Friday, September 23, 2011
While my erudite analysis of poll trends and detailed budget charts may impress... those of you who know me may recall that I cut loose at times to do some ridiculous schtick.
This is one of those times...
Rick Perry tried to attack Mitt Romney on the issue of flip/flops... it didn't quite come out the way he was expecting. I couldn't resist having a little fun with that moment last night. The actual exchange can be found here.
Cross-posted at iHartPolitics.com
Thursday, September 10, 2009
I've posted my thoughts
(as a physician and a concerned citizen) about Obama's speech last night over at Iowan's for Romney.
Friday, September 4, 2009
A sprinkling of news involving Mitt Romney.Jonathan Martin at the Politico
: "While he remains publicly coy about the possibility of another White House bid, Mitt Romney has a calendar that tells a very different story."CNN's Politicker
: "Meanwhile, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, thought to be another potential White House hopeful, issues a more measured statement to Obama's planned address.
'If the president wants to encourage students to stay in school and study, that's appropriate,' he said. 'However, he should be careful not to cross the line to discuss political issues or policy matters.'"Boston Globe Editorial
: "Mitt Romney isn’t openly running for president yet, but he’s clearly focused like a laser on 2012. And seldom has a noncandidate done so well by doing so little. That’s mostly because an astonishing number of his putative 2012 rivals have obliged Romney by systematically stumbling."
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The editors of Human Events interviewed Mitt about healthcare reform
The right approach is one which includes extensive analysis, evaluation of systems that have been implemented in other countries and in other states, a bipartisan effort which includes different perspectives and views, the inputs of physicians, patients, advocacy groups, hospitals, business, and labor. This should be a very inclusive and extensive process, and President Obama, out of an apparent desire to score a victory, is not willing to give health care the deliberative process it deserves.
That which we have learned about his plan has a number of obvious flaws. The first is insistence on establishing a government insurance program. There is simply no reason for doing that other than to open the door to a single-payer system. Which, of course, is what liberals have long pined for and what Barack Obama campaigned for.
The nation already has over a thousand private insurance companies, many of the largest of which are not for profit, so his excuse for forming the public government option --that it’s necessary to give people choices -- is obviously fallacious.
The ongoing problems which a government plan would encompass would be massive subsidies down the road, crowding out of private not-for-profit enterprises and ultimately the imposition of a government-controlled system, or what would be at that point about one-fifth of our economy. It’s a bad idea and should be rejected.
Labels: healthcare, Human Events
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The MSNBC/Wall Street Journal poll released today has some interesting nuggets . . . and one key finding that his HUGELY positive for Mitt.
First, some background on the poll. It was a survey of 1,011 adults . . . not likely voters (which usually makes polls trend more liberal) and was conducted July 24-27.
Respondents Political Identification:
- Independent 41%
- Democrat 30%
- Republican 22%
- Conservative 37%
- Moderate 35%
- Liberal 23%
Would you like to see Mitt Romney as president some day, or not?
- Would like to see 24%
- Would not like to see 50%
Sounds Bad, right? I mean 50% don't want to see him as POTUS . . . but look by comparison at Palin's numbers:
Would you like to see Sarah Palin as president some day, or not?
- Would like to see 21%
- Would not like to see 67%
Mitt obviously has much less of a hill to climb right now that Palin.
But for the real important point, let's start by looking at the approval ratings for political figures AND political parties:
Approval Ratings: Positive / Negative [Net]
- Hillary Clinton: 53% / 31% [+22%]
- Barack Obama: 55% / 34% [+21%]
- Mitt Romney: 28% / 20% [+8%]
- Democratic Party: 42% / 37% [+5%]
- Sonia Sotomayor: 31% / 27% [+4%]
- Joe Biden: 38% / 36% [+2%]
- Sarah Palin: 32% / 43% [-11%]
- Republican Party: 28% / 41% [-13%]
- Nancy Pelosi: 25% / 44% [-19%]
Now let’s look at these numbers in a different way that may take some of the sampling bias out (like if they polled too many Dems/libs . . . which it seems like). By comparing each persons approval rating adusted for their political party. I’ll take their net approval/disapproval rating and subtract their parties net rating (Dem. at +5%, GOP at -13% . . . a whopping 18% gap when most generic 2010 congressional ballots are dead even . . . which is proof this poll oversampled Dems/libs). This was not in the poll, but was my own idea to break down the data.
Difference between politician's net approval rating and the approval rating of their party:
- Mitt +21%
- Hillary +17%
- Barack +16%
- Palin +2%
- Sotomayor -1%
- Biden -3%
- Pelosi -24%
In other words, Mitt’s net approval is a full 21% better than his party. This,, while even Pres Obama is only 16% better than his party, and Palin is only 2% better than her party. To have accomplished this, Mitt must be bringing in moderate Dems and indys to like him. That's a good good sign for him as a general election candidate. He's obviously got a lot of work to do to get all those "no opinion" folks to view him favorably, but Mitt's showing an ability to transcend negative opinions of the GOP. Something we desperately need in our next cadidate.
