Well, that was certainly bracing. It appears Governor Romney has had quite enough from a President who preaches civility before swan diving into the gutter to infest the campaign with lies and vicious smears that leave even mainstream media jaws on the floor. Governor Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, after having been accused of cheating on his taxes by a President who appointed a tax cheat as Secretary of Treasury and of practically killing an employee's wife by a President who prides himself on his own "Kill List," signals that he is going on offense. Acting on the maxim to, "Either go bold or go home," Romney's decision will make this a sharply focused contest of ideas that will expose and challenge fundamental Democratic Party philosophy. Good. It's about bloody time.
Nowhere was the contrast between individual sovereignty and centralized federal authority more evident to this observer than during an appallingly pathetic exchange between a private citizen and the President of the United States during the Obamacare debate wherein Ms. Jane Sturm pleaded with the President for her mother's life. "My question to you," she said respectfully, "is outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?" How utterly mortifying! How destitute can the state of liberty in America be when a grown woman feels she must meekly assume the role of supplicant and petition The Sovereign for her mother's life, as if we had all been catapulted back in time to some moldy European monarchy and the old girl was about to be locked in the tower or have her neck stretched across the guillotine.
As heart wrenching and depressing as that dear lady's request was, the response from Barack the Munificent should send a chill down the spine of every citizen. He first tried euphemism:
...But, look, the first thing for all of us to understand is that we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care. And that's one of the things we can all promote, and this is not a big government program. This is something that each of us individually can do, is to draft a living will so that we're very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life. I don't think we can make judgements based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people. ...
And then, just in case Ms. Sturm didn't get the hint, the standard bearer for the party of the little guy continued:
...A lot of that is going to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests of additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking a painkiller. ...
Thus did the Emperor give a royal thumbs down to Ms. Sturm, to which any liberty loving citizen ought to have responded with a royal salute of their own. Obama is not quite on the level of Dickens' character Ebenezer Scrooge, who said, "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population," (Scrooge eventually had a change of heart), but he's close enough for government work, which after all is the gold standard in Obama's world.
For you see, beneath the veneer of hope and change, under the finery of compassion and progress, we see laid bare the cold, uncaring face of the government bureaucrat who will decide your fate, and to whom you are but a number to be balanced against dwindling resources and competing interests. This, ultimately, is the ghastly vision against which Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan must prevail. It is the vision which says that greed is the condition of private citizens who wish to retain the fruits of their labor, but never the condition of government functionaries who confiscate that which they didn't earn. This vision claims that it is fairness to redistribute monetary wealth across society, but that the wealth of political power must remain concentrated at the federal level. This vision makes a virtue out of violating most of the Ten Commandments while labeling differing opinions as "hate," and all in the ironic name of tolerance. It is a vision which chooses the term "fundamental transformation" because it sounds more plausible than, "destroying society just a little."
Mitt Romney has the opportunity to contrast this top-down, autocratic philosophy which wields an iron fist at home and a limp wrist abroad thereby leaving the citizen vulnerable to both domestic and international oppression, with a philosophy in which government exists to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizen and leaves him otherwise free to pursue his God-given talents and provide for himself and his family through free markets and free association. And no one on the national scene can make this contrast and advance the case for liberty as compellingly as Paul Ryan. Accordingly, Democrats and their stenographers in the media will savage him. They savaged Ronald Reagan too, and he went on to win in two landslide elections by drawing precisely the distinctions that Democrats wish desperately to obfuscate. Besides, if many in the media had been present two thousand years ago when Christ reportedly rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, they would have pilloried him and praised the ass.
When Barack Obama says that we tried free market economics and it didn't work, let him explain how over 12.5 million jobs created during Reagan's first term is the epitome of failure compared to Obama's 2.5 million jobs at a cost of trillions in debt to our grandchildren. Let him explain a cumulative GDP growth of 8.9 percent under Obamanomics versus 18.9 percent under Reagan. Perhaps he will explain the benefits of rising unemployment (8.3 percent) under his tutelage over an unemployment rate that had dropped from 10.8 percent to 7.2 percent by this point in Reagan's first term. Yes, please explain how we are better off ceding more money and more control to Washington Mr. President. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will help keep you on task.
Ricochet Member Paules very eloquently summed up our choice this way:
Are we free men or slaves? Do we value personal liberty and embrace the requisite duties that maintain it, or do we prefer a government handout? Are we going to surrender and submit, or will we fight for the values espoused by our Founding Fathers? We're about to pass judgement on ourselves.
In choosing Paul Ryan, Governor Romney has already done the nation a service. An election based on character assassination, which is the President's preferred path, is beneath the dignity of this great country and the office to which these men aspire. That this country should remain great, …should remain exceptional, is the question under debate; a debate which Governor Romney has decided to vigorously engage.