Five-Hundred, Twenty Two Days have passed since Mitt Romney declared that he would seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Today, I am almost in disbelief that this is the last day of this protracted process to establish a new, logical course for our country. But more importantly, I am thankful to have had the opportunity to engage in debates and discussions about the issues that are affecting Americans and the values supposedly motivating the various stances on these issues. I am thankful for free thought in these dialogues. I am thankful that free thought has not been removed from the college campus, despite attempts to remove it, remove it again, and then even the attempts to distract us from using it by the very industry that was established to protect it.

Beyond that, there is little more to be thankful about when it comes to what our chosen leaders have established as important over the last four years. One can only hope that in the last five-hundred, twenty two days, voters have connected with the fundamental idea that their lives do not have to be planned for them by the government. That free will outweighs convenience. That liberty and equality do not mean the same thing. That prolonged, peace-time budget deficits are selfish. And that there are realities in our world with powers far greater than one effective orator. Powers with a moral code that has guided society toward progress for the entirety of this age.

Thank you to those who, in the midst of a busy world, have reminded society of these ideals, if only for a moment.

The success of the American experiment, as laid out in our founding documents, is in the hands of the American people tomorrow. We must believe in America.

President Obama has often invoked the legacy of four of the most outstanding leaders that the world has ever seen: Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela (He has started referring to Clinton only recently). These men sensed the pulse of the people and championed their causes throughout their lives. But what is sometimes forgotten is that these men were great thinkers and expressed their ideas in ways that are too rich to be simply hammered into populist slogans like “Be the change you want to see in the world”. In the past few years, the Obama campaign has erected a Bastille of misconception around the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. To demolish Obama’s claims to Gandhi’s legacy, I offer some pearls from the enormous corpus of Gandhi’s writings on issues that were as important in his time as they are today:

On Individual Freedom

“The individual is the one supreme consideration. No society can possibly be built upon a denial of individual freedom. It is contrary to the very nature of man. Just as a man will not grow horns or a tail, so will he not exist as man if he has no mind of his own. In reality, even those who do not believe in the liberty of the individual believe in their own.”

On material progress

“The common belief is that religion is always opposed to material goods. One cannot act religiously in mercantile matters. Religion is only meant for salvation……In my opinion, there is no line of demarcation between salvation and worldly pursuits.”

On Capital

“Capital as such is not evil; it is its wrong use that is evil. Capital in some form or other will always be needed.”

On Capitalism

“It can be easily demonstrated that destruction of the capitalist must mean destruction, in the end, of the worker….Either is dependent on the other…….Inequalities in intelligence and even opportunity will last till the end of time.”

On Limited Government

“I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor. …”

“Government control gives rise to fraud, suppression of Truth, intensification of the black market and artificial scarcity.”

On Socialism and Communism

“The socialists and communists say that they can do nothing to bring about economic equality today. They will just carry on propaganda in its favor and to that end they believe in generating and accentuating hatred. They say, when they get control over the State, they will enforce equality. Under my plan, the State will be there to carry out the will of the people, not to dictate to them or force them to do its will.

It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and will fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.”

On Abortion

“It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.”

On Non Violence

“Non Violence is the highest ideal. It is meant for the brave, never for the cowardly.”

A new Clint Eastwood Ad recently started airing in the battleground states.  Its main message: American cannot survive a second Obama term.  It’s no secret that Clint Eastwood is a Republican; he even spoke at the RNC giving a relatively iconic empty chair speech.  But I think his contributions highlight an interesting perspective regarding the Hollywood media.  People always associate Hollywood as being a left-wing, toxic-waste, liberal brainwashing institution (or I should say many Republicans do), yet there are still many conservatives that also are apart of the Hollywood media.  These Republicans are not loud and proud (so to speak), but there presence is nonetheless influential.  Take, for example, the very popular Batman Franchise, directed by conservative Chris Nolan.  The movies, though about a superhero, seemed to have become more and more conservative in nature.  A wealthy business man taking justice into his own hands because corrupt politicians and an ineffective judicial system have left a city run by criminals (based on my hometown of Chicago by the way) is the perfect dramatization of conservative republican principles. Even the most recent Batman movie almost demonized the Occupy Wall Street protesters. The point is that the media seems to be showing some conservative life, something worth considering when analyzing popular culture. This isn’t to say Hollywood will be the next Texas, but at least there are some people willing stand up for the conservative ideals.  And for that, I applaud them.

For the Clint Eastwood Ad go here: http://on.wsj.com/SikVe4

Review writers respond to the final presidential debate:

Mike Navarro:

The truest thing said tonight after the debate was that if you had been on an island for the past four years and saw this debate, you would have thought that Mitt Romney was the incumbent and Barack Obama was the challenger. Once again, Romney appeared to be the more presidential of the two candidates. To be honest, I felt that Obama started strong. To be even MORE honest, I felt that this was the strongest debate performance that Obama has ever delivered.

