Showing posts with label 2012 Presidential Debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 Presidential Debates. Show all posts

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Obama's Chances Of Getting Reelecteed Is Growing Slim

There are several signs that Barack Obama's campaign is in serious trouble and that there is a strong likelihood that he will not be reelected on November 6th, 2012. With Obama not winning the last two debates and running a poor campaign with no new vision or plans, using lame attacks on Romney over Sesame Street's Big Bird or Romney's comments about getting a binder that contains a list of women he could hire, his campaign is starting fall apart.
One of the best indicators that Obama's campaign is in trouble is RealClearPolitic's electoral map which shows Mitt Romney having an electoral lead for the first time in the 2012 general election: 
T
The second piece of evidence that shows Obama is in real trouble for November 6th is polls show that Mitt Romney has opened up a 7 point lead in the crucial swing states. That is part of the reason why there has been a strong shift in the polls and electoral map that has swung in Mitt Romney's favor. Mitt Romney is gaining support among female voters
Even Bob Beckel, a well known liberal on Fox News admits that the writing on the wall doesn't look good for Obama.

While Obama's chances of wining are slipping away from him, it doesn't help the President that Bill Clinton is admitting that Obama hasn't fixed the economy like he promised. One can speculate if this is pay back for Obama throwing Hilliary under the bus or not, but such speculation doesn't really matter. What matters is Bill Clinton's comments are going to matter with moderate Democrats and independents who need a perfectly good excuse to ditch Obama at the ballot box.  

Obama only has 19 days to keep his campaign from sinking. He has one more debate left with Mitt Romney. However, given that Mitt Romney has performed well in the last two debates, only a miracle would help Obama now.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Who Won The Second 2012 Presidential Debate?

The first indication that Mitt Romney won the debate came immediately after the event had ended and CBS News released this tweet: 
After that, other results started to come in. CNN posted these results on television: 
MSNBC had a panel of undecided voters who gave their opinion that Mitt Romney won tonight's debate.

Fox News had a similar panel in which Frank Luntz found out that they were also swayed to support Mitt after the debate.

I think it is safe to say that the immediate reaction is that Mitt Romney won tonight's debates. Further polls that will come out in the next few days will most likely confirm this. 
This has been one of the most aggressive and fierce Presidential debates I've ever seen. I think everyone benefited from watching the debates tonight even if you are a hard core Romney or Obama supporter. I learned alot about Obama and Mitt from this debate. For the undecideds, it looked like this debate was influential in who they will ultimately vote for on November 6, 2012.

Complete Video Of The Second 2012 Presidential Debate


Sunday, October 14, 2012

6 Things Obama And Romney Could Learn From The UFC For The Next Debate

Obama is currently cramming for the next Presidential debate on Tuesday in order to make up for his terrible performance in his first debate with Mitt Romney and Joe Biden's odd and rude debate with Paul Ryan. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney knows he won't face a pacified Obama in the second debate and is preparing for an Obama who promises to be more aggressive with Mitt. 
While Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are preparing for the debates, I'd like to offer some lessons on debating from an unlikely source: the UFC. Here's some lessons the candidates could learn from the UFC.
1. Take Your Training Seriously: As any UFC fighter or Coach will tell you, be serious about your training and train hard. Apparently, Obama didn't train hard or seriously in his first debate. As a result, his lack of preparation and not taking it seriously was obviously apparent. If UFC President Dana White could offer advice to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, he would probably tell them, "If you want the f***ing belt, train like you f***ing want it."
2. Stick To The Game Plan: Many UFC coaches and training will tell you that sticking to the game plan as established in the training sessions will increase your likelihood of wining in the Octagon. Apparently, Obama didn't stick with his prearranged game plan that in the first debate:  
In an extraordinary insight into the events leading up to the 90 minute showdown which changed the face of the election, a Democrat close to the Obama campaign today reveals that the President also did not take his debate preparation seriously, ignored the advice of senior aides and ignored one-liners that had been prepared to wound Romney.
The Democrat said that Obama's inner circle was dismayed at the 'disaster' and that he believed the central problem was that the President was so disdainful of Romney that he didn't believe he needed to engage with him.

'President Obama made it clear he wanted to be doing anything else - anything - but debate prep,' the Democrat said. 'He kept breaking off whenever he got the opportunity and never really focused on the event.

'He went into the debate armed with a number of one-liners to throw at Romney, including at least two about Romney not caring about 47 per cent of the country. But he decided not to use them.'
The Democrat, who is aligned with the Obama campaign and has been an unofficial adviser on occasions, said that David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, was stunned that the President left the stage feeling that he had won the debate.

'To his credit, the President believes that debates are about substance rather than performance. He felt that his argument about the direction this country should take was much stronger than Romney's. Unfortunately, that's not the way modern debates work.'

