by Lynette Rosinger

Recently I
received two email articles outlining analyses of the GOP 2012 presidential
election loss, one
written by Rabbi Pruzansky and another
written by Professor Hollis.

The authors
agree that Romney was an outstanding candidate, that he was an admirable
man, and that Ryan was a wise choice as a running mate. They concur
that he lost because our nation has become immature, and irresponsible.
They both fear that because of this, America as we have known it,
is over or at least close to the brink.

I agree with
the authors about the challenges posed by a left-wing media and
I acknowledge that the institutional woes that characterize our
current culture are worrisome. But, when it comes to the authors’
conclusion that the nation hit a tipping point with this election
and that we are over the brink in terms of people who do not want
freedom outnumbering those who do, I believe they are wrong.

Passion
for Romney?

The place to
begin is with the lead candidate on the ticket. Ms. Hollis writes
of the “enthusiasm, passion, commitment and determination”
that characterized Romney supporters. Do you remember voting for
Romney with passion? Not many people I know did; I can think of
one. No, they voted with passion all right, the passion of despair
about Obama; these voters were even labeled “ABO, Anybody but
Obama voters.”

And, there
was not much passion for Obama either. Perhaps his victory margin,
or most likely, a percentage much greater than that, voted for him
because they did not like Romney.

Was there passion
and enthusiasm for Romney? No.

Passion, enthusiasm,
commitment and determination were there in 2012, there for Ron Paul.

The Primary
Campaign: An Unwelcome Mat and a Small Tent

Both Rabbi
Pruzansky and Professor Hollis speak very highly of Romney’s character.
Perhaps it is all they say it is. But, the tactics used on his behalf
during the primary caucuses and conventions were shameful. Parliamentary
procedure was ignored, and chairmen threatened to shut down conventions.
Once it was known that delegates were Ron Paul supporters, their
names were wiped off slates. We hear so much about how the GOP needs
to appeal to all kinds of people, other than white men. And yet
these very individuals, including independents, if for Ron Paul,
were made to feel most unwelcome.

As many as
40% of the participants at the Georgia 6^th District Republican
Convention left the convention frustrated, sad, and angry. They
were Republicans for Ron Paul and had paid dues and registration
fees. They listened to speech after speech calling for unity, and
yet were not permitted one delegate from their ranks to the state/national
conventions. The tent just wasn’t big enough. Just vote for us in
November.

The National
Convention: A House Divided and a Perception of Unity

This attitude
and directive to the local GOP came from above, from the presumptive
nominee, Mitt Romney and the party establishment. At the national
convention, delegates from Maine were not seated and were eventually
chosen by people not even from Maine. Georgia’s chairman’s microphone
went dead when she started to read the delegates for Ron Paul from
Georgia. Yes, there were some after all. The Convention Secretary
only repeated Romney votes anyway even when Paul got more votes
in a state than Romney; for example, “25 for Ron Paul, 3 for
Romney” was repeated as “3 for Romney.” There are
so many instances of this kind of childish, rude treatment of fellow
delegates. Speaking of immaturity!

When I read
reports about how Obama cheated in order to beat Romney, I wonder
how much the authors who say that know about how Romney, a man they
characterize as decent and honest, clawed his way to a meaningless
victory.

Imagine
being that Bus Driver

“Let us
off the bus!” they yelled. The Rules Committee Minority Report
rode on the bus in the hands of a man intending to bring it before
the convention. He, along with other delegates, circled the convention
hall; around and around they went until it was “safe”
to let them off. And so it was that the Minority Report could not
be filed, could not be voted on, could not save the GOP from Romney
forces who knew what they wanted and would do anything to get it.
I wonder how much they paid that bus driver.

Meanwhile,
just in case, the script on the teleprompter was already written,
“The ayes have it.” So when Boehner called for a voice
vote, he did not even have to wonder, as many TV commentators wondered
when the vote was so close, how the vote actually went. He did not
have to recognize calls for “division of the house,” the
parliamentary term to poll the delegates. All he had to do was stand
there and read the script. Simple, neat, and all wrapped up. This
same rule, if it had been enacted in 1976 or 1980, would have prohibited
Ronald Reagan from ever being nominated.

Is this behavior
the model of dignity and righteousness that the authors want me
to believe describe Romney? Was he really the man we needed to restore
“time-tested principles” back to America?

Nomination
by Central Committee and Delegate Positions for Sale

Now that this
rules change has been decided, albeit unfairly to say the least,
the delegates to the 2016 National Republican convention will not
be chosen by the states. Instead, they will be named by the first
place winner of the state primary and/or by the RNC. Got money?
Grassroots activists better just give up and stay home. That will
teach the Tea Party and those pesky Ron Paul supporters! The establishment
has hired Karl Rove as a chief strategist to advise them how to
combat these liberty-minded troublemakers.

Nobody for
President

Pruzansky and
Hollis are right about one thing. Obama has no mandate. He won 51%
of the votes cast. Fewer people voted in 2012 than in 2008. Gary
Johnson’s votes in any given state did not tip the scales for Romney,
or for Obama, but if we add in the thousands of alienated voters
who stayed home or wrote in Ron Paul, this most definitely would
have closed the gap. The unwelcome mat, the small tent, and especially
the candidate’s policies, made a difference.

Agreeing
with Obama’s Policies

Beyond condoning
obviously unfair and unnecessary political maneuvers, Romney and
Ryan are not men of principle. Romney is the architect of government
run health care and its foundation, the individual mandate. Romney’s
principles changed depending on which election he was in. Those
authors and individuals so concerned with the morality of our culture,
or who write about the imperative to stand up for the unborn, and
“time-tested” principles should revisit Romney’s record.
They might also want to check his past positions on guns.

