-Unapologetic: Mitt Romney’s Book Reveals a Pragmatic, Patriotic Problem-solver.
As the race for 2012 develops, it has become clear to most observers that Mitt Romney is the early front-runner for the Republican nomination. Yet, many find themselves asking exactly who Romney is, and what he means to do with the country. This narrative was rather succinctly summed up by a strategist working for Jon Huntsman, who quipped: “Which Mitt are we on now: Mitt 5.0 or Mitt 6.0?” Romney, so the story goes, is an opportunistic politician who lacks core convictions, and who will embrace whatever position is most advantageous at the time.
This is not the Mitt Romney one meets if one reads No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. This policy-heavy book has been on my to-read list for a while, and over the past two weeks, I finally got the opportunity to dig into it. I found many detailed policy prescriptions on subjects as diverse as healthcare, defense, increasing worker productivity and promoting a “culture of citizenship”. And, at the core of it all, I saw a unifying theme among Romney’s solutions: pragmatic, free-market-oriented problem-solving and an animating philosophy deeply informed by his belief in American exceptionalism.
No Apology is not, first and foremost, a biography, but rather part philosophical reflection on the greatness of America, and part pragmatic guide to improving its governance. Romney begins and ends the book with some philosophical musings on America. In many ways, these chapters help frame the policies presented at the heart of the book. The beginning of the book provides a historical assessment of why great powers decline, which he largely attributes to bad, and often excessive government. One might quibble with some of the history in this section—a more nuanced case could be made regarding the Ottoman Empire for example— yet the amount of historical ground Romney seeks to cover in what is essentially a future presidential campaign blueprint is quite impressive. By contrast, the final chapter is a fairly traditional homage to America, her greatness and the greatness of her people. Though seemingly a bit boiler-plate, Romney manages to carry this off with a certain amount of grace, style and sincerity. Personal anecdotes are woven throughout, but perhaps most heavily emphasized in this last chapter. These two chapters tie Romney’s often diverse policy prescriptions into a complete package, focused around the need to prevent America from declining, as so many have before. Like most American politicians, and Republican ones in particular, Romney believes that America has a special role to play in the world, and that the country must change course if this place is to be preserved. For Romney, American primacy, in all fields, is not only a grand strategy, but a national imperative. The second chapter of the book is dedicated to what he sees as the four paths to power pursued by nations today: American liberal democracy, Chinese capitalist autocracy, Russian autocratic energy dominance and the radical Islam of Iran and the jihadists. Again, this is something of an over-simplification—bureaucratic, market-oriented and democratic India is hardly mentioned in Romney’s book at all—but it does underscore the necessity of American hegemony. It is hard to imagine, as Romney points out, that Chinese, Russian or jihadist hegemons would create a more benign world order than would the United States, and certainly not one as favorable to our nation. Equally, given the trans-national post-military, post-modern utopianism which thoroughly dominates so many of the other liberal democracies, it is difficult to imagine another democratic hegemon on the near horizon (India may be a horse to bet on in the future, but probably not yet). Romney, then, is spot on in his assessment that the next American president will need a grand strategic vision, both foreign and domestic, which will preserve American primacy.
To be sure, such visions are plentiful among commentators of the left and right. Conservatives favor a massive scaling-back of the federal government in all spheres of life, for ideological as much as grand strategic reasons. For progressives, it is precisely the lack of government that prevents America from achieving her full greatness. Though Romney’s policies do place him firmly on the small government side of the question, those looking for an ideological small government crusader who will take a buzz saw to the federal government are likely to be disappointed. Romney’s prescriptions reminded me less of the Jacksonian Democrats or Jeffersonian Republicans than the Federalists, that great old Yankee political movement known for their mercantile conservatism. This is not to say that Romney is a corporatist or, (gasp), a big government conservative. If given a choice, he prefers market-oriented solutions. However, Romney does see the government as having a role to play in a market economy, much to the horror of libertarians everywhere. The most ardent Tea Partiers may find themselves biting their lips a time or two, particularly as Romney discusses the need for a “properly regulated” market, where the government ensures compliance with a consistent set of rules. He is not above using tax incentives and other government solutions popular with some conservatives to help alleviate problems. Nor is he above criticizing, at times, the policy prescriptions and prevailing attitudes of his own party.
