Monday, August 22, 2011

Wall Street Ditches Thier Support For Obama And Now Support Romney

With President Obama spending his entire presidency vilifying Wall Street, he's now finding it difficult to get their support for the 2012 campaign. In fact, they used to support Obama in 2008 but are now switching to Mitt Romney because he is known as a candidate who supports big and small businesses: 
Dozens of Wall Street executives who supported President Obama in 2008 have donated to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign this year.

According to a review of fundraising data, 67 people who work in the financial sector and live in the New York City metro area gave to Obama in 2008 and to the former Massachusetts governor in 2011.

The reversals come in the wake of Obama's tough rhetoric on Wall Street — most notably last year, when the president was pushing Congress to pass what has become known as the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

The 67 individuals who live in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut donated at least once to Obama's 2008 campaign. They have since directed contributions amounting to more than $147,000 toward Romney's presidential campaign.

The crossover donors are employed by a large number of banks, private equity firms and hedge-fund companies, including Credit Suisse, The Blackstone Group, Stanwich Group and Goldman Sachs.
One former wall street Obama supporter explained why many businessmen are abandoning the President and supporting Romney: 
One Wall Street executive, who requested anonymity, said he and some of his colleagues feel betrayed by Obama.
"Everybody I speak to is on the same boat — disappointment," said the source, who contributed to Obama three years ago and is now backing Romney.

The executive said he and others on Wall Street have taken exception to Obama's rhetoric about the wealthy, especially because the president has asked rich donors to fork over $35,800 to his reelection efforts.

"It's not healthy for rich people to feel maligned," the executive said.
The Obama Administration has shown that it does not respect businesses regardless of their size. He will take their campaign donations and then turn around and berate them for their wealth in front of the American people. He supports unions which are an impediment to business wishing to grow and remain competitive in this economy. Obama has made repeated promises to fix the economy but has yet to follow through with it. Finally, Obama's record on the economy as President of the United States demonstrates that he has never taken the economy or the deficit seriously.. His policies have caused the economy to shrink rather than expand and we lost our AAA credit rating due to his incompetence on the economy.
The reason why business owners and workers are supporting Mitt Romney because he is a candidate who has been focusing strictly on the economy.  Many people were impressed with Mitt's passionate defense of business at the 2011 Ames Straw poll a few weeks ago. In fact, Mitt Romney will continue to defend business through out his entire campaign.
That's why America need Mitt Romney in the White House in 2012. He's a candidate who appeals to people across the political spectrum because everyone is affected by the poor economy. Everyone benefits from a healthy and vibrant economy.  People want a candidate who respects businesses, employers and employees. They need a candidate who knows how to create jobs by providing a regulatory environment that is friendly to businesses. There's no better pro-business candidate in this election than Mitt Romney.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Despite Rick Perry Jumping In For 2012, Mitt Romney Is Still The Front Runner

A new poll by Rasmussen claims that Rick Perry is the front runner based on the act that he is eleven points ahead of Mitt Romney. However, one poll doesn't make him the front runner.
Rick Perry doesn't have the organizational and financial resources yet justify him as a frontrunner becuase he's still working to get that in place. Mitt Romney already has campaign organizations in all 50 states and has the financial resources to keep these teams running. Also, Mitt Romney is doing well in fundraising whereas Rick Perry may be heading for trouble with fundrasing even though he just barely jumped in the race. 
Besides, as Karl Rove explains below, Rick Perry isn't competing against Mitt Romney but he's competing against other 2012 candidates who will want to become the alternative to Romney in the GOP primaries:

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Tim Pawlenty Bows Out

Four months ago, Tim Pawlenty announced his candidacy. Now he is the first candidate among the 2012 Republican candidates to drop out of the race
Tim Pawlenty, although he's a good conservative Republican, ran a weak campaign. He tried to portray himself as bold and strong candidate who can stand up and tell the unvarnished truth. However, during the New Hampshire CNN GOP debate, he refused to follow through with his "ObamneyCare" attack on Mitt Romney. As a result, he came across as a timid, weak, and irresolute candidate who couldn't own up to his own words when the time for truth was required. That is why it was no surprise that Mitt Romney won that debate.
T-Paw's refusal to attack Mitt Romney when given the opportunity was a mistake that he would never be able to recover from and marks the beginning of the end of his campaign. Its one of the biggest campaign debate flubs of all time. 
Of course, the fact that he he admitted that he should have stuck to his guns on his "ObamneyCare" statement after the New Hampshire debate and made a weak attempt to save face by attacking Romney's healthcare plan on Twitter didn't help him rebuild his image as a man who boldly spoke the unvarnished truth.
T-Paw's inability to step up to the plate destroyed his own campaign and personal image. It is almost impossible to rebuild that kind of image once its been damaged.
In fact, his attempts to resurrect that image only reinforced his image as as a timid, weak, uncertain candidate.  He looked weak when he debated with a liberal heckler in comparison to Romney's strong stand against a bunch of Marxist hecklers the day before. He also tried to take on Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney at the Iowa Debate but couldn't land a solid punch on either candidate. 
The man that T-Paw tried to portray himself to be was never present throughout the entire campaign. As a result, people didn't have the confidence that he would be the kind of man who would be strong in telling like it is.   
The other reason why Pawlenty's campaign fizzled out so quickly was the fact that he kept getting overshadowed by other candidates who jumped into the race after him. People were all talking about Jon Hunstman, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry and how their entrance to the 2012 race would shake things up.  Even smaller candidates like Thaddeus McCotter stole some of the spotlight from Pawlenty.
When T-Paw took a distant third at the Iowa Ames Straw poll, he realized he couldn't go on any further. He devoted all his resources to winning that poll and came up short. Despite the fact that Mike Huckabee has urged him to stay in the race, Tim Pawlenty has made a wise choice to bow out. He doesn't have the organizational or fundraising power to stay in the race.  He doesn't come out particularly strong in attacking his candidates and his lukewarm in his retail politics when compared to other 2012 candidates. 
Tim Pawlenty's campaign had so much potential. However, that potential was squandered because he could not become the person he advertised himself to be. 

