Mitt Romney Vindicated: Don't Focus On Obama's Birth Certificate But Focus On His Poor Economic Record

Today, President Obama released his long form birth certificate after two years of debate over whether or not Barak Obama was born in Hawaii and was a United States citizen. 

2012 candidate Donald Trump may be the person who is most hurt by Obama's release of his long form birth certificate since he was the one who was the most vocal in pushing the issue. 

However, Newt Gingrich was another candidate who bought into the birther issue:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, last fall in an interview with the National Review, posited that Obama, whose father was from Kenya, has a Kenyan mindset, echoing the theme of a controversial book by conservative author Dinesh D’Douza.

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?  That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior,” Gingrich said.

However, not all candidates supported the birther issue. Many of them were either timid or gave mixed signals on where they stood on the issue:

"Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour accepts the president’s word about his birthplace, his staff said.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty told an Iowa audience, “I‘m not one to question the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.” He added a little jab: “When you look at his policies, I do question what planet he’s from.”

When ABC‘s George Stephanopoulos showed a copy of Obama’s birth certificate to Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who was ambivalent at first, she said: “Well, then, that should settle it. … I take the president at his word.”

Former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin gave mixed signals in a recent Fox News appearance. She praised Trump for “paying for researchers” to dig into claims of Obama’s foreign birth. But she added, “I think that he was born in Hawaii because there was a birth announcement put in the newspaper.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has dismissed claims that Obama is foreign-born, calling them a distraction. But on a February radio show, Huckabee referred to Obama “having grown up in Kenya,” the birthplace of the president’s father."

There were only two 2012 candidates who gave the most direct and firm rejection of the birther issue. Those candidates where Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

Out of all the 2012 candidates, I think Mitt Romney comes out ahead on this issue. 

Many people on the left, middle and right will respect Mitt Romney for being one of two mature candidates who refused to get caught up in the birther nonsense. Even Chris Matthews, who is no fan of conservatives, praised Mitt Romney for being the only serious and straightforward candidate among the many Republicans running in 2012: 

"But he will be a presidential candidate, a proud and serious one and if it's not too old-fashioned to say so, he'll be a man."

Watch Mitt Romney on the Kudlow Report as flatly rejected the birther issue and focused on Obama's poor record as President of the United States. See the clip below:

 

Mitt Romney is right. We should be focusing on the major issues that concerns all Americans which are jobs and the economy. He is absolutely correct that American's should be outraged at Barak Obama's failure to fix unemployment and the economy.

Ron Paul Announces That He Will Be Running For President For A Third Time

Ron Paul's announcement that he will be running for President for a third time by forming an exploratory committee is no surprise. However, even though Ron Paul has ran for President a few times, many people are not aware of who Ron Paul really is and what his positions are.  

Not only will Ron Paul be competing in a very crowded field of Republican candidates, but he will be also competing against Gary Johnson. Both men are libertarians and share many of the same domestic and foreign policy views. 

They also think highly of each other and have had a short history together: 

"Johnson and Paul first met in 2004 and Paul invited the former governor, who made waves during his second term calling for the decriminalization of drugs, to Washington to speak to his Liberty Caucus about drug policy."

As a result of meeting up in 2004, they have great respect for each other. Gary Johnson endorsed Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential primaries and Ron Paul has said that he would endorse Gary Johnson if he decided he would run in 2012. Gary Johnson was certainly flattered by Ron Paul's potential endorsement. 

But now that both men are running, it might put their friendship to the test as they compete against each other. One major area that they will disagree with each other will be on foreign policy.  Like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson is an isolationist/non-interventionist. He opposes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"Gary Johnson opposed the war in Iraq as Governor of New Mexico and believes that the United States should withdraw our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as effectively possible, believing that neither country poses a current threat to the US.

The United States should not be borrowing money to build roads, bridges, schools and other infrastructure in foreign countries, especially when such help is currently needed at home. Non-military foreign aid around the world is something we can not currently afford."

