Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Checking The Facts On The Campaign

Posted on by

The charts below relating to Presidential campaign fund raising and campaign spending were posted in the Washington Examiner yesterday:

 

 

The charts were in response to a statement made by President Obama on the campaign trail. The President stated:

I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far.

I’m not just talking about the super PACs and anonymous outside groups — I’m talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem.

The Romney campaign raises more than we do, and the math isn’t hard to understand: Through the primaries, we raised almost three-quarters of our money from donors giving less than $1,000, while Mitt Romney’s campaign raised more than three-quarters of its money from individuals giving $1,000 or more….

The above statement is simply false, as the charts show. This is the time in the election season where if you believe everything you are told, you are at risk of being misled! 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Fact-checker Must Have Been On Vacation That Day

Posted on by

On Friday, Newsbusters posted a fact-check on a Washington Post article that claimed that Mitt Romney got rich by sending jobs overseas while he was at Bain Capital. The story in the Washington Post was a good political story–it just wasn’t true.

These are the actual facts from Newsbusters:

 (Example 1) … What CSI (Computer Software Inc.) actually did was provide U.S. software developers with technical support and sales. Example: It provided domestic outsourcing — which is different than overseas offshoring — for call centers and help desks. As far as its international business goes, CSI was reseller of U.S. software in European markets. In other words, they helped distribute U.S. software around the world.

(Example 2) … overseas call centers in the WaPo story (relating to Stream International Inc.) were based in Europe and Japan, and serviced international customers of U.S. companies in their local languages.

(Example 3) … what Modus Media did was help companies like Microsoft and IBM sell their products internationally. Products destined for American consumers were manufactured here at home.

(Example 4) … GT Bicycles had overseas suppliers before Bain invested in the company.

(Example 5) … (printed circuit board manufacturer) SMTC wasn’t even acquired until months after Romney left Bain Capital. Is Romney running for president or is Bain?

(Example 6) … (computer chipmaker and tester) Chippac was purchased in March 1999, a month after Romney left Bain Capital. Prior owner was Hyundai, a South Korean company that already had factories in Asia at the time of sale. So buying a company with foreign factories is the same, apparently, as “shipping jobs overseas,” according to the Washington Post.

Pay attention–we are definitely in the midst of the silly season.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When The Perfect Life Isn’t Perfect

Posted on by

Katrina Trinko posted an article today at National Review Online about Ann Romney‘s battle with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Please follow the link above to read the entire article–it is inspiring. But there’s an aspect of this story. From the outside looking in, Ann Romney has led a storybook life–she has a successful husband, handsome, successful sons, a wonderful family, financial success, etc. But how do you handle it when your storybook life comes crashing down and you can’t even physically handle even basic household chores?

The story of Ann Romney should cause all of us to stop and realize how blessed we are. We may not have a storybook life, but we have our own story and we have our own gifts and treasures that God has given us. We need to remember when we see Ann Romney portrayed as having lived a privileged life, that she has faced challenges that would have defeated many of us. Ann Romney is a lady of courage who I believe would make a wonderful First Lady. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Adding Some Facts To The Discussion On Unemployment

Posted on by

Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post posted an article yesterday with some of the Labor Department statistics on the workforce in America. It turns out that the President’s statement that “It’s very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine.” is simply not true. The original statement about the public sector was made by Harry Reid about six months ago when the Democrats were asking for another $35 billion to help states hire more public sector employees.

The article points out:

Obama and Reid have it precisely backward: It’s the public sector that’s doing fine. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for government workers last month was just 4.2 percent (up slightly from 3.9 percent a year ago). Compare that to private-sector industries such as construction (14.2 percent unemployment), leisure and hospitality services (9.7 percent), agriculture (9.5 percent), professional and business services (8.5 percent) and wholesale and retail trade (8.1 percent). As Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute points out, the public-sector unemployment rate “is the lowest of any industry or class of worker, even including the growing energy industry.” If the rest of Americans enjoyed the same unemployment rate as government workers, Obama would be cruising to reelection.

Figures don’t lie, but evidently politicians do. The article further reminds us that Obamacare will add $46 billion in annual costs of new regulations to an already struggling economy.

The problem with President Obama’s statement (other than the fact that it is not true) is that it reinforces the idea that the President is anti-business. There is a perception of the President that he does not believe wealth can be created without someone other than the person creating the wealth being exploited or shortchanged in some way. He simply does not seem to respect free enterprise or understand how it works.

The article concludes:

How bad is all this for the president? Here’s how bad: Last week Mitt Romney accused President Obama of being “out of touch with the American people.” When a guy building a California vacation mansion with a car elevator for his wife’s two Cadillacs calls you “out of touch” — and no one laughs — you know you are in trouble.