During his debate preparation in Henderson, Nevada, Obama broke off to visit a campaign field office. There, he joked with a volunteer about how his advisers were 'keeping me indoors all the time' to practice. 'It's a drag. They're making me do my homework.'
By playing it safe and letting the judges score the fight rather than going for a decisive knock out, Obama may have thrown away his chances of winning the election. Will Obama stick to his advisor's game plan in the second debate? That remains to be seen. 
3. Its All About Cardio: You can be the strongest fighter in the world but lose many fights if you are not able to sustain your energy throughout the entire match. In watching the debate, Obama appeared to me to come out strong but gassed out shortly after the debate began. You can see it when Obama tells Jim Leher, the moderator, "Jim, I -- you may want to move onto another topic." To me, that was an admission from Obama that he was losing the energy to stay in the fight with Mitt. To make matters worse, Romney took advantage of that lack of preparation and sucked out whatever remaining energy Obama had left by keep throwing those laser guided punches.
Another piece of evidence that Obama had no stamina for the first debate was that he never maintained eye contact with Romney. He could not look Romney in the eye which revealed that he could not muster the confidence or energy to defend his own record. By contrast, Romney kept his gaze on Obama which made Obama appear weak, small, and not at all presidential
Given Obama's lackluster performance at his first debate, does Obama really have the stamina to go toe to toe with Mitt Romney for another 1 hour round with Mitt? Can Mitt Romney repeat his performance at the first debate a second time in his second match with Obama? If both candidates want to win, they must be able to look strong, sharp and have the energy to endure the brutal debate. Neither one can afford to gas out in this match.
4. Don't Let It Go To The Judges: Dana White, the President of the UFC, has consistently told fighters to not let the fight go to the judges because victory is left in the hands of someone other than you. In his first debate, Obama clearly was willing to let the debate be decided by the judges, in this case, the American people. The American people overwhelmingly thought Obama lost that debate. In contrast, Mitt Romney didn't play it safe but came out swinging. That's why he won the debate. 
I didn't see the debate live and so when I was reading and watching the post-debate news, the media made it appear as if Romney gave Obama a beatdown. When I finally saw the debate, Obama didn't perform as badly as the media portrayed him to be but that Romney gave a perfect debate in terms of technique and style and Obama simply wasn't ready for it at all. Romney picked Obama apart with precise and hard punches. When the debate ended, the judges, the American people, clearly gave Romney the victory in that debate.
5. Be Selective With Your Punches: This lesson comes from the Vice Presidential debates and I think both Obama and Romney should review the tapes of this debate in preparation for Tuesday's debate. Its a simple and basic lesson but the Obama campaign apparently hasn't learned this lesson yet. 
I am 100% positive Peggy Noonan doesn't watch the UFC but she makes a great point about confusing strength with aggression. In the UFC, one can be strong and not need to be aggressive to win a fight In contrast, you can be aggressive and still end up losing the fight. Joe Biden was wildly aggressive towards Paul Ryan but there was no strength behind his attacks. He was throwing haymakers but not landing any punches on Mitt's running mate: 
Joe Biden came out swinging at Paul Ryan, flailing wildly and landing a few punches on his own jaw as well as his opponent's. He showed the kind of spirit and populist anger that President Barack Obama was so conspicuously lacking and has cheered up many demoralised Democrats.
Obama campaign advisors are openly stating to the media that Obama will be like Joe Biden in the next debate. Obama should be careful in with that strategy since Biden attempted to have a bar fight with Paul Ryan but ended up losing because Paul Ryan's debating style is much like Mitt Romney's in terms of executing patient, precise and hard punches against his opponent. One commentator correctly named the Biden-Ryan debate The Bully v. The Wonk.
Mitt Romney could learn a thing or two from his young Vice Presidential running mate in reviewing the debate tape of the Vice Presidential debate. It will help him review the fundamentals of debating that he executes so well. It will also help Romney in terms of how to be on the defensive when Obama starts throwing his punches and how to return fire. Although both men are known to be well informed policy wonks who love to get deep into the details, I think Paul Ryan is much better than his older in finding that balance of educating the voters with facts and details while landing the hard punches on his opponent.
6. What Happens After The Debate Is Just As Important As What Happens During The Debate: Its clear that Obama didn't take the debate seriously when preparing for it. However, sometimes UFC fighters can make up for their loss by how they act after the fight. About 99% of the time, most UFC fighters are humble and pensive about their losses. Rarely do they get cocky about which can diminish the way the fans view the fighters. For Obama, he negatively influenced the way Americans look at him when it was revealed that the President thought he won the first debate immediately after he left the stage. To make matters worse, Obama still thinks he won the debate and claims that people will judge him as the winner if they read the debate transcript. In this day and age, I don't think anyone reads transcripts anymore. I don't think making that statement helps Obama at all. 
Obama also went after Mitt Romney after the debate had debate had ended by calling Mitt Romney a liar and running ads about Sesame Street. I think the American voter wasn't amused by Obama's post debate behavior and it will hurt him in the long run. 
In contrast, Mitt Romney simply went out on the campaign trail as if victory was natural to him. It also made him look very Presidential. This will help him tremendously in building the momentum for November 6th and sharpening the contrast between himself and Obama.
It may appear that the UFC and Presidential debates have nothing in common but by reviewing these basic lessons, a Presidential candidate can be well prepared for a debate. Obama needs to learn these lessons badly while Romney simply needs to review them in preparation for Tuesday's debates.
What other lessons from the UFC do you think Romney and Obama could learn in getting ready for the debate?

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

2012 Presidential Debates: Mitt Romney's Economic Record

Many of you have been doing your due diligence of conducting your own research into who you should vote for in November. Tonight's 2012 Presidential debate will focus on the economy. A few months ago, I wrote a series of blog articles analyzing various aspects of Mitt Romney's record which will help you educate yourself in preparation for tonight's debate. You can now read the entire series below: 
  1. Getting To Know Mitt Romney's Record 
  2. Mitt Romney's Faith & Economic Leadership
  3. A Look At Mitt Romney's Business Career
  4. Mitt Romney's Rescue of the Salt Lake Olympics 
  5. How Mitt Romney Turned A $3 Billion Deficit Into A $2 Billion Surplus 
  6. Govenor Mitt Romney's Record On Taxes And Fees 
  7. RomneyCare 
  8. Govenor Mitt Romney's Impressive Record of Job Creation 
  9. Mitt Romney's Leadership Style 
  10. Concluding Thoughts About Mitt Romney's Record