However, unlike Ron Paul, he does support Israel and would protect that country militarily if needed:

"Governor Johnson supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed."

While Ron Paul is against military interventions for any reason, Gary Johnson seems to be open to the idea that military intervention is acceptable if it is done for humanitarian purposes: 

A dove in the mold of 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Johnson says, “I don't think that we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan.” But the extent of his non-interventionism isn’t quite clear. On one hand, he isn’t even sure if U.S. troops should have been stationed in Europe to confront the Soviets following World War II. “I don't think I have the expertise to be able to say that it was good or bad, it just seems to me that today, it doesn’t really seem warranted,” he says. Johnson also says Iran’s nuclear program isn’t a threat to the United States because the principle of “mutually assured destruction” would keep the Iranians from attacking.

On the other hand, Johnson is open, in principle, to waging humanitarian wars. “If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?” he says. “Isn’t that what we’re all about? Isn’t that what we’ve always been about? But just this notion of nation building—I think the current policy is making us more enemies than more friends.”

Many libertarians are excited that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson will be competing against each other in 2012. They see this as an opportunity to promote the libertarian philosophy to the general public. The downside to having two libertarians running in 2012 is that there will be a lot of infighting between libertarians as they debate each other who is the more "true "libertarian. 

Moreover, instead of having libertarians rally around Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, it will split the libertarian vote between these two men even though either of these men don't have chance of winning the Republican nomination or defeating Obama in 2012. 

However, the fact that there are two libertarians running in 2012 should make the election interesting and exciting for everyone as these men compete and debate one another in this election.

Is Paul Ryan Really Running For President?

Despite the fact that Representative Paul Ryan has stated that he will not be running in 2012, the rumors that he might be running just won't go away.  Ace reports that what Paul Ryan's public refusal to run in 2012 is very much different that what he tells people privately: 

"I've been wondering about this because I'd written off Ryan ("My kids are too small and my ego's not big enough") and yet there continue to be these mentions of him as a prospect by the conservative media.

I asked Bill Kristol about this at Breitbart's book signing -- I keep hearing Weekly Standard people, particularly, hint that Ryan is entertaining the idea of a run.

Joking around, he said, "Oh, we all just say that to each other [at the Weekly Standard]" -- meaning, "We're all psyching ourselves up with that and/or attempting to put out that rumor out there."

Funny.

But I asked another journalist type (I won't say who since I didn't tell him I'd be quoting, it was a personal type question) and he said, "Well, he rules it out in his public statements but in his private statements...?" Not so much.

I asked, to be sure, if he was saying "Who knows what he says in private?" or if he was saying "I've heard what he says in private, and he's not as firm on it as he is in public declarations." He confirmed it was the latter.

I think the situation he'd be willing to consider it is if there's no unifying, consensus figure in the primaries.

Just noting."

Although Representative Paul Ryan is popular enough to have a facebook page dedicated to the hope that he might to run and that he won  the 2012 Tea Party Presidential Poll, I really don't think he will run. 

Here is why I don't think Paul Ryan will run. 

I don't think he's willing to pull himself away from his work of pushing his "roadmap" plan and throw his hat into the ring and compete in a Republican field of 2012 contenders which is already very crowded at the moment and more politicians are likely to join in on the fray.

Paul Ryan will have to prepare a battle on many fronts such as fund raising and setting up a national organization needed to win the 2012 primaries. When it comes to fund raising, the battle for campaign funds from large and small donors will be fierce. Moreover, campaign contributions from large donors have already been secured or are in the process of being secured. Additionally, very few of the candidates have the financial capacity to endure the 2012 primaries, or beyond to the 2012 general election. As a result, if Paul Ryan were to run, he has an uphill battle in lining up donors, getting the necessary capital to sustain the long primary battles and having enough cash to run afterwards.