I think it’s time for the Obama Campaign to find another line of attack.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is The Mainstream Media Planning To Vet Both Candidates ?

Posted on by

Stanley Kurtz posted a story at National Review Online today that included proof of President Obama’s membership in the New Party during the late 1990’s. The New Party was ACORN’s (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) political arm.

The article reports:

The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.

When Stanley Kurtz reported in 2008 that then-candidate Obama had been a member of the New Party, the charge was denied.

The article reports:

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”

We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.

I don’t know if the press will do any better at reporting on President Obama’s ties to the New Party during this election than they were in 2008. Whether the press reports it or not, it is rather obvious by the decisions being made by President Obama that he sees America in a different light than the majority of Americans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

With Friends Like These…

Posted on by

One of the things that we all need to remember (not necessarily happily) about the November election is that on November 7, 2012, the 2016 presidential campaign begins. Obviously, one of the major players in that campaign on the Democrat side will be Hillary Clinton. Hillary has kept her head down during the past three years and behaved very well. Predictably, her husband has not.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story today about some of President Clinton‘s recent statements. President Clinton remarked that Mitt Romney had a ‘sterling’ record when he ran Bain Capital. President Obama has used attacks on Bain Capital and Mitt Romney’s record there as a major part of his campaign. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton was not the only Democrat who felt the attacks were not helpful.

Mr. Morrissey explains the problems with the attacks:

While Obama attacked Romney for normal private-equity management, he’s been trying to raise money hand over fist from the same industry.  In fact, a Bain executive, Jonathan Lavine, is one of Obama’s major bundlers and was with the company (and Romney was not) when GS Industries shut down the steel plant, a decision used to slam Romney in an Obama campaign ad.

I am not sure the average voter is aware of the hypocrisy here, but at suspect at some point the Romney camp will point it out.

The article rightly concludes:

However, it’s also just as true that Clinton waited for quite a while to defend Romney’s business record, and his advice in this case — to find another line of attack — is probably a lot smarter than Simon’s advice to keep beating a very dead horse.

Expect to see a lot more of Bill Clinton in the next four years.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Numbers Tell The Story

Posted on by

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I remember back in the days of dinosaurs experiencing the shock of going from four years of high school college prep courses, where all I had to do was memorize and pass the tests, to two years of secretarial school where I had to prove that I could type, take shorthand, and actually balance a general ledger. It was culture shock. It was easier just to memorize what war happened when, etc. That is the cultural divide we are facing in the upcoming Presidential election.

President Obama is an academic who knows how to community organize. Mitt Romney is a businessman who actually knows how money works and how to grow businesses.

Today’s Washington Examiner reported on the new jobs numbers and unemployment numbers that came out today (and the revised numbers from the previous months). This should be the summer hiring season, but that simply is not happening. The unemployment rate has risen slightly–to 8.2 percent. Only 69,000 jobs were created last month (150,000 was the expected number). March and April numbers were also revised down. March was revised to 143,000, instead of the original 154,000. April was revised to 77,000, from 115,000. First quarter economic growth was revised downward to 1.9 percent.

The chart below (from Legal Insurrection) tells the story:

President Obama has had three and a half years to do something with the American economy. He has done something–he has doubled the national debt, he has taken over the healthcare industry, he has overregulated businesses, and he has shut down energy production on federal land.

I think it’s time to vote for the person who can actually do something positive.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Choosing Your Financial Advisor

Posted on by

Most people over the age of twenty have realized that Social Security will not be there when they retire. Many of the younger generation have already been planning for this by setting up 401K plans, IRA’s and other ways to finance their retirement. One important aspect of this planning is choosing a competent financial advisor. As the presidential election approaches, who would you choose are your financial advisor–Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post posted some information last week that might make that choice easier. In recent days the President has been attacking Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital, stating that it is a record of wealth creation–not job growth. Keep in mind that Bain Capital works with money volutarily put under their control by investors who invest in the company in order to make money. When the investors make money, they spend it or further invest it and the economy grows. Let’s contrast that with how the Obama Administration has invested taxpayer money in various companies.

The article points out:

Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider just a few examples of Obama’s public equity failures:

The article lists some of the Obama Administrations investments:

Raser Technologies–The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes.

ECOtality–According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, “We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.”

Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP)–its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was ‘significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.’ ”

There are more examples in the article, but you get the picture. This reminds me of a story from my youth. During the time my family lived in North Carolina, we went to Florida for a vacation. During that vacation, my parents went to a dog race. As the dogs were marching around the track before the race, my father spotted one he was convinced was a winner. He placed a small bet on the dog. Not only did the dog not win–he refused to leave the starting gate. My father always said that it was because the dog was simply too smart to chase a mechanical rabbit. The moral of the story is, “Don’t place a bet unless you have some idea of what you are doing.” The Obama Administration has a record of placing bets with taxpayer and stimulus money on companies that are not capable of leaving the starting gate. Is this an appropriate role for government, and if it is, shouldn’t they be doing it better?