*******And one extra little tidbit and point of good news . . . Mitt' leads in yet another 2012 GOP poll (this one by Fox News):
Who would you like to see as the GOP 2012 Presidential Nominee?
Among Republicans (previous poll results, May 12-13, in parentheses):
- Mitt Romney 22% (18%)
- Mike Huckabee 21% (20%)
- Sarah Palin 17% (13%)
- Rudy Giuliani 13% (12%)
- Newt Gingrich 9% (14%)
- Bobby Jindal 3% (3%)
- Jeb Bush 1% (3%)
- Tim Pawlenty 1%
- Too soon to say 10% (7%)
- Mitt Romney 22% (12%)
- Rudy Giuliani 16% (19%)
- Mike Huckabee 15% (16%)
- Sarah Palin 13% (10%)
- Newt Gingrich 3% (5%)
- Bobby Jindal 3% (2%)
- Jeb Bush 2% (2%)
- Tim Pawlenty 2%
- Too soon to say 8% (14%)
Among Republicans/Independents (Combined):
- Mitt Romney 22.0%
- Mike Huckabee 18.8%
- Sarah Palin 15.5%
- Rudy Giuliani 14.1%
- Newt Gingrich 6.8%
- Bobby Jindal 3.0%
- Jeb Bush 1.4%
- Tim Pawlenty 1.4%
- Too soon to say 9.3%
And as an extra bonus . . . a funny clip from Jon Stewart's Daily Show
(love him or hate him, he IS funny) titled "What are you doing to help Mitt Romney?"
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
That's what David Brody sees
. The reason? The increasing likelihood that the stimulus doesn't work. Romney, then, is the perfect foil for economic hard times.
Labels: david brody
(Chart courtesy of SeattlePI.com blog)
THIS IS A SAMPLE OF 750 LIKELY GOP PRIMARY VOTERS
The crosstabs show some interesting points as well . . .
Regardless of who you would vote for, which candidate would you least like to see win the Republican nomination in 2012?
Sarah Palin 21%, Haley Barbour 21%, Newt Gingrich 15%, Tim Pawlenty 15%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Mitt Romney 9%
In the 2012 election, how likely is it that a Republican candidate will defeat Barack Obama?
Very likely 41%, Somewhat likely 34%, Not very likely 14%, Not at all likely 4%
Does Sarah Palin’s resignation help or hurt her chances of winning the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012?
Help 24%, Hurt 40%, No impact 28%
(Note the similarity of the 24% Palin get's in the total vote and the 24% here who say her resignation doesn't hurt her . . . her supporters are VERY loyal to her IMO)
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net):
Mike Huckabee 78% / 17% (+61%) , Sarah Palin 76% / 21% (+55%) , Mitt Romney 73% / 19% (+54%) , Newt Gingrich 65% / 29% (+36%) , Dick Cheney 59% / 34% (+25%) , Tim Pawlenty 38% / 33% (+5%) , Haley Barbour 34% / 37% (-3%)
Voters aged of 18-29:
Palin 34% Huckabee 31%, Romney 18%, Newt 3%, Pawlenty 3%, Barbour 0%
Voters 65 and older:
Romney 34%, Huckabee 19%, Palin 18%, Newt 16%, Pawlenty 2%, Barbour 0%
Romney 26%, Huckabee 25%, Palin 21%, Newt 14%, Pawlenty 1%, Barbour 1%
Palin 33%, Romney 23%, Huckabee 14%, Newt 13%, Barbour 2%, Pawlenty 1%
Huckabee 35%, Palin 21%, Romney 17%, Newt 15%, Pawlenty 2%, Barbour 1%
Rarely or Never attend church:
Palin 31%, Romney 28%, Huckabee 14%, Newt 13%, Barbour 2%, Pawlenty 0%
Attend church more than once a week:
Huckabee 41%, Palin 20%, Gingrich 13%, Romney 11%, Barbour 2%, Pawlenty 1%
Favorables/Unfavorables Among Evangelical Christians (Very favorable/unfavorable):
Huckabee 89/8 (56/4), Palin 84/15 (56/4), Gingrich 74/22 (40/8), Romney 67/25 (36/5), Cheney 68/26 (32/9), Pawlenty 43/32 (11/9), Barbour 36/37 (8/15)
Favorables/Unfavorables Among Likely Voters who Rarely or Never Attend Church(Very favorable/unfavorable):
Palin 75/24 (41/12), Romney 71/22 (39/10), Huckabee 71/24 (30/9), Newt 62/34 (40/16), Cheney 59/38 (32/21), Pawlenty 41/41 (10/16), Barbour 36/46 (10/22)
SUMMING IT ALL UP:
Romney's sitting in a very good position. He's in a statistical tie for the lead among GOP voters. However, Palin and Huckabee have done VERY poorly among independents/moderates/Democrats in other polling whereas Romney has been very strong in these groups (see recent Pew Research Poll).