When it comes to getting organized for 2012, very few 2012 candidates have established the kind of network in each state to compete in 2012. Many political advisers and campaign managers have already committed to working with whatever political campaign they've promised to work for. Again, Paul Ryan would have to scramble to get teams going in each state and have them be competitive in each of those states. Not only that, he would have to compete in hiring people against those who haven't decided to run yet but might such as Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.

Paul Ryan is doing an excellent job in Washington D.C. by pushing his "roadmap plan" and has done a remarkable job of changing the national discussion on how to reduce the national debt. Right now, he is laser focused on reducing the national debt. People in D.C. and those who follow him closely know he is a policy wonk and really likes to dig into the details of a particular matter. However,  If he were to run, he would lose his focus and energy on pushing his "roadmap" to reducing the deficit and have to broaden his focus on other national issues because he wouldn't want to become a single issue candidate by just focusing on the national debt (even though that's should be the only concern of every 2012 candidate running). 

In the end, I just can't see Paul Ryan running in 2012.

Be Grateful For The Freedom We Have To Remember Him On Easter

Be grateful you are free to celebrate Easter and remember Him. Not everyone has the freedom to do that:

"Up to 30 members of a Chinese evangelical church were arrested on Sunday for trying to hold an Easter service in defiance of the officially atheist government, a member of the clergy said.

A large number of police began to gather early Sunday in the Zhongguancun area of Beijing where the Shouwang Church had said it would hold an outdoor service to mark the holiest day of the Christian calendar.

"Between 20 and 30 followers were taken away by police," senior pastor Jin Tianming told AFP by telephone from his home, where he is under house arrest. He said there were several police officers posted outside the building.

He added that the members of the congregation who were arrested had been taken to different police stations and that none had so far been released."

I am in awe at the love these Chinese Christians have to honor the Savior when the Chinese government won’t let them. They choose to remember Him even when it means that they might be arrested, beaten and imprisoned for a long time. They choose to remember Him in public because they want religious freedom in China.

Christ was willing to die for us despite knowing that He would be arrested, beaten, whipped, mocked and crucified so that we might be truly free.  

Mike Huckabee DID collaborate with John McCain in 2008

An all out feud between Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck has broken out in which they have been lobbying verbal bullets at each other. One of the claims that Glenn Beck makes is that Mike Huckabee collaborated with John McCain to push Mitt Romney out during the 2008 campaign. Here's what Mike Huckabee said in response to that allegation: 

"His ridiculous claim that John McCain and I collaborated and conspired in the 2008 campaign is especially laughable. Is he not aware that McCain and I were competitors—not cohorts? Beck needs to stick to conspiracies that can’t be so easily de-bunked by facts. Why Beck has decided to aim his overloaded guns on me is beyond me."

Mike Huckabee is disengenious with his defense here. McCain and Huck were out to keep Romney from winning it together, not against each other as Huckbee claims.

Unfortunately for Mike Huckabee, this is a conspiracy that can be debunked by facts. Lets look at them shall we?

We know for a fact that Mitt Romney had the most support prior to when the votes were taken during the first round of the the 2008 West Virginia primaries: 

"When Romney arrived this morning in Charleston to address the Republican convention, it was largely assumed that he had Mountain State in the bag. That confidence was partly the product of pure investment; his campaign went to work in the state in 2006, long before his rivals arrived, and Romney had visited repeatedly over the past several weeks. And part was establishment support; Mitt began the day with 280 committed state delegates (more than Huck or McCain) and all three West Virginia superdelegates in his column."

It clear that Mitt Romney was in the lead and that the people of West Virginia were ready to nominate Mitt Romney in the 2008 primaries. 

Now that we know what Mitt Romney's position looked like before the voting took place during the West Virginia primaries, lets look at the results of the first round of voting: 

"Romney won 41 percent during the first round to 33 percent for Huckabee. McCain won 16 percent, and Paul brought up the rear with 10 percent. Since no one had a majority, delegates voted a second time, with Paul eliminated."