The article does not mention the jobs lost in the government takeover of General Motors–the dealerships put out of business, the mechanics and other workers in those dealerships.

Considering their track record, do you want the government to continue to make investments with your money?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Misusing The Office Of President

Posted on by

On Thursday the Wall Street Journal posted an article about some of President Obama’s campaign tactics.

The article sited a post of one of the President’s campaign websites:

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

This is simply unacceptable. All Americans are free to donate to any candidate of their choosing.

The article concludes:

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable,” but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn’t going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn’t deserve to be one.

We need to remember these actions in November. We have a choice–do we want a President who supports the Constitution or do we want someone whose roots in Chicago politics have clouded thier judgement on abuse of power.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Isn’t It A Little Early For The Democrats To Be Desperate ?

Posted on by

It isn’t news to anyone who pays attention that some of the attacks on Mitt Romney will be based on his Mormon religion (just as John Kennedy was attacked for his Catholic religion). But sometimes the attacks are stretched far enough to be ridiculous.

Today’s Daily Caller reports that Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, described as a moderate Democrat, has stated:

…likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney may have trouble in the general election because his father was “born on a polygamy commune in Mexico,”
 
George Romney was born in 1907. He was born–he was not responsible for the circumstances surrounding his birth!
 
The article at the Daily Caller points out that George Romney’s parents were in a
monogamous marriage and moved back to the United States when George was still a child. This isn’t even criticism of the candidate–it is criticism of the circumstances surrounding the birth of his father. Where is the commentary on Barack Obama’s father? Where is the commentary on his numerous wives?
 
How many generations are the Democrats willing to examine in order to do opposition research on the Republican candidates?

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Reality Is Inconvenient Skew It !

Posted on by

One of my favorite bloggers is da tech guy at datechguyblog.com. He posted a story today about recent polls touted by the Washington Post about the election in November and how voters feel about various issues. His story is based on a story posted at Hot Air by Ed Morrissey.

The secret to getting any poll to confirm anything you want confirmed is in determining who you ask the questions. The recent Washington Post/ABC poll is the poster child for this technique.

Datechguy points out:

In a poll that is only 23% republican

  • Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney draw 42% and 44% respectively nearly double the GOP sample
  • The president draws no better than 52%.

In a poll only 23% republican and with a 11 point Democratic advantage:

  • the president can only manage a 3 pt advantage on jobs.

In a poll with only 23% republicans Obama can only manage

  • A 55% rating on Woman’s issues
  • A 53% rating on international affairs
  • and a 55% rating on being “inspiring

In a poll with only 23% republicans the president can’t crack 50% on:

  • Protecting the middle class
  • Understanding people’s problems,
  • Dealing with Healthcare
  • Supporting small business
  • Handling terrorism
  • Taxes

In a poll only 23% republican Romney holds an advantage over Obama on the issues of:

  • Energy Policy
  • Handling the Economy

and holds a double digit lead on dealing with the deficit.

America cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama. He has polarized the country along economic and racial lines, he has spent money like there was no tomorrow both personally and publicly, and he has politicized all the areas of the government he could in the time he has been in office. We need to clean house–get rid of all the political hacks in high places and replace them with people who love America. President Obama does not seem to understand the whole concept of loving America–he is too busy getting even for those things he considered the wrongs of the past. When he stated that the Buffett Rule tax was not about raising money, but about fairness, he told us all we needed to know.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Pushing The Reset Button On Russia

Posted on by

We have all read President Obama’s supposedly off-the-record comments to Russian President Medvedev. The mainstream media seems to be avoiding saying much about those comments, but conservative commentators (and Republican candidates) have sounded the appropriate alarm.

Hugh Hewitt posted an interview with Mitt Romney on his blog:

MR: Well, it is revealing, it is alarming, it’s troubling, it suggests that the President has a very different agenda with the Russians than he’s willing to tell the American people. And for that reason alone, we ought to vote him out of office. This is a very disconcerting development.

HH: What do you think he has in mind, Governor, when he says I will be flexible? Is it missile defense? It is the number of our warheads? Is it Iran? What is he talking about?

