Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on February 16, 2012, 11:07:18 AM
-
Romney gets his own thread.
We kick it off with his piece from today's WSJ on China. This could be a good issue for him (contrast Huntsman). IMHO he is positioned well on it to tap into populist sentiment and on the whole I think he is right on the merits.
ROMNEY
Should the 21st century be an American century? To answer, it is only necessary to contemplate the alternatives.
One much bruited these days is that of a Chinese century. With China's billion-plus population, its 10% annual average growth rates, and its burgeoning military power, a China that comes to dominate Asia and much of the globe is increasingly becoming thinkable. The character of the Chinese government—one that marries aspects of the free market with suppression of political and personal freedom—would become a widespread and disquieting norm.
But the dawn of a Chinese century—and the end of an American one—is not inevitable. America possesses inherent strengths that grant us a competitive advantage over China and the rest of the world. We must, however, restore those strengths.
That means shoring up our fiscal and economic standing, rebuilding our military, and renewing faith in our values. We must apply these strengths in our policy toward China to make its path to regional hegemony far more costly than the alternative path of becoming a responsible partner in the international system.
Barack Obama is moving in precisely the wrong direction. The shining accomplishment of the meetings in Washington this week with Xi Jinping—China's vice president and likely future leader—was empty pomp and ceremony.
President Obama came into office as a near supplicant to Beijing, almost begging it to continue buying American debt so as to finance his profligate spending here at home. His administration demurred from raising issues of human rights for fear it would compromise agreement on the global economic crisis or even "the global climate-change crisis." Such weakness has only encouraged Chinese assertiveness and made our allies question our staying power in East Asia.
Enlarge Image
CloseZuma Press
Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, left, with President Obama at the White House on Tuesday.
.Now, three years into his term, the president has belatedly responded with a much-ballyhooed "pivot" to Asia, a phrase that may prove to be as gimmicky and vacuous as his "reset" with Russia. The supposed pivot has been oversold and carries with it an unintended consequence: It has left our allies with the worrying impression that we left the region and might do so again.
The pivot is also vastly under-resourced. Despite his big talk about bolstering our military position in Asia, President Obama's actions will inevitably weaken it. He plans to cut back on naval shipbuilding, shrink our Air Force, and slash our ground forces. Because of his policies and failed leadership, our military is facing nearly $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade.
We must change course.
In the economic arena, we must directly counter abusive Chinese practices in the areas of trade, intellectual property, and currency valuation. While I am prepared to work with Chinese leaders to ensure that our countries both benefit from trade, I will not continue an economic relationship that rewards China's cheating and penalizes American companies and workers.
Unless China changes its ways, on day one of my presidency I will designate it a currency manipulator and take appropriate counteraction. A trade war with China is the last thing I want, but I cannot tolerate our current trade surrender.
We must also maintain military forces commensurate to the long-term challenge posed by China's build-up. For more than a decade now we have witnessed double-digit increases in China's officially reported military spending. And even that does not capture the full extent of its spending on defense. Nor do the gross numbers tell us anything about the most troubling aspects of China's strategy, which is designed to exert pressure on China's neighbors and blunt the ability of the United States to project power into the Pacific and keep the peace from which China itself has benefited.
To preserve our military presence in Asia, I am determined to reverse the Obama administration's defense cuts and maintain a strong military presence in the Pacific. This is not an invitation to conflict. Instead, this policy is a guarantee that the region remains open for cooperative trade, and that economic opportunity and democratic freedom continue to flourish across East Asia.
We must also forthrightly confront the fact that the Chinese government continues to deny its people basic political freedoms and human rights. If the U.S. fails to support dissidents out of fear of offending the Chinese government, if we fail to speak out against the barbaric practices entailed by China's compulsory one-child policy, we will merely embolden China's leaders at the expense of greater liberty.
A nation that represses its own people cannot ultimately be a trusted partner in an international system based on economic and political freedom. While it is obvious that any lasting democratic reform in China cannot be imposed from the outside, it is equally obvious that the Chinese people currently do not yet enjoy the requisite civil and political rights to turn internal dissent into effective reform.