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Are You Serious About Helping Mitt Romney Win In 2012?

I rarely post other people's blog posts on my own blog. However, every now and then, there is an article that is not only worth linking to, but reposting it in its entirety. Mike Sage, an excellent blogger and enthusiastic supporter of Mitt Romney wrote an excellent blog article that is worth reading. Here is the entire article:
I’m going to be brutally honest here, and I hope I don’t sound preachy, or offend anyone with my comments, but this is something that I think needs to be said.  I said it on the Mitt Romney Radio program a few days ago, and now I’m putting in writing, and am making it a part of my personal “mission statement.”  Here it is:
You don’t win any races by handicapping or betting on the horses. At some point, if you want to win a race, you need to actually get on a horse and ride it.
I’m here to help Mitt Romney win an election, and hopefully, you are too.  I realize that you all had lives before this election season got started, and that our lives will go on after November 2012.  But there are only so many weeks, days and hours before the election will be upon us, and there are lots of things competing for our time.  I don’t know about you, but every minute I devote to helping Mitt win in 2012 is a minute I have to take away from something else that is also important in my life.  Therefore, it’s imperative that I try and spend my time as productively as possible.  Hopefully, you feel the same way too, because that’s what the rest of this note is about.
One of the several things I do for a living is, I’m a consultant.  I tell business people how to get the biggest bang for their buck when it comes to their advertising, public relations, and marketing.  After all, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to spend $100 in marketing just so you can earn $50 – yet people do it all the time, and they go broke doing it.  That same concept applies to almost anything that we do, not just business marketing.  If we want to get Mitt elected, we need to stop “spending” more than we “earn.”  We need to work smarter, not harder – and we don’t want to be “broke” before the election gets here.
Generally speaking, I have three rules of thumb that I follow:
1.  I’m a big believer in metrics… meaning, I believe that if you can’t (or are unwilling to) measure something, you can pretty much assume it never happened. I have a client who has spent $36,000 a year on radio advertising for the last 10 years… not because it has brought him a single customer (it hasn’t) but because people in church tell him, “I heard your ad on the radio!” and that makes him feel good.  When we do something because it makes us feel good, instead of because it actually produces results, we are on the road to a bad place.
2.  I’m also a big believer in what we, in the business, call “guerrilla marketing.”  In other words, using unconventional or nontraditional methods to get the greatest possible pay-off at the lowest possible cost.  Social media like Facebook and Twitter are good examples of something than costs next to nothing, but have the potential to exponentially increase our pay-off.
3.  You can’t be everywhere, and you can’t do everything.  You have to choose.  You have to prioritize, and then you have to arrange things so you get the best possible return on your investment of time, and energy.  For example, I could tell you all of this in a comment on my wall… but a week from now, it will be gone, and I will have to explain it all over again to the next person who comes along.  Not very efficient.  But by putting my thoughts here, in a semi-permanent place, this note will continue working for me long after I’ve moved on to other, more productive things.
So, what does any of this have to do with our mission to get Mitt Romney elected President?  A lot.  If you listen to the talking-heads on TV and radio, they’re all saying the same thing… They say they aren’t seeing any “passion” for Mitt out there in the electorate.  Well, here’s the real reason why: It’s because the people who really know how these things work know that it isn’t “passion” that gets candidates elected.  What gets a guy elected is public relations, grass-roots organizing, fundraising and mobilization of voters.  Period.  It may not always be exciting, but it works.
Ron Paul’s people are passionate.  They expend so much energy arguing their points, being obnoxious, and making sure he wins every poll, that by the time election time rolls around, they’ve got nuthin’.  In his 1988 presidential campaign, he pulled in less than one percent of the popular vote, and in 2008, averaged less than 10% in the GOP primaries. Now, his misguided followers spam the polls – but to what purpose?  It only hurts them, since it convinces them that they’re doing better than they really are.  That’s a sure ticket to disaster, if you ask me.
Now, I realize that I’ve taken the “scenic route,” getting to my point, but here it is:
Don’t waste my time.  Don’t waste your time.  Time is precious.  In the final analysis, it’s all we have.  Some people say “time is money.”  I say they’re short-sighted.  Time is how we take measure of our lives.  We only get one shot at this, and if we’re spending our precious and limited time in nonproductive pursuits, we are cheating ourselves, and we’re cheating our candidate.  Here are some things that I think are nonproductive.  These are just my opinions; take them for what they’re worth.
  • Arguing or debating about the candidates, in any media, with someone who has already made up his mind.  Let’s face it, no one is going to do a face-palm and exclaim, “Wow, I see now that I’m wrong, you’re right, and I’m going to be Mitt’s biggest fan from here on out!”  Sure, it’s a fun fantasy, but it just isn’t going to happen.  Why waste hours on someone who has zero chance of ever supporting Mitt, when 40% of the population hasn’t made up their minds yet?  Focus on someone who really wants to learn about Mitt, and might actually end up supporting him.
  • Stating your valuable opinions in impermanent media, like wall comments, or somewhere where someone who disagrees with them will simply delete them. You might as well be writing them in the steam on your bathroom mirrors. If you’re going to go to the trouble of articulating an opinion, why not put it somewhere where it will still be there 6 months or even a year from now, and may be read by thousands, perhaps even millions of people?  It doesn’t take any more effort to put it somewhere with more permanence and reach.  It just takes some forethought, is all. That’s one of the reasons why I created the Mitt Romney Radio Blog, and opened it up to allow anyone who supports Mitt to blog there. Please, register and start putting your pro-Romney thoughts into blog articles.
  • Entertaining ourselves with political flights of fancy that have zero chance of ever becoming reality. Sure, we can yak all night long about who would make a better VP running mate for Mitt – Captain Kirk, or Captain Picard.  But what does that accomplish?  A comment along those lines is funny… but a marathon discussion along those lines is a tragic waste, in my opinion.
  • Failing to “be the multiplier.”  Mitt’s secret weapon in the coming election cycle is us.  We the people.  We are his force multiplier.  But it only works if we actually multiply the positive efforts of others.  When you see something that is effective in promoting Mitt Romney, amplify it – multiply it.  Don’t just “like” it.  That’s passive.  Be active and send it out to everyone you know. Send it along through different media. If you got it through Facebook, retransmit it through Twitter, or vice-versa.  Make it bigger, make it better, make it more effective.  Put it in a blog, or on a website. Turn it into a bumper-sticker, window decal, yard sign, or billboard.  As long as you do something.
  • Worrying.  I hear it every day from someone.  “I am worried about Rick Perry.” or “I am worried about Michele Bachmann.”  Whoever the flavor of the week is, he or she creates lots of worry, and none of it accomplishes anything.  If anything, it takes your eye off the ball.  If you really want to worry about something, worry about what you should be doing today to move the ball forward for Mitt Romney.  Then do it.
Trust me, it’s not just you.  It’s all of us.  I’ve made each of these mistakes more times than I care to think about.  Every time I waste an entire evening arguing with some moron, I end up wanting to kick myself, because I realize I could have accomplished so much in that time, if only I’d stayed focused on my mission.
We can all learn something from this, and become more effective force multipliers for Romney…
If we’re serious about wanting to win.
By sharing this article with you, I'm working to be a force multiplier to help Mitt Romney win the race. I hope this article makes you seriously think about the most productive, efficient and effective ways you can help Mitt Romney. Maybe that means making financial contributions to Mitt Romney's campaign. Perhaps that means writing blog articles supporting Mitt Romney. You might be very effective in making phone calls on behalf of his campaign.
Please think about what's the best way to use your talents, skills and resources to help Romney. Then go out and do it.