The rabbi and
the law professor agree that Romney would have been an “excellent”
president, that he would have saved us from the collapse, that he
was on the side of small business and entrepreneurs, and that those
Republicans who cave and support Obama’s policies are doomed.

Ryan’s budget
proposal would have balanced the federal budget in 30-40 years.
Do you agree with him that we should wait that long? Recently, Ryan
said he favored Boehner’s Plan B to increase taxes and he also caved
when he voted with Boehner to solve the debt problem by increasing
taxes and increasing spending in order to save us from fiscal irresponsibility.
Is this the way you would have voted?

Ryan voted
for the National Defense Authorization Act, Obama’s law allowing
the military to lock up Americans indefinitely with no trial at
the whim of the President. This legislation virtually wipes out
the 6^th amendment.

It is remarkable
that the professor and the rabbi contend that Ryan was an inspired
choice for VP.

In one debate
Romney said he supported the NDAA. Is this the thinking of an excellent
President?

The Free
Stuff Argument

I read in these
articles, and many Republicans have repeated it, that Obama won
because Americans want free stuff. Where was the choice? Never did
candidate Romney name any federal spending he would cut. He joined
in the class warfare uproar that characterizes Obama’s core strategy.
Romney’s solution to the country’s deficit was to cut tax loopholes,
the negative term for deductions, on the “rich”; in other
words, he favored tax increases.

So, where was
the principled difference between the two candidates?

Romney favored,
and Ryan voted for, the bank bailout, and the GM bailout. This is
free stuff too, free stuff for auto unions and free stuff for banks.

Never did Romney
call for an audit of the Federal Reserve whose monetary policy of
printing money permits presidents to go to war and politicians to
buy votes.

Is the Federal
Reserve manipulation of the money supply and its contribution to
the debt the way to support small businesses and the free market
that these authors contend were Romney’s concern?

Intensifying
Obama’s Policy

Romney stated
in his campaign that he would tighten the sanctions on Iran and
increase the drone strikes on Pakistan. Both of these actions are
acts of war. Women and children cower daily when the drones fly
above them and many children have died from these drone strikes.
Children and sick Iranians suffer from the sanctions we impose now.
Both of these actions create hostility toward Americans. Both of
these acts of war, taken without a declaration of war by Congress,
undertaken by a President acting alone, are unconstitutional.

Is this the
moral courage we need in a President? What about the oath to protect
and defend the Constitution?

What do these
actions of war do to protect American lives, and generate goodwill?

Is this the
path back to “time-tested principles” the professor calls
for?

The Bottom
Line and the Illusion of Choice

The bottom
line is, if supporting Obama’s policies as a Republican will doom
you politically, as the professor acknowledges, is there any wonder
why the Romney/Ryan ticket lost? Romney favored expanding overseas
war efforts, mentioned nothing he would cut in federal spending,
supported the NDAA, and espoused increasing taxes on the rich. This
year there was only an illusion of choice.

Eight Reasons
Why not to be Sad about the Election

1. If elected,
Romney’s policies would have increased federal spending, increased
the size of government, increased taxes on the upper brackets and
increased unconstitutional war actions abroad. Moreover, and even
more importantly, Ron Paul has made history. His campaigns were
educational and his influence is being felt, even today, in Congress.
The Audit the Fed bill will be introduced again, exactly as written
by Dr. Paul, by his colleague, Representative Paul Broun of Georgia.

2. Would you
have voted for Boehner to be Speaker? Five brave men of principle,
Rep. Justin Amash (MI), Rep. Walter Jones (NC), Rep. Raul Labrador
(ID), Rep. Thomas Massie (KY), and Rep. Ted Yoho (FL), along with
seven other Republicans, voted against him. This took courage. One
of them, Justin Amash, had been stripped of his committee appointment
because he kept voting his conscience, instead of the way Boehner
wanted him to. Amash is now chairman of the Liberty Caucus that
was chaired by Dr. Paul. The “constitutionalists” are
going to continue to grow in number in Congress.

3. On November
6, 2012, The Libertarian Party garnered a record number of votes
on the national level.

Georgia State
Coordinator for Ron Paul, Charles Gregory, won a seat in the Georgia
legislature and others have won positions of leadership in various
state GOP organizations.

4. The Campaign
for Liberty, (C4L), an offshoot of the 2008 Ron Paul campaign for
President, engages in research and disseminates information about
federal, state, and local issues as well as pending legislation
to help us take action with elected officials. The recent victory
with Georgia Governor Deal about health exchanges is one example
of its success.

5. Young Americans
for Liberty, (YAL), a division of the C4L, has chapters on hundreds
of campuses across the country. Members receive quality training
in politics to ready them to become political leaders as well as
candidates.

6. The Ludwig
von Mises Institute has had its best year ever. Established to promote
the principles of Austrian economics, its sale of books hit an all
time high this year. When customers were questioned about why they
wanted these books, the overwhelming answer was, because of Ron
Paul. The institute will continue to grow, hold seminars, teach
young people, publish books, and maintain its international scope.

7. The ideals
of freedom, the free market, peace, and small government are certainly
not dead.

8. Liberty
Republicans remain organized across the country and are already
in the arena preparing to become GOP leaders in 2013. There is a
movement afoot to convince Judge Andrew Napolitano to run for President
in 2016. Let me know if you are interested in either of these two
efforts.

So, hold on
to the knowledge that the liberty movement will never die.
And those who are a part of it are committed, passionate, intelligent,
well informed, and optimistic about the future. It is because of
the strength of the liberty movement among young people that I have
the greatest hope. They will remain on the political scene for years
to come. It is time to look ahead and celebrate what we see.

January
15, 2013

Lynette
Rosinger [send her mail],
a retired high school teacher, writes from Roswell, Georgia.

Copyright
© 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.