Now that Ron Paul was eliminated from the first round of voting in the 2008 West Virginia, Mike Huckabee made a cut a deal with Ron Paul to get his delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee in the second round of voting:

"In an agreement first reported by West Virginia television station WSAZ, the three Ron Paul delegates were secured through an agreement with the Mike Huckabee campaign.

Ron Paul delegates to the state convention swung their support to Huckabee – putting Huckabee over the top – after Congressman Paul was eliminated in the first round of voting. With three national delegates, Ron Paul secured 17 percent of the 18 delegates that were decided at the State Convention."

Now here's where the conspiracy between Mike Huckabee and John McCain begins. 

While there is no proof that Mike Huckabee and John McCain or their staffers met in some smoked filled room to hash out a deal, there are snippets of facts that indicate that some kind of agreement did go down between these two men.

There  are independent reports that John McCain instructed his delegates to vote for Huckabee in order to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the second round of voting. We have a report from James Joyner who reported that John McCain instructed his delegates to vote for Huckabee:

“McCain told them to vote for Huckabee to keep Romney from winning. If the second round came down to McCain and Romney, the Huckabee delegates could very likely have broken for Romney.”

There's also this report from Marc Ambinder that independently verifies that fact:

"But sources say that representatives for John McCain called many of his reps in WV and asked them to vote for Huckabee...in order to thwart Romney on the second ballot."

We then get this report from Fox News:

"But before Huckabee’s surprising turnaround at the convention, McCain delegates told FOX News they had been instructed by the campaign to throw their support to Huckabee.

McCain delegate John Vuolo said former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer approached him and other McCain supporters at the convention and told them he had spoken to McCain, and that the best thing to do was to support Huckabee in the hope that Huckabee could beat Romney in this winner-take-all state."

John Vuolo's claim that former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer was instructing delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee can be verified from the Charleston Gazette:

"On the first ballot Tuesday morning, Romney was the leading vote getter, with 40.9 percent of the vote. Huckabee was second, with 33.1 percent. McCain had 15.5 percent, and longtime Texas Rep. Ron Paul had 10.4 percent.

Under the convention rules, the candidate with the fewest votes was knocked off the ballot, so that eliminated Paul.

Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, McCain’s representative at the event, then conceded defeat and asked McCain boosters to support Huckabee on the second ballot in order to block Romney…"

We then get a reports of John McCain supporters holding up signs encouraging other McCain delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee: 

"McCain staffers, meanwhile, began parading around the hall carrying signs telling their delegates to vote for Huckabee."

Lets sum up what we know now: 

Mitt Romney wins the first round of the West Virginia primaries which knocked Ron Paul out of the primaries. Mike Huckabee approaches Ron Paul convinces him to tell his delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee in exchange that Mike Huckabee will give Ron Paul three delegates at the GOP convention. The fact that Mike Huckabee gives gives three national delegates to Ron Paul doesn't make since since Mike Huckabee, at that time, didn't have that many delegates to give away. 

At the same time Mike Huckabee secured Ron Paul's delegates, we have John McCain calling many of his representatives and instructed them to vote for Mike Huckabee.

Former Louisiana Govenor Buddy Roemer begins approaching delegates like John Vuolo and instructing them to vote for Mike Huckabee. John McCain delegates start holding signs in an effort to get other John McCain delegates on board to vote for Mike Huckabee in the second round of voting.

Its clear from the facts that McCain crowd switched to supporting Mike Huckabee prior to the second round because they were under instructions to do so in order to stop Mitt Romney from winning the 2008 West Virginia primaries. 

Now with all the facts in mind, here's the result of the second round of voting:

"On the second ballot, Huckabee had 567 votes (51 percent), Romney had 521 votes (47 percent) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had 12 votes."

The story of how Mike Huckabee won West Virginia strongly suggests that the Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain campaigns all collaborated together to deny Mitt Romney a win in West Virginia.