MR: Well, he says missile defense, but we’re talking about one of those two issues, either missile defense or warheads. What he’s done on warheads, of course, with the new START Treaty, he took warheads down to 1,500 on strategic nuclear weapons. Of course, the Russians were already at 1,500. They didn’t have to have any reductions. We were at 2,200. So the only reduction in his missile defense treaty was a reduction at the U.S. level. And of course, he ignored the tactical nuclear weapons, which are of course the same nukes. They’re just on smaller rockets. He ignored that, where Russia has an advantage of five or ten to one over us. So this is a president who continues to try and appease and accommodate, and believes that the best interests of America are to bow to the interests of Russia. And it’s very, very troubling, and I mean, I’m very disturbed by this. I hope the American people understand that what we heard from the President is revealing about his character in terms of what he tells the American people, and revealing about his direction and sentiment with regards to Russian, which is after all our number one geopolitical foe. They don’t represent a military threat to us at the present, but they oppose us at every turn in the United Nations, and oppose us in every one of our efforts, whether in Iraq or Iran, North Korea. They’re on the other side. And for him to be cozying up with them with regards to missile defense is simply unacceptable.

HH: How do you expect this aside from the President will be understood in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Ukraine, and Georgia, and other front line states facing a newly-expansive Russia?

MR: Well, I think our friends around the world have been reevaluating their relationship with the United States, in part because of this president’s treatment of friends relative to the treatment of enemies. I’ve heard from more than one foreign leader that it seems to be preferable to be an American foe than an American friend to this president.

HH: Now Governor Romney, the press will of course attempt to dismiss this as not a big issue. Will this remain a front line issue? And do you think that the President has got to spell out with great detail what he has in mind here?

MR: You know, I don’t think he can recover from it, to tell you the truth. I mean, I think he will try and spin something. But I don’t know how you spin from an open mic, where you’re talking about having more flexibility after the election, which means quite clearly that you don’t want the American people to hear what you’re really planning on doing, and that you’re going to be able to do more when you no longer are accountable to the American people. You know, the mainstream media may try and put this to bed, but we’re going to keep it alive and awake. And we’re going to keep hammering him with it all the way through November.

It seems to me that there are enough serious questions about the President’s off-the-record statement to persuade Americans to vote against him.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Think About As The Presidential Primary Races Continue

Posted on by

On Thursday, Byron York posted a column at the Washington Examiner that says a lot about where the campaign for the presidency has gone. If you are unhappy with the direction that President Obama and his administration have taken this country, this is a column you need to read carefully.

Remember, we are in a political war. The media is not on the side of conservatives. The media controls the dialogue both by the slant of the story and by what they do not report. They also control the debates by controlling the questions.

Byron York points out:

The days leading up to Wednesday night’s debate were filled with bad feelings, and the debate itself was filled with bad feelings. Santorum found himself the target of a media pile-on after reports of old statements about — astonishingly enough — contraception and Satan. Santorum’s advisers grew angry and frustrated, feeling he was being singled out for questions about religious views that were not also directed at Romney, Paul, and Newt Gingrich. Santorum lost precious campaign time explaining himself.

Byron York relates the story of another campaign event:

Santorum spoke at length about the Obama administration’s policies on Iran, Syria and Israel. He discussed his proposal to cut taxes for manufacturers and the more general issue of jobs. He talked a lot about immigration, both illegal and legal. He went into quite a bit of detail about energy — shale oil, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, oil sands, the Keystone pipeline, fracking, and more. He talked about values and families — “This is what I know gets everybody on the secular left bonkers about my campaign: I say America is at heart a moral enterprise” — but he did not revisit the battles of the previous 48 hours.

It was, in other words, an entirely normal and wide-ranging campaign speech, full of substance. When it was over, Santorum took two questions. The first was about the health of his daughter Isabella. The second was about Social Security. No contraception, no Satan.

Guess which event got the most publicity.

We are in a battle for America. We can elect someone who respects our Constitution or continue with someone who generally ignores it. Unfortunately, the debates have not dealt with issues that impact Americans–debt, budget, energy, Obamacare, etc. It’s time to end the debates and begin talking about the things that matter. The Republicans have the answers to the issues–those answers are simply not being reported. One major media person commented during the 2008 election that media bias generally adds about 10 percentage points to Democrat candidates. We need to work hard to overcome that bias.

Republicans win in 2012 on the issues. The media is working very hard to keep the discussion away from those issues.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s Getting Hard To Sort The Truth From The Spin

Posted on by
US Navy 021030-N-0967W-006 Michael Reagan chat...

Image via Wikipedia

The Republican primary race seems to have come down to a contest between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. I am totally willing to admit, political junkie that I am, that I haven’t made up my mind yet. I am willing to admit that I think that both leading candidates have totally forgotten President Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment.