This Rasmussen poll, once again, shows that Romney still has trouble with what could be called the more devout Evangelical Christians (those that go to church more than once a week, who apparently view Romney on par with Dick "Vader" Cheney while they think Huckabee walks on water). However, Romney is very strong among more mature and more educated voters . . . and this bodes well for actual GOP turnout (not to mention it being a good sign that older, wiser, and more educated people see that Romney is the best man for the job . . . hopefully that sentiment will flow into other age and educational groups over the coming months/years.
IF THE ECONOMY, HEALTHCARE, AND/OR FOREIGN POLICY ARE THE ISSUES OF THE DAY IN 2010/2011, ROMNEY WILL BLOW HIS MAJOR CURRENT COMPETITION AWAY IN THE GOP PRIMARY . . . AND EVEN THE MEDIA BIAS FOR OBAMA WON'T BE A MATCH FOR AN ANGRY NATION WANTING THE REAL, COMPETENT, AND STRONG LEADERSHIP THAT ROMNEY EMBODIES.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
There are some folks (even among our bloggers here on MyManMitt.com) that would dismiss Palin as a fop and a mistake. I am not among that crowd. The perceived foibles and challenges that Palin is blamed for are largely contrivances of the media and her enemies.
Anyone who watched the amazing speech she gave at the RNC convention last year dismisses her at their own peril. Steve Hayward at the Corner points out the dismissive attitude
that many in the media took toward Ronald Reagan in the 1970's, widely anticipated to exit into the sunset by most politicos. Hayward concludes: "Everyone should apply the appropriate discount to the Palin commentary and analysis they read today."
There was one event which I think summarizes the challenges that Palin has faced in a nutshell. Last year, after the election, Palin was interviewed after the traditional Thanksgiving Turkey pardoning that many governors revel in. The cameraman and reporter seem to have colluded together to place a turkey being slaughtered
as the backdrop of their interview with the Alaskan Governor. The optics of the scene are humurous to be sure but the intention of the media and those that blasted her insensitivity are equally humurous. In short, the criticism of this moment captured the purposeful collusion of the media, the homey naivite of the governor, and the general lapse in understanding that Palin's star sometimes shine's the brightest in her most unshiny moments.
Truth be told, criticizing Palin can give you quite the headache in some conservative circles. Certain bloggers on the list here have laid heavy into Palin at times and I've been on the receiving end of some strongly worded rebukes in return via email. The lesson here is that Palin has a STRONG following of powerful and excitable constituents and fans that form a large and coherent mass for any candidate.
Bottom line: ask yourself this, if Palin does not run in 2012, how far will the GOP candidates go to court her endorsement? Answer: to the moon and back.
Labels: sarah palin
Friday, July 3, 2009
From the Wall Street Journal
Most Republicans have just finished what might be called the spring of their discontent. Not much went right in the first half of the year; not much to cheer
But not Mitt Romney. For this unsuccessful 2008 Republican presidential contender, it is hard to imagine how events could be moving more decisively in his favor in 2009. One can almost hear him wondering: Why didn't things break this way last year?
This, in some ways, is one of the more disappointing thoughts I have heard in awhile. Think about it: had Romney been elected, the current crises would have played directly into Romney's strengths. Instead of having a novice deal with the economy, healthcare, and the budget, we could have had someone with experience and savvy helping the nation to navigate these difficult times.
Don't get me wrong; I'm glad that Romney is gaining increased visibility and respect for his talents and insight. But it is a little disappointing that we must deal with someone who has no background or particular talent for dealing with the issues placed before him.
All the more reason to continue to work hard to get Romney elected next time.
Labels: Wall Street Journal
Monday, June 29, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
From the Washington Wire
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is more popular among the general public now than during 2008’s Republican primary campaign, according to the latest poll from the Pew Research Center on the favorability ratings of leading members of the party.
Some 40% of the general public rates him favorably, while 28% rate him unfavorably. It’s a notable bump from the 30% who gave him high marks in Feb. 2008, and a notable decline from the 44% who viewed him unfavorably last year.
The turnaround is largely fueled by a change of opinion among independents—in February 2008 just 29% of independents had a favorable view while 46% had a negative impression. Now that balance is reversed with 44% viewing him favorable and just 25% unfavorably.
Labels: Pew Research Center, Wall Street Journal, Washington Wire
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
In Tonga, for quite some time before and during the 1960s, there was a "custom", somewhat involuntarily adhered to by the locals, of trading their daughters to British officials for alcohol, money, cigarrettes, or, occasionally, the true necessities of life. Selling the virginity of their young daughters was an abhorrent practice, to be sure, but one some of the more desperate (and ostensibly foolish) Tongans felt to be a necessary evil in order to survive their poverty.
Other times, ships full of European sailors, smugglers, and pirates would come aground and ply local Tongan girls to their boats with promises of riches and adventure far away from the isolation of the Polynesian islands. Tongan girls in the 1950s undoubtedly felt eager to experience the excitement they had heard the outside world offered. All these young women had to do was "get on the boat and go". To their utter and bitter disappointment, the men only used them as sex toys and then tossed them back onto the shore like so much driftwood.
