Mitt Romney Making History In The Fundraising Battle Against Obama

Mitt Romney had a great day yesterday in raising a campaign record of money raised in a single day. He also continues to do well in raising funds for his campaign:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, since becoming his party’s presumptive nominee, is now taking in cash from donors who had backed his onetime rivals, campaign finance reports show.

The $23.4 million Romney raised last month included $634,495 from 225 contributors who earlier gave the maximum $2,500 to the presidential campaigns of former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, or Texas Governor Rick Perry, according to a computer-assisted analysis of Federal Election Commission data. Romney faces President Barack Obama in November. 

In addition, casino executive Sheldon Adelson and his family, who had contributed $21.5 million to a political action committee supporting Gingrich, gave $10 million in June to a pro-Romney super-PAC, Restore Our Future. Texas businessman Robert Brockman, who earlier had given $50,000 to a pro-Perry super-PAC through one of his companies, gave $1 million through three other companies to the super-PAC supporting Romney, a former Massachusetts governor.  

Mitt Romney is making history as he runs for President. He's the first LDS candidate to successfully become the official candidate of a major party. He's also making history of financing his campaign entirely on funds raised by private donors: 

Several donors gave $5,000 to Romney, who became the first Republican since Richard Nixon in 1972 to raise private money for the general election. Following the Watergate break-in scandal that led to Nixon’s resignation in 1974, Congress offered public financing to candidates who agreed to forgo raising private money, and every major-party nominee except Obama in 2008 took the federal funds. This year both campaigns will be funded entirely with private money.

Romney entered June with $17 million in the bank, one-sixth of the $109.7 million amassed by Obama. That gap was narrowed as the Republican National Committee reported $60.8 million cash on hand, more than double the Democratic National Committee’s $29.7 million.

In May, the first full month since Romney was assured of winning the nomination, he received $7.1 million and the RNC $25.9 million from a joint fundraising committee. Obama brought in $8.7 million and the DNC $13.3 million from a similar fundraising apparatus, which allows donors give larger contributions at one time.

Mitt Romney is also making history as being the first candidate to have the ability to raise more money and outspend the incumbent President: 

A senior Obama campaign strategist, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said earlier in the day that Romney would best his earlier total — and predicted that the Republican's hauls, plus unrestricted super-PAC cash, would mean "we're going to be the first incumbent outspent."The super-PAC phenomenon has been a recurring source of handwringing at Obama HQ in Chicago. Aides say they worry that those deep-pockets will unleash an unprecedented blitz of negative ads—and that comparable entities on the Democratic side lack the cash to counter effectively.

"I think [Romney's] going to have a $100 million month this month between he and the RNC," the strategist said. "I think you are going to see another huge month from him."

"Given Sen. Kerry outraised Bush two to one in the first couple of months after he won the nomination, I think Romney is going to continue to have big months. Combined with that with the super PAC stuff, we're going to be the first incumbent outspent," the strategist said.

Its clear that Romney is doing well when it comes to the battle of campaign financing between these two men. But the real winner is this game is the supporters of Mitt Romney, conservativism and the Republican party who are the ones helping Mitt make history as we open our wallets and donate to him.  We must continue our efforts of making phone calls for him, donating for him and doing other things like blogging for Mitt, writing letters to your local newspaper and putting signs in your yard. All of your efforts, in whatever way you have contributed so far is helping. Keep up the good work everyone!

Mitt Romney Campaign Hauls In Record Campaign Donations In One Day

Mitt Romney had his most successful campaign fundraiser in his 2012 campaign in which the team set a record for cash raised in one day:

Mitt Romney enjoyed what campaign officials described as his single best day of fundraising yet, which hauled in between $6 million and $8 million for the candidate as he made a finance swing through Michigan on Wednesday.

"Michigan has been great," John Rakolta, a national finance co-chair of Romney's presidential campaign, told attendees during a fundraiser Romney headlined at a local Marriott here. "Today, we will exceed every single event that has been held for Gov. Romney from the beginning of the campaign. So we have set a new record tonight in terms of fundraising."

