican events, could have an unusual share of the limelight at this year’s convention, since its former governor is the party’s expected presidential nominee.
Read More at boston.com. By Stephanie Ebbert.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
Columnist Note: Although this piece was written with regard to perceived divisions within a local party apparatus in Idaho, many local party organizations may be working through some of the same challenges. For this reason, I was encouraged to submit it for whatever value it may provide for local Party entities elsewhere. – Richard
Intra-party struggles are nothing new. In a two-party system as we have, there are always party members who feel theirs is either too liberal or too conservative. What we have experienced this past year in local, state, and national party structures is nothing new, as ideologies are parsed and attempts are made by individuals or groups of individuals to swing party allegiance one way or the other.
Typically, internal party challenges are ideologically-oriented. That’s what the primary election process is all about: selecting candidates for each of the two major parties that are felt by party voters to best represent their respective parties.
The intra-party struggle for self-identity can be characterized aptly by the Asian yin and yang, the symbol closely identified to Taoism. The light and dark teardrop shapes are constantly in a state of flux or self-identification, and yet share the majority of their border with the other. This connection indicates how perceived contrarian forces are truly interconnected as well as interdependent.
Likewise, the forces of party self-definition, seeking their ideological identity, are constantly in a state of flux, where current economic and political climate, candidates, and ascending ideologies affect the overall composition of the party. One is not good while the other bad, but they’re both critical to the overall composition of the party as the forces vie for ascendency in every election cycle.
Political labels are unavoidable, as political parties, candidates, pollsters, and media all incorporate them for purposes of identification and classification. Some, however, are used pejoratively, as in the classification of “RINOs,” (Republicans in Name Only) and the “Old Guard”, which are sometimes used interchangeably, though incorrectly.
The “Old Guard” in most cases constitutes the long-time, sometimes life-long party leaders who have been in the trenches fighting the good fight for conservatism all along. They are, by definition, not synonymous with “RINOs” as they have been the standard bearers shaping the party platform over the years (where RINOs clearly reject many if not all of the conservative planks.)
Headlines in the Journal of late have indicated a schism within the ranks of the Bannock County Republican Party apparatus. The headlines are based falsely, in my estimation, on a difference in ideology. Having been on board from the earliest stages of the Tea Party movement locally, I know what the movement is based upon. The ten planks of the Tea Party movement are: eliminate excessive taxes, eliminate the national debt, eliminate deficit spending, protect free markets, abide by the Constitution of the United States, promote civic responsibility, reduce the overall size of government, believe in the people, avoid the pitfalls of politics, and maintain local independence.
This past week, I had the opportunity to visit extensively on ideology, campaigning, organization, and electioneering with those classified as the “Old Guard” of the Republican Party in Bannock County. With each one, I reviewed the core principles of the Tea Party movement, as listed above. And without exception, each one agreed in toto.
Having known these men for years, I would’ve been surprised by any response to the contrary; for they are honorable, civic-conscious conservatives who uphold and defend the Constitution and have spent the majority of their adult lives advancing conservative principles.
This presents a conundrum for the relative newcomers to the party, the Tea Partiers and Ron Paul supporters; for if there is no ideological chasm that exists between them and the “Old Guard,” what is the source of animus?
It seems to me that the original source of the schism seems to be an artificial one created by a neophyte who appeared locally on the scene a few years ago and then left just as suddenly, who somehow convinced the newcomers that the Old Guard was the “enemy.” And without an ideological basis upon which to make such an assertion, the “Old Guard” became disparaged and demonized.
In the absence of ideological differences, all that remains is more superficial stylistic distinctions of leadership style, organization, and management, none of which are sufficiently substantive to warrant the degree of acrimony recently observed.
