Dick Morris' Lunch With Mitt Romney

Dick Morris releases a YouTube video about bumping into Mitt Romney and having lunch with him. You can see that he gets excited about actually getting to know Romney: Watch the video below: 

I wish Dick Morris would have gone into more detail about his meeting with Mitt Romney. Perhaps he will do that in a future video. 

Dick Morris, who used to not be a big fan of Mitt Romney, has grown to like him. I think the fact that he actually got to sit down with Mitt and have a 40 minute uninterrupted conversation with him in which he could really get to know Romney really excited him. Its clear that he likes and respects Mitt Romney.

Hopefully these men will do lunch together again.

The Top 10 Advantages Mitt Romney Has Over Other GOP Nominees

Mark Halperin, writing for Time Magazine, has written a list of 10 advantages Mitt Romney has over his Republican candidates. Here is the list: 

1. Iowa muscle: In a late-starting cycle where even the best organized candidates have laughably little in place compared to past years, Romney’s team has been quietly working for months, with a small paid staff and tons of supporters from 2008, to put together what could be the best organization in the race. Not bad for a guy who has kept expectations low by barely visiting the Hawkeye State.

2. Oppo on all: With months to prepare, the Romney campaign, headed by the meticulous Matt Rhoades, a former opposition research master, has put together detailed dossiers on anyone and everyone who might stand in Romney’s way to the White House. They so far have unfurled precious little of what they have — but make no mistake, they are prepared to blast away at whomever ends up emerging as a threat.

3. The inoculation against Romneycare: Although Romney’s Massachusetts health care venture will certainly come up again, most likely in paid communication, for now, what was thought to be a crippling liability is barely mentioned in the debates and on the campaign trail, either by Romney’s rivals or voters. By getting so much oxygen early on, before most citizens were paying attention, the controversial plan became an asked-and-answered issue in the minds of much of the press.

4. Media cards to play: Romney has pursued a low-profile strategy, turning down most interviews across all categories and platforms. But if he gets in trouble, he can turn to earned media to try to bail himself out. Because he has created pent-up demand, Romney could appear on “60 Minutes,” get ample time on “Meet the Press” and adorn front pages and magazine covers pretty much whenever he chooses.

5. Endorsements galore: State, federal and local officials from sea to shining sea already have told the Romney campaign they are ready to publicly sign on with Mitt, but for a variety of tactical reasons, the campaign is holding them in reserve, to roll out as needed. They can be used to show momentum leading up to the January voting, or serve as a firewall if Romney stumbles.

6. That bank account: No other candidate in the race (with the possible exception of Jon Huntsman) has the vast personal resources to drop in as needed for a flurry of last-minute spending on TV ads and other expensive goodies. Romney has been smart and disciplined about not putting a lot of his own wealth into the race (contrary to his 2008 self-funding approach), but that can change with a stroke of a pen if Boston sees an opening or a crisis.

7. Leading in head to heads: In the latest face-off polls against President Obama, Romney does substantially better nationally and in key states than any of his rivals. That helps him practically and psychologically with voters, donors, reporters and other politicians.

8. Leading in perception: As we hit the homestretch, there is a palpable sense (reflected in polling data) among voters, press, pundits, and even late-night comics that Romney is the most likely to win the nomination — another helpful potential self-fulfilling prophecy.

9. Establishment traction: In Iowa and beyond, Romney remains the only mainline candidate in the race, giving him a near-monopoly on what remains a big chunk of the GOP’s pool of voters. He will have to contest in New Hampshire with Huntsman for this group, but otherwise, this key constituency is mostly going to go to the frontrunner. Even in the era of the Tea Party, that is a healthy portion of the electorate.

10. Knowledge of the delegate rules: If the race goes long past the South Carolina primary and into the spring, Romney’s operation is the only one that has a true, deep understanding of how to win, hold and flaunt delegates. The Obama campaign’s strength in this area was decisive in its victory over Hillary Clinton and Romney would brandish the same advantage.

I would add other things to this list but Mark Halperin does a good job identifying the reasons why Mitt Romney is such a formidable and appealing candidate.  

Mitt Romney Will Make The World Safer

Last night, Mitt Romney was Reaganesque last night's debate on foreign policy. Just as Ronald Regan didn't hold back any words against communist Russia, Mitt Romney didn't hold back any words against Iran: 

He also didn't hold back any words for China either:


He also went after Obama on his poor handling of Afghanistan:

As a result, Mitt Romney's Special Adviser on Foreign Policy, former U.S. Ambassador, and former Reagan Administration official, Rich Williamson had this to say about Mitt Romney's bold words in last night's debate: 

“Mitt Romney left tonight's debate showing that he is the candidate best equipped to secure a more peaceful and prosperous world for the United States and our allies. Mitt Romney deeply understands that the only way to meet the challenges we face abroad is to rest our foreign policy on a strong military, a strong economy, and the strength of our values. For three years, President Obama’s feckless policies have weakened our country’s standing and influence across the globe. Mitt Romney is the candidate who will restore our standing and ensure that America leads the world.”