Still, Tea Partiers will find quite a few surprising things to like about the Mitt Romney revealed in his book. Romney is strongly committed to entitlement reform, talking at length about the need to get social security, Medicare and Medicaid under control. His chapter entitled “the worst generation” makes a hard push for many of the kinds of reforms currently being championed by conservatives. His desire to make the federal government publish a yearly balance sheet—as corporations are required to do—should please fiscal conservatives, and his evisceration of the negative role played by so-called campaign finance reform accords strongly with conservative thinking on the issue (Romney would replace it with a system which allows for unlimited campaign contributions but requires total donor disclosure). Romney also has a strong federalist streak (in the modern rather than the nineteenth-century sense of the word), lauding the states as “laboratories of innovation”. His chapter on education is extremely strong, packed with data, and supportive of many ideas beloved of the education reform community. And Romney pulls absolutely no punches when it comes to unions and the incredibly negative influence he believes they exert on the body politic. Though his harshest judgment is reserved for public-sector unions, he has some sharp words for both union leaders and corporate executives for a labor-management culture which, he feels, places point-scoring above cooperation for the good of their industry. Finally, what Tea Partier couldn’t love Romney’s second-to-last chapter, on promoting a culture of citizenship, in which he discusses the virtues our republic requires to survive, and the ways in which they can be promoted? Romney is also unequivocal on the need for defense spending. He painstakingly demolishes many of the arguments made by fiscal hawks for cutting defense spending, and argues that an increase may in fact be necessary. This is an issue which sharply divides conservatives, but Romney is firmly on the side of those who argue that defense must remain a spending priority. Here, Romney could have discussed, in greater detail, ways to reform the defense department, to make each dollar count. A real, effective civil service reform, which would make it possible to fire under-performing or non-performing federal employees, would drastically decrease the need for DOD contractors (though not eliminate it altogether), and probably bring about huge savings for the defense department. Given that one of Al-Qaeda’s stated goals is to bleed the US into bankruptcy, good government reform at the defense department, and throughout government, could rightly be seen as a national security issue. Nevertheless, Romney is broadly correct in arguing that we must not throw the baby out with the bath water, where defense is concerned.
Of all the issues with which Romney deals, the three which have given him the most headaches are probably health care, climate change and abortion. This last issue is hardly mentioned at all, save for Romney’s reaffirmation of his pro-life convictions. It might have been worthwhile for Romney to take a bit more time here explaining his conversion on this issue, and discussion of his veto of a Massachusetts human cloning bill could only have helped him with social conservatives. On climate change, Romney’s answer was very strong. He professes ambivalence on the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which seems to me to be an entirely reasonable position for a layman not schooled in the vagaries of climate science, and the scientific politics which attend them. However, his discussion of cap and trade and the carbon tax, and the general global warming hysteria, is absolutely devastating. In particular, his assessment of the impact government attempts to limit carbon emissions would actually have relative to their costs, compared with much cheaper and more life-saving efforts such as universal access to clean drinking water, the elimination of malaria and HIV/AIDS prevention, is something that all progressive-minded people should read. For a popular discourse which all-too-often jumps straight from a hysterical discussion of the world’s warming trends to an urgent appeal for cap and trade now, Romney’s cool-headed assessment of the policy pros and cons is refreshing. His conclusion, that we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels for national security reasons and, if it reduces green house gas emissions, all well and good, is one with which conservatives would be hard-pressed to object.