This brings us to the Tea Partiers and the Ron Paul libertarians. The Tea Party movement found traction in the perception that President Obama and his facilitating Congress were racing the country to a constitutional and fiscal precipice, at which the republic would be cast to ruin. Ron Paul, as a libertarian Republican, capitalized on much of the Tea Party momentum with his no-nonsense approach to reducing spending, basing federal governance on constitutional principles, and denouncing the devaluation of the dollar by the Federal Reserve. Notice I said much of the Tea Party momentum. One can be a Tea Party conservative and not be a Ron Paul supporter, as I have illustrated in earlier columns, and which fact I stand in evidence of.
Tea Party conservatives are opposed to the direction the country is headed; they strive for a return to the constitutional precepts, economic system, and classical-liberal ideals that made America great, and can make her great once again. Ron Paul supporters, for the most part, believe similarly, but with the proviso that inextricably connects a single persona with those principles. As a result, they fall subject to the same errant “messiah” complex that Obama sycophants connected with him as the standard bearer of “hope and change.” A messiah complex is creepy enough on it’s own, but in politics, is both disturbing and illogical. It is a mistake to embrace one person as the embodiment of correct principles (unless one is speaking eschatologically of The Messiah, for there’s only one of Him.)
One of the dogmatic and idyllic characteristics of these groups is the rejection of compromise, for that’s a “sin” in their lexicon. If compromise is seen as abdication and acquiescence, I totally agree that it should be a “sin.” But true compromise on legislation and political issues is the way to get things done and can be done without sacrificing one’s principles. For the reality is nothing in politics happens without some compromise; each side giving up a little in order to facilitate governance.
If we approach politics as we do our personal religious convictions, we will forever live in disillusionment over the political process, lose our zeal and motivation, and never have a positive impact on the process; for we can never have things entirely our way. But compromise to bring reality closer to our ideality is not only requisite; it’s fundamental to having an incrementally positive impact on our political system.
There’s a simple three-step process for the local GOP to function cohesively and in unison for this election cycle and the future: for all factions and persons involved in the perceived schism to realize that there is no ideological divide! We’re all essential spokes in the same wheel. Follow Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican,” and discontinue the divisive and demonizing speech and inferences. And finally, get to work together; for united we stand, but divided we fall. If we’re not part of the solution to create such cohesiveness, we’re part of the problem of divisiveness and failure.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
Every election cycle, the American people are bombarded by messages from those who think they are fit to lead. Most of them are not, but they wear nice clothes and smile a lot, so other people listen to the garbage spewing forth and agree or disagree.
Meetings are held, speeches are given, unhealthy ‘finger’ food gets eaten, and we wonder to ourselves if anything said is true. We listen to men and women who are different from the scoundrels begging on the street only by the clothes they wear and the phony smiles featuring false teeth and the painted smiles of the women seeking a paycheck at the expense of the taxpayer.
It would be amusing, if we weren’t in such dire straits.
It used to be that meetings were held in smoke-filled rooms where men bargained and gambled using the future of the people as bargaining chips. Now it is politically incorrect to smoke, but the rooms stink anyway from the hot air expended by the self-important wannabes and their handlers.
The unethical shenanigans and the dishonest tricks are used not to help one, but to hinder one. It is a disgusting business. Billions of dollars are spent bringing messages to the weary voters; most of these messages are not believed by either side. It is the best liar who wins. It is the one who can pull the dirtiest tricks that gets the votes.
Here in Clark County, Nevada, we have a situation that defies any logic – even in politics. A candidate for the United States House of Representatives has used nefarious means to win the primary election for the Republican candidacy in the general election in the fall. His followers think he won. We lost. We lost because we have now a man who has proven himself to be unworthy of the title of Representative. How could anyone now address him as The Honorable _____ _________?
That is how he will be addressed, if he wins the general. I hope he does because his opponent is even worse. I shudder at the prospect of my grandchildren’s future, for it is a dismal future.