2012 Presidential Debate: The Facts About ObamaCare & RomneyCare

Many of you have been doing your due diligence of conducting your own research into who you should vote for in November. Tonight's 2012 Presidential debate will focus on the economy. Quite naturally, there will be a debate between Obama and Romney on health care. I have collected a series of articles I have written that you can read in preparation's for tonight's debate. 
The Facts About ObamaCare
  1. Obama's Failed Promise Under ObamaCare
  2. 5 Reasons Why ObamaCare Is Bad Law 
  3. ObamaCare Unconstitutional, RomneyCare Constitutional
  4. ObamaCare Unconstitutional, RomneyCare Constitutional 
  5. See The Big Differences RomneyCare And ObamaCare
  6. Another Democrat Admits ObamaCare Is A Trojan Horse For Single Payer Universal Health Care 
  7. Obama Was Against RomneyCare Before He Was In Support For It 
  8. Obama Did Not Use RomneyCare As A Template
  9. ObamaCare Pays Off Big Business and Big Unions, RomneyCare Doesn't. 
  The Facts About RomneyCare
  1. A Simple Way To Destroy Obama's New Attack Ad On RomneyCare
  2. Ann Coulter On RomneyCare
  3. Part VII: RomneyCareRomneyCare Not Socialized Medicine
  4. Mitt Romney Would Repeal ObamaCare On The First Day Of His Presidency
  5. The Truth Behind The Costs Of RomneyCare
  6. In Defense Of RomneyCare (Updated: 4/4/11)
  7. Please Call It MassDemCare, Not RomneyCare

2012 Presidential Debate: Educating Yourself On The Candidate's Economic Records

Many of you have been doing your due diligence of conducting your own research into who you should vote for in November. Tonight's 2012 Presidential debate will focus on the economy. A few months ago, I wrote a series of blog articles analyzing various aspects of Mitt Romney's record which will help you educate yourself in preparation for tonight's debate. You can now read the entire series below: 
  1. Getting To Know Mitt Romney's Record 
  2. Mitt Romney's Faith & Economic Leadership
  3. A Look At Mitt Romney's Business Career
  4. Mitt Romney's Rescue of the Salt Lake Olympics 
  5. How Mitt Romney Turned A $3 Billion Deficit Into A $2 Billion Surplus 
  6. Govenor Mitt Romney's Record On Taxes And Fees 
  7. RomneyCare 
  8. Govenor Mitt Romney's Impressive Record of Job Creation 
  9. Mitt Romney's Leadership Style 
  10. Concluding Thoughts About Mitt Romney's Record
In contrast, I have prepared a few articles which highlight's Obama's economic record. 
  1. Obama's Economic Record: Hope Is Fading For Americans
  2. Obama's Dismal Economic Record
  3. Who Has A Better Economic Record: Obama Or Romney? 
  4. President Obama Has Never Been Serious About Reducing The Deficit 
  5. Obama Still Isn't Serious About the Economy
  6. Obama Now Irrelevant On The Economy
  7. David Axlerod Not Telling The Truth Mitt Romney's Economic Record
  8. A Contrast In How Obama And Mitt Romney Have Handled A Down Grade In Credit Rating
  9. Obama's Numerous Broken Promises To Focus on Jobs
  10. Who Is Right: About What Is The Biggest Driver Of Our Deficit: Obama or The CBO?

Get Yourself Prepared For Tonight's 2012 Presidential Debate

Many of you have been doing your due diligence of conducting your own research into who you should vote for in November. Tonight's 2012 Presidential debate will focus on the economy. A few months ago, I wrote a series of blog articles analyzing various aspects of Mitt Romney's record which will help you educate yourself in preparation for tonight's debate. You can now read the entire series below: 
  1. Getting To Know Mitt Romney's Record 
  2. Mitt Romney's Faith & Economic Leadership
  3. A Look At Mitt Romney's Business Career
  4. Mitt Romney's Rescue of the Salt Lake Olympics 
  5. How Mitt Romney Turned A $3 Billion Deficit Into A $2 Billion Surplus 
  6. Govenor Mitt Romney's Record On Taxes And Fees 
  7. RomneyCare 
  8. Govenor Mitt Romney's Impressive Record of Job Creation 
  9. Mitt Romney's Leadership Style 
  10. Concluding Thoughts About Mitt Romney's Record
In contrast, I have prepared a few articles which highlight's Obama's economic record. 
  1. Obama's Economic Record: Hope Is Fading For Americans
  2. Obama's Dismal Economic Record
  3. Who Has A Better Economic Record: Obama Or Romney? 
  4. President Obama Has Never Been Serious About Reducing The Deficit 
  5. Obama Still Isn't Serious About the Economy
  6. Obama Now Irrelevant On The Economy
  7. David Axlerod Not Telling The Truth Mitt Romney's Economic Record
  8. A Contrast In How Obama And Mitt Romney Have Handled A Down Grade In Credit Rating
  9. Obama's Numerous Broken Promises To Focus on Jobs
  10. Who Is Right: About What Is The Biggest Driver Of Our Deficit: Obama or The CBO?
Quite naturally, there will be a debate between Obama and Romney on health care. I have collected a series of articles you can read in preparation's for tonight's debate. 
The Facts About ObamaCare
  1. Obama's Failed Promise Under ObamaCare
  2. 5 Reasons Why ObamaCare Is Bad Law 
  3. ObamaCare Unconstitutional, RomneyCare Constitutional
  4. ObamaCare Unconstitutional, RomneyCare Constitutional 
  5. See The Big Differences RomneyCare And ObamaCare
  6. Another Democrat Admits ObamaCare Is A Trojan Horse For Single Payer Universal Health Care 
  7. Obama Was Against RomneyCare Before He Was In Support For It 
  8. Obama Did Not Use RomneyCare As A Template
  9. ObamaCare Pays Off Big Business and Big Unions, RomneyCare Doesn't. 
  The Facts About RomneyCare
  1. A Simple Way To Destroy Obama's New Attack Ad On RomneyCare
  2. Ann Coulter On RomneyCare
  3. Part VII: RomneyCareRomneyCare Not Socialized Medicine
  4. Mitt Romney Would Repeal ObamaCare On The First Day Of His Presidency
  5. The Truth Behind The Costs Of RomneyCare
  6. In Defense Of RomneyCare (Updated: 4/4/11)
  7. Please Call It MassDemCare, Not RomneyCare
I know its a lot of reading but you can use this to help you arm yourself with the facts so that you can be prepared for tonight's debate. You can also bookmark this page and come back to it to do more reading in preparation to decide who to vote for on November 6th. 