Why George F. Will Flip Flopped On Mitt Romney

George F. Will raised a lot of eyebrows a few weeks ago when he attacked Mitt Romney in a Washington Post article "Mitt Romney, The Pretzel Candidate" in which he rehashed the common accusation that Mitt Romney is a flip flopper. 

However, Ramesh Ponnuru, writing for the National Republican points out the hypocrisy of George Will's attack on Mitt Romney:

Another take on Romney:

The axiom is as old as human striving: The perfect is the enemy of the good. In politics this means that insisting on perfection in a candidate interferes with selecting a satisfactory one. . . .

Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience — on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?

The headline was “Three Good Options for The Right,” the date was March 2007, and the byline was, of course, that of George F. Will. Romney’s biggest flip-flops all preceded that column. I can think of many reasons why Will might have, er, flip-flopped on Romney’s flip-flops, but it would be interesting to know what it was.

We now know why George Will flip-flopped on Romney's flip-flops.  It may have to do with the fact that his wife works for the Perry Campaign:

Columnist George Will's wife recently signed on as an adviser to Texas governor Rick Perry, a campaign spokesman confirmed today.

Will's wife, Mari Maseng -- a former communications director to both Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole -- started working for the campaign more than a week ago and helped Perry prepare for his most recent disastrous debate performance. Will, who has made no secret of his distaste for Perry rival Mitt Romney, plans to disclose the connection this Sunday on ABC and in future Washington Post columns, according to Post editor Fred Hiatt.

Journalist’s spouses are often a touchy issue. Last month, NPR host Michele Norris took temporary leave from her job because her husband Broderick Johnson accepted a senior advisor position with the Obama campaign.

“There was no relationship between his wife and any campaign the last time he wrote a column on the campaign, or any aspect of the campaign,” Hiatt said. “This developed after the last column that was two weeks ago. He has never written a column while there was a relationship between his wife and the campaign.”

Will has however had multiple columns within the last two weeks. His most recent column for the Post was published online November 9 and in print November 10. A column about the GOP debates was published online November 4 (in print November 6), and a column that disparaged Romney as “the pretzel candidate” was published online October 28 (in print October 30).

Another possible reasons for the attacks on Mitt Romney may have to do with retribution for the fact that the Romney Campaign didn't hire his wife when she applied to work for Mitt team:

Columnist George Will’s wife, Mari Maseng, has offered her services as an adviser to three candidates this election season.

In addition to her current work for the Perry campaign and her earlier work for the Bachmann campaign, a source knowledgeable of the situation tells us that Maseng sought out a role with the Romney campaign in June.

On June 28, Maseng went to Boston and met with multiple, “high-level officials” in the Romney campaign about joining on as an adviser. No formal offer was ever made, according to the source.

In his work as a columnist for the Washington Post and a regular contributor to ABC News, Will has not disclosed the fact that his wife was turned down by the Romney campaign, nor that she worked on Bachmann’s speechwriting team between February and May.

Every profession has ethical rules and guidelines that they must follow. I don't know what exactly what the rules are for journalists but it appears to me that George F. Will has difficulty maintaining following whatever these rules might be since this isn't the first time he's engaged in questionable journalist conduct:

Similar issues arose before for Will and Maseng before. During a presidential debate in 1980, Will helped Ronald Reagan prepare beforehand then criticized his opponent, Jimmy Carter, as a television commentator afterward. In 1996, Will called a Clinton speech "American political flapdoodle” then defended Dole’s response—which he helped write, according to a 1996 article in The Washingtonian—on ABC.

However, given the fact that he appears to be ethically challenged as a journalist, he should either be removed or suspended from reporting on political news and events. Perhaps he should be fired. I don't know. Yet, this I do know: disclosing his wife's relationship with the Perry campaign and her rejection from the Romney Campaign now rather than before shouldn't excuse his lapses in ethical journalism.

UPDATE: Here is George F. Will's response to this controversy: 

Will, also a regular analyst on ABC's "This Week," said Sunday on the show the issue was ginned up by “some of the more excitable and less mature members of the Romney campaign.”

“At the Michigan debate, after the debate, Mari waved her hand at Mitt Romney, and they came over and talked,” Will said. “They’ve been guests at our dinner table and Romney gave her a kiss on the cheek and they moved their separate ways. They’re both mature professionals.”