Mitt Romney Plans To Make "People Are Corporations" A Part Of His Campaign

Two days ago,  known Marxists agitators attempted to embarrass Mitt Romney by drawing him into a debate at a open forum at the Ames straw poll. However, that plan backfired on them as Mitt Romney demonstrated their ignorance about how businesses actually work and made him more popular with conservatives. 
Mitt Romney plans to incorporate the famous "Corporations are people" remark into his campaign: 
But Romney, a successful businessman whose primary campaign message is focused on turning around the economy, is embracing the comment on the campaign stump and in fundraising appeals.
"Look at your paycheck there is the name of a business on there that's paying for your salary," Romney said after addressing about 250 people Friday evening in this New Hampshire city. "Look at your 401k and see the names of businesses that you're part owner of. Businesses are comprised of people and it's amazing to me that the Democrats and President Obama are so far behind the times."
Romney added that he found it "pretty astonishing that the Obama folks would try and argue that businesses aren't people.
"What do they think they are little men from Mars? Businesses are comprised of people."
As Romney continues to pound this theme on the campaign trail, his top campaign aides are engaging in a full court press fundraising effort highlighting it. Within hours of his "corporations are people" comment, Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades sent out a fundraising email describing it as a "defining moment." In the first 24 hours, the campaign had raised more than $25,000 from this pitch, communications director Gail Gitcho said. And the campaign plans to expand the pitch pushing this message in the form of a national direct mail piece.
By embracing this comment and theme, the Romney campaign is clearly hoping to drive a wedge between the business community and Obama at the same time using this "defining moment" to further highlight Romney's business background for undecided Republican and independent voters.
It is worth pointing out that Mitt Romney isn't trying to drive a wedge between the business community and Obama. Obama has already been doing that since the day entered office and started vilifying these people. As Obama continues to chastise  people who work hard and reap the rewards of their efforts and heap scorn upon businesses who provide people with a job and income, it will only come back to hurt Obama himself. The Democratic party, assisting Obama in demoralizing hard working people and corporations, are only working hard to alienate Americans away from supporting Obama. Moreover, having these protesters lash out at corporations isn't helping Obama either.

Rick Perry Is In For 2012!