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Joe Biden Calls Mitt, "President Romney"

Vice President Joe Biden makes a gaffe in which he calls Mitt Romney, "President Romney." I'm sure Obama isn't amused. Watch the clip below:

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

The Real Agenda of Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich And Rick Santorum

Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are determined to stay in the race even if the chances of them winning the Republican nomination grows slim with each passing election contest. All of the candidates know this but they're not in the race to become President. Each one of them have an agenda. 
Ron Paul
Ron Paul's chances of winning the Republican nomination is extremely low. He hasn't a won a single primary or caucus and his unfavorability rating is quite high.  However, Ron Paul has admitted that he isn't in the race to become President but that he's in the race for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues. Recently, Ron Paul admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but to have the power to influence our nation on matters he considers important. However, if that is his goal, Ron Paul has only has 50 delegates as of today. By the time the GOP convention rolls around, he won't have enough delegates and as a result will be in a inferior bargaining position in attempting to negotiate with the Republican party into adopting  his views on the national platform.
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich's chances of winning the Republican nomination is also extremely low. He's only won two Republican nominations and he only has 135 delegates as of today. He also has amazingly high unfavorability ratings of 60%. Regardless, Newt Gingrich is determined to press forward by bypassing the primary process and winning at the convention by getting the delegates to switch their votes to Newt.  Joe DeSantis, the campaign’s communications director, explains Gingrich's new election strategy:
The idea, Mr. DeSantis said, is to persuade unpledged delegates and those who have backed another candidate to see Mr. Gingrich as the best challenger to face President Obama. 
Joe DeSaintis elaborates more on their new election strategy: 
 “We believe that if Governor Romney is unable to secure 1,144 by the last primaries, he will be unable to do so at the convention where the vast majority of the delegates are conservative,” DeSantis said. “That creates [an] environment at the convention where Gingrich can emerge as the one candidate who can unite social, economic and national security conservatives (a fact which is borne out by polling).”
Newt Gingrich's agenda is pretty obvious. He is remaining in the race out of pure revenge and will do anything he can to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the nomination:
Joe DeSantis said Gingrich's decision to lay off staff and replace his campaign manager was a reorganization that would enable him to fight on to the Republican National Convention in the summer and win the nomination there.
The overhaul comes as a CNN/ORC International poll released Tuesday indicated that most Republicans would like to see Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul end their White House bids.
But they want conservative challenger Rick Santorum to stay in the race.
The poll, conducted over the weekend, showed that about six in 10 Republicans wanted Gingrich and Paul to halt their campaigns, while a similar number supported Santorum continuing his bid.
DeSantis said the poll "showed that Gingrich dropping out of the race would help Mitt Romney dramatically more than it helps Rick Santorum."
This would "virtually guarantee Mitt Romney the nomination," he said, as he urged conservatives to rally behind Gingrich to keep the former Massachusetts governor from victory.
Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum has done much better in this election than Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have. He's won 11 primary contests so far and currently has 273 delegates. However, the chances of him getting the 1,1140 delegates needed to win the Republican nomination grows slim with each primary election. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that the electoral math doesn't work for Rick Santorum. He cannot get the necessary 1,140 delegates needed to win. As Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post points out, there's just no way for Rick Santorum to win the Republican nomination: 
Romney still leads by about 300 delegates . With 568 delegates to Santorum’s 273 Romney, Romney needs only 576 more delegates, about 46 percent of the remaining delegates. Santorum would need to win about 70 percent, and that just isn’t going to happen.
Rick Santorum disputes the current calculation of delegates by arguing that what you hear in the news doesn't accurately reflect the delegate count:
As he struggles to keep up with frontrunner Mitt Romney and parries calls for him to drop out of the Republican presidential race, Rick Santorum has said in recent weeks that he has actually won more delegates than some media counts show.  Those counts, Santorum says, are not taking into account Republican party rules, as well as the state-level meetings that actually determine how many delegates go to each candidate.
"Here's one of the things that I can tell you I didn't know," Santorum told a small group of reporters at a breakfast in Washington Monday.  "Every single state is different.  Every state. Every single state is different.  It's different on how you get on the ballot.  It's different on their structure, how they allocate delegates, whether they are bound, whether they are unbound, when they're committed, how long they committed, how they're selected. Our math is actually based on the reality of what's going on in the states."
Now, the Santorum campaign is providing some numbers to flesh out the candidate's claims.  In a long conversation Wednesday evening, John Yob, the campaign's national and state convention director, pointed out that many high-profile primaries have been little more than beauty contests, and that delegates in many key states are actually being awarded in county, district, and state conventions, which are often dominated by conservative activists. "In that process, we are doing very well," said Yob. "The moderate candidate almost never performs better than a conservative candidate in a county, district, or state convention process."
Of course, the Romney campaign rejects Rick Santorum's claim and argue that no matter how Rick Santorum calculates the delegate math, he's still going to come up short: 
The Romney campaign strongly disputes Santorum's numbers.  In a March 22 memo -- sent out after Romney's win in Illinois but before Santorum's victory in Louisiana -- Romney political director Rich Beeson wrote that Romney led Santorum by more than 300 delegates and that Romney already had more than half of the needed 1,144 delegates. "Each day Senator Santorum continues to march up this steep hill of improbability is a day we lose to unite in our effort as Republicans to defeat President Obama," Beeson wrote.
Beeson pointed out that it is impossible for Santorum to reach the 1,144 delegate number himself.  Team Santorum doesn't really claim otherwise.  But their math is now about keeping Romney short of 1,144 -- and hoping things go their way in state conventions and, ultimately, in Tampa in August.
Despite the small chances of winning the Republican nomination through out the primary election,  Rick Santorum is going to try the same strategy as Newt Gingrich by  wooing delegates at the Republican convention: 
Arguing that neither he nor Mitt Romney will be able to sew things up by the last GOP primary in June, Santorum envisions spending July and August trying to persuade individual delegates to support him and “put together the coalition that’s necessary for you to get the 1,144.” He and his delegates would then move on to the Republican convention, scheduled to begin Aug. 27 in Tampa, Fla.
Its clear that Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are in the race because they want to become President. Each of these men are not interested in becoming leaders. They all have their own person agendas which they are placing above the American people's wishes of getting Barack Obama out of the White House. Ron Paul is running is in the race purely to change the Republican party platform from a conservative platform to a more libertarian one. Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are aiming for the mythological brokered convention as a last ditch attempt to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the Republican nomination. 
There's only one candidate who is in the race to defeat Barak Obama and make him a one term President. Moreover, he's in the race because he wants to be the President who will be a true leader and revive America's economy. That man is Mitt Romney. 