I will never flinch from ensuring that our country is secure. And security in the Pacific means a world in which our economic and military power is second to none. It also means a world in which American values—the values of liberty and opportunity—continue to prevail over those of oppression and authoritarianism.
The sum total of my approach will ensure that this is an American, not a Chinese century. We have much to gain from close relations with a China that is prosperous and free. But we should not fail to recognize that a China that is a prosperous tyranny will increasingly pose problems for us, for its neighbors, and for the entire world.
Mr. Romney is a Republican candidate for president.
-
Apparently one of the reasons Romney is doing badly in Michigan is because he opposed Baraq's bailout-- a position which most of us here support!
The footage of him defending this position that I have seen leaves me with the impression of him being mealy mouthed and defensive-- of a correct position!
IMHO he should be saying that he was right, he does not apologize, and that the auto companies in question would have come out the other side via the proper bankruptcy procedures specified by the law just like ____________ (list here many successful examples).
-
Romney still thinks that he can try to be all things to all people as a winning strategy.
It's not.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WsX2gXwlcfI
-
I just posted this on Pres-2012 thread, did not see the Romney thread. 13 minutes, take a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vijPDdWiyw
Also the Kudlow piece is a very good read: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/24/the_reagan_in_romney_113604.html
-
Politico today with a big link on the Huff Post, the rebuild of the beach house will have a car elevator. That won't hurt Romney's perception of not exactly being the average guy? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74518.html
-
Some interesting insight here on the meaning of Romney's life experiences as a Mormon by a Mormon. Posted here with permission:
Romney is capable of learning from his mistakes.
From what I have heard lately, I wouldn't expect Romney to do ANYTHING on gun control if elected to the Presidency. Why? Mormons are the original Disaster Preparedness people in this country, and most Mormon families in the west (UT, ID, NV, AZ, WY, CO) have at least 3 or 4 firearms in the house. Plenty of word from members of the church has already been whispered his way to STFU on gun control, and the answer back has been 'Wilco'. I'm not talking about Church leadership, I'm talking about rank and file members picking up a pen and writing to him. I did.
I think Romney is a lot more tolerant than Santorum; as a Mormon you learn quickly that outside certain parts of the American West you are a minority, and many people discriminate against you based on religion either overtly or covertly. Bashing Mormons is one of the few acceptable forms of religious bigotry still acceptable. I've experienced it myself, repeatedly...'Oh, you're a Mormon...?' Most Mormons are content to live and let live, so long as no one else tries to impose their views on us. Attacks on our religion will get many Mormons fired up. Mormons aren't generally into persecuting or talking shit about other religions, we've gone through too much of that ourselves to want to throw rocks at others.
Keep in mind, Mormons were actually prepared to fight a war against the United States in 1857 over religious freedom; they had faced significant persecution before in Missouri and Illinois, and they weren't going to accept it from the federal government in Utah. They were prepared to do what a lot of people on this and other forums talk about, and the federal government backed down.
Romney was a missionary, a Bishop, and a Stake President. As a missionary, he had to bust his ass in France amongst a population that was somewhat hostile to Americans in the 1960s, and even more hostile to his religion. He had to totally immerse in that society, live on the economy, learn and proselyte in that language. I've never gone on a mission, but I know many who have. It does a great deal to mature someone, and to broaden their horizons and world view. It teaches a great deal about human nature and psychology, and teaches you a great deal of patience. Getting rejected is a daily event for missionaries, with varying degrees of rudeness. I know guys who had guns pointed at them and their lives threatened by other Christians...generally people of other religions tend to be less hostile to mormon missionaries. The next day, they go out and do it again, and do it for two years, a great deal of it at your own expense. That builds character. You learn a great deal of humility as a missionary. It doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, the church has strict limits on what you can do/bring, and your missionary companinon might have come from very different circumstances and be from yet another country. You change missionary companions every 90-120 days on average during your mission, to help you learn how to work with others. When you get to the mission field, you are the junior companion, and expected to take direction from the senior companion. Toward the last 6-9 months, you become the senior companion, responsible for planning the week's activities. You might be tagged to be a missionary leader, where you are responsible for providing direction to up to a dozen or more missionaries in addition to your own duties as a missionary. That's a lot of responsibility on a 20 year old.
