|
I fully recognize the context of his statements, I watched the speech live and have forwarded the transcript numerous times.
I have no doubt that Gov. Romney was lambasting Europe for the things you mention, but his specific shot concerning a "demographic disaster" is precisely what I made reference to. European countries are facing moral degeneration on several fronts, and, as I understand it, the Governor was referencing this decline as the basis for Europe's inability to oppose growing threats to their culture. Not only do I think this is a reasonable thing to say, I think it is incredibly important to American society. Moral relativism is a disease which our enemies will almost certainly take advantage of, and I applaud Romney for acknowledging it.
I have no reason to believe that Romney is going to spend most of his time pursuing a social agenda. I also think you're mistaken about his lack of fiscal conservatism. If we were measuring this in a vacuum, perhaps I'd agree with you, but when compared to the rest of the field, Mitt is fairly fiscally conservative. Sure, he raised fees in Massachusetts. He also lowered taxes and slashed social programs. I think the average person would find your impression backwards, with Romney being more fiscally conservative than he is socially.
I don't like one issue voters, and I usually dislike the practice of voting solely on social issues. However, once again, I haven't seen Mitt advocate that. A bulk of his message has concerned the economy and the WOT, while his social message, like most of the other GOP candidates, has been present yet vague. I'm for the appointment of conservative judges. I'm for state autonomy when it comes to abortion. I'm for a general message of personal responsibility.
I suppose this is a moot point, but I just don't see that these issues would pull him away from other essential duties of the presidency. Every candidate runs on a slate of social issues, including the liberals (especially the liberals). Further, I don't think social issues should be cast aside, as I think many are of substantial importance. How could anyone deny that a deficit in parenting is doing great damage to this country? We live in a country that values convenience over potential human life, and we think there will be no consequences to this? I don't think every social issue should be regulated; most of them should not be. However, placing an emphasis on personal responsibility is a crucial message to a society so devoid of it.
This isn't a religious agenda, it's a responsibility agenda. Yeah, inner city schools suck, you know why? Because of a lack of tax revenue and a stunning lack of good parenting. Throw all the money you want at this, and it won't help.
Bridges and levee's fail. They'll continue to fail for the rest of time. They're man-made things, and men aren't perfect. Accidents happen, but much loss can be avoided by taking responsibility for oneself and one's family. These government failings aren't going to end. THE GOVERNMENT WILL ALWAYS FAIL US. It will never make up for the inspiration, discipline and quest for knowledge that good parents instill in their children, and it will never make up for good decision making. It will never make up for bad financial planning, nor will it adequately substitute for the generosity of a society which is striving to help the less fortunate. It won't make up for dedicated teachers, churches or neighborhoods.
Frankly, I could give a damn about winning this election. The left is going further left, and I won't be a part of the slide. As a conservative, I don't feel led to follow the sentiments of society, I feel led to draw them back to where they should be. This isn't done through laws or regulation, it's accomplished through leadership and reorganized priorities. In my opinion, Mitt Romney was the best person for that. Gaining the presidency by sacrificing conservative ideals isn't a gain at all, in my opinion.
|
Threaded Mode