Here's an interesting little fact. Mike Huckabee could not have won West Virginia had it not been for getting Ron Paul's delegates to vote for him in the second round because the combined McCain-Huck vote was only 49 percent: Paul supporters sealed the deal.

As a result, Ron Paul's people were clearly in the kingmaker position.

Ron Paul's delegates were just as important to John McCain's chances of winning West Virginia as it was to Mike Huckabee.

Which raises some interesting questions: Its odd to me that we get no reports of John McCain competing with Mike Huckabee to woo Ron Paul's delegates. Did John McCain make any efforts to win over any of Ron Paul's delegates? Did Ron Paul approach John McCain to see what kind of deal was on the table for him?

John McCain could have easily decided to fight for Ron Paul's delegates and chose to remain in the second round of voting. Armed with Ron Paul's delegates, John McCain had a strong possibility of winning the second round by pushing Mike Huckabee out and go up against Mitt Romney in a third round. Maybe John McCain would have beaten Mitt Romney in the third round of voting if he could convince enough Huckabee supporters to vote him in that third round.

Yet, from all the facts that we have, it appears that he didn't make any effort snatch some Ron Paul delegates away from Mike Huckabee. He doesn't even put up a fight prior to the second round which is highly unusual for someone like John McCain who is known for fighting it out to the bitter end. Instead, he tells his representatives to go out and instruct McCain voters to throw their vote towards Mike Huckabee.

As a result, the big question remains: why didn't John McCain fight to get support from Ron Paul's voters?

Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

That's why a lot of people suspect that some kind of back room deal occurred between Mike Huckabee and John McCain because Ron Paul was in the king maker position yet there was no drawn out battle between Huckabee, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Instead, we find that delegates for  Ron Paul and Jon McCain were instructed to vote for Mike Huckabee.

Rush Limbaugh explains why he thinks that there was collusion between Huckabee and John McCain at the 2008 West Virginia Primaries: 

"We know a little bit more here about what happened in West Virginia -- and, folks, it underscores what many of us have been saying about collusion between the Huck forces and McCain forces.  After the first round of balloting in the West Virginia caucus, nobody got 50%, but Romney led with 41%.  Paul was out of it.  So it was Romney, it was Huckabee, and then McCain, in that order.  What has happened is that McCain forces have joined Huck forces, and that's how Huckabee has won West Virginia.  Now, McCain and Huck forces are denying that there was collusion.  But who cares? It doesn't matter what they say.  The fact -- what this proves -- is that a vote for Huck is a vote for McCain.  Because the Huck forces, whether by request from McCain forces or whether on their own, McCain forces decided to throw in with Huck forces en masse. So the combination of McCain forces and Huck forces overwhelm Romney, who had 41%.  So a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain." 

Even though these kinds of deals are a part of politics, these these ‘votes’ were came about from instructions from above and as a result, the voters of West Virginia got disenfranchised by shady delegates. The people of West Virginia, prior to the that primary vote, supported Mitt Romney by a wide margin and yet the majority  of West Virginians didn't get the candidate they wanted. 

What occured in West Virginia demonstrates why multiple rounds of voting destroys the "one person, one vote" rule because it promotes the mentality of "Shoot, I didn’t win the first time, so let’s all gang up on the guy who did.”

Ed Morrisey agrees that West Virginia's primary system doesn't promote the kind of fair voting that we expect in elections:

"In fact, it shows why indirect mechanisms like caucuses and conventions are much less desirable than direct primaries. It turns these elections into games, and it increases the cynicism of the voters at a time when we need to attract them and make them believe they can make a difference. The last-minute hardball by the McCain campaign couldn't have been pulled in a primary state."

People think that the purpose of primaries are to determine individual strength and preference of the candidates by the people of that state, not coalition building exercises or efforts at conspiracy. Yet, that's exactly what happened at the 2008 West Virginia Primaries. 