Taking the stage, Romney praised the supporters who had written checks to his 2012 bid. According to the campaign, more than 500 people contributed at least $2,500 a piece to attend tonight's reception just outside Detroit. Individuals who contributed $10,000 got to meet and pose for a photo with the Republican nominee, while $50,000 scored folks an invite to a private dinner with Romney.

"It's hard to write a check to a politician. It's harder to get a friend to do it," Romney said, praising the "herculean work" of his national finance team.

He suggested donors weren't just giving to support his campaign, but rather to get America back on track.

"I realize that this is not about me. You are not giving a check to me. You're not giving a check to the Republican Party. You are concerned about America. This is about our country. And like me, you are of the view that if we stay on the path we are on, that America will be something far less than what it could be," Romney told supporters, as they munched on appetizers. "You're trying to make an investment in America's future that will put us on the road to greatness again. And so I salute you in this mutual quest we have."

Mitt Romney is correct. A donation to his campaign is an investment in our country by supporting a candidate who will help restore our economy, put people back to work and reducing the national debt. Keep those donations coming in for Mitt Romney! 

5 Reasons Why ObamaCare Is Bad Law

Robert Samuelson has written an article for the Washington Post giving his 5 reasons why ObamaCare is bad law. Here are his five reasons: 

(1) It increases uncertainty and decreases confidence when recovery from the Great Recession requires more confidence and less uncertainty. The ACA isn’t highly popular; the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that 44 percent of Americans now view it unfavorably and 37 percent favorably. Given the ACA’s complexities, people can’t know where they’ll get insurance and what it will cost. In 2014, the ACA requires all employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide insurance or pay fines (“the employer mandate”). On the one hand, formal economic studies conclude that most employers now offering insurance will continue to do so; on the other, in direct surveys of firms, 30 percent or more say they might drop insurance and pay fines. Uncovered people must buy insurance (“the individual mandate”) or face penalties, though government will subsidize households with incomes up to four times the poverty level ($92,200 for a family of four in 2012).

(2) The ACA discourages job creation by raising the price of hiring. This is basic economics. If you increase the price of labor, companies will buy less of it. Requiring employers to buy health insurance for some workers makes them more expensive, at least in the short run. Particularly vulnerable are low-skilled workers, notes economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute. Because the employer mandate exempts firms with fewer than 50 workers, there’s a huge incentive for firms to stop at 49, she says.

(3) Uncontrolled health spending is the U.S. system’s main problem — and the ACA makes it worse. Spiraling health costs crowd out other government programs and squeeze wage increases by diverting compensation dollars into employer-paid insurance. Because insured people use more health services than the uninsured, the ACA (covering an estimated 30 million more) raises spending. As for the ACA’s cost-control provisions, even the government’s own actuaries don’t believe they will do much. By their latest projection, total health spending — government and private — rises from 17.9 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 2010 to 19.6 percent in 2021. In 1980, health care was 9 percent of GDP.

(4) Obama’s program also worsens the federal budget problem. Driven by Medicare and Medicaid, health care already exceeds one-fourth of the budget and is headed toward a third. It’s the crux of the problem. So Obama creates another huge health program. The administration’s retort: the program lowers the budget deficit. This is rhetorical hocus-pocus. Here’s what happens. From 2012 to 2022, the ACA raises federal spending by $1.762 trillion, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. However, all of this and a bit more is offset by tax increases and assumed cuts in Medicare. But these tax increases and cuts could have been used to shrink the huge budget deficits that pre-existed Obamacare. Now they can’t; moreover, the Medicare cuts might be repealed or reduced.

(5) The ACA discriminates against the young in favor of the old. Government policy already does this through payroll taxes that have young workers subsidizing Social Security and Medicare benefits. The ACA compounds the effect by forcing some young Americans to buy insurance at artificially high premiums that would pay for the care of a sicker, older population. 

I'd like to add a 6th reason why ObamaCare is bad law via the College National Republican Committee:

How Do Mormons Feel About The U.S. Constitution?

