The Irrational Anybody But Mitt Romney Crowd

The goal isn’t to defeat Romney. Its to defeat Obama. However, that isn't the goal of the anti-Romney crew. They want to defeat Romney so badly that they don't care if America gets another four years of President Obama.

It never ceases to amaze me of how irrational the anybody but Mitt crowd is.

They’re willing to accept Newt Gingrich who supported Cap and Trade, medicare plan D prescription medication coverage, and the creation of the TSA. Additionally, he's had approximately 84 ethical violations against him while he was Speaker of the House, cheated on his wives and was a lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie who was paid $1.8 million in “consulting fees." Moreover, Newt Gingrich doesn't have the kind of character that conservatives want in the White House.  Finally, if Newt has the opportunity to go against Obama in the general election, he would be most likely to lose the Presidential election in 2012 much like John McCain did in 2008.

They’re willing to accept Herman Cain who has private sector experience but no public sector experiences, cannot articulate a serious foreign policy position on Cuba, Libya  and has accusations (unproven yet) of sexual harassment and adultery. Moreover, his "999" plan would be a disaster for the economy.

They were excited about Rick Perry who supported a force mandate of immunizing young girls against sexually transmitted diseases, cannot debate to save his life and has very little to offer in terms of domestic or foreign policy.

Moreover, the anybody but Mitt crowd was excited about Michelle Bachmann until they realized she has no leadership experience and hasn’t made any major accomplishments in Congress other than being on the Intelligence committee.

Then there’s Rick Santorum whose campaign is barely breathing. He’s a great guy but he has nothing to offer either. For the anybody but Mitt crowd, he’s a great choice. The problem is…he can’t defeat Obama.

It amazes me that these so called "conservatives" have been flip flopping on all these candidates when the best choice is obvious to the rest of us:

Despite President Obama’s horrendous policies and governing record, he nevertheless has a pretty good chance of winning re-election in November 2012, not only because the U.S. economy may be showing some improvement by then, compared to this year, and not only because he will have killed more Al Qaeda leaders than did Mr. Bush, but because the GOP isn’t sufficiently rallying behind the only worthy candidate: Governor Romney. Never underestimate the GOP’s willingness to shoot itself in the foot electorally.

GOP conservatives falsely accuse Romney of “flip-flopping,” even though his character is stellar and his campaign themes have been both good and steady, and even though fickle conservatives themselves have flip-flopped almost weekly, dashing about promiscuously and desperately seeking “anyone but Romney” – first Sarah Palin, then Donald Trump, then Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, and now – the worst of all possible speed dates – Newt Gingrich.

What is so delusional about the anybody but Mitt crowd is that they're willing to support all other severely flawed candidates just to ensure Romney loses this election regardless of the fact that he broad spectrum of appeal democrats, independents, moderates, tea party and conservatives. Jennifer Rubin, in her column for the Washington Post, points out that this unhingedcrowd wants a pure candidate rather than a candidate who is appealing to a wide spectrum of the American people:

The point, you see, is not to advance (incrementally or otherwise) the conservative ball but to remain forever aggrieved. Whatever deal is attainable and whichever candidate is acceptable to a broad cross-section of Americans are almost by definition unacceptable to those voices.

Jennifer Rubin also out that the anybody but Romney has a different yet irrational agenda than the rest of America:

Notice how their interests now diverge from the interests of the party in gaining governing majorities and the White House? They’re only happy if the most flawed candidates survive? Something is amiss. Indeed it is. You’ll hear plenty more of it, and some weird defenses of candidates, any candidate other than Romney, any candidate who couldn’t possibly win. The far right echo chamber is going to be screeching at fever pitch. The rest of the party, and the country at large, will be just fine. 

Lets look at Mitt Romney to see how irrational they are in opposing Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is a fiscal conservative. He's had a long and successful career in business. He's got a great economic record when it comes to job creation, taxes and fees, and getting the state of Massachusetts out of a $3 billion deficit to a $2 billion surplus. With his wealth of experience and success in the public and private sector, Mitt Romney has an excellent jobs plan that will help get America on track if he's elected President in 2012.

For social conservatives, he is the most appealing candidate since he's been a strong family man since he's been married once to the same woman for 42 years. No sexual harrassment charges against him. No accusations of adultery. Romney has been able to create the ideal family: stable marriage, stable family, stable job, great home and lots of grandchildren. He's pro-life, opposes gay marriage and is a strong supporter of the family.