He did it. Rick Perry finally announced that he's in for 2012. Here's the announcement which he posted on his website:
What I learned in my 20’s traveling the globe as an Air Force pilot, our current president has yet to acknowledge in his 50’s – that we are the most exceptional nation on the face of the earth.
As Americans, we believe freedom is a gift from God, and government’s prime function is to defend it.  We don’t see the role of government as a nanny state, and we recognize there is no government money that wasn’t once earned through the sweat and toil of private citizens.
That’s why we object to an Administration that sees its role as spending our children’s inheritance on failed economic theories that have given us record debt and left far too many unemployed, threatening not only our economy, but our security. Our reliance on foreign creditors and sources of energy  not only compromises our national sovereignty, but jeopardizes our national future.
America’s place in the world is in peril, not only because of disastrous economic policies, but from the incoherent muddle known as our foreign policy.  Our president has thumbed his nose at traditional allies such as Israel and Great Britain.
We will not sit back and accept our current misery…because a great country requires a better direction…because a renewed nation requires a new president.  That’s why, with faith in God, the support of my family, and an unwavering belief in the goodness of America, I am a candidate for President of the United States.
And I will work every day to make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your lives as I can.
As governor of Texas I have led based on a few guiding principles. One, don’t spend all the money. Two, keep taxes low and under control. Three, keep regulations fair and predictable. And four, reform the legal system so frivolous lawsuits don’t paralyze employers that are trying to create jobs.
Over ten years, we have followed this recipe of fiscal restraint to produce the strongest economy in the nation. While millions of jobs have been lost over the last decade nationwide, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been added in Texas. Texas is home to one in 12 Americans, and yet since June of 2009, we have created more than four in ten American jobs.
The change we seek will never emanate out of Washington…it must come from the windswept prairies of Middle America…the farms and factories across this great land…the hearts and minds of God-fearing Americans who will not accept a future that is less than our past…who will not be consigned a fate of less freedom in exchange for more government.
It is up to us…to this present generation of Americans…to take a stand for freedom…to send a signal to Washington that we are taking the country back from the grips of central planners who would control our healthcare, spend our treasure and micro-manage our businesses.
My mission as your president will be to get America working again!
With God’s help, and your courage, we will take our country back.  I hope you will take a moment to join the team and consider a donation to the campaign. 
Thank you, and God bless America.

Rick Perry

Friday, August 12, 2011

Obama Campaign Uses Huckabee's Passive Agressive Strategy Against Mitt Romney

Mike Huckabee is famous for his passive aggressive attacks against Mitt Romney. It was an effective strategy that manipulated certain segments of the religious right to swing away from supporting the former govenor of Massachusetts in the 2008 Presidential election.
Recently, a story broke out about how Obama's campaign had a scorched earth plan to "destroy" Mitt Romney if he becomes the Republican nominee in 2012. Steven Colbert made fun of that strategy on his television show.
Now, David Axlerod claims he will fire anyone who attacks Romney for being weird. Yet, they are being passive aggressive about their plans for how to compete against Mitt in 2012:
While that “kill Romney” quote cannot reasonably be hung on the Obama campaign, the “weirdness” quotes, while anonymously sourced, all have very strong attribution. Axelrod didn’t use the word himself, but made the observation that “When he makes jokes about being unemployed or a waitress pinching him on the butt, it does snap your head back, and you say, ‘What’s he talking about?’”
To me, this appears to be an example of good, insightful reporting on Politico’s part. It is quite possible that Team Obama didn’t intend to put such a fine point on the “weirdness” thing, as evidenced by the fact that the on-the-record quotes deal more with the contradictions in Romney’s record and rhetoric. But by interviewing “about a dozen” Obama advisers, Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith were able to distill something that broke through the spoon-feeding.
This is a prime example of the tension between messaging and truth. The Obama campaign wants you to know that Romney is weird, but they don’t necessarily want you to know that they want you to know that Romney is weird.
Huckabee's strategies against Mitt Romney may have worked in 2008 but the Obama campaign will find it will be useless in  2012 because they'll discover that the American people are willing to vote for a “weird” candidate over an incompetent President in 2012. 

Mitt Romney's Ronald Reagan Moment

Yesterday, Mitt Romney faced off against hecklers and proved that he was no milquetoast as some claim he is. Watch Romney face off against the hecklers:

He handled himself well on a range of issues ranging from social security, taxes, businesses against these organized progressive Marxist agitators. In fact, he came out as the winner of that debate since he explained his positions in a calm and rational manner. He even made one heckler look like a fool since he revealed the heckler's ignorance of how business works by explaining what business really are:
Romney doesn't mean that corporations are entitled to some of the legal rights of people in the Citizens United sense. He means it in the sense that the money made by corporations flows in and out of human hands—or pockets, in the language of the heckler who hoisted himself on his own metaphorical petard.
People are already mocking Romney for this supposed gaffe, but even TNR's Jonathan Chait grants that Romney is right on this point—although Chait is careful to point out that corporations are made of people who are richer than average.
One of the hecklers has been identified. He's not just a regular concerned citizen but a professional protester named Joe Fagan who has been a very active and well known Marxist agitator
But if irreverence were all it was about, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, of which Fagan was founding director 35 years ago, would not have 3,000 dues-paying members and a long list of wins under its belt. Nor would The Nation magazine have called it one of the country's most valuable progressive grassroots advocacy groups, or Bill Moyers have recently profiled it on his "Journal." 
Mitt Romney handled himself well against Joe Fagan and his fellow marxist protesters. He did well in explaining the conservative position without getting rattled or sucked into an embarrassing debate with them. In fact, some people are calling this exchange Mitt Romney's "Ronald Reagan" moment. Neil Cavuto thinks this could be a game changing moment for Mitt his quest to be come President. Even Glenn Beck, who has been a fierce warrior against progressives and Marxists, was pleased with Mitt Romney's defense of conservative ideas.
Regardless if its debating other 2012 Republican candidates or handling hecklers in the crowd, Mitt Romney has consistently been the winner in Iowa.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Steven Colbert: Obama's Plan to Attack Mitt Romney's Faith Is "No Way" To Treat A Candidate