The United States Constitution is the single most important document in America. It has historical, philosophical, legal and political significance. Moreover, there is no document like this in the world. As a result, it has evoked many different responses from people all over the world ranging from the positive to the negative. Some people look to the Constitution with nothing but respect and admiration while others look on it with scorn and disgust. 

Many people wonder what the LDS perspective is towards the U.S. Constitution since Mormons were not always treated well in American history and were denied the protections it promised in the document. Although the LDS faith was not in existence when the Constitution was drafted, Mormons are well known for their patriotic dedication to the Constitution and the founding fathers: 

Latter-day Saints have long been regarded by people outside their faith as among the most patriotic citizens of the nations in which they reside. Nowhere does this perception exist more strongly than in the United States of America. Yale University humanities professor Harold Bloom is typical of non-Mormon intellectuals and academics in his description of Latter-day Saints as the "most American" of all religions (The American Religion, Simon & Schuster, 1992). During the 20th and 21st Centuries Latter-day Saints have typically been over-represented among U.S. Senators, Representatives and Governors.

And yet, there were no Latter-day Saints among America's "Founding Fathers." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded on 6 April 1830, a full 54 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and 43 years after the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There were Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers, Dutch Reformed, Lutherans, Huguenots, Methodists and even a Unitarian and a few Catholics among the nation's Founding Fathers... but there were no Mormons.

Nor did the Founding Fathers have the opportunity to join the Church when it was finally organized in 1830. All but one of the Founding Fathers had died by then. Charles Carroll of Maryland was the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence to pass away: on 14 November 1832. He was a 93-year-old Catholic living in Baltimore, Maryland at the time the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, and he died before Latter-day Saint missionaries went to his city.

Suffice it say, Latter-day Saints did not have an opportunity to participate in the founding events of the new nation, and the Founding Fathers never had the opportunity to become Latter-day Saints. (How the Founding Fathers would have viewed the Saints is another question altogether. Over 90% of the Founding Fathers remained faithfully within the denominations of their birth throughout their lifetime and never converted religiously.)

Despite the fact that the religion was not in existence when the Constitution was created, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints think highly of the founding fathers and the Constitution.

Latter-day Saints today regard the Founding Fathers as among the most important, most ethical individuals in history. They believe that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are divinely intended documents which were "inspired" (although not the revealed Word of God in the same sense as the New Testament and other scriptures). 

Why do Mormons revere the Constitution? It can be traced back to Joseph Smith. If he were alive today, he would be considered a strong conservative and most likely be labeled a T.E.A. patriot due to his love for the U.S. Constitution. As a result for his love and devotion to the U.S. Constitution, the Prophet outlined the Church's belief regarding governments and laws in general and it become part of LDS scriptures in D&C 134.

However, Joseph Smith and subsequent LDS Church leaders have taught that the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document which is a concept that is rarely taught at any educational level including law schools:

The idea of an inspired Constitution is rare in contemporary public discourse and wholly absent from contemporary constitutional and historical scholarship. Seeking to discern the hand of divinity in America's beginnings, however, was once common not only in popular rhetoric but also among eminent nineteenth-century historians such as George Bancroft. Perhaps even more important is the repeated acknowledgment of divine aid by America's founding fathers. Notably, George Washington frequently expressed gratitude to God for felicitous circumstances surrounding the rise of the United States and chose the occasion of his first inaugural address to recognize the providential character of the framing of the Constitution:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men, more than the People of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past [blessings] seem to presage [W. Allen, ed., George Washington: A Collection, p. 461. Indianapolis, Ind., 1988].

LDS teaching and revelation are in harmony with this self-understanding of the founding generation. Latter-day Saints believe that the Lord established the Constitution, not by communicating specific measures through oracles, but by raising up and inspiring wise men to this purpose (see D&C 101:80). This emphasis on the extraordinary character of the American founders—and perhaps, more generally, on the founding generation as a whole—accords with assessments by contemporaries, as well as by later students of the period. Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, described the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as "an assembly of demigods." More than forty years later, Alexis de Tocqueville, the noted French observer of American society, included the American people as a whole in his praise of the founding:

That which is new in the history of societies is to see a great people, warned by its lawgivers that the wheels of government are stopping, turn its attention on itself without haste or fear, sound the depth of the ill, and then wait for two years to find the remedy at leisure, and then finally, when the remedy has been indicated, submit to it voluntarily without its costing humanity a single tear or drop of blood [Vol. 1, p. 113].