There are a few things I am watching in deciding who will get my support–who is supporting each candidate and who is opposing each candidate. It was obvious at the start of the campaign that the Obama campaign was preparing for Mitt Romney as their opponent. Romney was ‘the next in line’ which, unfortunately, seems to be the way the Republicans choose their candidates. It doesn’t work very well, but they keep doing it. The Occupy Wall Street movement was the perfect prelude to a campaign against Mitt Romney–the man is obviously wealthy–he has worked hard and accomplished many things to obtain that wealth, but an opposing campaign could overlook that and just characterize him as the ‘evil rich.’ Governor Romney seems to be the choice of the Republican ‘establishment.’ Newt Gingrich is the rebel candidate. He has been knocked down twice already and just seems to bounce back up. He seems to be the Tea Party candidate (although I seriously doubt he was their first choice). Newt is a bit of a loose cannon, but seems to have an ability to explain things so that ordinary people can understand them and to get things done (although he steps on peoples’ feet in the process). As I have posted earlier, the ethics charges against him in the mid 1990’s were later proven to be completely false by the IRS. I believe he was run out of the House of Representatives on a rail (so to speak) because he was a threat to both the Republican and Democrat Washington establishment. If he can make that case to the public, he will win the nomination and the election.

On Friday, January 27, Newsmax.com posted a short article discussing some of the attacks on Newt Gingrich. Ronald Reagan’s eldest son Mike Reagan has issued a statement regarding the claim that Newt Gingrich did not support Ronald Reagan.

The article posted the statement:

“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.

“Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.

“It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission said he opposed my father in the 1980s claiming he was an ‘independent,’ and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time.

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.

“Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.”

Mike Reagan concluded: “I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”

Beware of the spin! Listen to the people who are closest to the events and have nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Posted on by
The five people who actually still watch MSNBC saw something last week that was totally obscene. On Monday the Washington Examiner reported on an MSNBC commentary on the fact that Mitt Romney gave an unemployed black woman $50. The woman approached the candidate and told him that she was unemployed and not able to pay her bills. He then reached into his wallet and gave her $50 (I have heard that he only had $50 in cash in his wallet, but I can’t confirm that).

The article at the Washington Examiner quotes the outrage at MSNBC:

“As an African American woman it galls me. I don’t even like to watch it. I felt like it plays into every sort of patronizing stereotype of black people,” MSNBC contributor Joy-Ann Reid said. “‘Oh, here is this little lady let me give her 50 bucks’. . . I think it plays into that conservative meme, that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we’ll just give them charity, I’ll just give him 50 bucks.”

“There are alot of very convenient elements to this story, as you said Joy, it really makes me cringe. We have this black woman who suddenly almost becomes this mascot for the campaign,” said MSNBC contributor Janell Ross. “She is sort of affirming all sorts of Conservative ideas about who is poor and how certain people deal with their poverty and seek out the assistance of a wealthy white man to hand you some form of aid.”

Good grief. I am sure that anyone of us, if we actually had $50 to spare, would have done the same thing. I have a footnote to add to the story, A friend of mine has a family member who worked on one of Mitt Romney’s campaigns in Massachusetts. The family member was a very young man (first year in college maybe), and it was one of Romney’s early campaigns (possibly for Governor). The young man dressed like a college student–jeans, t-shirts, etc. There was a public event coming up in a rather formal location, and Mitt Romney noticed how the young man was dressed. Without a second thought, he handed the young man his sports coat so that he would be dressed appropriately.

Giving a person in need $50 is in character for Mitt Romney. To try to make that act of generosity a racial issue is just wrong. I know that MSNBC will not apologize for their knee-jerk conclusion that this was racist, but anyone who watches MSNBC should make a mental note that their coverage is not always fair.

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Experts Talk About New Hampshire

Posted on by

 

Congressman Poe and Governor Mitt Romney

Image via Wikipedia

National Review Online posted an article today by a number of its political pundits on the meaning of the results of the New Hampshire Primary. I will try to summarize, but please follow the link to the article–it is very informative.

Hunter Baker stated that Mitt Romney benefited by the winner in New Hampshire being declared early–more people saw him give his victory speech, and the speech was very effective.

Mona Charen pointed out that both Iowa and New Hampshire chose Romney. She also noted that the attacks on capitalism from Newt Gingrich may have helped shore up Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials. Regardless of how you feel about Mitt Romney, you have to admit that he is a capitalist!

Jim Geraghty points out that after the Romney win in New Hampshire, the only viable opponent to Mitt Romney is Rick Santorum. Mr. Geraghty wonders if Senator Sentorum will be able to overcome the Romney momentum.

Hugh Hewitt also agrees that Santorum is the only other candidate who could possibly beat Mitt Romney. He states that Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich ended their campaigns when they went after Romney and Bain Capital. Mr. Hewitt ends his comments with the question, “So who does Jim DeMint endorse?” Interesting question.

Kathryn Jean Lopez also comments that the attacks by Newt Gingrich helped Mitt Romney from his candidacy as a defense of capitalism. This is the beginning of the narrative Mitt Romney will use in his run against President Obama.