Steven Colbert poked fun at Obama's scorched earth plan to "destroy" Mitt Romney if he becomes the Republican nominee in 2012. His plan is to make Romney look inauthentic, greedy and weird to the American people. However, as Colbert pointed out, a religion that believes a prophet received golden plates from an an angel on a hill is no weirder than a prophet receiving stone tablets from a burning bush on a mountain.
Objectively speaking, all religious have "weird" aspects to their faith that sound implausible. Mormonism is about as weird as any other religion. Which means Mormonism and the people are normal just like everyone else in the United States who belongs to a faith that has some peculiar beliefs. 
I think Obama's plan on attacking Mitt Romney and his faith will backfire on him. Mike Huckabee had a passive aggressive strategy against Mitt Romney's religion and Tim Pawlenty might be trying copy Huckabee's tactics. However, Obama is taking Mike Huckabee's plan and taking it to a whole new and extreme level. However, the American people will not tolerate this kind of scorched earth attack towards another person's faith even if they strongly disagree with that person's faith.  
Steven Colbert takes the right approach here by poking fun at Obama's strategy. However, it appears that Obama is serious about his plans to take down Mitt Romney. And that, is nothing to laugh about.  
Obama's strategy of attacking Mitt Romney's faith: Yahweh or no way? The American people will say no way!  

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Mitt Romney: I've Got More Economic Experience Than Gov. Perry Or President Obama

With the possibility of Govenor Rick Perry announcing that he will jumping in the race for 2012, Mitt Romney explained that he's the most economically experienced candidate of this election: 
After an hour spent discussing business and economic issues with a group of business leaders at a roundtable event, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney made news by talking about two other prominent leaders: President Obama and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Asked about Perry's economic record in Texas, Romney called Perry a "fine governor" and said his record "speaks for itself."  Romney added he didn't doubt that we would hear much more about Perry's qualifications in the coming weeks as he Perry appears prepared to jump into the presidential race.
But Romney said it is his private sector experience and economic expertise that separates him from Perry and gives the former governor the qualifications to be president.  "I think I'm the right guy to be the Republican nominee for President," Romney said.  "In part because I spent 25 years in the private sector and I know how the economy works. I've had the occasion to lead four different enterprises successfully. I've also had the experience of working in government and helping lead a state and those experiences I think qualify me to get this economy going again. Those people who think the economy really is essential in providing a future for our families and preserving our values, then I think they're going to look to me as someone who can understand how the economy works and can get it back on track."
While fielding several questions about Perry, Romney stayed true to to his strategy of saving his strongest criticism for the president.  He opened his media availability by criticizing the Obama's upcoming bus tour harshly and by making a prediction: Barack Obama will not win Iowa in 2012.  
In response to a question from NBC news about what he would be doing about the economic fluctuations of later if he were, Romney responded "Well I sure as heck wouldn't be on a bus tour.  I'm not President now, but I'd like to be," he continued.  "I tried to be, but I can assure you that the President ought to be devoting his energy and passion and time to our economy and to the fact that we have men and women in harms way. that should be the focus and energy of his presidency." 
Mitt Romney is right. We need someone who grasps the fundamentals of the economy and has had experience in both the public and private sector. With Obama who has had no private sector experience and has done poorly with his hands on the job training and Rick Perry who has no experience in the private sector, America can't afford to have someone who doesn't have any business or economic knowledge. The United States needs a leader with economic experience and that person is Mitt Romney.  

Monday, August 8, 2011

Govenor Rick Perry For President?

After months of speculation and people attempting to draft Govenor Rick Perry to run in 2012, it looks like Rick Perry will finally join the current crop of Republican contenders. He was supposed to announce sometime towards the end of August. However, if his appearance at a prayer rally wasn't an obvious signal he's running, he'll make his announcement this Saturday
Rick Perry intends to use a speech in South Carolina on Saturday to make clear that he's running for president, POLITICO has learned.
According to two sources familiar with the plan, the Texas governor will remove any doubt about his White House intentions during his appearance at a RedState conference in Charleston.
However, Rick Perry says he hasn't made up his mind yet if he will run:
But the Texas governor’s office says he hasn’t made a final decision.
“The Governor is not a candidate for Office at this time. With President Obama’s dismal economic record, and Texas’ success in creating jobs and balancing our budget, Governor Perry continues to consider a potential run for The White House. Stay tuned,” Mark Miner, spokesman for Gov. Perry, said in a statement.
If Rick Perry runs, he will be a formidable challenger since he would appeal to Southern Republicans and that the South has a lot of sway in deciding who will be the Republican nominee. However, the fact that he's running doesn't mean that he will get the nomination. There are plenty of positive things about him and an awful lot of negative things about him as well.
Will Rick Perry win the 2012 election? Time will tell. 