As a Bishop, he acted as a pastor and leader to a group of several hundred people, called a Ward. He gets to listen to people's problems, and acts as a marriage counselor, spiritual advisor, financial advisor (bishops can assist needy members with their finances- pay their bills, buy groceries, pay for car/house repairs, and other issues out of funds available to him). He is closely involved in the Scouting program, and usually accompanies the Scouts on annual trips. He goes out and attends Youth activities, whether it's charitable works for the elderly, refurbishing a neighborhood park, or a Youth dance on a Saturday night. A Bishop gets to do cool things, like counsel unwed teen mothers about their pregnancies and whether they can provide for the child. He gets to counsel the teen dad about his responsibilities to his child and the child's mother, and helps them come to a decision about what they are going to do. He counsels young men and women about their preparation to go on a mission, or their lack of worthiness to do so. Bishops give up a great deal of time with their families during their term of office which lasts 3-7 years. It's one of the most demanding jobs in the LDS Church, and you don't get paid for it at all. Romney did it for 5 years.
A Stake President watches over a regional group of Wards, usually 6-10. He is the next step up from the Bishop. Whatever hot potatos are too hard for a Bishop to handle or has a Bishop stumped, he either asks for advice/direction from the Stake President on how to handle it or he hands it off to the Stake President. Stake Presidents don't get paid either, and they invest a lot of time every month in it. Their term of office lasts 5-10 years. Romney was Stake President for the Boston, MA Stake for 5 years, and saw and dealt with people from wildly varying circumstances and social position.
A lot of people accuse Romney of being a political elitist benefactor of a political dynasty because his father was Governor of Michigan and he was Governor of Massachusetts. I don't see how Michigan and Massachusetts are tied together. The Kennedys...yes they are a political dynasty. Would a Kennedy get elected a great distance away from Massachusetts? I don't think so. That Romney was able to get elected in Massachusetts speaks to his abilities, not his fathers' or his family connections.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not fond of Romney, I'm not enthused by him. I do think that he is proud to be an American, which I don't think is true of Obama. I do think that Romney is proud of America, which I am certain that Obama is not. I do know that Romney has worked hard, faced adversity and rejection, and displayed character and endurance over the course of his life. I don't think that Obama really did. I do think that Romney, through his Church work, is a lot more in tune with 'the problems of the common people' than people generally give him credit for. Romney has proven as a Governor that he is capable of handling an Executive Office, rather than organizing communities or debating in a legislature. I think the fact that Romney's one term as Governor shows that he is NOT a political insider, like Santorum. The fact that he was a successful businessman and then was able to be a successful governor with no prior political experience says a lot about his capabilities. I think that Romney has shown that he is capable of learning from his mistakes. I think he has a better chance of beating Obama than Santorum does.
Those are the reasons I will vote for Romney.
Mike
-
(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/romneybutton1.jpg)
-
Here in Munich I am less in touch with the day to day of American politics. To what is this in reference?
-
Decades ago, Mittens took the family dog on car trip with the kids. The dog traveled on top of the car in a crate (with a windshield Mitt made for it). The dems tried to make an issue of it so the response was to note from one of Buraq's autobiographies how he ate dog in Indonesia. The jokes haven't stopped since then!
"Mitt had a dog on his roof, Buraq had a dog on the roof of his mouth". And so on....
-
Decades ago, Mittens took the family dog on car trip with the kids. The dog traveled on top of the car in a crate (with a windshield Mitt made for it). The dems tried to make an issue of it so the response was to note from one of Buraq's autobiographies how he ate dog in Indonesia. The jokes haven't stopped since then!
"Mitt had a dog on his roof, Buraq had a dog on the roof of his mouth". And so on....
At least Buraq didn't eat pork. Poor little guy never would make it to heaven. