Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Will the GOP Unite? Please?

Now that Mitt Romney has enough delegates to be named the GOP's presidential candidate, can we all let out a collective "whew?" Of course, this isn't a "finally, it's over" whew, but a "whew" that says we can finally wipe our brow and move on to the next challenging phase of this daunting process.

Regardless, a big question still remains: will the GOP unite around Romney? I ask this because I find two damaging things to be apparent right now:

1. So many people know so little about Mitt Romney, and what they do know seems to be composed of one-line talking points spouted off by the liberal mainstream media. This first bullet point is projected mainly at the "other guy republicans" and some doubting independents out there. An example of this is, "Massachusetts was 47th in job creation under Romney." Yes, an empty one liner... yawn. Why did I bring this talking point up? Well, if you look deeper, it doesn't tell the whole story. "47th in job creation" (which is a RATE-based statistic... a decrease in unemployment relative to every other state) when you're already doing very well in the field doesn't present a very solid case. Once you're already near the top overall (Massachusetts was), there isn't much room for improvement. For example, if the worst state for employment overall went from an 11% unemployment rate to a 4% rate, that would be a huge drop, and it would most likely be the "best state for job creation." If you're already at 5.6% like Massachusetts was (the US was at 5.8%) when Romney took over, there isn't much room to get better. In spite of all that, under Romney, Massachusetts DID see an improvement in employment overall, and it had a better unemployment rate that the US in nearly ever year under his watch. And with respect to improvement (job creation), it beat the US average for employment growth rate along the way, too. See this graph for the brief analysis (you know I love Excel spreadsheets):

 Click the graphic for a pop-up view. Source: Google Public Data

Regardless, people will still spout off "Massachusetts was 47th in job creation under Romney." I wonder if they've ever looked at the whole picture. I wonder if they truly understand what they're saying. Additionally, people will spout off other liberal media falsities claiming Mitt Romney is a "vulture capitalist" that "raided companies and left them riddled with debt," and on and on and on. Most people do not have a shred of understanding regarding private equity, but they will slam Romney's time at Bain Capital none the less. Sigh. All of these inaccuracies will hurt Romney, and I believe it's our job to spread truth. 

2. Ron Paul, a commendable representative and American citizen (I wrote about this here: still pulls a lot of support away from the GOP. His followers are die-hard freedom lovers (nothing wrong with that), that seem to follow Paul and his views to no end. Why am I bringing this up? Because Ron Paul is still a republican, and Romney needs all the GOP support he can get. In order to defeat Obama, who, in my opinion, is the biggest threat to personal liberties and freedoms we've ever faced, I believe Ron Paul supporters need to swallow their pride and get behind Romney. Many will claim that Romney and Obama are the same. Again... yawn. This goes back to point number 1. When challenging these views, I seem to be met with the same liberal-media styled empty talking points that are pretty baseless and even sometimes shameful. I ask Paul supporters to get rid of these false assumptions that Romney and Obama are the same and work towards the common goal of removing a HUGE government democrat from the White House. I ask you, what would you rather have: 4 more years of Obama, or 4 years of a new, conservative direction? 

So what should we do? Simply... unite! We can work together. We can end this division. Whether we are Paul fans or Tea Party Patriots, we can end this petty bickering and unite under our common goal: defeating a threat to our nation. We can use blogs and worth of mouth communications to bring the GOP together behind our candidate. We can use facts to dispel liberal media lies. Together, we can do this, but infighting and party splitting will certainly ruin us and our chances. 

What do you think? Can we do it?


  1. Well said, LME! I like, as usual, how you use facts to back your point (on the unemployment claim). Libs don't seem to do that. They just like to yell things without the proof behind it. You always say "this is what I believe, and this is WHY I BELIEVE IT."

    And yes, though Rick Santorum was my guy, I completely agree, and I will be voting for Romney in November! (I'm not going to change screen name, though... people wouldn't recognize me lol).