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Mitt Romney Is The Winner Of The CNN Arizona Debate

Tonight, Mitt Romney gave another stellar debate by going on the offensive and giving solid answers. The biggest loser in tonight's debate is Rick Santorum. 
Mitt Romney was agressive towards Rick Santorum the moment the debate started. When the issue of support for Congressional earmarks came up in the debate, Mitt Romney mentioned that Rick Santorum supported the Bridge to Nowhere. Rick Santorum tried to defend himself by pointing out that he accepted government money for the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. Mitt Romney gave a memorable response: "I was trying to save the Olympics while you were trying to defend the Bridge To Nowhere." The audience went wild.  
About half way through the debate, Mitt Romney mentioned that Rick Santorum supported Arlen Spector over Pat Toomey. Rick Santorum never recovered from that attack and it went down hill from there for him. Mitt Romney reminded the audience his support and endorsement for Arlen Specter was essentially a vote for ObamaCare since Specter supported ObamaCare. Later during the debate, Rick Santorum's explanation for endorsing Arlen Specter was that the George W. Bush Administration instructed Santorum to support him so Arlen Specter could be chairman of the judiciary committee. Although it was not mentioned in tonight's debate, Arlen Specter was the 60th vote to pass the $787 billion stimulus.
Later during the evening, an audience member asked about No Child Left Behind. When it came time for Rick Santorum to respond to this question, he looked like a someone who was confessing to a Catholic bishop for supporting the law and was looking for forgiveness from the audience. Rick Santorum's excuse for supporting No Child Left Behind was that he voted for it because the Bush Administration wanted him to. 
Rick Santorum did not come across as a leader tonight and he admitted that many times tonight. Nothing speaks to the American people like leadership as confessing taking one for the Bush Administration. While Santorum was being strictly honest about his record in Congress, the fact that he confessed to making too many mistaken votes did not impress conservatives across the country.  I don't think that Rick Santorum realized that when he was confessing his sins for supporting No Child Left Behind and Arlen Spectrum, he essentially admitted that when he followed what the Bush Administration instructed him to do, it was also admitting to be the ultimate Washington D.C. insider because he was willing to take a couple for the Bush Administration.
Rick Santorum lost big tonight because he couldn't defend his record. Mitt Romney exposed Santorum as someone who isn't a conservative as he claims to be and Santorum didn't help himself with his multiple confessions tonight. Rick Santorum hurt himself by exposing himself as someone who isn't a leader.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Is Ron Paul A Racist Or Not?

I get a lot of e-mails and comments on my blog from Ron Paul supporters who argue that Ron Paul is not a racist and provide me YouTube clips and news articles to prove it. 
However, Ron Paul's newsletters raise some serious doubts as to whether or not he is a racist. First, lets review the facts.
Its been established by witnesses and public records that Ron Paul was heavily involved in his newsletter published under his own name: 
"...the officers of Ron Paul & Associates included Paul's wife Carol, Paul's daughter Lori Pyeatt, Paul staffer Penny Langford-Freeman, and longtime campaign manager Mark Elam (who has managed every Paul congressional campaign since 1996 and is currently the Texas coordinator for the presidential run), according to tax records from 1993 and 2001."
Its clear that he was intimately and deeply involved with the magazine in terms of editing, publishing, financing, advertising, and staffing his newsletter.We don't know exactly how much money Ron Paul made from these newsletters but from all the available evidence, he profited nicely from it. We also know that Ron Paul let Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard ghost write many of these racist articles. Both of these men are known for spouting racist and anti-Semitic views in other forums. We know that Ron Paul started publishing these articles in the 1990s. 
Now that we've established the basic facts, lets review why his newsletters raises some serious doubts as to whether or not he is a racist.
First, if Ron Paul isn't a racist, why publish the trash in his newsletter in the first place? Yet, those articles are there for all to see. 
Initially, Ron Paul absolutely denied he penned those newsletters. Then we get a half admission that he did write articles but we're to believe he only focused on economic issues. But given all the lies Ron Paul has said about his own newsletters, its difficult to believe that he only wrote the economic articles. Can we really believe Ron Paul didn't write them?
Even we are to believe that he's being honest that he only wrote the economic articles, he allows well known racists to write the articles. Why hire these men in the first place? Why didn't he reject the articles when these men submitted it for publication? Why didn't he issue a retraction and apology after they were published? Why didn't he fire these men after the article were published? The fact that he let racist men write racist articles with his approval and never once objected to it before or after these articles were published is troubling. 
There's the additional question of why even try to use racism as a strategy to increase his business? Its such a horrible business and public relations idea unless you know your articles are being read by the racists in America who have no qualms or objections with the content of the newsletters. Then there is no problem. 
If a magazine or newsletter was found to have published racist material, they would have issued an apology and retraction immediately. Moreover, they would not have purposely used racism as business strategy to increase circulation and profits.
Ron Paul never did this. Instead, the let these articles stand as they for more than a full decade since the 1990s without any corrections, retractions or apologies. Only when he's running for President in 2008 and 2012 does he try to distance himself from his own newsletters that were published under his name. 
How convenient. 
I think the evidence is overwhelming that raises serious questions about Ron Paul's bigoted views towards minorities. I don't like accusing people of racism and I don't do it lightly. 
Yet, its very clear that there's strong evidence that he is. There's no denying that there are serious questions about Ron Paul's bigotry. Even if we are to view all the evidence in a way that is most favorable to Ron Paul, his actions and words strongly raises doubts that's not a racist.
Whether Ron Paul is a racist or not is a matter of legitimate debate since we're deciding which man we want to live in the White House and be President. With all the available evidence and the troubling questions they raise before you, I'll let you decide if Ron Paul is a racist or not. 