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Mystery Mitt Romney "Restore Our Future" Donor Revealed

After much controversy and speculation, we now know who the biggest donor to the Restore Our Future PAC is:
The anonymous donor behind the headline-making $1 million contribution to a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC is a former Bain Capital official with long ties to the candidate, who's asking the outside group to amend its filings, POLITICO has learned.
The check-writer is Ed Conard, who was a top official at Bain, the private-equity firm Romney helped create, and who has been a strong supporter of his over the years.
The donation, made to the super PAC "Restore Our Future" - which was founded by former Romney advisers and is able to take in unlimited contributions, but must report them to the FEC - showed up in the group's first round of filings. It was listed as coming from a W Spann LLC.
In a statement to POLITICO, Conard said, "I am the individual who formed and funded W Spann LLC. I authorized W Spann LLC’s contribution to Restore Our Future PAC.
"I did so after consulting prominent legal counsel regarding the transaction, and based on my understanding that the contribution would comply with applicable laws," he said. "To address questions raised by the media concerning the contribution, I will request that Restore Our Future PAC amend its public reports to disclose me as the donor associated with this contribution."
After finding out who the mystery donor is, there really is no controversy surrounding the donation. He's a well known Mitt Romney supporter who has made donations to him and other conservative organizations in the past.

Friday, August 5, 2011

A Contrast In How Obama And Mitt Romney Have Handled A Down Grade In Credit Rating

If you want to look at how a leader deals with an economic problem, watch what they do during the initial moments after the crisis has begun occurred. While America is just now reeling from the news that Standard & Poor has down graded the U.S. from AAA to AA+,  President Obama was briefed in advance that this was going to happen and left the White House. The only thing they did in response to the announcement was that the Obama administration questioned S&P's calculations
In contrast, what did Mitt Romney do when he learned that the state of Massachusetts was going to get down graded? He took swift action
When Romney took office as Governor of Massachusetts, the S&P was threatening to downgrade the state’s debt. Romney met with them in their offices in New York, invited them up to Boston and met with them in his office, and laid out a debt reduction plan that instilled so much confidence in the S&P folks that they not only relented on the downgrade, they upgraded Massachusetts debt. Yet another tailor-made issue for a Romney candidacy, and one I expect to become a major topic on the campaign trail. Romney has the personal experience of not only dealing with this exact same issue, but getting a more-favorable-than-expected outcome from it as well.
There's no better test to see who is qualified to lead than seeing how people react in the first few moments of a crisis. Obama didn't do anything to avert this problem whereas Mitt Romney acted quickly to head it off.
With each new batch of bad news or economic crisis, Obama continues to behave in a such a way to give Americas very few reasons why he should have a second term in office. You would think that our President would make an extra special effort to do something about since the 2012 Presidential elections is coming up soon. 
Its clear that Obama doesn't deserve a second term. Its time to elect someone who knows how to handle a criss and reverse it so that we come out better after the crisis has passed. Its time to elect Mitt Romney to the White House in 2012.

US Downgraded From AAA to AA+

No, this isn't just a rumor. Standard & Poor just dropped an economic and political bombshell by reducing our country's credit rating from "AAA" to "AA+." However, Moody's and Fitch have not followed S&P's decision to downgrade since they recently reaffirmed the America's credit rating as AAA
S&P gave their reasoning for downgrading the United State's credit rating. Apparently, they weren't satisfied with Obama and Congress debt ceiling deal and thinks that we can reduce the public debt in the future.
Although it  dropped our rating down by one notch, nobody really knows what the consequences of this downgrade will be. However, this small pebble thrown in the pond by S&P has the possibility of creating some serious economic tidal waves across American and around the world. Or it might create some small ripples. There are arguments for both scenarios.   
The good news is that only one institution has reduced our credit rating. However, that doesn't mean that other agencies won't fallow suit in the future. I think S&P made this reduction in our rating not because we deserve this downgrade, but serves as a warning for Americans that a loss of credit rating will be the least of our concerns if we continue with the massive amount of money we're spending. I also think its also a way to pressure our politicians to make a serious effort in reducing our deficit.
Regardless of what the consequences will be from this downgrade will be, its time to buckle our seat belt because its going to be a bumpy ride in the future.

Democratic Insiders Are Afraid of Mitt Romney And See Him As The Biggest Threat in 2012