By far Romney’s biggest hurdle is, of course, Mass-care. Here, it is important to note that this review refers to the 2009 version of the book, which was the only one available on audio book from the National Library Service, not the second addition with revised healthcare language. Will Romney’s treatment of his health care law satisfy his critics? Probably not entirely. He does not repudiate the health insurance mandate, nor argue that the law itself was a mistake. However, he does make a few important points that I expect we’ll here from him again. The first is that, by preference, he would like to see health insurance decisions made at a state level, with the ability for residents of a given state to shop across state lines. He makes no bones about the fact that our current employer-driven health care system is broken, with which Republicans all ought to agree. Second, Romney emphasizes that Mass-care was designed to bring about universal coverage, and would not, left to itself, lower costs. Romney’s plan for lowering costs is much heavier on tort reform and other cost-saving measures by no means included in Obamacare. Finally, Romney explicitly criticizes the practice of writing bills to get positive CBO scores over ten years, one of the things about Obamacare which most dramatically irritated Republicans. It remains to be seen whether these and other points made by Romney will be sufficient to turn away the bundling of Obamacare and Romneycare in the minds of many Republican voters.
Based on this book, then, what could we expect from a President Mitt Romney? First and foremost, he would be a problem-solver. No Apology reveals a candidate ready and willing to tackle tough issues like entitlement reform, and prepared to make the case to the American people of just how bad things really are in that regard. His emphasis is less on shrinking government for its own sake, and more on making it less wasteful, more efficient and dragging it kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. This has led some small government conservatives to distrust him, but in practical terms, doing what Romney wants to do will necessitate shrinking government. I could see a President Romney going in two directions. On the one hand, he could turn out to be a technocrat, nibbling at the edges of our 1940s-style government, and trying to make the old thing run through a liberal application of spit, gum and duct tape. On the other hand, he might well be a transformer, who can systematically revamp our federal government into a leaner, meaner twenty-first-century instrument, thereby helping to ensure America’s long-term success. Part of this, of course, would depend on environmental factors entirely out of his control. Like many, however, I think the country is nearing the point at which it is really ready for transformation. Everyone seems to know that Washington is broken, and we can only hope that the constant political game of desperately defending the status quo through shibboleths about starving grandmothers, oppressed teachers and malnourished children resulting from any kind of government reform has, at last, warn thin. If that is the case, I think the Mitt Romney revealed in No Apology might be able to seize that moment, and make it his own. Undoubtedly, there are other candidates in the field who would do as well, or perhaps even better. But if reading No Apology didn’t fill me with an instant desire to quit my job and start volunteering for Romney in Iowa, it did reassure me that, if he does become our nominee, Mitt Romney is a man I could comfortably, perhaps even enthusiastically, support against Barack Obama. For those who maintain that they cannot support Romney under any circumstance, or that he would be a disaster as bad as Obama, I highly recommend reading No Apology, thoroughly and in full. If nothing else, it may help you sleep better at night if he wins.
_________________________________________________________________________
-Cross-posted at AlmostDoctorSomebody
June 28th, 2011 at 11:11 am
I will support Romney if he is the nominee and I would be interested in reading his book. That being said, I am most concerned with his voting record. Like him or not, Romney is as Romney does.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:24 am
I didn’t mention this in the review, but Romney draws substantially on his time as governor of Massachusetts as well, both for anecdotes and in policy discussions. I came away with a better sense of his term in MA after reading.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Romney attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser = No Apology!
June 28th, 2011 at 11:35 am
You know, I’ve read this book twice now, and I am rock solid that we do NOT have a better candidate this cycle, in terms of experience, character, game plan, and skill set. Perfect man, no. Perfect man for this country at this time, yes. His writing style is an easy read, but no doubt the man’s mind is advanced and organized. Most of all, he’s not full of crap and he is NOT a crybaby. The man takes responsibility for his….well…responsibilities. What a relief it will be to have an adult in the White House. Should it happen. If it doesn’t happen, we deserve what we get.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:36 am
A worthy read. And delightfully the man is not a narcissist or vain in any way, or else he would have chosen a more attractive photo for the book cover.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Clambake
June 28th, 2011 at 11:46 am
“Everyone seems to know that Washington is broken, and we can only hope that the constant political game of desperately defending the status quo through shibboleths about starving grandmothers, oppressed teachers and malnourished children resulting from any kind of government reform has, at last, warn thin.”