    1. Ah yes, I love Santorum too! The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex. Keep posting MN 4 Rick!

    2. Ah yes, as stated many times. When the uneducated left cannot win a debate/argument with facts and insight, they try to win it with attacks and insults. It shows just how sad they really are. Opinions without facts, and hate-filled attacks are the ways of the left. And for some reason, the right is full of bigots and haters? Grow up.

    3. Good thing you both proved both sides don't debate in facts. Both sides are uneducated an don't know how to make an informed decision.

      (MN 4 RICK and.random guy)

    4. Anonymous - I'm not sure of what you're referring to. With the post above, I took a position that I think the left's argument that "MA was 47th in job creation under Mitt Romney" is disingenuous, and I gave evidence as to why I believe what I believe. Was your comment about "not debating in facts" towards me and my post, or strictly the commentors? If it was at me, please let me know where my facts are wrong, or where they do not connect with my position.

  2. I was there - living in MA as a business owner and also a homeowner. "47th out of 50" means nothing when everybody was working. In fact, I had trouble hiring people because jobs were plentiful. It was definitely an "employee's market" where workers could negotiate pay and benefits to their advantage. Mitt did a GREAT JOB in MA and the Libs are WAY off-base on this "factoid" they attempt to push.

    1. Big Mac - good morning, and thank you for stopping by! I think this is your first time.

      It is great to hear about a first hand experience like yours. I wish more people like you would step up and help the governor out. If you'd like to write about your experience, please do so. Check this out:

      To see what other people have written, search "Reader's Posts" in the top left search box. If not, that's cool, too. Thank you again for stopping by. We hope to hear more from you!

  3. No debating the facts on the real MA employment numbers, and certainly brings a good light on how numbers can be used just as easily to paint a bad picture as a good. Good find.

    I do have a qualm though, in this statement: "In order to defeat Obama, who, in my opinion, is the biggest threat to personal liberties and freedoms we've ever faced, I believe Ron Paul supporters need to swallow their pride and get behind Romney."

    I occasionally see things like this and it always shocks me; that’s such an incredibly bold statement to make and frankly I’ve never seen anyone support it with solid evidence/reasoning.

    The only argument I’ve heard is because of the NDAA, but that doesn’t really hold weight as that bill passed with bipartisan support. Not only that, but an amendment was also proposed in the house to remove the controversial ‘indefinitely detain U.S. Citizens without trial’ aspect of the NDAA, only for it to be shot down by the GOP (163 Democrats supported the amendment).,_house_votes_down_ndaa_amendment_prohibiting_indefinite_detention_of_u.s._citizens/

    So one can’t really make the argument that “Obama is dangerous because of the NDAA” and support the GOP instead, when in fact the NDAA is primarily a GOP bill.

    1. Good morning RKen,

      As always, it's great to hear your opinion. I made that statement because, in my opinion, though difficult to quantify (qualify, sure), Obama is far more dangerous to the freedoms and liberties we hold so dear than anyone else (especially Romney) right now. I cite Obamacare, increased progressive taxation (of course you know I had to say that :-) ) and numerous other economically limiting (you know I'm not as big on social issues) policies that Obama holds dear. I 100% understand Ron Paul's supporters and their view that their candidate best protects freedom and liberty, and you make a great point about NDAA (on the side note, I'm waiting for the SCOTUS to make a final word on that... a lot of people have opinions, but a lot of people are not the SCOTUS), but when it comes to protecting freedom and liberty, IF Ron Paul supporters indeed view Obama as a threat, than in my opinion, for the sake of removing this threat, they should back the greatest chance to defeat him in Romney (though, yes, to RP fans, Romney is not as freedom-protecting as Ron Paul). I hope that clears up my sentiment :-)

      As far as the MA employment numbers, I got tired of hearing that claim. But, as you have pointed out numerous times, both sides tend to do this (I'm more keen to the liberal twist when I see it)... and I will always stand up for truth over party. At the end of the day, the projection of truth, like shown above, should rise above all the muck out there.