Lets hope that these kind of shenanigans don't happen in 2012.

Charles Krauthammer: Mitt Romney And Tim Pawlenty Have a 5-1 Chance of Winning In 2012

Charles Krauthammer, a well known conservative columnist and a frequent guest on Fox News as well as PBS News, has written a guide for those who like to think about presidential elections from the perspective of a Las Vegas gambler. 

I'll focus on the candidates that Krauthammer thinks has the best chances of wining in 2012:

THE MAJOR CANDIDATES

Mitt Romney: Serious guy. Pre-vetted in 2008. Tons of private- and public-sector executive experience. If not for one thing, he'd be the prohibitive front-runner. Unfortunately, the one thing is a big thing: Massachusetts' RomneyCare. For an election in which the main issue is excessive government (see Axiom One), that's a huge liability. Every sentient Republican has been trying to figure out how to explain it away. I've heard no reports of any success. Romney is Secretariat at Belmont, but ridden by Minnesota Fats. He goes out at 5-1.

Newt Gingrich: Smart guy. A fountain of ideas. No, a Vesuvius of ideas. Some brilliance, lots of lava. Architect of a historic Republican victory in 1994. Rocky speakership. Unfortunate personal baggage. 12-1.

Haley Barbour: Successful governor. Experienced Washington hand. Abundant charm. Baggage: Years of lobbying, unforced errors on civil rights, early neo-isolationist deviations. Rarely without a comeback, however. 7-1.

Tim Pawlenty: Formerly, unassuming, unprepossessing, solid two-term Minnesota governor. Currently, mouse that roars. Up-tempo style, middle-of-the-road conservative content. Apparently baggageless. Could be the last man standing. 5-1.

Mitch Daniels: Highly successful governor. Budget guru. Delightful dullness satisfies all axioms (see above). Foreign policy unknown, assuming he has one. Alienated some conservatives with his call for a truce on - i.e., deferring - social issues. If he runs, 6-1. 

To read more of Krauthammer's article, go here. 

Speaking of betting, Intrade has Mitt Romney with a 24% chance of winning while Tim Pawlenty has a 15.9% chance of wining. All other potential 2012 candidates have less than a 10% chance of winning.

The Onion: Mitt Romney Apologizes For Helping Sick People Under RomneyCare

The Onion has a fabulously humorous article in which it demonstrates the absurdity of Mitt Romney apologizing for his health care plan:

"I don't know what got into me back then," Romney said. "Wanting to make sure people were able to have health insurance if they left their job. Providing a federally funded website so individuals could compare the costs of insurance providers. Making certain that somebody who earns less than 150 percent of the poverty level can receive the same health care coverage as me or any government official. All I can say is that I was young and immature, and I am not that person anymore."

"The only solace I can take is in the hope that some of the folks I helped were terminally ill patients who eventually withered away and died," Romney added.

It also pokes fun at conservatives who want Mitt Romney to disown his health care plan:

"Though Romney has apologized profusely, Beltway insiders said he would need to distance himself from his I-tried-to-help-sick people image. Sources noted that Romney's current promise to take away health care from anyone who can't afford it is a step in the right direction, but might not be enough.

"The major strike against Mitt Romney is that he not only tried to help people get medical care, he actually did help people get medical care," conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg said. "No other Republican in the field has that type of baggage. And in the end, in order to defeat President Obama, the GOP needs someone who has a track record of never wanting to help sick people."

Thus far, Romney is polling strongly in early primary states like New Hampshire and Iowa, but Republican strategists and voters agree that even in a general election, his sordid past would continue to dog him.

"I don't think I can vote for someone like that," Pennsylvania Republican Eric Tolbert said. "He says he's sorry, but how do I know that's the real Mitt Romney? What happens if he gets elected and tries to help sick people again?"

"I like Michele Bachmann now," Tolbert added. "Because what this country needs is a president who doesn't give a fuck about helping people."

Read the entire hilarious article here.