The chairman and vice-chairman of the Clark County Republican Party Central committee both resigned their positions at about the same time and joined Team Nevada (that is the name the unfair and dishonest Republican National Committee is using for their anointed candidate.) This move was planned far in advance, perhaps even in advance of a questionable vote at the bi-monthly meeting of the CCRPCC. Team Nevada accepted the former members of the Central Committee. Would you accept such people to your team? This is, at best, dishonest. We now have a potential presidential candidate who willingly accepts men who have proven themselves to be less than forthright. What does that say for the candidate? You are known by the company you keep.
At the State level of the Republican Party, a technician “accidentally” provided one Congressional candidate with the list of 1,600 purged voters as the current list of voters, while at the same time providing the ultimate winner with a list of 20,000 current voters, then resigned and joined Team Nevada.
Do those who support and will vote for the scoundrel think that they can trust him? If they do, they are being very foolish. A dishonest person cannot be trusted. That is a gold-plated fact. Yet, that is exactly what we will have if the man wins the general election – a man who has proven that he will accept the help of duplicitous people with a smile and a “thank-you.” He cannot be trusted to be open and honest.
The people who support this dishonesty call themselves Christians, attend church services regularly, put a few dollars in the coffers at their church, and bow and say “amen” when the Pastor calls for honest and ethical actions in their daily lives. But could we trust them to keep our books?
These people who pull the dirty tricks think they win. They don’t. In the end, they lose like the rest of us because they have helped put someone of low character in a position to make decisions as to how many men and women will be sent to war. Let the funeral dirge continue for our once-great Republic. The casket is closed; the nails are being driven home. They are being driven there by some who think they have convinced others they have done a service for mankind.
Only one of the presidential candidates championed freedom, lower taxes, bringing our troops home, ending the foolish wars, and living in Peace. No, there were no winners in this latest debacle that was called a “primary election.”
Come November 6th, will we have a choice of one liar or another, or will we have an honest man to vote for? Will we be forced to choose the liar we distrust the least, or will we be able to choose for our next President a man who we can trust?
Photo credit: Cali4Beach (Creative Commons)
(Editor’s note: These opinions are solely those of the author.)
Rumor has it that when Dr. Ron Paul was first approached and was asked to run for President in the 2008 election cycle, he said he didn’t want to be President. He was told that he couldn’t win anyway, and with that, he decided to run. He could get his ideas out and educate the public on the evils of the Federal Reserve banking system and how to change it. The idea of Liberty and self responsibility could be spread once again across this great land. Did the rumor have any basis in fact? I do not know, but his incredible success in the 2008 election cycle helped to get the conversation about the Fed started, and it continues today. Now we know, and we can’t “unknow” it.
It has also been said that anyone who wants to be the President of the United States of America is automatically unqualified. I agree. Of the 300 million+ people in this land, there are less than 2 dozen who aspire to the the office of President of the United States of America. When a new casino opens in Las Vegas, Nevada, there are thousands of applicants for the few card dealing jobs available. The lines of applicants are long for the jobs of maids, groundskeepers, janitors, and secretaries, but the job of President of the United States of America has few applicants.
Anyone who will spend other people’s money to tell us how great he or she is should be put in a small room with padded walls and windows that can’t be reached. The one who shouts the loudest of how great he or she is should be put under guard and watched 24/7. The pandering fool currently being provided free room and board at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D. C. has been the loudest narcissist here of late. Megalomania is a serious psychological problem. Many with that disease are locked up and force-fed drugs. But more than 500 of them are living and working in that swamp – and breathing the swamp gases – of Washington, District of Criminals. Who in their right mind would want to be the leader of such a motley gathering of men and women? And who in their right mind would want to be part of that crew?