This understanding of the divine inspiration of the Constitution as mediated through the human wisdom of the founders and the founding generation invites the inference that new needs and circumstances might require the continued exercise of inspired human wisdom by statesmen and citizens alike. LDS leaders have taught that the Constitution is not to be considered perfect and complete in every detail (as evidenced most clearly by its accommodation with slavery, contrary to modern scripture; e.g., D&C 101:79) but as subject to development and adaptation. It was part of the wisdom of the founders to forbear from attempting to decide too much; they therefore provided constitutional means for constitutional amendment. President Brigham Young explained that the Constitution "is a progressive—a gradual work"; the founders "laid the foundation, and it was for after generations to rear the superstructure upon it" (JD 7:13-15).

While Mormons believe it to be a divinely inspired document, they do not believe that it is a perfect document. Joseph Smith himself stated that the Constitution was imperfect. Not only do Mormons believe the Constitution to be imperfect, but it is not be given the same kind of respect and reverence scriptures get. Dallin H. Oaks, a well known LDS lawyer and one of the leaders of the LDS Church explained that the U.S Constitution is not to be considered the same as scripture: 

Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president.

Rex E. Lee, another well known LDS Lawyer and prominent Constitutional scholar explained that while the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document, it is not a divine document like scriptures are:

That is, from the general label "divinely inspired ," some assume that the Constitution is tantamount to scripture, and therefore perfect in every respect, reflecting in every provision and every sentence the will of our Heavenly Father, just as is true of the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants. That view cannot withstand analysis. Our Constitution has some provisions that are not only not divine, they are positively repulsive. The classic example is contained in Article V, which guaranteed as a matter of constitutional right that the slave trade would continue through at least the year 1808. There are other provisions that are not as offensive as the slavery guarantee, but they were quite clearly bad policy, and certainly were not divinely inspired in the same sense as are the scriptures. Moreover, regarding the Constitution as tantamount to scripture is difficult to square with the fact that our republic has functioned very well, probably even better, after at least one of its original provisions (requiring United States senators to be elected by their respective state legislatures rather than by the people at large) was amended out of existence by the Seventeenth Amendment.  

As an attorney and as someone who enjoys politics, I am aware of the different perspectives that people have towards the Constitution. Some people view it as a perfect and infallible document while others believe it to be a very flawed, unfair, and incomplete document. I believe that Mormons have a unique, pragmatic, patriotic yet realistic view of the U.S. Constitution and that this document is significant in LDS theology. What is even more interesting is that despite how Mormons were treated in early American history, we have always kept a positive view of the Constitution. 

I hope this short little blog will be helpful as voters continue to learn about Mitt Romney. I believe what I have outlined here reflects Mitt Romney's beliefs about the Constitution since it reflects the majority of the LDS perspective towards that document. Moreover, Mitt Romney has a legal background since he obtained his law degree and business degree from Harvard. 

5 Reasons Why Mitt Romney Remains Strong Against Obama

Commentary magazine gives 5 reasons why Mitt Romney remains competitive and tied in the polls with  President Obama: 

1. An indefensible record. Every election which features an incumbent is, at least in good measure, a referendum on the record of the incumbent. The problem facing Obama is that he can’t offer a convincing case that his policies have succeeded. Recall that at the outset of his presidency, Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer, “I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years… If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” Yet last October, Obama had to concede to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that “I don’t think [people are] better off than they were four years ago.”

In addition, the main achievements of the Obama presidency – including the Affordable Care Act and the stimulus package – are deeply unpopular. By virtually any measure, then, the president has presided over a failed first term. He cannot reinvent, and therefore he cannot successfully defend, his record.

2. A weakening economy. The Obama campaign rested its hopes on the American economy getting stronger rather than weaker. This would have allowed the president to argue that while things haven’t improved as quickly as Americans had hoped, the trajectory was encouraging, that progress was being made, that the building blocks to prosperity were in place. From there, Obama would say he needed a second term to complete what he (belatedly) started in his first. But the data this year – including dismal economic growth, job creation, and factory orders – have left the Obama narrative in ruins. In the fourth year of his presidency, Obama is presiding over a weak economy that is becoming weaker still. The issue the public cares most about (the economy) is the issue the president is most vulnerable on.

3. Intellectual exhaustion. The Obama campaign is out of ideas. On the economy, Obama has used virtually everything in his progressive toolkit. Nothing has worked. And so the president, unable to defend his record in the first term, is left with no compelling vision to offer in a second term. Witness his speech in Ohio yesterday. It was billed as a “major” address on the economy. But it was widely panned even on the left for being empty and uninteresting. The president himself cannot articulate why his agenda in a second term would be more effective than what he’s done in his first term. He’s running on empty.

4. A formidable opponent. The Obama campaign’s attempt to disqualify Mitt Romney on grounds that he’s too extreme to be president has fizzled. Whatever complaints one may have about Romney, being an extremist is not a plausible one. As Bill Clinton admitted, Romney has been a governor, had a “sterling business career,” and “crosses the qualification threshold.” Since securing the GOP nomination, Romney has made few unforced errors. He’s begun to repair the damage he had sustained. He’s shown impressive discipline and focus as a candidate. He’s outraising the president. And Governor Romney’s campaign is, at least as of now, clearly superior to the president’s.

5. The late break. In most presidential elections, undecided voters break in large numbers for the challenger. If someone is undecided about an incumbent they know well, they will usually cast their ballot for the challenger. That’s particularly true when the country is suffering from economic difficulties and the political fundamentals are bad for the person occupying the Oval Office, which is certainly the case today.

You can read the entire article HERE.

Will Mitt Romney Add "Audit The Fed" To The GOP Platform?

Recently, Rick Santorum has asked conservatives to stand with him in preventing Ron Paul supporters from changing the GOP platform. According to Rand Paul, Mitt Romney has agreed to at least adding one item to the GOP platform: 

You know, I try to look for commonalities, areas where we agree and, you know, Governor Romney, I’ve had a meeting with him. We’ve talked extensively about audit the Fed, which is very important not only to me but my father and to his supporters and I think there’s a very good chance we get it in the platform. There has been an announcement in the House that we’re going to get a vote in the House and I’m working with both Republican and Democrat leadership to try to get a vote here, but some of my dad’s supporters don’t realize that if you call people names and call them evil, they’re less likely to allow you to have a vote on something you really want to pass.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. You’re saying that Romney may put audit the Fed into the platform?

PAUL: Well, the Ron Paul supporters are going to be — about 2 or 300 delegates there are going to help him to do that, but he has already said publicly that he’s for audit the Fed. That he has said many times. As far as the specific bill –

GLENN: That’s fantastic.

PAUL: — I would like him to endorse the specific bill but — that my father has introduced that will be voted on, but publicly he’s already stated that he is in support of auditing the Fed.

Personally, this might be the one issue where I would have no objections to adding this issue to the GOP platform. However, I would have major objections if Ron Paul or his supporters try to add anything else on the GOP platform such as their positions on war, drugs, abortion and marriage.  

Auditing the Federal Reserve is an issue that Ron Paul and his supporters are very passionate about. Mitt Romney's position on this issue is that he has repeatedly said that the Fed does get independently audited by various government agencies. He also doesn't support abolishing the Federal Reserve because he would  rather have an organization that is accountable to someone rather than having our currency managed by the politicians in Congress who are accountable to no one:

BLITZER: Governor Romney, is there anything you disagree with -- with -- with Governor Perry on that point?

ROMNEY: Well, my own view is that, quite simply, that the Federal Reserve has a responsibility to preserve the value of our currency, to have a strong American currency, such that investors and people who are thinking about bringing enterprises to this country have confidence in the future of America and in our currency. People will not invest in this country and create jobs in this country for the American people if they don't have belief in our currency.
Of course we should see what the Fed is doing. There should be some oversight to make sure that it's -- it's acting properly.

But at the same time, we recognize that we need to have a Fed. Why -- why do I say that? Because if we don't have a Fed, who's going to run the currency? Congress? I'm not in favor of that. I'd rather have an agency that is being overseen rather than have the United States Congress try and manage our currency.

In doing my research (that includes watching a bunch of YouTube videos of Ron Paul supporters asking Mitt about his position on this issue), I have found that Mitt Romney has been consistent in his position on not abolishing the Federal Reserve and has given the same explanation every time in that he'd rather have the Federal Reserve be an independent agency rather than have our currency be managed by politicians. 

Many Ron Paul supporters have criticized him for not being aggressively critical of Ben Bernanke's leadership. However, Mitt Romney has said that he wouldn't keep him in office and given that Bernanke's term as chairman expires in January 2014, whoever wins the 2012 election gets to choose who the Chairman will be. And if Mitt does win in 2012, we have some idea who the new chairman might be:  

Asked in October who he would pick, Romney said he had made no decision, but then suggested his top two economic advisers - Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia University's business school, and Harvard professor Greg Mankiw - would be good candidates.

2012 is an extremely important election and it is imperative that Mitt Romney wins. Who ever wins in 2012 will get to pick at least three Supreme Court Justices, a new Federal Reserve Chairman, and determine the health of our economy. As a result, we must unite and make sure Mitt Romney is the next President of the United States.

Sheldon Adelson Gives $10 Million To Mitt Romney's Super PAC

Mitt Romney is doing very well when it comes to recieving political donation. Recently, Mitt's super PAC, received a large donation from a former supporter of Newt Gingrich: 

Billionaire conservative casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who helped keep Newt Gingrich’s failed presidential campaign alive during the Republican primaries, is giving $10 million to the super PAC supporting the presumptive  GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The leader of the super PAC Restore Our Future, Carl Forti, wouldn’t confirm the donation and said his policy was to not comment on donors or potential donors. Mr. Adelson’s spokesman could not be immediately reached for comment.

The $ 10 million figure appears to be the largest single donation towards Mr. Romney’s efforts so far. The independent political action committee, by law, cannot coordinate its work with the formal Romney campaign.

This donation will help alot in Mitt Romney's efforts to remain competitive with Obama's fundraising efforts. Obama is relying on Hollywood for donations to stay ahead of Mitt Romney in the fundraising race: 

President Barack Obama is using the entertainment industry on both coasts to help fill the fundraising hole left by defections of some Wall Street donors.

Obama has been hitting California and New York in the race to stay ahead of Republican Mitt Romney in fundraising for the presidential campaign. He’ll be in New York tonight for the second time this month for an event at actress Sarah Jessica Parker’s house and another co-hosted by singer Mariah Carey at the Plaza Hotel, aiming to raise $4.5 million. 

Obama isn't raising the kind of money now as he did back in 2008 and small and big donors aren't as willing to donate to his campaign anymore. This worries Obama's campaign staff: 

In growing numbers, once-confident Democrats now say President Barack Obama could lose the November election. The hand-wringing reflects real worries among Democrats about Obama's ability to beat Republican rival Mitt Romney, who has proven to be a stronger candidate than many expected. But it's also a political strategy aimed at rallying major donors who may have become complacent.

Interviews with a dozen Democratic strategists and fundraisers across the country show an increased sense of urgency among Obama backers. It follows a difficult two weeks for the president, including a dismal report on the nation's unemployment picture, a Democratic defeat in the Wisconsin governor recall election and an impressive fundraising month for Romney and Republicans.

Given that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are neck and neck both in the polls and fundraising, Obama should be real worried that he might not be in the White House again. But then again, America needs Mitt Romney in the White House in 2012.