This spirit of moral fuzziness, gluttony, and human trafficking has come to Chicagoland in the form of the 2nd annual "Girls Gone Wild" event at Blarney Island on Petite Lake. A busload of "Girls" arrived during the afternoon of June 13th to begin the ferry voyage to the island. The purpose of the trip? To be photographed for the world's leading so-called "soft porn" video production company by the same name.
You see, the culture today tells women that they can they be firefighters, police officers, doctors, CEOs, and even presidential candidates. The culture also nods approvingly to the idea that young women can have the distinction of becoming potential
multi-millionaire sex goddesses for drooling, overweight, balding, married men, all of whom have a conscience score at or below zero.
All our Chicago area girls needed to do was show up, sign away their privacy and dignity, get on the bus, go to Blarney Island, and be photographed wearing nothing (or next to it). Then, they will eagerly wait in anticipation to be judged sexually appealing enough to make the final cut. If they're "lucky", they'll gain fame and fortune the world over and become overnight porn sensations! I'm sure apology notes will be sent to the "losers" of this so-called contest because they weren't buxom or "wild" enough to win. The "bright" side is that runners up will also
become "overnight" porn "sensations" of a somewhat different
kind. The "losers'" photos will be found, without compensation to them even, all over the Internet, uploaded and downloaded by overweight, balding, hairybacked, married men, all surfing for porn on the Internet at night while their wives and children sleep.
Good luck with those CEO job interviews or political campaigns after the party, Wild Girls.
Doesn't GGW have a right under the First Amendement to be driving a billboard bus filled with and plastered with pictures of mostly naked, barely legal girls through the residential and business districts of our towns and communities? Sadly, the culture exclaims, "Yes!". Though, contrary to the historically revisionist, morally relative presentism of today, the Founding Fathers would have found this sort of thing breathtakingly outrageous and appalling.
Do oversexed men have the absolute right to choose to crowd by the thousands to the boat launches and piers, zip across the lake in gas-guzzling, noisy boats, clamber onto the shore and do at Blarney Island, uh, whatever it is they're thinking might
happen in their wildest dreams? I just threw up in my mouth a little at writing that, but, yes, they do.
So what's the problem? Isn't this just manufactured outrage on my part? Aren't I just a Bible-thumping slightly overweight, hairybacked, right-wing nutjob moralist who, given the chance and a good alibi, might just sneak out on my wife and kids and do the exact same thing? To the first part (believing what the New Testament says about adultery, having witnessed its true consequences, and being slightly overweight and hairybacked), I exclaim, "Yes!"
The answer to the second part, my being a nutjob and a closet cheater, is a resounding "No!"
First of all, nutjobs are people like leftist white supremacist assassin John von Brunn, who have lost all control over themselves and don't care about the consequences their actions bring to others. Second, this is going on smack dab in my neighborhood as I write this. My wife is out for the afternoon and most of the evening. If I were
a nutjob, I could
hire a babysitter to cover my fatherly obligations while I hop on over to Blarney Island. I choose not to, thank goodness, because (unlike the nutjobs down on the lake right now) I'm still master of my own domain.
But, the real point here is not to be lost in the thick of all the issues about America being a free country. No, the real point is this: These young women, however much they're accountable for making their own decisions, are the daughters and sisters of American fathers and brothers
. They are beloved daughters and sisters of men who, under different circumstances where unscrupulous males (can't call them "men" in any true sense) might attempt to take advantage of their offsprings' or siblings' naivete, would stomp those scumbags into the ground. Instead, they're beating feet to look at other mens' daughters and sisters
, braying as they go, only to leave like the boys who, as in Pinocchio
, turned into jackasses upon gorging themselves on Pleasure Island.
It's not hurting anyone? Victimless crime? Tell that to the millions of children and "barely legal" teenage girls worldwide who fall prey to this scam every day
, in all its nefarious and disturbing forms, both here and abroad.
We cannot blame the President, who a little over half of America's hapless hopeandchangers have put into office. No, he wouldn't do anything about this anyways, judging by his pick of child porn defense attorney David Ogden for Deputy Attorney General. We also cannot blame Congress, the Senate, the Governor, or our state legislators (need I say more?). Nay, we cannot even blame the Mayor, the sheriff's office, local police authorities, or city councils.
We can only look into the mirror and blame ourselves for permitting this outrageous act of prostitution and depravity in our community. Our timid silence is our resounding consent
to the rape of the dignity and self-esteem of our community's daughters and sisters. Next year, stand up and be counted. As but one man, to all men I say: Be real
men and demand that "Girls Gone Wild" take its "business" elsewhere.
Monday, June 1, 2009
I'm back after a lengthy break from blogging, and what would you know, there's my man Mitt in the news. The Washington Post had this article about Romney
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney roundly condemned the approach President Obama has taken to redefining the nation's relationship with the rest of the world, describing it as a "tour of apology" in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation yesterday.
At this point Obama has made himself such an easy target for criticism, it's almost like shooting fish in a barrell. Like this one from Mitt in the same article:
"This is the time for strength and confidence, not for apologizing to America's critics," Romney said at one point, adding later that "arrogant, delusional tyrants cannot be stopped by earnest words and furrowed brows."
Like I said, like fish in a barrell.
Labels: Washington Post
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
I'll be attending the convention for the Republican Party of Virginia over the weekend. Romney will be speaking at the Gala tomorrow (Friday) night. I'll provide photos, videos, interviews and more.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
I saw this image, where a soccer mom asks Obama, "I thought you were getting a Hybrid?" Obama is driving a giant SUV that says "Big Gov". I compare what Obama is doing with the government, to what Romney would have done.
Romney took more than skills and knowledge away from Bain; he also acquired a way of thinking, a Weltanschauung—call it the Bain world view. He sees waste and inefficiency in almost moral terms; in fact, his crusade against inefficiency is practically a governing philosophy. "Government inefficiency wastes resources and places a burden on citizens and employers that's harmful to our future," he told me. "And anytime I see waste, or patronage, it bothers me."
Now compare that to Obama.
Reasons to agree
- Romney ran businesses (Bain Capital and Bain Consulting) that purchased poorly ran companies and turned them around.
- Barack Obama is running the country poorly.
- The country will need a massive turnaround in 2012.
The inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine are nothing compared to the waste of energy that big bureaucracies produce.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
(The Obama photo is a photoshop, just in case you are stupid).
Reasons to agree:
- Obama said, "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though" (Dreams from My Father). People who use street names for drugs, are trying to sound cool.
- Perhaps he thought he would reach those who had used drugs and convence them to go straight. However he will have reached more straight kids and convinced them to use drugs, by making it sound cool, showing that he was able to beat it, and using their street names, as though he is still trying to have "street cred".
- Democrats don't like the goody-goody, never used drugs image. Steve Jobs said about Bill Gates, "I wish him the best, I really do. I just think he and Microsoft are a bit narrow. He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger." So according to Steve Jobs, Bill Gates wouldn't be so "narrow" if he had "dropped acid". Was Barack Obama trying to tell people he wasn't "narrow" when he told the world all about his drug use, but he hides, and the media helps him hide his continued cigarette addiction? Did Obama think it was sexy of him to have used drugs in the past, but he is embarrassed of his continued cigarette addiction? If not, why did he tell the world about the former, and no one knows about the latter?
Reasons to disagree:
- Obama was trying to reach people by using the street name. He wasn't trying to sound cool. You are reading way too much into this, and wouldn't want people over analyzing everything you say.
Was Obama too self centered with his drug use story? Will heavy drug use go up? Perhaps it will go down. Obama can be a good or bad role model to people in a powerful way. What do you think?
Monday, May 11, 2009
One author thinks it's time for Steele to go
. I tend to agree.
"On Friday, Michael Steele guest hosted Bill Bennett's radio show - and he got into a conversation with a caller on the subject of Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy. This caller - "Jay" (not me!) - had suggested that Mitt Romney could have won the general election, but that liberals had co-opted the Republican nomination by backing John McCain.
This is how Michael Steele responded (h/t Think Progress):
Yeah, but let me ask you. Ok, Jay, I'm there with you. But remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you're talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you're saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn't, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Steve Schmidt, campaign manager for John McCain had this to say on last night's Hugh Hewitt show
talking about the 2012 Presidential campaign:
If I had to bet money on it, if I had to bet money on it today, you’d have to say that the people that I think look very good, very strong right now are Governor Romney, Governor Huntsman. I think Newt Gingrich, should he run, is going to be a very formidable, very formidable candidate. But the history of the Republican Party nominating process is that it almost always goes to someone who’s been around the track once before. And in that instance, in this instance, it would be Governor Romney. I thought he was a very scary opponent looking from the other side of the table in that he was almost like a learning organism at the end. He just kept getting better week by week by week, and kept becoming stronger. And I think these national campaigns are very unique, and I think most people learn a great deal with they go through them. And I think one of the reasons that President Bush was able to make it through the process the first time, unlike most people on the Republican side, is because he had been up close and personal through a couple of national races. And I think Mitt Romney is a candidate, is a far stronger candidate, prospectively, for the ’12 race because of his experience in ’08 than he was heading into the ’08 race.
Labels: 2012, mitt romney, steve schmidt
Friday, April 24, 2009
Romney this week in National Review
At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Reasons to agree:
"I don't want to wake up four years from now and discover that we still have more young black men in prison than in college." ~ Barack Obama, fund-raiser in Harlem, NY, Nov. 29, 2007.
"Simply untrue, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There may be a case for arguing, as some Obama supporters have done, that the total number of black prisoners is slightly higher than the total number of black students. But I can only fact check the comparison the candidate actually made, which was between young black men in prison and in college. Rather than acknowledge the error, the Obama campaign declined to provide statistical support." Source: GovWatch on 2008 Pinocchio Awards for Biggest Fib of 2007 Jan 1, 2008. As GovWatch points out, there are more black men in prison (age 18 to 100 years old) than there are "young black men" in college. However Obama said there were more young black men in prison than in college, which is far from true.
Reasons to agree:
- We should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior.
" Teachers are extraordinarily frustrated about how their performance is assessed. And not just their own performance, but the school's performance generally. So they're teaching to the tests all the time. What I have said is that we should be able to get buy-in from teachers in terms of how to measure progress. Every teacher I think wants to succeed. And if we give them a pathway to professional development, where we're creating master teachers, they are helping with apprenticeships for young new teachers, they are involved in a variety of other activities, that are really adding value to the schools, then we should be able to give them more money for it. But we should only do it if the teachers themselves have some buy-in in terms of how they're measured. They can't be judged simply on standardized tests that don't take into account whether children are prepared before they get to school or not." ~ Barack Obama, 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007
Q: As president, can you name a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line & say, "You know what? Republicans have a better idea here?"
A: I think that on issues of education, I've been very clear about the fact--and sometimes I've gotten in trouble with the teachers' union on this--that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers.
Q: You mean merit pay?
A: Well, merit pay, the way it's been designed, I think, is based on just a single standardized test--I think is a big mistake, because the way we measure performance may be skewed by whether or not the kids are coming into school already 3 years or 4 years behind. But I think that having assessment tools and then saying, "You know what? Teachers who are on career paths to become better teachers, developing themselves professionally--that we should pay excellence more." I think that's a good idea.
Source: 2008 Fox News interview: presidential series Apr 27, 2008
Friday, February 27, 2009
Governor Mitt Romney's remarks at CPAC
Thank you all very much. It’s good to see all of you, and to be among so many friends. Being at CPAC feels a bit like coming home. Your enthusiastic send off three years ago propelled my campaign to the top of the pack. That status turned out to be temporary, of course. And when the journey was over, both Ann and I were filled with gratitude for your friendship and loyalty. It warmed our hearts, and we thank you. A lot of you have been asking how Ann is doing. And I’m happy to say she’s doing great.
There are so many conservative leaders here this weekend. I was looking forward to seeing Governor Palin again. There’s a rumor that she has been offered an 11-million-dollar book contract. My publisher has been talking to me about an 11-millon-dollar deal as well. I’m just not sure I can come up with that kind of money.
It’s an honor to be introduced by David Keene. His commitment to conservative principles has been tested and proven, in many venues and over many years. Some of you were here with Dave for the very first meeting of CPAC in the 1970s. You’ve been involved long enough to know that like every great cause in America, the conservative movement has periods of success and moments of setback. And in 2008, we had more than our share of disappointments. But we haven’t come to CPAC to dwell on battles we’ve lost. We are here to get ready for the battles we’re going to win.
As conservatives, we face this new year with resolve, but without resentment. Our country has a new president, and he has our prayers and best wishes. In the last eight years, we saw how a president’s political adversaries could be consumed by anger, and even hatred. That is not the spirit that brings us together. We want our country to succeed, no matter who’s in power. We want America to be prosperous and secure, regardless of who gets the credit. At our best, that has always been the mark of the conservative movement – in good times and bad, the interests of this great nation come first.
Right now the interests of America will depend in many ways on the decisions of President Obama. Those choices are his to make, whether or not we see eye to eye. We won’t be afraid to disagree with him when we must. And we won’t be afraid to agree with him when we can. One thing the President can know is that when he takes strong action in defense of the United States, we will stand by him. And we will always support the brave men and women of our nation’s military that he now commands.
We make these commitments out of principle, and our principles don’t depend on elections won or lost. Contrary to what you hear from some commentators on the left, the 2008 elections did very little to settle the most serious differences of opinion in American politics. Some of those issues were hardly debated at all in the fall campaign. As conservatives in opposition, we have a duty to press on …a duty to state our case with confidence.
Some critics speak as if we need to redefine conservatism. I think that misses the mark. America’s challenges are different from year to year, but our defining principles remain the same. Conservatives don’t enter each new political era trying to figure out what we believe. Facing new and complex problems, we find the answers in principles that endure. Ronald Reagan used to say that “the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that what they know is wrong. ” Conservatives don’t claim to know everything, but what we know is right.
Conservatives believe in settling great questions the way the Founders intended – especially where the stakes are the highest. Courts that have undermined the fundamental right to life have shown an equal disregard for the rights of property and the rights of religious freedom. We’ve even seen them extend rights to terrorist combatants who have killed Americans and who would like to kill many more.
In the way of judicial nominees, these next four years aren’t likely to be encouraging. But we conservatives stand for causes that are too important to allow unelected judges to force their own biases on an unwilling nation. We may not always win at the polls, but we believe in democracy …we respect the will of the people …and across this country, we will not stand idly by as liberal judges try to re-write the constitution and override democracy.
I’m often asked these days what Republicans and conservatives have to do to recover. And I’ll bet my answer is the same as yours. Our first concern isn’t a political recovery – it’s the recovery of our country.
We‘re at one of those rare moments in history, when the biggest tests come all at once. We don’t have the luxury of taking them on one by one. We have to get a lot of things right, and all at the same time. We’re in the second year of a major recession, and if we don’t make the right choices, things could get worse. Americans have already lost some 12 trillion dollars in net worth. And the pool of our nation’s investment capital has also shrunk by trillions of dollars.
The President has already moved to stop our economy’s downward spiral. Parts of the stimulus will, in fact, do some good. But too much of the bill was short-sighted and wasteful. Every single Republican in Congress voted in favor of a better stimulus plan, one that focused on creating jobs immediately. But Congressional Democrats couldn’t restrain themselves from larding up their bill with tens of billions of dollars for their political friends. Republicans wanted to stimulate the economy, Democrats wanted to stimulate the government. Conservatives in the House and Senate stood their ground and voted no—and they were absolutely right.
So far, the Administration has been unclear on what it will do to address the huge decline in the pool of risk and investment capital. These losses will be felt in businesses that don’t start-up and grow, and in jobs that don’t get created. To grow the pool of investment capital, the last thing you’d do is to raise taxes on investment, as the President has proposed. The surest, most obvious course is to rule out higher taxes on investment. I would propose going one step further. For all middle-class Americans, we ought to abolish the tax on interest, dividends and capital gains.
This economic crisis has proven that government has an urgent obligation to address some awful abuses we’ve seen in the financial sector, particularly in housing finance. Free markets, properly regulated and allowed to work as they should, have propelled America to be the largest economy in the world. For years, Washington politicians did nothing to prevent the abuses at Fannie and Freddie, and in some cases they encouraged those abuses for political gain. Let’s be clear on this point: conservatives favor clear, streamlined and up-to-date regulations and laws that let the economy work, but we will vigorously oppose those politicians who are poised to use their own failures as an excuse to undermine the free enterprise system.
I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system. But we can agree on this: TARP should not have been used to bail out GM, Chrysler and the UAW. And this is personal for me, I want the U. S. auto industry to succeed. But as some of us pointed out last November, that can only happen if its excessive costs and burdens are restructured. And concessions are going to be few and far between if bondholders and unions already have your money when the negotiating begins. The right answer for Detroit is this: Fix it first.
All of these measures are meant to confront the current economic peril. Properly guided, Washington could in fact speed the recovery. So far, some of the actions it has taken will help, and some will hurt. But we can be certain that the American economy will recover. The invisible hand of the market is more powerful than the lumbering machinery of government. In the final analysis, we know that the private sector – entrepreneurs and businesses large and small – will create the millions of jobs our country needs.
Earlier this week, the President addressed not only the current economy, but also his broader goals. I was pleased that he put healthcare, education, and energy on the agenda. The direction we take on these issues will profoundly shape the future of the nation. I’m afraid I know where the liberal Democrats want to take us. And as they try to pull us in the direction of government-dominated Europe, we’re going to have to fight as never before to make sure that America stays America.
President Obama was awfully vague about some of his plans, but I think I heard him say that government is responsible for educating a child from birth—from birth—to its first job. Universal pre-school and universal college. And there were hints as well of universal healthcare and a universal service corps. It all sounds very appealing, until you realize that these plans mean universal government. That model has never worked anywhere in the world. America is great because our society is free and the power of government is limited by the Constitution.
For the last several years, we’ve heard liberals moaning about the 700 billion dollars that have been spent over six years to win freedom in Iraq. They have now spent more than that in 30 days. And with a government almost 12 trillion dollars in debt, any unnecessary spending puts at risk the creditworthiness of the United States. If the world loses confidence in our currency, that could cause a run on the dollar, or hyperinflation that would wipe out savings and devastate the Middle Class. President Obama says he hopes to cut the deficit in half after four years—does that mean a deficit in 2012 of 600 billion dollars? No president should accept such a staggering deficit, much less hold it up as a national goal. This is the time to pare back government spending. It is not the time to fulfill every liberal dream and spend America into catastrophe.
Congressional Democrats are gearing up to take over the health care system. We need to advance a conservative plan – one based on free choice, personal responsibility, and private medicine; one that doesn’t add massive new federal spending. I like what I proposed in Massachusetts when I was governor. And even though the final bill and its implementation aren’t exactly the way I wanted, the plan is a good model. Today, almost every Massachusetts citizen who had been uninsured now has private, free-market coverage, and we didn’t have to raise taxes or borrow money to make it happen. We may find even better ideas in other states. But let’s make certain that conservative principles are front and center. A big-government takeover of health care is the next thing liberals are going to try, and it’s the last thing America needs.
What America does need is a commitment to reforming entitlements. I believe that Medicaid should be capped and put in the hands of the states; Social Security benefits for high income citizens who are now age 55 or younger, should grow with the consumer price index, not the wage index; and Medicare should be reformed with a dose of free-market reality. These and other reforms are essential, because if we stay on the same road, the next generation could see tax rates 50 percent higher even than ours – and that’s to pay the bills we’ve racked up for ourselves. Passing on that kind of debt to our children is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is morally wrong.
I was glad that the President said he favors charter schools. Did you hear what sound came from the Democratic side of the chamber? Crickets. I hope the President will join all of us to expand school choice, reward better teachers with better pay, raise teacher standards in academic subject-matters like math and science, and enable school districts to remove teachers that don’t make the grade. It is high time to put America’s kids first and leave the union bosses behind.
We and the President agree that America must act to become energy independent. But his cap-and-trade proposal is exactly the wrong way to go about it. It would tax American citizens and employers and send businesses and jobs to high polluting and high emitting nations like China. Any carbon plan has to be worldwide in scope: they don’t call it America-warming, they call it global-warming.
Let’s also be the voice that defends the rights of workers – against coercion and intimidation. The working people of this country should be able to unionize the way their fathers and mothers did – by free choice and secret ballot. The Democrats’ plan to take away those rights is an insult to the dignity and common sense of working people. It would be calamitous for the economy. I know that the Democrats want to pay back the union bosses for all the money they gave them, but they must not do it by selling out the American worker – and democracy.
America voted for change. America did not vote for a boat-load of new government spending programs that would guarantee higher taxes and high deficits as far as the eye can see and that would threaten our currency, our economy, and our future. We must be the alternative course. We can’t be that if all we say is no. Our plans must be clear, compelling, and first to the table. Our plans must have at least one common thread—they must make America stronger. Better education strengthens our kids; better healthcare strengthens our citizens; and bringing our budget into balance strengthens our economy and preserves our future. Today, as much as ever, conservative principles are absolutely essential to keeping America strong and prosperous and free.
With all that is happening here at home, there are some who have forgotten that we are at war, that Iran and its jihadist surrogates are killing our sons and daughters abroad, and hope to do it here. I am pleased that our troops will be coming home from Iraq. But let there be no confusion: it is in spite of Barack Obama’s stance on Iraq, not because of it, that the troops are coming home in victory!
President Obama is barely a month into his term, and, of course, his biggest decisions on national security are still ahead of him. His administration has won the favor of liberal commentators by pledging what it calls reform in the treatment of terrorist detainees. He’s also promised to close down Guantanamo, without giving the slightest indication of the next stop for the killers being held there now. That decision, too, has received the predictable applause from certain law professors and editorial boards.
But here’s the problem. That is the very kind of thinking that left America vulnerable to the attacks of September 11th.
This is not a law enforcement problem. It is the gravest matter of national security, with thousands if not millions of lives in the balance. The jihadists are still at war with America. Our government has no greater duty than a vigilant defense, and no greater cause than victory for America and for freedom.
I had no objection when Barack Obama decided to give his first TV interview to an Arabic broadcaster. But when he said that America in the past has dictated to the world, he was misguided and naïve. And the next time our president speaks to a foreign audience I hope he will remember this basic fact of history: America is not a country that dictates to other nations. We are the country that has freed millions of people from the tyranny of dictators. Never in the history of a world has a single country possessed such great power, and used it for such good purpose across the world, as the United States of America.
I believe President Obama was also mistaken in backing away from our commitment to missile defense. And if he calculated that Russia would respond in kind by showing a little restraint and good will, he quickly learned otherwise. All Russia did to return the favor was bribe Kyrgyzstan to shut down our use of its airports, closing access we needed for our troops serving in Afghanistan. Gestures that communicate a lack of resolve only embolden America’s adversaries. With Iran seeking nuclear weapons, with North Korea already nuclear and selling its technology to the Syrians, it is essential that we construct a missile defense, now.
A lot of you have the memory of coming to CPAC in its early days, when America had challenges so big that many in the world – and even a few in our own government – thought we were in decline. They doubted our ability to compete economically, to face down the dangers of the era, or even to defend our ideals. Today we’re hearing echoes of that era once again, from those who speak of America as if our day has passed.
Some of these critics never cared much for our belief that America occupies a special place …that there is work in the world that only we can do …and that Americans have the heart and the courage to get it done. But we know these things to be true. And to those who question the character of our country, including the new attorney general, let us remind them that America has never been, is not now, and will never be a nation of cowards.
I don’t deny that America’s challenges are great, or that overcoming them will require the best that we have to give. But I know as well that times of difficulty always bring out the essential character of our fellow citizens. When I was a boy, my dad used to say that the pursuit of the difficult makes you strong. Well, the pursuit of the difficult will make America strong. We welcome the challenge. It will call on us, once again, to draw on the incredible resilience, ingenuity, and faith of the free men and women of America.
We don’t get to choose the tests and trials ahead. But we’re entirely free, you and I, to choose how we will meet those tests. We will meet them as conservatives have done before. We will find strength in each other, and answer our opponents with good will and honest words. And we will go forward – confident in our beliefs, and certain of victories to come. Thank you.