      Thanks again, RKen! Hope to hear more. (I'd like to debate more, but for the past few weeks, I've been swamped).

      P.S. Did you vote in the new poll? We are trying to market it completely evenly (if we put up a post on Twitter about it, we tag liberal hashtags as much as conservative ones). Of course, more conservatives visit our blog than liberals, so if you know of people who would vote, let them know.

    2. Thanks for the feedback and comments LME. Mostly comes down to differences in opinion on policy :) which is fair enough.

      Personally, I have mixed feelings about Obamacare still. I definitely feel that there is a problem with our current healthcare industry, and we're certainly not benefiting from keeping things at status quo. But at the same time I don't feel Obamacare does well to resolve (if even help) the problems at all. Though, honestly, in choosing between continuing the status quo and enacting Obamacare I'd likely choose the latter; at least as a temporary solution.

      Annnnd you know how I feel about progressive taxes. :)

      Voted in the poll!

  4. Unite and jump off a cliff

  5. So, should we all take this as a "typical" liberal response? You know... if the left doesn't agree, chant, yell, say something violent, and leave?

    Care to actually join this conversation in a civil manner? I mean... what does dropping something like that do?

  6. Sorry LME but we will agree to disagree on this one. I think if you said romney is better for what you refer to as the "free market" mabee you have an argument.

    But to say "In order to defeat Obama, who, in my opinion, is the biggest threat to personal liberties and freedoms we've ever faced, " Is a completely delusional statement

    Romney supported NDAA aswell

    Bush (both parties have colluded together in this) in my opinion was as you said it "the biggest threat to personal liberties and freedoms we've ever faced"
    - just to point out a few issues, there are many more....

    Also the last republican we had increased (with help from both parties) the size of the government larger than any other president in modern history

    So LME my question to you is will Romney be a real republican who decreases the size of government and decreases the size of our deficit by being realistic like bush senior and regain and understand when raising taxes is necessary or will he be a fake republican like bush and increase the size of government and increase our debt all while preaching low tax rhetoric ( a move both his previous colleges decided to change their mind on ),28804,1859513_1859526_1859516,00.html

    Romney has shown that he cannot make up his mind on many topics

    Im sorry but Romney seems like another bush to me , a huge joke, someone who refuses to be real about the facts that face this country and is constantly pandering to what he thinks voters want to hear.

    Romney is the rights version of Obama

    he wants to increase the size of our government (military)

    The previouse videos and articles show that
    He supports NDAA just like obama

    He has changed his stance on HUGE issues just like obama

    Our last "republican" candidate was anything but "republican"

    I have no faith that this "republican" president will act in any way to represent what he supposedly stands for.

    If i have to choose between two presidents

    both of which support big business (just different sectors)

    both of which support big government

    both of which support intrusion on our rights

    Ill choose the one who supports social welfare over the one who supports corporate welfare.

    my 2 cents on the topic

    1. Loyal - Good morning.

      Disagreeing is totally cool. Nothing wrong with that.

      With regards to NDAA, opinions are opinions, but to me, the only one that matters is the opinion of the SCOTUS. People can say it's unconstitutional (and this is nothing against you personally), but I'm waiting for an opinion from the court on this one.

      To me, yes, Bush expanded the government (mainly with the unfunded Medicaid Part D move... and you can try to argue the wars are unfunded, but that's not true). It doesn't mean all republicans will do it, and it definitely doesn't mean it's right.

      As far as your question about Romney being a "real, small government republican," I have no reason to think he wouldn't be. I personally don't view him as another Obama or Bush, but again, we all have opinions. I might have to bring it up in another debate post.

      I do respect your opinion, though I personally disagree with it. Hopefully you get some input from both sides (I don't want the blog to be solely about people debating me; I want it to be about people debating each other and learning from each other :-) ) I really appreciate the civil nature and backing with links that you provide. Have you ever considered writing for a Reader's Post? Who knows, maybe an article about how you think Romney = Bush = Obama is a good topic. Let me know what you think.