Mitt Romney And Rick Perry's "Oops" Moment In The CNBC Debate

Much has been said about Rick Perry's blunder at the CNBC debate last night really damaged his campaign. Rick Perry's inability to mention the three federal agencies will be a small factor for why he will not win the GOP nomination.  Another small factor in his eventual loss in this election is that not only could Rick Perry not remember what his own proposals were, but he looked to a GOP rival, Ron Paul, (of all people) for help in remembering his own position. This doesn't make him look like a leader at all.

The biggest factor why Rick Perry will not get the Republican nomination and go on to campaign against President Obama is that he doesn't know his own policy positions that well. Mat Bai, writing for the Washington Post, explains this point clearly:

There’s nothing more central to Mr. Perry’s campaign than the idea of scaling back the government in Washington — that’s pretty much the whole tamale right there — and what he proved last night, in 60 or so agonizing seconds, is that he hasn’t thought deeply enough about it to even master the basics of his own agenda.

Mitt Romney, sensing a good opportunity to capitalize on this glaring weakness, suggested the EPA to Perry when he was struggling to list the three agencies he's like to get rid of:

Perry was discussing his jobs plan and his flat tax plan when he said: "And I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the... what's the third one there? Let's see."

Perry then paused and there was audible laughter in the room. Texas Rep. Ron Paul then chimed in "You need five," to which Perry responded, "Oh, five, OK. So Commerce, Education, and the..."

Romney then suggested, "EPA?" to which Perry responded, "EPA, there you go, no..." with laughter from the candidate and the audience.

Moderator John Harwood from CNBC then asked, "Seriously, is the EPA the one you were talking about?"

"No, sir, no, sir. We were talking about the agencies of government -- the EPA needs to be rebuilt. There's no doubt about that," Perry responded.

Capitalizing on this moment of weakness was a stroke of brilliance for Mitt Romney. Rick Perry's knee jerk rejection of Romney's suggestion led him to make a minor gaffe about the EPA. Rick Perry was so busy dismissing his rival Mitt Romney that he also rejected the EPA as a federal agency until he caught himself and made a quick comment that it ought to be reformed.

Its clear that Rick Perry liked the idea of eliminating the EPA until he turned around to see who suggested the idea and then rejected it once he realized the idea came from Mitt Romney. Watch Rick Perry swat Mitt's suggestion away below:

The significance and brilliance of Mitt Romney's suggestion to Rick Perry is how little Perry knows his own policy position and exposed the fact his positions may not even be his own:  Matt Bai picks up on this subtle point:

The problem is that he didn’t seem to know the basic details of his own proposal. Here he was calling for what would be a truly radical restructuring of the federal government — involving many thousands of jobs and many billions of dollars in federal expenditures — and he didn’t have a grasp on which sprawling departments he would shutter. It seemed the idea was not his own, but rather something he had tried and failed to memorize.

This fact is demonstrated in the YouTube clip I posted above. If you listen carefully, after Rick Perry blunders through his comments on the EPA, he attempts to restate the three agencies that he would like to eliminate and Mitt Romney had to help him with the second agency by telling him it was the commerce department.Its clear that Rick Perry doesn't know his own positions or the positions of his opponents since its also important to mention how badly he botches his attack on Mitt Romney's health care plan in a previous debate. 

Perhaps the most significant point about Rick Perry's inability to state his own plans for which federal departments to eliminate is that it is painfully clear that he dived into the 2012 race without seriously thinking about it or what his positions are. 

In contrast, Mitt Romney done so well in every debate for precisely the reason Rick Perry hasn't. Mitt is solid in articulating his own positions. He's also fairly knowledgeable about the other competitor's positions and has seriously thought through WHY their positions are so flawed.  Mitt Romney's suggestion was a stroke of brilliance because it was a clever way to distinguish himself from Perry in a very powerful way that voters will not forget.

As a result, Mitt Romney is the best person to go up against Barack Obama since he has a firm command of his own positions and the positions of his opponents. Moreover, Mitt Romney has a keen ability to distinguish himself from his competitors either verbally or in the heat of the moment in the debate and he can do that in his debates with Obama. As a result, I'm excited to see Mitt Romney take on Obama in the 2012 Presidential debates.

Rick Perry Can't Remember Which Agency He Would Get Rid Of

Rick Perry has done horribly in every debate he's been in so far. In tonight's debate, Rick Perry couldn't remember which federal agencies he'd like to cut and some of the candidates had to help him out. Watch the cringe worthy video below:

Here's an article that captures the exchange:

Perry was discussing his jobs plan and his flat tax plan when he said: "And I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the... what's the third one there? Let's see."

Perry then paused and there was audible laughter in the room. Texas Rep. Ron Paul then chimed in "You need five," to which Perry responded, "Oh, five, OK. So Commerce, Education, and the..."