National Journal polled Democratic Insiders and found them to be increasingly afraid of Mitt Romney: 
Just two months ago, Democratic Insiders also saw Romney as the lead GOP challenger for Obama to overcome, but today, they sound like that hurdle is considerably higher. "He is the best counter to Obama," said one Democratic Insider of the former Massachusetts governor. "He is an executive while Obama was a legislator. Romney ran a company--Obama never made a payroll. Romney created jobs--unemployment is 9 percent-plus under Obama." Echoed another, "Strong business background in a bad economy is a plus for him, as is the Massachusetts health care plan in a general election." Added a third: "He forces Obama to defend the Democratic base states, and will be able to talk about the economy better than any other Republican."
Democrats also thought Romney had gained experience from his unsuccessful run for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination and that he could win over swing voters, unlike some of his Republican rivals. "Has run before, looks presidential and unlike others not a total turn off to Dems and independents," observed a Democratic Insider. "He's got economic credibility, he seems smart, he has a bit of polish and he doesn't seem like a complete loon," said another Democrat. "None of the others have that whole package."
The Democrats are completely justified in being afraid of Mitt Romney. He does have all the skills and qualifications that Obama clearly lacks. Moreover, as the economy continues to slump downwards, the need for a skillful, competent and qualified leader with plenty of experience in both the public and private sector will continue to skyrocket.
As a side note, its interesting that Democrats are afraid of another Mormon who is also running for President.:
While they doubt he can get nomination, Democratic Insiders think Jon Huntsman, the former two-term Utah governor, would be a formidable opponent for Obama. "Huntsman has no chance of winning the GOP primary, maybe one percent," said a Democratic Insider. "But if he did, he is the one Republican I would be scared of. He is moderate, reasonable, and a D.C. outsider. Right now, if you are Obama '12, you have to be thanking your lucky stars for the deeply flawed Republican candidates." Echoed another GOP Insider, "He doesn't seem to be well-positioned to actually get the nomination, mind you, but if he did, he has the tone and acceptability to provide disenchanted voters a palatable alternative."
Jon Hunstman has zero chances of being reelected. Not only that, but Mitt Romney is much better candidate that his LDS competitior. Moreover, he has stronger chance of defeating Obama than Huntsman does. 
While Democrats are scared of Huntsman, they're more afraid of Romney. And that's a good thing.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

The Tyranny Of Entitlement Programs

Now that we have raised the debt ceiling, we still haven't made any real serious reforms to reducing our budget because it still leaves the nation facing a projected $22 trillion debt ten years from now - an increase of more than $7 trillion from today.
Obama is in denial that entitlement programs are the main reason why our national debt continues to skyrocket despite overwhelming evidence showing that they are the largest driver of our debt. In fact, lets look at the current estimates for these programs:
According to the program's 2011 annual report, Social Security added $46 billion to this year's deficit and will add $9.1 trillion to the national debt over the long term. Medicare was also in the red by $66 billion this year and will add $24.6 trillion to the debt over the same period. Income tax rates for all Americans would have to double to cover this level of spending. No wonder Americans are turning against the welfare state.
A long time ago, Progressives offered a social contract to the American people called the New Deal. It was a Faustain bargain that was to difficult to resist in the Great Depression. The New Deal was a Bad Deal. They traded away independence in exchange for care from the government. What the people didn't realize is that the bad terms of the faustain New Deal wouldn't fall on them but their children in the future. The elderly today continue uphold the terms of this social contract in that they are willing to sacrifice the financial security of the future in order for their government to subsidize their needs and wants today just as their parents and grandparents did before them: 
As it is, the U.S. is turning into a tyranny of the gerontocracy, one willing to sacrifice its grandchildren so the oldies can live comfortably in their Florida condos as they consume vast quantities of high-tech health care in a futile effort to extend their lives forever. As the thinker Walter Russell Mead puts it, the U.S. health system marries the greed of the private sector to the ineptitude of government. This health-care industrial complex will soon account for one-fifth of the economy. Most health care is consumed by seniors. This isn’t a formula for national greatness.
One of the reasons why entitlement programs have become sacred programs that cannot be cut is of the myth that it helps the poor and the vulnerable. Yet, when it comes to helping the elderly, most of them are not poor but are in the middle and upper class
True, some elderly live hand-to-mouth; many more are comfortable, and some are wealthy. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports the following for Medicare beneficiaries in 2010: 25 percent had savings and retirement accounts averaging $207,000 or more; among homeowners (four-fifths of those 65 and older), three-quarters had equity in their houses averaging $132,000; about 25 percent had incomes exceeding $47,000 (that’s for individuals, and couples would be higher). 
The myth doesn't apply just to the elderly but the to the 30 million of Americans who are classified as being in "poverty" in America. The Heritage Foundation provides two graphs that provide an eye opening comparison Americans in general and poor Americans:
If we want to be serious about taking care of those who really are vulnerable and poor, we're spending way too much because we're also helping the middle class and in some cases, the rich. As the Heritage Foundation points out, the exaggeration and misinformation about poverty in America has led us to divert more resources to the problem of poverty than is needed: 
Over the long term, exaggeration has the potential to promote a substantial misallocation of limited resources for a government that is facing massive future deficits. In addition, exaggeration and misinformation obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem. Poverty is an issue of serious social concern, and accurate information about that problem is always essential in crafting public policy.
As we can see, entitlement programs goes to support people who may not really need the support of these services. As a result, our government has created a unique special interest group and voting bloc that consists of people from all walks of life that have have an inordinate amount of power over the affairs of our government's domestic policy. The current debate over raising the debt ceiling proved it. 
Spending on entitlement programs are on autopiliot and we cannot make any cuts to it despite the fact that past payments into these programs were never “saved” to pay future benefits because they were "borrowed" to pay for other things. In the future, entitlement spending will demand more money at expense of all other programs until it becomes a struggle to pay for infrastructure, education, space exploration, science and defense. Yet, we can't make any changes without enraging the entitlement voting bloc/special interest group.
Their needs take priority over everything else and they want their needs met right now regardless if we can't afford it. We give into their demands with full knowledge that we are giving in to their requests even if it means our nation's financial security is at risk. 
The only way to save this country is to stand up to the tyranny of the entitlement takers and engage in entitlement reform so that we can truly help the poor so that we're no longer misallocating our resources but using them wisely. 
Its time release ourselves from the Faustain bargain we've made and rewrite the social contract. The sooner we do this, the better our future will be.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Mitt Romney's Justice Advisory Committee: Good News For All Conservatives