He still could not beat Mitt Romney.

This election will go down to the wire, but I genuinely believe that Mitt Romney is the best choice for and all of our futures, as well as my own.

Noah Kantro:

Obama: Can anyone take this man seriously anymore? He talks and talks and talks but there are four years of history contradicting his words at every turn. He is supposed to deal intimately with these foreign policy issues every day, yet it is his Achilles’ heel. The Middle East, stabilized? Oblivious. The economy, strong? Laughable. Israel, closer than ever? Fantasy. Iran’s nuclear program brought to its knees? Since when? Every objective analysis and report screams a more dangerous, unstable, and anti-American world. Obama’s frantic cries to the contrary and attacks against Mitt do nothing to change the truth—his policies have failed, the country is weaker, and four more years can do nothing but push us closer to the fiscal cliff.

Romney: The challenger continues to impress. While not as strong as his first appearance, and by position not as knowledgeable of the government’s inner workings over the past four years, Romney showed a clear and cogent knowledge of the issues and laid out a clear vision for economic and thereby foreign resurgence. He deftly deflected the CinC’s attacks and refocused the debate on the tried and true vision of peace through strength at the essence of foreign policy.

Schieffer: Thank you to the most calm, composed, and intelligent moderator of the campaign.

Misha Checkovich:

It’s clear that the wind is at Mitt Romney’s back heading into the final stretch of the election. Tonight, he looked and sounded more presidential by far than the current president, and that ties into the larger theme of a tired and backward Obama administration (despite all their protestations otherwise) that has run out of ideas and the steam to execute the remaining ones effectively. What irked me the most was Obama’s continuous pivots back to sinking federal dollars and tentacles into local matters—and thinking that if only we could just hire more teachers and retrofit more cars we could get ourselves out of this malaise. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney looked tremendous, had great, optimistic energy, and conveyed the temperament necessary for being a serious player on the world stage. Barack Obama started his career organizing the rougher neighborhoods of Chicago. Now he’s “organizing the international community”, with roughly the same results—a descent into violence, a disintegration of the social fabric, and the complete abdication of the responsibility that comes with the job of the presidency.

Roberto -

“We don’t have to settle”

In a debate defined by intense confrontations, direct attacks, forceful interruptions, and repeated personal exchanges, Romney’s task could not be any clearer than it was last night.

First he had to expose Obama’s harrowing record on the economy.

He did so. Despite spirited (and brazen) efforts to overwhelm Romney with attacks, Obama simply could not deny his sorry laundry list of glaring disappointments and broken promises which Romney exhaustively exposed, and which have plagued the President’s economic record to date.

In a compelling and pointed fashion, Romney mentioned the 23 million still unemployed despite millions in stimulus, the heightened prices of oil and gas, the drop in family incomes, the increasingly burdensome price of healthcare, the unpopular specter of Obamacare, the burdensome cost of regulatory impositions and threatened taxes on small businesses, the rise in the number of Americans on food stamps and the enormous expansion of the national (now 16 trillion dollar) debt (despite promises that it would be cut in half). There came a point when I wondered why the election is even being contested, especially after such irrefutable, unanswerable charges.

Obama certainly brought passion last night, but as for a vision describing a change in course from what has already been attempted over the past 4 years, he decided to leave that at home. Regardless of Obama’s sparks (he overcompensated after his listless performance a few weeks ago), he was substantively devastated when it comes to the verdict of his economic record. Romney made this evident for all to see.

Romney made it clear that Obama is now a known factor, that “we simply can’t afford four more years” of lackluster growth and that a strong recovery is impossible without a decisive change in approach to job creation strategy (pro-small business). Romney’s comprehensive indictment of the President was damning and rhetorically powerful: “we don’t have to settle.”

Second, Romney had to convincingly describe an economic prescription which can ail the plight of small businesses and middle class families. His incredibly practical approach to explaining tax reform policy changes, and the likely energetic investment and job-creation (on the part of small businesses) that would follow the enactment of his agenda, enabled him to contrast with Obama’s inability to define a vision for the economy in the next 4 years.

Kushagra -

A Comeback-Turned-Retreat

It was all a part of a strategy that ended in a miserable failure. On the first day, Obama appeared ill prepared, inarticulate, and even uninterested—perhaps due to sheer overconfidence. Then Biden tried to make up for the blunder by his animated antics, contrasted with the calm and respectful attitude of Paul Ryan. But when nothing worked, today Obama came in with an apparent agenda to turn the debate into a melodrama. He portrayed himself as Aristotle’s tragic hero, as an innocent victim maligned by false and malicious propaganda. But he was not successful in evoking the sympathies of the audience, let alone swinging the debate in his favour despite the questionable role of the moderator.  Romney held on to his ground, consolidated his position in the race and reinforced the hard facts of his policy proposals. The choice has never been as clear as now.