This concern is not going to wear thin. The problems are talk show hosts declaring everyone on welfare to be lazy and people like Ron Paul answering a question about whether a five year should get emergency medical care with a rambling homily on libertarianism. The solution is for Republicans to be absolutely clear that their plans are not to cut needed aid to “starving grandmothers, oppressed teachers and malnourished children.” We must make the case that reform is needed to maintain that aid. With talk shows, bloggers, and conservative activists calling for an end to government as we know it and decrying any and all welfare. It’s not hard to see why the public is threatened. We need someone who can reassure them that we intend to fix government rather than destroy it as we know it, if indeed that it is the plan.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Does Michele Bachmann and her husband earn income from the family farm or not?
http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/06/does-michele-bachmann-and-her-husband.html
June 28th, 2011 at 11:56 am
1:
What voting record? Romney’s never been a legislator.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:58 am
9 – Who cares about voting record… Romney has never had an opinion that he couldn’t change…but I don’t think that was the change President Obama was referring to…
June 28th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Ben,
Yes, Michele and her husband have recieved funds from their farm subsidies…just not directly.
Michele is spinning this issue….but her bank account is bigger because of the FED FARM SUBS.
Michele and her Husband get paid by a trust set up for their whole family…..and of course the trust is healthy because of…well….you know why.
Bachmann also believes John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father.
This is why Michele always underperformed in her MN 6th district races……she turns people off..even GOP voters in time.
The longer Michele is under the hot lights the worse it will be for her.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
10:
Apparently Another Bob cares about his voting record. Hence I was directing my question to him.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
7
“We need someone who can reassure them that we intend to fix government rather than destroy it as we know it, if indeed that it is the plan.”
Exactly. Every great President in American history, who was able to get great things done, worked with the other side. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan come to mind. A true leader can still accomplish his party’s objectives, not by crushing the opposition, but by convincing them to come along.
I don’t see that quality in Palin, Bachmann, Paul, or even Rick Perry. They and their followers are deluded in the belief that they can elect a person like this and the opposition will just roll over for them. The left would stonewall these kind of leaders in the same way that the right stonewalls Obama. Nothing would get done and the country would sink further and further into hateful infighting and inevitable decline.
Mitt Romney is a leader that we can all rally around. Like Reagan, he understands that the answer is to unify Americans under a common cause. He may not check all of the ideological boxes that Conservatives want, but he checks enough to get the job done in Washington. Let’s put aside our endless bickering and hate and get America back on track with Mitt Romney.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
12 – You are correct, and I apologize. Another Bob is interested in Romney’s voting record and you were also correct to assert that Romney was never a legislator but if he were, I would assume that a Senator or Congressman Romney would vote against clambakes…because, as we all know, he was against clambakes in the 80′s.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
11:
For what it’s worth, John Quincy Adams served as an ambassador during the Washington and Adams administrations and was a fairly important diplomat at the time.
It might be a stretch to call him a Founding Father, but he was important to the early Republic.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
AJ
What has he ever done as governor that stands out,except the boondoggle
Romneycare?
We don’t want to hear regular run of the mill things that all governors
fight and struggle with.
Name us only stand out success,if you can.
There is none.
I can name several Sarah Palin’s stand out successes,so great that no other governor ever done it.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I love how Bachmann, Palin, and talk radio constantly compare themselves to the Founding Fathers when they have practically nothing in common.
All of the Founding Fathers (and yes, you could throw John Quincy in there as well) were wealthy, upper-class, soft-spoken, gentlemen.
A more appropriate comparison for the screaming talk radio candidates would be Thomas Paine. While Paine played an important role during the American Revolution by stirring up populist anger against Britain through his publications, he was not an elected Founding Father.
Paine was a populist lay-man. He was under-educated and appealed to the common man. He would be your proto-typical “Tea Party” Activist if he were alive today.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
7. John Mark, agreed and sounds like you’re descibing Mike Huckabee.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
I enjoyed reading the review. As a staunch supporter of Mitt Romney, I enjoy reading (or hearing) honest and unbiased opinions from people who, because they are not already on the Romney bandwagon, perhaps see the issues with a clearer vision than my own.