Mitt Romney made headlines yesterday when he announced an advisory team of 63 lawyers to give him legal counsel on a wide variety of matters. These lawyers collectively released a statement on Mitt Romney's blog explaining why they are willing to participate on this advisory team. Its worth reading.
Mitt's legal dream team, will be co-chaired by the famous and sharp conservative legal scholar Robert Bork, Harvard Law School professor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican during George W. Bush's presidency and Richard Wiley, a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. There is also other outstanding lawyers on Mitt Romney's Justice Advisory Committee. Many of them have served in George W. Bush's administration.
One of the most common criticism of Mitt Romney is that out of the 36 judicial appointments he made while Governor of Massachusetts, only 9 of them were Republican. However, a closer inspection reveals that statistic doesn't reveal the whole story because Mitt Romney appointed those 9 conservative judges in positions that really mattered. Here's Mitt Romney's explanation:
The governor said that, so far, he has had few chances to appoint judges to the highest state courts, where his criteria would change to include ''strict construction, judicial philosophy."
''With regards to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren't really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime, because in that case, apply elsewhere," Romney said.
In other words, the appointment of liberal judges who had a solid record of being tough on crime had no influence or impact on state policy or laws. At the district level, the only thing that is relevant is their approach on crime. However, in judicial positions where a judge could have an impact on state law, policy or program, Mitt Romney picked conservative judges. Thus, Mitt Romney played his cards right by focusing his energy on getting key positions filled with conservative judges and was successful at it.
In fact, if you take a good look at Mitt Romney's record, it reveals that conservatives can have confidence in Mitt Romney as President when it comes to legal issues and judicial appointments:
If given a fair look, Romney’s record shows a leader who was determined to move the courts in Massachusetts as far to the right as he could.  Romney’s focus on appointing justices who were tough on crime should be applauded.  His efforts in creating a judicial nominating commission that would give conservatives a fair chance in a state dominated by liberals was a creative way of achieving the best possible results in difficult circumstances.  His appointment of conservative Christopher Moore to chair the Judicial Nominating Commission showed that Romney played his biggest cards where they mattered most.  Due to his constant criticism of judicial activism, his statements of support for judges such as Samuel Alito and John Roberts should be taken at face value, as his record gives us very little that would counter those claims.  If Romney is elected President, conservatives can count on him to appoint Supreme Court justices which will respect the constitution, rather than legislate from the bench.
This collection of top notch conservative lawyers and legal minds demonstrates Mitt Romney is no RINO when it comes to legal issues. Furthermore, it reaffirms his commitment to appoint judges who are faithful to the Constitution and will not legislate from the bench. Mitt Romney will seek to appoint pro-life judges and to uphold traditional marriage. Finally, given that Mitt Romney has a law degree, this panel reflects his own conservative legal views and what kind of lawyers he appreciates.

This is great news for conservative lawyers such as myself. However, regardless if you're involved in the legal profession or not, Mitt Romney's legal team is awesome news for all conservatives.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Obama's Numerous Broken Promises To Focus on Jobs

The Republican Party recently released 15 separate promises made by Obama to focus on jobs. Ben Smith disputes this number and thinks that the number is much lower in which he counts seven attempts by the President to pivot on jobs: 
February 2009: In a speech to Congress, Obama says his economic plan will be focused on jobs.

November 2009, during the lull in health care debate: “This is my administration's overriding focus.”

January 2010: “What they can expect from this administration, and I know what they can expect from you, is that we are going to have a sustained and relentless focus over the next several months on accelerating the pace of job creation, because that's priority number one.” 

April 2010: Post health-care, Obama goes on a bunch of “Main Street” tour stops to talk about jobs in April and May.

June 2010: The beginning of recovery summer.

December 2010: “And I think we are past the crisis point in the economy, but we now have to pivot and focus on jobs and growth.”

January 2011: Obama’s State of the Union focuses on jobs and afterward he makes a big jobs push (even though Egypt is taking up his, and the world's attention), launches “Startup America” initiative.
Ben Smith makes this obvious conclusion: 
Obama has spent very little of his presidency publicly driving a conversation about jobs.
Its not just that Obama spent a small about of time driving national discussion on jobs, he's also done very little on jobs since he's spent the bulk of his Presidency on focusing on issues that were apparently more important than saving jobs like ObamaCare.
Back in April of 2011, I pointed out that Obama had made three promises to focus on jobs and never followed through with them long before the GOP and news reporters started to keep track of Obama's promises. However, regardless of who was first keeping track of these broken promise, its always been clear that Obama has never been serious about the economy. That's why America is losing hope and people are not seeing a lot of change in their pockets. Its also why Obama is becoming irrelevant when it comes to issues relating to the economy.
Regardless of who was first keeping count of Obama's empty and false promise to focus on jobs, its too late now for Obama to pivot on jobs because he has a 461 days from today to turn the economy around. Some peopel predict that unemployment could be low as 7.3% or as high as 10% on Election Day 2012. Anyway you look at it, Obama will most likely be a one term President because he never took the economy seriously.