Aaron Russo’s movie America: Freedom to Fascism, informed us of the history of the evildoers of the last century and their plans of a One World Government. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyl Island informed us of the people involved and how the Federal Reserve banking system came about. Now we know, and we can’t “unknow” it. For most of the American people, the Fed is now in their lexicon. It cost tens of millions of little green pieces of paper, and perhaps billions of words spewed from keyboards and mouths, but still only a small percentage of the dollars and words spent on hiding the destruction done to the greatest country in the known history of the human race. To take over and control the education system in order to instill in the millions of young minds that the government is all powerful, and God should not be allowed in our lives, was not cheap nor was it easy. That nefarious group of scoundrels that brought us the Federal Reserve also gave us the less-than-great education system with which we punish our children. That is not to take away from the millions of men and women who taught, because they too are a product of the same system.
When Congressman Ron Paul announced that he would not campaign during the remainder of the primary season but asked that his supporters continue getting delegates that would support him at the convention in Tampa, many of his supporters, myself among them, were angry and dismayed. Nasty things were said and written. After a day or so, though, the heat went down, and cooler thoughts were thought.
Dr. Paul actually promotes the idea of divesting the office of the President of much of the power amassed in that office. While all the rest of the field are braying about what they will be doing for us if we give them all of our money and our firstborn, if we are allowed to have a firstborn, Dr. Paul talks of self-responsibility and self-regulation. Freedom, what a novel idea! It has only been around since man.
Dr. Paul promotes peace, the dream of man since man could dream. Dr. Paul promotes the idea that we should own ourselves and our property. Marx, Hitler, Clinton, Bush, Romney, and the fool in the White House, along with Mao, Castro, and Chavez, think otherwise.
If the chief narcissist is re-elected, or if the hairdo from Massachusetts is elected, the dark ages loom before us as the tsunami loomed over Japan.
We must send as many delegates for Dr. Ron Paul as possible to Tampa, Florida. He can win the nomination, and even a desultory campaign can put him in the White House. I believe he would serve, though reluctantly, and do a much better job than any in the last 100 years.
George Washington refused to accept the title of King. He served well and was relieved to be out of the office. Thomas Jefferson barely campaigned for his second term as President. They were good men and true. The good doctor, Congressman Ron Paul, is of that caliber.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
Sitting on the floor of the Arizona Republican convention, we have a sick feeling in our stomachs. Everyone in this room wants to defeat Barack Obama, but divisions are deep, and much work needs to be done to heal the wounds.
Early in the day, we heard a series of speeches from Arizona and GOP luminaries. Despite being united in purpose, the catcalls, boos, and jeers are easily heard over the tepid applause.
Mitt Romney’s third son, Josh, took the podium and offered inevitability. He said, “my Dad realized he would be the next president the Rick Santorum called him to say he was suspending his campaign.” He acknowledged the other candidates, and when he offered kind words about Ron Paul, the room erupted in cheers.
Next up, the Ron Paul campaign appointed a local GOP leader named Sydney Hay to speak. She talked about the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. She seemed to understand Paul’s underdog status, but the Paul supporters cheered her wildly.
The Romney supporters were much more polite; they didn’t jeer the way the Paul crowd jeered Romney supporters.
Listening to the cheers and jeers, the energy in this hall is with Paul, but the majority of delegates are clearly with Romney.
So why is there less energy for the front-runner and presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney?
We decided to ask some of the delegates why. Here is what we heard from the respective campaigns’ delegates:
“Ron Paul wants to follow the US Constitution; Mitt Romney supports the unconstitutional bailouts of the banks.”
“Mitt Romney is the most qualified, he has run businesses, he has run the the Olympics, and he can run the government.”
“Ron Paul is against NDAA, the bill which allows for the arrest and imprisonment of Americans without trial, and Mitt Romney supports the NDAA.”
“Mitt Romney will enforce our immigration laws; Ron Paul will let people cross the border.”
“Ron Paul is a Christian, and Mitt Romney isn’t.”
“Mitt Romney can win, and we will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.”
Romney garnered 47 percent of the votes in Arizona’s primary, and Ron Paul only received 8 percent, but because of this enthusiasm gap, the Paul supporters are making the delegate campaigns a close race.