And #13, CF, I agree with your statement.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
17:
I can’t imagine any serious historian saying that Thomas Paine wasn’t a Founding Father. I’d toss in the original Tea Party man, Samuel Adams as another not so soft-spoken Founding Father.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Well I didn’t have him in mind, but I think you may be right that he would do a great job of advocating this position. With the current field I might have found himself in Huckabee’s camp this time around. I think he’d be the best communicator in the field, and he has the ability both to talk to lower economic classes and reach across the aisle,-that’s something missing from this field.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
No one who has read this book can come away with the conclusion that Mitt is just an empty suit or a puppet. He has the potential to entirely reshape the Republican Party the way it was done under Reagan.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
20
It’s debatable. Was he an outspoken populist that got people energized? Certainly. What he wasn’t, was the person who really stuck their neck out like the signers of the Declaration, Constitution and elected leaders who were Enemy #1 of Great Britain.
That’s not my point though. My point is that Palin, Bachmann and Talk Radio have played a role similar to Thomas Paine. When push came to shove, however, the people during the revolution wanted competent, educated, experienced individuals to lead them.
If the “Talk Radio Candidates” and their fans want to compare them to our founding fathers, it would be great for people to educate themselves and understand exactly which “founding fathers” they resembled most. Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Paul are certainly no George Washington, John Adams, or Thomas Jefferson, but more like Thomas Paine. An important crowd enabler, but not a competent/serious leader ready to get the real job done.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Give me a Tea Party Candidate like Romney, not a Talk Radio Candidate like Bachmann any day.
June 28th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Read No Apology check…….. Yard signs up check….. Romney bobble head in the window check….. ready to vote Romney for President!!!!!
June 28th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
25
Is this “Granny T?” WOW!!!
nah, I know it’s not her… sigh…
June 28th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
#14
Alright, we get your point, and have gotten for some time now. You don’t need to keep sounding like a broken record….we know where you stand with Mitt. Take CF’s advice in #13
“Mitt was for it, before he was against it”….we’ve heard it all. Let’s beat Obama. Has Mitt pandered, sure. All have. Mitt is particularly skilled at pacifying the left. Obama is a masterful deceiver and we need someone who can reach over to Independents and Moderates, as well as Conservative Dems, as we know Obama is going to move to the center to do the same.
We have to play a wiser, and if you will, a more cunning game in order to get rid of Obama. I see nothing wrong with leveling the playing field for the good of the country. If ANYONE of our politicians have to play the game of moderately courting Independents, in order to oust Obama, DO IT!
June 28th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Come on Bachmann, hang in there for just a few more weeks.
June 28th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
#9 No, but he has been a governor. He can still pass or veto!
June 28th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
TEx, Romney cam, e down 5 times on the side of life as governor of a liberal state. He had all the pressure that can be imagined to do otherwise, buut he bucked the majority of the voters and stuck to his principals, defending life.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
#28 Of course she will hang in there, she’s a strong 2nd in the polls.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
#30 Greg, give it up. Don’t waste your energy and time. All this and some has been told to TEX, time and time again, and he still thinks Romney supporters on here have never given him evidence that Romney was a good Governor.
He’s in a sad state of being and there is nothing you can say to him. NOTHING will convince him that Romney is legit, and that Palin isn’t the 2nd coming of Jesus in woman form.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
This sounds just awful. I may have to get a copy of the book just in case I ever need an emetic.
Last cycle, Mitt took on the shape of a talk-radio-built rightie that no one could top. And that fit in horribly with the national mood that had declared Dubya to have been too much of a right-wing extremist (for mysterious reasons considering his promotion of entitlement expansion, the federal takeover of K-12 education, SarbOx, etc.).
Now Mitt has shed his false conservative skin to reveal a moderate technocrat at the very moment when there’s a Cat 5 hurricane of a fiscal poop-storm about to make landfall. Mitt’s solution is to hand out free umbrellas.
Great. Just great.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
#33,
If Mitt has already laid out his Social (doesn’t translate into “Conservative”) stances, and the economy is the #1 issue, shouldn’t he keep attacking Obama on his area of weakness, while touting his area of strength? Any candidate that goes around campaigning on social issues isn’t going to convince people he’s going to put them back to work.