For legal conservatives such as myself, Mitt Romney is the most ideal candidate. He has assembled an amazing team of legal advisors for his 2012 campaign. He has vowed to appoint judges who will not legislate from the bench and who will follow the Constitution.

When it comes to the issue of health care, Mitt Romney has been a strong conservative. Mitt Romney was opposed to the idea of a nationalizing our health care system as early as 1993 or 1994 as President Clinton was pushing to pass HillaryCare. He was opposed to opposed HillaryCare 2.0 in 2007.

Moreover, Mitt Romney adopted the Heritage Foundation's proposal to implement the individual mandate at the state level. Once he implemented RomneyCare, he received a lot of support from conservatives. One of the reasons why they liked it is because the cost of RomneyCare was less than 1% of the state budget. RomneyCare was not a big issue for Romney during the 2008 Presidential election. 

However, conservatives have unjustifiably and unreasonably became angry at Mitt Romney when President Obama became President and passed ObamaCare. Its important to remember that Obama flip flopped on RomneyCare by opposing it during the 2008 campaign before supporting it in his presidency. A close look at the facts reveal that there is no possible way that Obama modeled ObamaCare after RomneyCare. There are too many differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. Despite these facts, too many conservatives think that RomneyCare is a socialist program simply because of Obama's false claims that he used RomneyCare as a template for ObamaCare. However, RomneyCare is not a socialist health care program. Moreover, RomneyCare is constitutional and ObamaCare isn't.

Mitt Romney has repeatedly promised to repeal ObamaCare and that he would do so on the first day of his Presidency. In fact, Paul Ryan, the conservative Congressman from Wisconsin, has stated that he is very confident Mitt Romney will honor his promise if he is elected President. In addition to repealing ObamaCare, Mitt Romney unveiled a new health care plan for America that is not based on his health care plan in Massachusetts.

The facts are clear. Mitt Romney is a great leader. He was an major player in getting Republicans elected in the 2010 midterm election. He's also the most electable candidate who can defeat President Obama in this election. He's also the only candidate who can remain competitive with Obama when it comes to raising campaign funds. 

Its clear that the anybody but Mitt Romney crowd is irrational given that each of the 2012 candidates is not the candidate conservatives of all stripes are looking for. Mitt Romney is the right candidate for this election and they refuse to accept it despite Romney's experience, qualification and character.

Come Volunteer For Mitt Romney In Salt Lake City!!

Since we are only a few weeks away from the first ballots being cast to determine our nominee for president, we need all hands on deck to help Mitt Romney win the primary elections.

This Saturday, December 3rd, the campaign will hold a Salt Lake Call Day, and volunteers in Salt Lake City located at 4548 South Atherton Drive Drive, Suite 205 Salt Lake City Utah 84123. The call center will be located on the second floor of the building.  We will post signs outside and inside the building to guide you to the call center.

The Salt Lake Call Day will be from 8am-8pm.  You can call 801-317-8201 or contact us at via e-mail at SLCForMitt@gmail.com and tell us when you can volunteer.   If you volunteer, you will be able to make calls to voters in the key early states.

Sign up today for a Salt Lake Call Day volunteer shift in Salt Lake City and join me this Saturday, December 3rd. If you want to meet the author of this article, I will be running the 11-2 shift.

I hope to see you all there!
P.S. Anyone who can’t make it to a call center in person can make calls from home.

Richard Mouw: Evangelicals Can Vote For A Mormon President

Richard J. Mouw,  President of Fuller Theological Seminary, has written some some articles to the Evangelical community about their reluctance to elect a Mormon for President. He explains that while he has theological differences with the LDS faith, he doesn't share the views of some evangelicals who believe Romney's religion is a cult and as a result, he has no problem with having a Mormon in the White House:

The fact that I'm not worried about the possibility of a Mormon in the White House does not mean that I think religious affiliation has no relevance to the question of fitness for office. Religious convictions have political implications. I would have a difficult time voting for candidates with certain religious perspectives that might preclude them from open and self-examining conversations, or from a commitment to scholarship and the pursuit of truth, working alongside those of other traditions.