Our own belief is that if Romney wants to run away with this race, he should not be moving to the middle so quickly.
When Barack Obama endorsed homosexual marriage this week, Romney responded by affirming traditional marriage, but then he undercut his own message by endorsing homosexual adoption. This type of “splitting the baby” approach to issues is alienating the conservative GOP base he needs to work hard for his campaign.
Romney will never get the homosexual vote, so why try to placate them by endorsing adoption into untraditional families?
Mitt Romney needs to sound a clear message and not fear the media. He needs to stand on conservative principle.
In this regard, he could learn much from Ron Paul. He would do well to choose Senator Rand Paul, Ron’s son, as his running mate this fall. It would show that he hears the voices of those yearning for a candidate that stands firmly by the US Constitution, and it just might bring some enthusiasm to his campaign.
Photo Credit : Gage Skidmore Creative Commons
Despite what you may have heard from the mainstream media, Mitt Romney does not have the Republican nomination locked up. In fact, he is rapidly losing delegates that almost everyone assumed that he already had in the bag. To understand why this is happening, you have to understand the delegate selection process. Each state has different rules for selecting delegates to the Republican national convention, and in many states the “voting” done by the public does not determine the allocation of delegates to particular candidates at all. And the truth is that delegates are the only thing that really matters in this race. In state after state, the Ron Paul campaign is focusing on the delegate selection process with laser-like precision, and it is paying off big time. At this point, there is still a legitimate chance that Ron Paul will be able to win enough delegates to deny Mitt Romney the nomination on the first ballot at the Republican national convention in Tampa. If Romney does not have the 1,144 delegates that he needs on the first ballot, then it becomes a brokered convention and anything becomes possible at that point.
Sadly, most Americans have no idea how this process really works.
For example, originally we were all told that Mitt Romney won Iowa.
Then, later on we were told that a mistake was made and that Rick Santorum actually won Iowa.
Well, it turns out that Ron Paul actually won 20 out of the 28 delegates in Iowa. That is because the process of actually selecting the delegates occurred long after the voting by the public was over.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore Creative Commons
What little commentary we’ve seen from the media on Ron Paul’s silent coup presently underway in the Republican Party has focused mostly on its implications for the 2012 Republican Primary and whether Paul can hold back Romney’s delegate count just long enough to ensure a brokered convention, which is the only feasible scenario in which Paul could emerge as the party’s nominee.
But perhaps more important and far-reaching in its implications for the future of national politics in the US, is not Ron Paul’s delegate count, but the fact that his supporters are successfully taking over the Republican Party district by district, county by county, state by state. That the fiercely independent Republican congressman from Texas might still have a tiny chance at winning his party’s nomination, while interesting, is less important than what he will most certainly have succeeded at doing: Ron Paul has built a political machine.
Judging by recent events in state and local GOP conventions across the country, it may not be at all presumptuous for Ron Paul’s supporters to call their burgeoning movement a revolution.
In Iowa, it is no exaggeration to say that Ron Paul’s people have taken over the GOP. After a stunning coup on April 21st, the new Iowa GOP state central committee now has six members who have publicly expressed support for Ron Paul’s candidacy– and that includes the new state chair of the Iowa Republican Party, A. J. Spiker, the former vice chairman for Ron Paul’s Iowa campaign! Think about that. This is major news. It signals a sea change in the Republican Party. We are now living in a world where the head of the Republican Party of Iowa is a Ron Paul supporter.
And it’s not just Iowa, though Iowa is especially significant because of its prominent role in the national primary process. Ron Paul’s supporters are taking over the Republican Party everywhere. This weekend during the April 28th district conventions, Ron Paul supporters also took over the GOP in Louisiana, with not a bare majority, but a whopping 74% of the delegates to Louisiana’s state convention in June. You can bet they’ll show up and you can bet they’ll elect their own to positions of leadership in the state GOP.
Read More at IVN. By W.E. Messamore.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
After watching this video, it is pretty easy to see why Ron Paul’s supporters have not given up on him, even though he has not won a state. It’s one thing to have voters, but it certainly is another thing to have activists and the passionate following that Dr. Paul has.
Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared at Forbes.com
With Rick Santorum having dropped out of the race, Mitt Romney is apparently the Republican nominee for POTUS, barring a “black swan” event swooping down out of nowhere.
Why has the Republican Party taken so long to decide upon its presidential nominee? The two most common explanations given have been the structure of the primaries and the absence of an “ideal” candidate. Those are valid reasons, but there is one more that generally has been overlooked: The Republican Party itself is in a state of flux, and its new identity has not yet gelled.
The Tea Party message of smaller government has been dominant in the GOP primaries. However, even though the old guard, moderate, country club, establishment—choose whichever cliché you prefer—wing of the party was eclipsed in the nominating process, it remains a formidable force in Washington. This was evident in the recent Senate vote on repealing all subsidies to all private energy companies (conventional and renewable): 19 Republicans voted with every single Democrat against abolishing the subsidies. Also, the very fact that the most conservative budget proposal put forth in Congress by Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)—a plan that, while obviously superior to the Obama alternative, will increase federal spending and debt—shows the present limits of the Tea Party’s influence.
The Republican Party may indeed be evolving into a truly conservative party, but the transformation is far from complete. Many rank-and-file Republicans have been becoming more conservative at different rates, so it is not surprising that the candidates struggled to find the “sweet spot” where one could establish himself as the ideal 2012 Republican.
Although many Republicans were dismayed and disheartened as the primary race dragged on, there is an excellent chance that this sense of malaise will quickly dissipate now that the race is essentially over.
The bickering between the candidates was unpleasant and cast a pall over the nominating process, but that was a passing phenomenon that will soon be forgotten. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich took turns pointing out each other’s past flirtations with interventionist government, while trying to outdo each other in professing to repent of those earlier missteps and emerging as the one genuine, born-again, true-blue conservative.
Ron Paul, meanwhile, who remained un-nominate-able due to his noninterventionist foreign policy (and perhaps even his uncompromising free-market principles), must feel vindicated that his three opponents (in some cases) staked out positions much closer to his consistent, constitutionalist, limited-government philosophy than would have been conceivable four years ago.
The Republican program in 2012 became clear even before Romney emerged as the standard-bearer. The last four men in the primary race—Romney, Paul, Gingrich and Santorum—all agreed: The federal government is too big, the country is in deep trouble, and the presidency of Barack Obama has been disastrous. All four advocated less federal involvement in education, effective control of national borders, lower taxes, fewer bureaucracies, repealing Obamacare, greater freedom to develop domestic energy resources, less social engineering by Washington, etc.
Choosing between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum was, for many, like choosing between vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry ice cream. Their personalities, pasts, and priorities had different flavors, but their philosophies were of the same general type. The presidential election campaign will generate far more enthusiasm among Republicans than the primary race did, because voters will now have a clear-cut choice between Republican ice cream or another helping of Barack Obama’s spinach.
Barack Obama has already laid the groundwork for a very challenging economic environment in 2013. Whoever is president will have to cope with a bruising debt-ceiling battle, the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts, a weak job market, unresolved systemic problems with Social Security and Medicare, a badly deteriorated power grid, and degraded military capabilities—not to mention possible complications resulting from Obama’s feckless foreign policy.
Frankly, I don’t think there is a person on earth who is completely prepared for all the challenges that will confront us during the next four years. I am convinced, though, that if Romney is elected, he will devote himself unreservedly to trying to solve those problems, while Obama would just make them worse. Tea Partiers, moderate Republicans, independents, and anyone else hoping for a change of direction in our country, can either unite behind Mitt Romney or concede defeat to Barack Obama. That is the choice before us.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)