That foolish, and it’s foolish for you to assume such. Your judgment is misguided, sad to say.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
33
Romney hasn’t changed, the right has changed. Romney is the same stalwart person he was in 2008.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
33
What, should Mitt be campaigning on abortion, claiming “Obama has failed at overturning Roe v. Wade?”
I mean, yes, that is important. But this cycle, the issues at hand are jobs, deficits, and debt. 2007 was a whole different ball game.
NO ONE in this race is running the same campaign they would in 2007.
And who’s to say Mitt is a technocrat? He wants the government to get out of the way and let health insurance work like a free market.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
7: I actually agree re: the libertarian set, and I think Republicans need to make exactly the case you suggest. But I have no illusions that Democrats will stop trotting out helpless victims anytime something like the Ryan plan is proposed, and arguing that the lott of these poor unfortunates–in whichever designated category–will be crippled as a result. My hope is that people can really look beyond the mud-slinging and realize that government has got to be transformed.
33-36: Is it possible to be a conservative technocrat, or a free-market technocrat? I definitely got a bit of a technocratic vibe from Romney (which isn’t entirely a bad thing), but a huge segment of the book was focussed on free market reforms. I think he’s both a conservative free marketer and a technocrat, to an extent. What he is not is a libertarian small government ideologue. If that’s what you’re looking for, you’ll probably want someone else.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
[...] Go here to see the original Book Review: Book Review: Mitt Romney's “No Apology” | Race 4 2012 [...]
June 28th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
37, You’re right that we can’t stop the Dems from trotting out helpless victims. We can, however, do a more efective job of refuting these claims and assuring them that we don’t intend to cut aid to those who need it. I think Bush’s Compasionate Conservatism was an attempt to convey this message. Unfortunately Bush was a horrible messenger and not a very good executive, but that doesn’t mean the message wasn’t something conservatives needed to be saying.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Rombots,
For days now I’m still waiting for somebody to tell us one,JUST ONE,
Romney’s success as governor,that really stands out,that will always be remembered.
RomneyCare boondoggle and albatross will be remembered all right as a
blueprint for ObamaCare.
Not a peep yet,because there was no stand out success,none.
Rombots,you can avoid my question,but Willard will be confronted by
Sarah Palin about his mediocre record.
She criticized the candidates right after N.H. debate for not comparing
each others records.
Translation:
“You cowardly wimps should have shred Willard’s lousy record to mittens.”
June 28th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
A.J. your book review is everything I would have written myself if I could write half as well as you.
I got a firm impression that Romney is a true leader. That he is one to really get in there and get things done. The way he gets things done is unique and innovative.
No way would Romney go out golfing expecting someone else to figure things out for him like our erstwhile president Obama. Romney cannot sit back and happily play the role of figure head as our current president does. Its not in him to do that.
We definitely need Romney if anything in Washington DC is ever going to get better. I have my doubts about his rivals really having an ability to do what needs to be done. But about Romney, no doubts whatsoever.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
A.J.,
Thank you for writing this. I really enjoyed it, and it almost exactly reflected the impressions I got after reading No Apology. I also agree with your final conclusion regarding Romney.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
AJ,
Excellent review. I read the book about a year ago and your very well-writen review served as a refresher.
All of Romney’s detractors should at least read what he has to say.
Every four years, the American people are given the task of hiring someone to run our country, which is the largest, most important enterprise on the planet and that task should be undertaken by each of us with great seriousness. Rather than treating the process like a season of American Idol, we should read, research, ponder, and very thoughtfully consider the qualifications of each individual.
Some have mentioned our founders and it is important to remember at election time the great sacrifices our founders endured to establish our novel system of self governance. Our founders entrusted the America they birthed to us. Into our hands, they placed the reins believing that this land could be best guided not be a monarchy but by the collective wisdom of its people.
We owe our founders nothing less a thoughtful, sober analysis of each candidate. Each of us should read No Apology, Courage to Stand, Going Rogue, etc. and make an informed decision. Our founders are counting on us to demonstrate wisdom and make the right choice.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
When TEX reads the book and gives his HONEST assessment, I’ll start listening to him