Most scholars who study religious movements have long abandoned the use of the "cult" label with reference to Mormonism. With about 14 million adherents around the world, the church has moved into the religious mainstream. Mormons are outstanding business leaders, world-class academicians, novelists, authors of bestselling leadership manuals, influential members of Congress and much more. Not the kind of community we ordinarily associate with a cult.

This is not convincing, though, to some of my fellow evangelicals who are writing critical emails to me. Yes, they say, Mormonism has become quite sophisticated. But a sophisticated cult is still a cult. I am naive to think otherwise, they tell me. I am urged to read books that will provide me with the truth about Mormonism.

I have read most of those books, and I have studied and taught about cults for many years. I have also spent the last dozen years meeting with Mormons — scholars and church leaders — to engage in lengthy theological discussions. These dialogues have included several other prominent evangelical Christian leaders.

Based on these conversations and my own careful study, I do not believe Mormonism is a cult. However, I am not convinced that Mormon theology deserves to be classified as Christian in the historic sense of that word. I have serious disagreements with my Mormon friends about basic issues of faith that have eternal consequences. These include issues regarding the nature of God, the doctrine of the Trinity and the character of the afterlife. But I have also learned that in some matters we are not quite as far apart as I once thought. In any case, such theological differences don't preclude a Mormon from being a viable presidential candidate, in my view.

Mr. Mouw, as explained above, often gets e-mails from Evangelicals who are upset about his beliefs that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a cult. He provides an open response to those Evangelicals who are angry with him for establishing a lifelong relationship with Mormons and defending the claim that this faith is not a cult: 

A friend told me about the time a time when, back in the 1960s, he was asked, as a recent college graduate bound for seminary studies, to address his home congregation—an all-white congregation in the Midwest—about his hopes for studying for the ministry. One thing he mentioned to the congregation was his desire to be more effective as a Christian in working for racial reconciliation, specifically between whites and blacks. An older member of the congregation was very upset with him for bringing up the issue of race. “You don’t really know what these colored people are like,” the man told him. “I hope that seminary will cure you of these liberal ideas!” 

Three years later that same congregation invited my friend to preach. In his sermon he shared with the congregation some positive experiences about racial reconciliation that he had received during an extensive student internship that he had recently served at an all-black inner city church. Afterward, the same church member was once again critical of what he said about race relations, but this time his complaint was different: “You’re just saying all these nice things about the colored people because you have spent so much time with them. You are not capable of being objective!” 

My friend found this very frustrating. It is one of those “You can’t win” situations. Either your views about a group are judged to be based on inadequate experience with the group, or you are seen as having too much experience. You’re either ignorant or duped. 

Richard Mouw provides the solution to this problem: 

“You don’t really know them” and “You know them too well” are false choices. The alternative in any relationship with people with whom we disagree on eternally important matters is to listen carefully and patiently, asking questions, discerning patterns of thought—and working diligently not to bear false witness against our neighbors!

Richard Mouw's solution of having an open, sincere and honest discussion with people of different faiths applies also to politics. People can have disagreements on eternally important matters but with regards to secular matters, its important to do your homework in deciding to who to vote in any election.

When voting for a candidate that is not of your faith, its important to do your diligence in learning about the candidate. That means having an open, sincere and honest investigation into their record. Don't buy into media or blogger (including mine) who try to spin their record in a flattering or unflattering way. Go to the source yourself. It takes a lot of work but the reward is worth it. You will be able to move past the propaganda and look at the unvarnished truth yourself.

It also means means having a frank, straightforward and sincere realization that when it comes to elections, a candidate's theology is no where near as important as their values. The distinction between a candidate's religion and his values is crucial in deciding who to vote for in any election, especially in Presidential elections.

Think of about politicians that are of your faith. While all of them are of your faith, not all of them share your values. For example, even though Harry Reid belongs to the same religion I do, he doesn't share the same values I do. As a result, I could never vote for Harry Reid because he doesn't share my values regarding marriage or abortion or other issues that are important to me. 

Again, think of about the politicians that happen to be members of your faith. Make a list of those politicians who, regardless of politician affiliation, share your values. Then make a list of candidates who are not of your faith and make a list of those who share your values regardless of theological differences or political affiliation. 

I think this is a good exercise for people to do during the election year because you'll realize that while a candidate may not be of your faith, he may be of your values. Once you see that a candidate's values is far more important than their party or theological affiliation, you are able to make a better decision on who to vote for in an election. 

Once you see how crucial a candidate's values, not his religion, are in the success of this nation, you cannot simply reject a candidate because he's not of your religion. Just as you must do your diligence in investigating a candidate's record, you must also do your homework in learning about the candidate's values. You must look past his faith and scrutinize his beliefs about the important social and moral issues of the day. That means you must "listen carefully and patiently, asking questions, discerning patterns of thought" by reading all materials written by that candidate. Its also good to engage in conversations with supporters of that candidate to find out what they think his values are. Its also helpful to learn why people of your faith are supporting a candidate who happens not to be a member of your relgion. 

That is why I strongly recommend Evangelicals listen to men like Richard Mouw and Mark Demoss. You can also visit the website Evangelicals For Mitt or joining Evangelicals For Mitt's facebook page and talking to other Evangelicals why they are supporting Mitt Romney.

An Evangelical who is voting for Romney isn't an endorsement of that religion or their theology.. What their vote means is that they have found a candidate whose values are closest to their own and who will lead the nation using those values as his guide. Moreover, he will promote those values domestically and internationally. 

As a result, an Evangelical can vote for a Mormon and still disagree with him on important religious and theological matters but agree with him on the values he shares with that candidate.    

Happy Thanksgiving!!

Left Leaning Website Daily Kos Predicts Romney Will Be The Republican Nominee

While its fun to see conservatives debate one another over who they think will be the Republican nominee, its always important to get a look at what liberals think about the Republican primaries. The far left leaning website Daily Kos has predicted that the nominee will be Mitt Romney:

Mitt Romney is inevitable.  The only person with any chance of stopping him was Rick Perry, but the Texas governor has managed to futz and fumble and oops his way out of that possibility.  Once the number one contender, he is now reduced to a funny footnote in presidential history tomes like The Glorious Burden (an outstanding volume of presidential election history, by the way, if you're into that sort of thing).  At least Gingrich, Cain, Paul, and Bachmann will be there to keep him company.  Jon Huntsman won't even have that.

Why Mitt Romney?  For lots of reasons.  For one thing, he is the next white guy in line in the party that always nominates the next white guy in line.  Seriously.  You want to know the real difference between the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to nominating presidents?  Predictability.  The Republican party almost always nominates the guy who everyone thinks it will nominate a year before the election.  The Democrats never do (just ask Gary Hart, Mario Cuomo, Howard Dean, and Hillary Clinton).  This year it's Mitt's turn.

Romney has spent the last four years prostrating himself before the dark lords of the Republican party, convincing him that he is their man.  That he happens to be Wall Street's guy doesn't hurt, either.  He has even kissed the ring of James Dobson, kingmaker and de facto high priest of the Christian conservative movement, and gotten the nod of approval.  Romney's made the rounds, and he's got the nod.

He has more money and more organization than the rest of the field combined.  He's maintained a steady position at or near the front of the polls throughout the rises and falls of many a competitor, his numbers barely flickering.  More importantly, he is ahead or statistically tied in all of the first four contest states, two (New Hampshire and Florida) by comfortable margins last I checked.  From there, the calendar is incredibly Romney-friendly: Nevada (lots of Mormons), Maine (same near-home New England advantage as in New Hampshire), Colorado (more Mormons), Minnesota, Arizona (Mormons again, plus lots of people who appreciate a man who looks good in a golf shirt), Michigan (where he was raised and his father was a popular governor), and Washington.  In fact, looking at that list it's not hard to conclude that it was specifically written to favor Mitt Romney.  There may be something to that.  But either way, it's very possible that we will go into Super Tuesday in early March with Romney having won every primary and caucus to that point.  How many of his opponents will even remain by that point?

And finally there is what I call the plausibility factor.  As entertaining as people like Michelle Bachmann and Donald Trump and Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich can be, few people really see them as realistic possibilities to be president.  Call it instinct.  Call it a vibe.  Call it bullshit if you want.  But when I look at the current Republican field, I see only three men who I could reasonably imagine as president: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman.  And even Perry is now off the list, having become a punchline.  That leaves Huntsman, whose single-digit (that digit being usually 1 or sometimes even merely "-") showing in the polls just goes to prove that there is no room for moderates in the Republican party any more.  I guess he thought there would be a niche in the race for a blandly handsome Mormon ex-governor.  And he was right, there was.  But somebody else got it first.  And seriously, who wants to see Livingston Taylor if James Taylor's in town?