Grover Norquist takes a different approach. He has three suggestions for Mitt Romney–who to choose for a running mate, who to choose for a chief-of-staff, and to convince Ron Paul to speak at the Republican convention. He believes the Romney needs to include Ron Paul in order to insure that Ron Paul does not run as a third-party candidate.

Henry Olsen stated that the strong victory in New Hampshire almost assures that Mitt Romney will be the candidate. He makes an interesting observation though:

Jon Huntsman? He carried only four groups — those who consider themselves Democrats, those who strongly oppose the Tea Party, those who are satisfied with Obama, and those who are dissatisfied with the GOP candidates. ’Nuff said.

Great comment.

John J. Pitney commented on the morphing of Newt Gingrich into Michael Moore. Mr. Pitney states that he hopes Newt will go back to being the Newt we saw early in the campaign–focusing more on attacking President Obama than attacking fellow Republicans.

Cal Thomas notes that Mitt Romney is well on his way to being the Republican nominee for President. Although he is not universally loved, the other candidates will be running out of money and organization soon. Mr. Thomas notes that it is still a long way to the White House.

Now, my comments. I live in Massachusetts. Governor Romney was a good governor. He did not move the state in a conservative direction (it’s Massachusetts, I am not sure that is possible, we are one of two states that voted for George McGovern for President!) He is an honest, hard-working man. If he is elected, I am sure he will do everything in his power to rescue the American economy, and I believe that he has the knowledge and work ethic to do that. He is not my first choice, but I believe that he is a good choice.

Enhanced by Zemanta

America’s Political Sage Sums Up The Debate

Posted on by

Late last night, Michael Barone posted an article at the Washington Examiner analyzing the night’s debate in New Hampshire. Michael Barone is the main author of The Almanac of American Politics, which is published every two years. He a very knowledgeable political observer and very accurate predictor of future political events.

Mr. Barone states in the article:

At about 10:28pm tonight, as Mitt Romney pivoted from a question on tax loopholes and started in with, “the real issue is vision,” I had recorded this thought in my notes, “He just clinched the nomination.”

Romney said, as he often has, that Barack Obama has put America on the road to decline and is trying to make America more like Europe. He made reference to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as he often has—which helps to explain why he polls about as well with supporters of the tea party movement, who revered and often reference the Founding documents, as with non-supporters—and proclaimed that the question in this election was whether America was going to remain “a unique nation”and whether it would “return to the principles on which it was founded.” To which Newt Gingrich then meekly concurred, adding some caveats.

The article goes on to detail the performance of each of the candidates in the debate. According to Mr. Barone, Mitt Romney moved forward in the debate, and Rick Perry positioned himself for the race in South Carolina. The other candidates pretty much stayed where they were before the debate.

I live in Massachusetts. I lived here when Mitt Romney was Governor. He did a good job considering the legislature he had to work with. I think Romneycare would have been a lot worse without Romney as Governor. I could easily vote for him in the 2012 election, although frankly he is not my first choice. I think his success in running against Barack Obama will largely depend on his choice of a running mate. There are a lot of very good options for him out there.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Common Sense On The Campaign Trail

Posted on by

 

Me wit elmo

Image via Wikipedia

The New York Daily News reported today that Mitt Romney has stated that if he is elected President, Big Bird is going to have to do his own commercials.

The article reports:

Romney said he’s a fan of the Public Broadcasting Service, the government-funded nonprofit that carries “Sesame Street,” but that “it’s immoral for us to keep spending money we don’t have and passing on to our kids our obligations.”

He added that he would maintain endowments for the arts and humanities, “but they’re going to be paid for by private charity not by taxpayers — or by borrowers.”

“Sesame Street” currently has a constellation of public and private sponsors. Corporate sponsors of the program include Beaches Family Resorts, Earth’s Best organic foods, PNC, United Healthcare and the Good Egg Project, according to the website of Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit educational organization that produces “Sesame Street.” Taxpayer support for the program comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the U.S. Department of Education, among others.

This is not an endorsement of Mitt Romney. It is, however, an illustration of the difference in thinking between a businessman and a politician. I bought two of my granddaughters counting Ernie’s for Christmas. Someone made a profit on them. Someone made a huge profit on tickle-me-Elmo a few years ago. Why can’t those profits support Sesame Street and other PBS programming? Why shouldn’t the Public Broadcasting Service have to find a way to make its programming profitable?

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Problem With RomneyCare

Posted on by
Faneuil Hall circa 1890-1906

Image via Wikipedia

On October 27, the Boston Herald posted an article stating that under RomneyCare, free emergency healthcare for more than 52,000 illegal aliens in Massachusetts cost the Massachusetts taxpayers $35.7 million.