Friday, January 27, 2012

Fact Check: Newt Gingrich And Rick Santorum Endorsed RomneyCare

During CNN's Florida Republican GOP debate, both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum attacked Mitt Romney over his health care plan. However, both candidates supported RomneyCare before they were against it. 
Newt Gingrich & RomneyCare
USA Today fact checked Newt's claim during the CNN debate that that he never endorsed RomneyCare and found out that Gingrich's claim is FALSE:
Former House speaker Gingrich claimed he had never favored a federal mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance — only a state requirement.
Gingrich: I didn't advocate federal mandates. I talked about it at a state level …
Not true. Gingrich said "Congress" must require high-income persons to have insurance, not state legislatures. He did so explicitly in a 2007 opinion piece:
Gingrich, June 25, 2007: In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to [among other things] require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.
His support for a federal mandate is of long standing. In 1993, on NBC's Meet the Press, he said:
Gingrich, 1993: I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.
Gingrich was proposing an individual mandate as an alternative to the Clinton administration's ill-fated health care plan, which was centered on an employer mandate, requiring businesses to provide insurance for their workers. And he held to a similar position as recently as last May, also on Meet the Press:
Gingrich, May 15, 2011: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond … or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.
NBC's David Gregory: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?
Gingrich: It's a variation on it.
If Gingrich was thinking about a state-only mandate, he never said so at the time. And he clearly said "all of us" would be subject to his "variant" of the mandate just last May. We judge that Gingrich is falsifying his own history on this matter.
Rick Santorum, Individual Mandate & RomneyCare
During the CNN debate, Rick Santorum went after both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for supporting the RomneyCare and individual mandate. The New Republican found that Rick Santorum is being dishonest in his attacks since he supported the individual mandate: 
PolitiFact verified several days ago that Santorum's claim that Gingrich has supported some version of the mandate for 20 years was "mostly true." But it didn't think to ask whether Santorum, too, has supported the individual mandate in the past. And as it happens, he has. He supported it in 1994, according to this April 7, 1994 article in the Allentown, Pa. Morning Call, and this May 2, 1994 article in the same newspaper. It's possible that the newspaper would have gotten this wrong once, but in the heat of a primary campaign it's highly unlikely Santorum's campaign would have allowed it to get this wrong twice
Moreover, Rick Santorum has flipped flopped on RomneyCare. He endorsed Mitt Romney during the 2008 Presidential elections yet Santorum had issues with it now:  
“I feel we need someone who is a strong, principled conservative who believes not in government mandates, not in government control of the health care system, but in a patient-centered approach to health care,” Santorum said.
Santorum added that both the state and federal laws "tend to drive employers out of the private sector plans because they’re expensive and more people end up on the government plan."
“Ultimately, it’s a failure," Santorum said.
Apparently, the phrase, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" has no meaning to Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. They can't hide from their past and are hoping voters won't notice the glass shattering every time they try to attack the individual mandate or RomneyCare. But the voters do notice it. 
These two men also don't realize why Mitt Romney is bullet proof when it comes to attacks on RomneyCare. They'e in no position to be throwing blows at Romney since they've both supported the individual mandate and RomneyCare. As as result, every time they attack Mitt, they get weaker and weaker while Mitt Romney gets stronger and stronger. 

Sunday, January 8, 2012

My Predictions for the New Hampshire Primary

For New Hampshire, it easy to make a prediction about who will win. Mitt Romney will have done what no candidate has done and that is to win Iowa and New Hampshire. No other presidential candidate has ever done that. The tricky part is whether or not he can win South Carolina. That will be the key hurdle for Romney to overcome. For the other candidates, its a little more difficult to predict but I'm gonna try.
Here are my predictions for Tuesday:
  1. Mitt Romney
  2. Rick Santorum
  3. Jon Huntsman
  4. Ron Paul
  5. Newt Gingrich
  6. Rick Perry
I don't see anybody dropping out. Not until all the candidates see how they perform in South Carolina. Jon Huntsman might drop out if actually comes out in 5th or 6th place. He's adopted the same strategy as Rick Santorum did for Iowa by spending lots of time and energy in New Hampshire. If he doesn't place in the top three, I can see him dropping out. But in all likelyhood, he'll hang by his fingernails until the South Carolina primaries. 
Once we get the South Carolina primaries, expect Perry and Huntsman to drop out. Ron Paul isn't the kind of person to drop out even when all indicators suggest he should. Newt Gingrich will move on to Florida with the hopes of damaging Romney in that state. The problem is that he doesn't have the resources or organizational strength to carry on his war on Romney. At some point, he will tap out of the race. Florida will be the last stand for Newt. Rick Santorum will also stay in the race until Florida and go on to battle Romney in Super Tuesday but will ultimately lose.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Mitt Romney Won The 2012 GOP New Hampshire Debate

For those of you who missed tonight's debate, you didn't miss much. In fact, it was a good thing you didn't watch the debates tonight since Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos, the moderators for the debate, were horrible. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both went after the moderators on two separate occasions. 
George Stephanopoulos got ripped by Romney when he asked about whether or not he supports states banning contraception.Watch the clip below: 

George's question is ridiculous for so many reasons. As Mitt Romney pointed out, no state is currently proposing to ban contraception and its not even an issue in this election. It may have been an issue in the 1960s when the United States Supreme Court made its landmark decision upholding individuals having a right to contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut but its not an issue in this election. Liberals like George Stephanopoulos thinks its an issue since a few states wanted to pass laws stating that life begins at conception but these laws were aimed at abortion not contraceptives. The audience rightly applauded Mitt Romney for stating how ridiculous the question was and booing George Stephanopoulos for asking the question. 
Newt Gingrich also went after the moderators on the issue of gay marriage explaining that the media ignores the bigotry towards religion when it comes to issues of marriage, adoption and abortion: 
I just want to raise -- since we’ve spent this much time on these issues -- I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?
The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.
The audience loved it. I loved it. He really stood up for all religions who are coerced by our government to provide services it opposes because it contradicts their deeply held religious views. 
You're all probably wondering who I think won tonight's debate. I'll give you the break down:
1. Mitt Romney won the debate hands down. Every news outlet including the post-debate analysis on ABC stated that he won. The reason why he won tonights debate was that most of the candidates didn't attack Romney and when they did, Mitt Romney swatted the attacks away. Mitt Romney began the debates by going after Obama on his failure to create jobs in America. Mitt Romney also gave an exceptional speech about American exceptionalism that sounded very much like the kind of debate speech Ronald Reagan would have given. He also did well in attacking Jon Huntsman over China with regard to trade imbalances, currency manipulation and corporate espionage. 
2. Rick Santorum did a good job tonight but he's in very distant second place. At one point, he tried to attack Romney for using the term "middle class" and called it class warfare rhetoric only to immediately attack wall street after making that comment. Moreover, that attack just came off as desperate and odd to many conservatives in the audience and at home. There were some moments when Rick Santorum did well tonight especially when he talked about how poorly Roe v. Wade was decided and his position on Iran and Afghanistan.  
3. I think tonight was Newt Gingrich's best debate performance. However, it wasn't enough to help him regain old position as a frontrunner in the campaign. The only highlight for me was his defense of traditional marriage and his response about whether or not we should stay in Afghanistan. The worst part for him is when he cited the New York times in his attack on Mitt Romney which is not the newspaper to cite if you're trying to impress a conservative audience. He was also clearly upset with Ron Paul for attacking him on Newt's deferments from the military during the Vietnam war. 
4. This debate was probably Rick Perry's best debate. The best moment for him was when he boldly stated that we should send our troops back into Iraq. I agree with that statement 100%. Rick Perry did a decent job in debating other issues. However, the biggest problem for Rick Perry a lot of people forgot that he was even at the debates until he spoke. That's bad news since Michelle Bachmann had the same problem and eventually dropped out of the race.  
5. Ron Paul was himself as usual. He got asked about his racist newsletters and he dodged the question by saying that Martin Luther King was his hero. However, its worth pointing out that in his own newsletter, they called MLK a philanderer who beat up his paramours and accuses him of seducing underage girls and boys. I also wish to remind people Ron Paul never issued a retraction for any of the racist articles that were published in his names. Yet a few weeks ago, he admitted that he did write in his newsletter but claims that he only wrote about economic issues in his newsletter. Another bad moment for Ron Paul is when he refused to state whether or not he would run a third party candidate in this election. As usual, Ron Paul thinks Iran is not a threat to the security of America or the world community. Ron Paul's only good moment is when he chastised Rick Santorum for interrupting him and going after Newt Gingrich on the issue of his deferments since he ruffled Gingrich's feathers pretty good.  
6. Jon Huntsman has never done well in any debates and I think tonight was his worst performance if you can believe that. Ever position he took was a liberal one whether it was same sex marriage, war or China which won't help him get any votes for Tuesday's New Hampshire Primary election.
Mitt Romney clearly won tonight's debate. Even though Mitt Romney is ahead in New Hampshire by a huge lead, tonight's debate will help him maintain his lead in that state. It will also help him maintain his huge lead in South Carolina. If Mitt Romney keeps up this momentum and wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, he'll wrap up the 2012 nomination early.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Herman Cain: Romney's $10,000 Bet Was Not A Gaffe

Herman Cain went on Fox News the other day to explain that Mitt's $10,000 bet with Rick Perry was not a gaffe despite the media's attempt to make it into one. Watch the clip below:

People are still talking about Romney's bet. Some people think it was a simple bet made only to demonstrate how strongly Mitt Romney felt about Rick Perry's erroneous claims about the difference between his hardcover and paperback editions of his book. Some people, like me, may think that there more behind it than just a simple bet. 
Are liberals and the media manufacturing a gaffe here when there really was no gaffe on Mitt Romney's part in the first place? Personally, I think Herman Cain hits the nail on the head and is 100% accurate that Mitt's bet was not a gaffe at all. I'd go one step further and argue that the media is hypocritical and quite selective about its outrage over Romney's bet when other expensive and high profile bets have taken place on television.

Monday, December 12, 2011

There May Be Something More To Romney's $10,000 Bet With Rick Perry

A lot of people are still making a fuss about Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet with Rick Perry during the Iowa Debates. It has been brought to my attention that Romney was intentionally making subtle reference to some recent high profile bets that have been taking place. 
It may have been a reference to a bet was made between Bob Beckel and Eric Bolling for $10,000 that President Obama could beat either Romney or Gingrich in the 2012 general election. 
Mitt Romney could have also been referring to a bet that was placed between US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Ted Balestreri, a co-owner of the Sardine Factory restaurant in Mr Panetta's home town of Monterey. They made a bet that if Leon Panetta tracked down Osama Bin Laden, Mr. Balestri would open his oldest wine bottle in his collection. The bottle, a bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild from 1870, is worth $10,000.
Romney might have also been referring to a bet that took place on Bill O'Reily's Fox News television show, The Factor. A few years ago, The Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen was on Bill O’Reilly’s show and demanded that CNN fire Lou Dobbs because he believed that he was giving in accurate reports on the issue of immigration. In response, O’Reilly was absolutely confident that CNN would not respond to Mr. Cohen's request to fire Lou Dobbs that he was willing to bet Cohen $10,000.
Mitt Romney may have had another high profile bet in mind that I have not mentioned. However, it doesn't matter what event Mitt Romney was alluding to when he made that bet with Rick Perry. 
What does matter is that $10,000 bet was not a spontaneous offer by Mitt Romney but appears to have been planned before hand. Romney could have offered Rick Perry a $10 or a $500,000 bet, yet he chose the $10,000 amount. 
Why did he choose that amount?  The Romney team probably expected the media and liberals to jump on Mitt Romney for making a huge bet in a time when our country's economy isn't doing well. With this in mind, they laid out a trap that would expose the media and liberal hypocrisy over the outrage that would surely come once he made that bet because they didn't express any outrage at any of the high profile, public and expensive bets that have been placed since the housing market collapsed in 2008.  
Please note that Bob Beckel is a well known liberal who makes a frequent appearance on Fox News and there was no outrage by liberals or the media when he made that bet. Likewise, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen is a liberal who attempted to collect on Bill O'Reilly's bet.
It appears that that this bet was designed to highlight two things: (1) Rick Perry was not being truthful about the changes made in Romney's hardback and paperback editions of his book, No Apology and (2) to highlight the hypocrisy behind the media's outrage towards the bet that would have surely come as soon as that bet was offered. 
Regardless if Mitt Romney was just making a bet with Rick Perry that he knew Rick Perry would lose or if he also did it to intentionally highlight the expected hypocrisy from liberal commentators and news reporters, the hypocrisy exist. And the media may deny that the hypocrisy exists but America will see it.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Rick Perry Would Have Lost Mitt Romney's $10,000 Bet

Much is being made of Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet on last night's Iowa Republican debate. Many people are focusing on the amount Romney put up for the bet and blasting him for being wealthy enough to put up that kind of money while others are criticizing him for making a childish bet. 
The point of the bet was to prove that Rick Perry was being dishonest in his false claim that there are with differences between hardcover and paperback editions of Romney's book regarding Mitt's position about his own health health care plan. Had Rick Perry accepted that bet, he would have lost. 
The Washington Post fact checked Perry's claim and found that Rick Perry would have lost that bet:
This is when Romney offered to make a $10,000 bet and Perry declined to take it. Smart man, because he would have lost the money.
We explored this issue before when Perry made this claim in a television ad, giving Perry Three Pinocchios. And here is a PDF of the paperback edition showing the pages in question.
Perry is making a phony claim.
It is clear that the hardcover edition was written when Obama’s health-care plan was still a work in progress. For instance, Romney spends some time denouncing the idea of a public option as “government-supplied insurance.” The paperback was published after the health-care law was passed, so the paragraphs on the public option — which had been abandoned by Obama — are dropped.
Romney also must have sensed that GOP anger at Obama’s health-care law might make his own signature legislative achievement less attractive to Republican voters, so he added a few paragraphs emphasizing how the Democratic governor who followed him made changes in the law that he did not approve of. But otherwise the changes are minimal — the standard updating that takes place in paperback nonfiction books.
The non-partisan website PolitiFact.com says Rick Perry's claim is mostly false:
Perry's grievance is with differences between hardcover and paperback editions of Romney's book. We've combed through Chapter 7 of both.

Romney's changes to the book have been explored before, by Boston political journalist David S. Bernstein. He noted in February 2011 that Romney had added harsher language on the national health care law as passed: "Obamacare will not work and should be repealed," and, "Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states."

Romney more clearly explained ways that he disagreed with implementation of the Massachusetts law.

He also changed this line, which came after a paragraph touting the success of the Massachusetts health plan:

Hardcover: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

To:

Paperback: "And it was done without government taking over health care."

The deleted 11 words, "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country" are the crux of Perry's argument. His campaign sent e-mail the day after the debate with a link highlighting precisely that change.

It looks suspicious, right? Perhaps Romney did extol every piece of his Massachusetts plan, individual mandate and all, for every state in the union.

But here's the original quote with full context from Page 177 of the hardcover
"My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model of they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state 'laboratories of democracy' could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others. But the creation of a national plan is the direction in which Washington is currently moving. If a national approach is ultimately adopted, we should permit individuals to purchase insurance from companies in other states in order to expand choice and competition.

"What we accomplished surprised us: 440,000 people who previously had no health insurance became insured, many paying their own way. We made it possible for each newly insured person to have better care, and ultimately healthier and longer lives. From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford. It's portable, affordable health insurance — something people have been talking about for decades. We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."
Romney's not really saying the Massachusetts law "should be the model for the country," the way that Perry describes it. He's in fact presenting a defense of state-level choice. It's like a shout-out to other state leaders: Hey, you can have what Massachusetts has!

And it's consistent with what Romney fired back at Perry in the Sept. 22, 2011 debate: "This is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan." And with how he characterized his own book in the most recent debate: "I say, in my view, each state should be able to fashion their own program for the specific needs of their distinct citizens."
Romney did support Massachusetts' individual mandate. But we don't see evidence in his hardcover book that he supported a federal one, much less that he removed such a reference from later editions.
Other news outlets have fact checked Perry's claim and have found that Rick Perry would have lost that bet. However, too many people are focusing on Romney's bet rather than on the fact that Rick Perry has repeatedly made a claim that can be factually to be proven false. The good news is that despite the fact that Rick Perry declined to take that bet, he lost in that exchange because he keeps pushing a claim against Romney that has been debunked before. Rick Perry doesn't care about the truth, he only wants to hurt Mitt Romney. 
This plan will backfire on Rick Perry because voters care more about the truth rather than scoring political points or scaring voters into not voting for that candidate.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

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.”