Barring some completely out of the blue, deus ex machina revelation (like he's secretly the meth kingpin of Albuquerque; yeah, I've been watching a lot of Breaking Bad lately), Mitt Romney is a shoe-in for the nomination.  Given how closely scrutinized and well-publicized Romney's life has been, that seems unlikely in the extreme.  Otherwise the deal is done.  It's gonna be Mitt.

The White House knows this.  That's why they're already running against him.  The media knows it too, but they have papers to sell (figuratively of course -- does anyone actually read physical newspapers any more?), and crazy sells better than inevitable.

The Daily Kos is right. The Obama Administration has been setting its sight on Mitt Romney for a while now. The only problem is that while they're getting prepared to take on Mitt in the general election, they've got no message to take to the American people. 

 “He has not said one thing about what he’d do in his second term,” Matthews continued. “He never tells us what he’s going to do with reforming our health care systems, Medicare, Medicaid. How he’s going to reform Social Security? Is he going to deal with long-term debt? How? Is he going to reform the tax system? How?”

In contrast, Mitt Romney's message to the American people is quite simple. Fixing the economy which will resolve other financial problems like unemployment, trade, taxes, national debt and entitlement reforms.

As a result, not only will Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination but he'll be the next President in 2012.

MRC Teams Up With UltiMitt.org and GotMitt.com to Launch the “One a Day for Mitt” Campaign

Mitt Romney Centeral, a pro-Romney website that I sometimes write for, has announced that they are partnering up with two other pro-Romney sites in order to help Mitt win the nomination and defeat Barak Obama:

We are pleased to announce that MittRomneyCentral.com is joining efforts with UltiMitt.org and GotMitt.com to launch a new campaign to promote Mitt Romney online!

Ultimitt.org is a grassroots forum that many may remember as a popular pro-Romney hangout during the 2008 campaign. Today each of its 1,500+ members will receive an email calling them back into active duty.

GotMitt.com is a website that provides news links in a style similar to the Drudge Report.

The three sites (UltiMitt, GotMitt, and Mitt Romney Central) will be linked together by easily navigable tabs which you now see on the top right of our page: News, Forum, Blog.

Each of these sites would exist and function perfectly well on their own, but there is a specific purpose for us combining together, and that is simply to promote…

The “One a Day for Mitt” Campaign

This simple campaign is designed to take supporters, who are willing to dedicate a few minutes a day, to engage in meaningful and effective activism. Campaigns are much like people pushing a big boulder. If people push at this boulder one person at a time, or if multiple people push in different directions the boulder doesn’t move. If the people coordinate, push all together, in the same direction, they will find that their combined efforts will have much greater impact. Pretty soon this rolling boulder will attract the attention of onlookers willing to join in the big thing that’s going on, wanting to do their part.

Once each day at the UltiMitt forum there will be posted a simple task that people can complete, return and confirm their efforts. Tasks will include sharing items such as sharing things on Facebook, tweeting, writing emails, creating a MyMitt account, making calls from home, and inviting others to join the effort.

The role of this site (MRC) will be to continue helping people be informed of the on-goings in the campaign, but also to utilize our large readership and 30,000+ Facebook fans to direct supporters to UltiMitt.org and join in on the “One a Day for Mitt” campaign.

It has been my observation that only a small percentage (about 1%) of people who keep up on the news of political campaigns actually put forth the effort to support that campaign in whichever way they can, thinking their contribution will be insignificant. I’m hoping that you will be one of the few who will realize that if you push, other people will too. Please push with us to make this a successful campaign.

Go now to UltiMitt.org. The registration is very simple. The forum set-up is simple. Get started on your first One a Day for Mitt task by inviting your friends to join today.

Ann Coulter On RomneyCare

Ann Coulter has posted a column about the media and the "anybody but Mitt" latest obsession of Newt Gingrich. However, the most interesting part of her article is her defense of RomneyCare:

There may be better ways to stop Obamacare than Romney, but, unfortunately, they're not available right now. (And, by the way, where were you conservative purists when Republicans were nominating Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Jerry-Falwell-Is-an-Agent-of-Intolerance-My-Good-Friend-Teddy-Kennedy-Amnesty-for-Illegals John McCain​-Feingold for president?) 