An e-mail from a friend reports:

Because of Andover’s Republican Representative Jim Lyons, the Patrick administration recently divulged the startling news that 55,000 illegal aliens received over $93 million in MassHealth emergency health services last year. Representative Lyons temporarily blocked a supplemental spending bill by refusing to leave the House chamber until the tell-tale numbers were made public.

A study by the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) study suggests that RomneyCare has not delivered the lowered health care costs we were promised. To the contrary, while extending coverage to most residents, $8 billion of new costs were imposed on the federal government, Commonwealth residents and businesses. In addition, RomneyCare has triggered the loss of 18,000 jobs, and a reduction of disposable income.

This is a difficult issue. I do not want to deny emergency medical care to anyone, whether they are here legally or not. However, we need to find a responsible, cost effective way to deliver that care. RomneyCare is not it.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Learning To Look Behind The Stories

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about the efforts by some media outlets to begin the tearing down process of all Republican presidential contenders. I’m hoping that the electorate is too sophisticated to fall for this ploy.

Mr. Hinderaker states:

The election is still over a year away, and yet “news” stories intended to bring down leading Republican contenders are appearing on pretty much a daily basis. I’m not sure I will be able to stand it for another 12 months.

The Associated Press’s story of the day on Herman Cain relies on battlefield preparation that has been done over the last year by the far left: “Long ties to Koch brothers key to Cain’s campaign.” This is one of those wink-wink pieces; you wouldn’t really get the point unless you are aware of the left’s over-the-top campaign against Charles and David Koch, two of the very few seriously rich people who support conservative causes.

The story in the Associated Press goes on to list the various questionable associations between Herman Cain and the ‘evil’ Koch brothers. The Koch brothers are the force behind Americans for Prosperity, a group that supports conservative causes. Therefore the liberal media has painted a target on their backs. The media is also trying to link any Republican candidate they can to them–two birds with one stone.

The attack on Romney is more subtle. The article reports:

Try as it might, the Times (New York Times) is not able to put Romney in a particularly bad light. On the contrary, it appears clear that he was an unusually effective leader in this aspect of his life, as in all others. But the Times has a purpose: it wants to rally potential Obama voters who are appalled by the economic performance of the Obama administration, by letting them know that Romney is a man of deep religious conviction. This, to many readers of the NY Times, is weird. The Times hopes that the idea of Romney’s religious faith will horrify some voters even more than Obama’s policy failures. And, as to some liberal and atheist voters, it probably will.

The growth of the alternative media is not totally the result of brilliance on the part of those involved in it–it is the result of a mainstream media that has lost its way. I am hoping that the American voter is too smart to fall for the tricks the media will use to try to win a second term for President Obama. It’s a shame that the media cannot honestly report the accomplishments of President Obama and those candidates likely to run against him.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Posted on by

There is an old joke (I’m a grandmother—all I know are old jokes) about a man walking back and forth under a streetlight. A friend comes by and asks him what he is doing. The man who is walking explains that he dropped his keys when he got out of his car, so he is looking for them. The second man asks why, since the car is parked across the street, the first man is looking on the other side of the street. The first man replies, “Because the light is better here.” That is my commentary on the current state of the mainstream media.

Big Journalism posted an article yesterday contrasting the media’s charges of racism against Rick Perry because of a rock on a property he did not own and the way President Obama’s more recent association with the New Black Panthers has been covered. This dust-up has nothing to do with Rick Perry–it has to do with the political left’s belief that Mitt Romney will be an easier candidate for Barack Obama to defeat. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, the left will attack him on Romneycare and his Mormonism. They have no other weapons.

President Obama’s economic plans have been a total failure. The only way that he can win re-election is to destroy any candidates who could defeat him and make sure his opposition is vulnerable enough to be defeated. Republicans need to be very careful not to let the mainstream media choose their candidates.

Please follow the link to the Big Journalism article to see the contrast in the reporting of ‘racism’ regarding Rick Perry and President Obama. We need to be very careful not to let the mainstream media determine who the Republican presidential candidate will be.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Are We Making All This Noise About Straw Polls A Year Before The Election ?

Posted on by
Dewey Defeats Truman

Image by scriptingnews via Flickr

Many of us are not thriving in President Obama’s economy. I understand that. I also understand that there is something in human nature that wants bad things to end. However, we have somehow descended into a political system that is in campaign mode all the time. The presidential campaign starts the day after a new president is elected. We need to stop that. I realize it gives us more time to size up the candidates, but other than the political junkies, no one will be paying attention until next June anyway. What has happened to our political system?

There was a Republican straw poll in Florida yesterday (the day after the Republican debate). Yesterday’s Washington Times reported that Herman Cain received 37 percent of the more than 2,600 votes cast.