Romney then suggested, "EPA?" to which Perry responded, "EPA, there you go, no..." with laughter from the candidate and the audience.

Moderator John Harwood from CNBC then asked, "Seriously, is the EPA the one you were talking about?"

"No, sir, no, sir. We were talking about the agencies of government -- the EPA needs to be rebuilt. There's no doubt about that," Perry responded.

"But you can't name the third one?" Harwood asked.

"The third agency of government I would, I would do away with, the Education, the... Commerce and, let's see," Perry said, as his brain freeze continued.

Finally, Perry gave up, saying:  "I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops."  (Watch the whole exchange above at left)

However, a few minutes later in the debate, Perry remembered that the third department was the Energy Department. "By the way that was the Department of Energy I was reaching for a while ago," he said with a chuckle when he was asked another question.

Just for kicks, I'm posting Rick Perry's two of Perry's gaffes from previous debates. Here's Perry struggling to form a coherent attack on Mitt:

Here's Rick Perry telling conservatives that they don't have a heart if they oppose tuition for illegals: 

ObamaCare Will Not Help The Poor

While the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld ObamaCare, voters in Ohio rejected ObamaCare by a wide margin. When the Supreme Court takes up the question of whether or not ObamaCare is constitutional, the nine justices would be wise to listen to the American people who reject President Obama's health care law. 

The American people know a bad law when they see one. Not only is the law unconstitutional, but it doesn't live up to any of the promises that the President made about the law. Obama promised that this law would "bend the cost curve down". It doesn't. 

He also promised that this law would help poor people get health insurance. Yet, we learned yesterday that millions of low income Americans will not get subsidized health care under ObamaCare:

At yesterday's hearing of the health subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Cornell University economics professor Richard Burkhauser showed that in 2014, millions of low-income Americans may be unable to get subsidized health insurance through the new health care exchanges.

It's true that under Obamacare, firms with more than 49 workers have to offer affordable health insurance coverage to full-time employees or pay a penalty. But the coverage only has to be for an individual policy, not a family policy.

And what most people don't know is that if a worker receives coverage for a single person from his employer, his family will not be able to get subsidized health insurance coverage under the exchange.

This is because, if one member of a family receives employer-sponsored health insurance, other members of the family cannot receive subsidized coverage under the exchange.

Other family members would have to purchase full-price health insurance, which would be prohibitively expensive for those at low incomes, those who are supposed to be protected.

Burkhauser testified that, for a four-person family at 133 percent of the poverty line earning $28,000, purchasing a family health insurance plan would cost 43 percent of family income, without government subsidies.

If that family earned $53,000, reaching 250 percent of the poverty line, the plan would cost 23 percent of their income.

About 13 million dependents of workers with single coverage would potentially be affected, according to Burkhauser. That's 26 percent of the estimated 50 million uninsured workers.

This perverse incentive has a number of consequences, none of them foreseen by Obamacare architects.

Workers with families will prefer to work for firms that do not offer health insurance. In that way, they can qualify to purchase family coverage through the exchange, using government subsidies. For a family at 133 percent of the poverty line, premiums will be capped at 2 percent of income.

If the firm does offer health insurance, the worker with dependents will prefer that the coverage is unaffordable. That's not a typo -- if the coverage is unaffordable, then the employee will be able to buy health insurance for his family on the exchange.

A firm that offers unaffordable coverage will have to pay a penalty of $3,000 per worker. But workers would prefer to receive a lower salary, have the employer pay the $3,000 penalty, and be able to buy subsidized health insurance on the exchange.

This causes substantial disincentives to marriage. Say that Jeff, who receives health insurance from his employer, wants to marry Jane, who is buying her health insurance from the exchange. If they married, then Jane would no longer be able to buy subsidized coverage from the exchange.

Or, take Sally and Steve, married with two children, earning below 400 percent of the poverty line (about $90,000 for a family of four). Sally is a stay-at-home mom.

Come 2014, Steve's employer will only be required to provide affordable coverage for him. If they were to get divorced, Sally could buy subsidized family coverage through the exchange.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2019 another 3 million people will be covered by the health exchanges because of employers dropping coverage.

But with employer affordable health coverage only applying to singles, this number will be far greater, resulting in higher costs for the new law and higher federal budget deficits.

Yes, health care will be affordable for low-income Americans -- but only if they're unmarried.

Obama claims that he used RomneyCare as a template for ObamaCare but that claim is untrue. This explains why RomneyCare and ObamaCare are not the same because he didn't care to understand the intent of the law, how the law works and why the law was not meant to be applied at the national level.  The fact ObamaCare will not help the poor get insured is new example to add to the list of differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. Unlike ObamaCare, RomneyCare in Massachusetts has the highest health care coverage in the nation with 98% of the citizens and 99% of the children covered under his plan.