Romney's Most Effective Ad Yet

In 1776, our founders tirelessly collaborated on ideas for the future of their budding nation.  It was an exhausting effort.  They faced resistance--even from each other. Yet, they were resolute in their will break free from the oppression they felt from an overreaching monarchy.

They debated and debated and debated.  Many times, it appeared that it was all going to fall apart, but they resolutely persevered and were able to unify and successfully lay a brilliant foundation for their new government.

It was revolutionary.  It was the first of its kind.  It was brilliant and many of these men believed it was inspired by God.

Why was it different?  Because it was the foundation for a government that actually gave its power to its people.

The first line of the Declaration of Independence reads, "We the People..." Our founders envisioned a nation where the government would be for its people---not a people for their government.

***

Our country faces unsettling times.  Stability and prosperity feel like a blurry luxury of days long past.  Foreclosures, layoffs, unemployment lines, food stamps and uncertainty are no longer taboo words. Unfortunately, these words have become a reality for countless members of our neighbors, friends and family and are still dominating dinner conversations across the country.

Our country is enduring the longest and slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression.  Could it possibly get worse?

Unfortunately, history has shown that it absolutely could.

But we have two leaders who are promising that they each have the solutions to ensure that it won't.  Who can we believe?

Image from Salon.com

Fortunately, the deep set ideology of these two men is beginning to fully emerge making it easier to differentiate their visions for America.

Last week, President Obama revealed an important and perhaps the most crucial of differentiators in this race.  Standing in front of a crowd in Virginia, Obama carefully articulated that he believes that government can provide the solution to our problems and that the government is to thank for its people's successes.

He said, "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own.  I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be 'cause I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else."  

Obama went on to say, "Let me tell you something.  There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you've got a business, you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen."

What?  If you've got a business, you didn't build that?  Not exactly the message that countless small business owners who are struggling to keep their doors open and grasping to make payroll for their employees want to hear.

Mitt Romney, an individual who spent 25+ years running an extremely successful business which counseled small businesses on how to succeed, immediately pounced.  He released this ad today and I would argue that it is one of his most effective to date.

The real differentiator is that we have a president who advocates that people are for the government vs. Romney's belief that the government is for its people.

The left is crying foul arguing that the president's words were taken out of context, but the problem is they weren't.  The president spoke from the heart and it is hard to argue with conviction.  The president believes the government should stimulate the economy.

Problem? We have been trying this approach for nearly four years.

We watched our government spread its hands into dozens of new programs and various aspects of our lives.  We are trillions and trillions of dollars deeper in debt and it did not work.  It has not helped our economy.

Why would more time make this approach more successful?

***

Mitt Romney would argue that a greater blanket of coverage by our government will simply suffocate the potential of its people.  It will stifle growth and limit innovation.  Romney argues that bigger government with stronger regulation and taxation will create a dependency of a people on its government.

He's right.

Image from onlinejournal.com

Perhaps this is why Mitt Romney is now effectively making the case that America is enduring the weakest economic recovery because we have a president who doesn't understand the economy.

Mitt Romney believes that business will fuel the economy while the president believes a stronger government will.

The president is wrong and his policies have proven it.

***

William Bennett, author and CNN contributor, posed an interesting question yesterday here in a piece for CNN.  He said, "Romney had a "sterling business career," and those are President Bill Clinton's words.  Would anyone say the same thing about President Obama's tenure as the CEO of the American economy?"

The truth of matter is that the our government is a brilliant institution which has withstood the test of time.  Its role in our lives is crucial and essential.  Mitt Romney would never advocate for the removal of the government.  He just believes that the government is there to encourage growth, not regulate it.

One can't help but ask, which approach is closest in line with the vision of our founders?  I am betting on Romney every time.

Go Mitt.