Another Washington Times story posted the numbers for all the candidates:

Herman Cain, 37.1%
Rick Perry, 15.4%
Mitt Romney, 14.0%
Rick Santorum, 10.9%
Ron Paul, 10.4%
Newt Gingrich, 8.4%
Jon Huntsman, 2.3%
Michele Bachmann, 1.5%

William Kristol at the Weekly Standard posted an article partially explaining the results. He points out that even though Rick Perry did not do well in the debate, the disappointed voters did not move their support to Mitt Romney. Mr. Kristol also points out that the debate and straw poll will result in Rick Santorum and Herman Cain both getting more serious consideration by the voters. Mr. Kristol also suggests that a lot of people will be carefully watching Chris Christie’s Reagan Library speech on Tuesday.

The bottom line here is that the debates are not necessarily constructive at this time. They are something of a ‘gotcha’ game where the Democrat party can do opposition research. I really question the wisdom of starting the debate process this early.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Random Thoughts On The Debate Tonight

Posted on by

I’m good at random–it’s how my mind works!

Mitt Romney or Rick Perry will be the nominee. My husband tells me it will be Mitt Romney. I would be happy with either one (although I would be happier with Rick Perry).

Mitt Romney knows how to create jobs as a member of the private sector. Rick Perry knows how to create an environment that promotes jobs in the private sector.

I tend to think Mitt Romney will be more ‘politically correct’ than Rick Perry. That’s something I like about Rick Perry.

There is probably very little difference in the ideas and policies of Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Either man would be good for the country at this time.

I just wish we could see a Republican debate moderated by Republicans. I would like to see Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly moderate a Republican debate.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Watching The Foxes Moderate The Townhall Meeting They Held With The Chickens To Discuss Security In The Chicken Coop

Posted on by
"The Honorable Rick Perry (front right), ...

Image via Wikipedia

Sorry, I couldn’t resist that. The fact remains that in order to get airtime on stations that cater to the left side of the political spectrum, Republicans are having to engage in some debates moderated by people who do not want them to win or to communicate their ideas to the American people. You are welcome to disagree, but that is the view from where I sit.

Byron York at the Washington Examiner posted his take on the debate early this morning. He felt that Rick Perry did well, but walked into two minefields that could be a problem for his campaign–in the past Governor Perry has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme (it is, but it’s not polite to call it that), and Governor Perry sees more value in boots on the ground at the border than a fence (true, but not always popular). Byron York sees the race as between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. I think that is generally the conventional wisdom.

During the debate, Governor Perry and Governor Romney discussed who had created the most jobs as governor. Guess what–nobody cares. We just want to know what you will do with the current unemployment situation.

Andrew Malcolm at the Los Angeles Times simply broke the debate into award categories. He listed both Rick Perry and Mitt Romney as winners. He also gave Newt Gingrich the award for most eloquent–noting that the loudest applause came when Newt chastised the moderators for asking questions to divide the candidates rather than contrast their views with the President’s.

To me, the debate illustrated the political and cultural divide we currently have in this country. When Brian Williams seemed concerned that the audience applauded the use of the death penalty in Texas, Rick Perry had to explain to him that they were applauding the concept of justice. There is a portion of our society that has lost the concept of justice and confused it with not being compassionate. I support compassion, but believe that without justice compassion is useless. I regret that a murderer is being executed, but I believe the family of his victim is entitled to justice. I don’t want to see a murderer back on the street in ten years. That almost guarantees future victims and is not compassionate.

All in all, I think the debate went well. I look forward to a debate in the future with a less biased moderator.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Governor Romney’s Economic Plan

Posted on by

Governor Romney has released his plan for turning around the economy. Yesterday John HInderaker at Power Line released his initial evaluation of the plan. The article at Power Line posted a graph comparing the Obama ‘recovery’ to recoveries from past recessions. This is the chart:

That chart makes it pretty clear that we have a problem.

The article also includes a chart on the number of new of government regulations:

The uncertainty caused by the increase in government regulations is one reason companies are reluctant to hire new employees at this time. One of the tenets of Governor Romney’s economic plan is to undo the excessive regulations put into place by the Obama administration.

At this point I would like to insert a few thoughts about the Republican Primary race. I live in Massachusetts, and I feel that Governor Romney did a good job as governor of the state. Those who criticize the Governor for passing healthcare in this state do not understand the political composition of the state. Massachusetts is a one-party state that occasionally elects a Republican governor. The Democrats hold overwhelming majorities in the state legislature and pretty much do what they want (to the point where the last few leaders of the legislature have been sent to jail). Governor Romney could not have stopped healthcare in Massachusetts–he could only attempt to make it less awful, which he did. That said, I will be voting for Governor Perry in the Republican Primary. I like Mitt Romney, but I like Governor Perry better. Either one will be a very good candidate to run against Barack Obama.

Enhanced by Zemanta