Just four days after the announcement that he would be Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan spoke to an enthusiastic crowd of about 6,000 on the campus of his alma mater, Miami University in Oxford.
Following remarks from a former professor and Governor John Kasich, then an introduction by Senator Rob Portman, Congressman Ryan spoke to the crowd for about fifteen minutes. He briefly reminisced about his days at Miami, then focused on the clear contrasts between the direction President Obama wants to take this country and the vision that Governor Romney and he have for America. It was a message that brings genuine hope to conservatives.
Paul Ryan understands that our rights come from God – not from government. He said so. He gets it. That is essential to understanding the proper role and limits of government. He believes in fiscal responsibility – you don’t spend money you don’t have. And, he recognizes that jobs come from successful small businesses, unburdened by regulations and taxes. His message resonated with the principles of Constitutional limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. His was a message of hope – because his vision has a foundation in principles. This is a stark contrast to Obama’s “hope” that is merely a wish for a utopia that has no foundation other than empty political rhetoric.
Not only is the Tea Party not dead, but according to South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, the
Tea Party Is The New Reality
In an excellent article in The American Spectator, Senator DeMint applauds the Tea Party, recognizing that it’s here to stay – “a full-fledged movement with considerable influence”. He writes,
“The Tea Party has provided a much-needed infusion of accountability to ensure that the GOP champions the values that have made our nation prosperous. The genius of the Tea Party is that it is not a single group that may one day be corrupted. Its allegiance lies with the Constitution and our founding principles, not with a person or party.”
He concludes that the Tea Party “is the new reality” and that “our nation’s survival depends on it”. He’s right.
You can link to his article here.
What great news! Can it be that an overwhelming majority believe – as we do – that Government should be limited? A new Rasmussen poll taken this week among likely voters found that “92% Favor Strict Limits on Government To Protect the Individual“. If this is true, our worries are over; we should have no trouble at all getting the necessary votes to oust Big-Government office holders and replace them with Limited-Government candidates.
But another Rasmussen poll this week puts Obama ahead of Romney among Ohio likely voters at 46% to 42%. Obama is certainly a Big Government candidate, with a track record of government solutions to every problem, while Romney (though some people question the depth of his conservatism) is far and away more protective of freedom and individual rights, and in favor of limiting governmental intrusion into our lives.
The results of the two polls certainly appear to be inconsistent. The answer to this conundrum may lie in the fact that words have different meanings to different people. The exact wording of the question from the first survey was, “How important is it for there to be strict limits on government so that it cannot take away individual rights and freedom?”
To the conservative, “rights” means those inalienable, God-given rights (such as life, liberty, and property). Conservatives value the equality of rights and opportunity for each individual; they see the government’s role as one of protecting equal rights. Of course they would consider it of utmost importance for there to be strict limits on government so that it cannot take away individual rights.
But to the liberal/progressive, “rights” has a different – and much broader – meaning. “Rights” encompasses everything from housing and healthcare to employment and daycare. Progressives view equality in terms of outcomes rather than opportunities; they see the government’s role as one of providing equal things. They, too, would agree that it is important to have strict limits on government so that it cannot take away from them what they are certainly entitled to have – after all, they have rights!