Among Romney's positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal states in the union -- by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women. 

He came close to stopping the greatest calamity to befall this nation since Pearl Harbor by nearly beating Teddy Kennedy in a Senate race. (That is when he said a lot of the things about which he's since "changed his mind.") If he had won, we'd be carving his image on Mount Rushmore​. 

He is not part of the Washington establishment, so he won't be caught taking money from Freddie Mac or cutting commercials with Nancy Pelosi. 

Also, Romney will be the first Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan​ who can talk. Liberals are going to have to dust off their playbook from 30 years ago to figure out how to run against a Republican who isn't a tongue-tied marble-mouth. 

As we've known for years, his negatives are: Romneycare and Mormonism. 

We look forward with cheery anticipation to an explosion of news stories on some of the stranger aspects of Mormonism. The articles have already been written, but they're not scheduled for release until the day Romney wraps up the nomination. 

Inasmuch as the Democrats' only argument for the big-eared beanpole who's nearly wrecked the country is that you must be a racist if you oppose Obama, one assumes a lot of attention will be lavished on the Mormon Church's historical position on blacks. Church founder Joseph Smith​ said blacks had the curse of Cain on them and banned blacks from the priesthood, a directive that was not revoked until 1978. 

There's no evidence that this was a policy fiercely pushed by Mitt Romney. To the contrary, when his father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan, he was the most pro-civil rights elected official in the entire country, far ahead of any Democrat. 

No one is worried Romney will double-cross us on repealing Obamacare. We worry that Romneycare will make it harder for him to get elected. 

But, again, Romney is the articulate Republican. He's already explained how mandating health insurance in one particular wealthy, liberal Northeastern state is different from inflicting it on the entire country. Our Constitution establishes a federalist system that allows experimentation with different ideas in the individual states. 

As governor, Romney didn't have the ability to change federal laws requiring hospital emergency rooms to treat every illegal alien, drug dealer and vagrant who walked in the door, then sending the bill to taxpayers. (Although David Axelrod, Michelle Obama​, Eric Whitaker and Valerie Jarrett​ did figure out a way to throw poor blacks out of the University of Chicago Medical Center.) 

The Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, supported Romneycare at the time. The biggest warning sign should have been that Gingrich supported it, too. 

Most important, Romney has said -- forcefully and repeatedly -- that his first day in office he will issue a 50-state waiver from Obamacare and will then seek a formal repeal. 

Romney is not going to get to the White House and announce, "The first thing I'm going to do is implement that fantastic national health care plan signed by my pal, Barack!" 

Unlike all other major legislation in the nation's history, Obamacare was narrowly passed along partisan lines by an aberrationally large one-party majority in Congress. (Thanks, McCain supporters!) Not one single Republican in Congress voted for it, not even John McCain. 

Obamacare is going to be repealed -- provided only that a Republican wins the next presidential election. 

If a Republican does not win, however, it will never be repealed. Recall that, in order to boast about the amazing revenue savings under Obamacare, Democrats had to configure the bill so that the taxes to pay for it start right away, but the goodies don't kick in until 2014. 

Once people are thrown off their insurance plans and are forced to depend on the government for "free" health care, Obamacare is here to stay. (And Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to tinker with it "right-wing social engineering.") 

Instead of sitting on our thumbs, wishing Ronald Reagan were around, or chasing the latest mechanical rabbit flashed by the media, conservatives ought to start rallying around Romney as the only Republican who has a shot at beating Obama. We'll attack him when he's president. 

It's fun to be a purist, but let's put that on hold until Obama and his abominable health care plan are gone, please.

Ann Coulter is right. Right now, the goal of most Americans is to get Obama out of office and repeal ObamaCare. The only way to accomplish those two important goals is by electing Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee since Mitt Romney is currently the best candidate to unseat Obama and go one on one with Obama in a debate about health care. Moreover, Mitt Romney will keep his promise to repeal ObamaCare. 

Those who reject Mitt Romney because of his faith and RomneyCare do so at the risk of failing to accomplish the number one goal of 2012 to make Obama a one term president and scrub his healthcare plan out of existence.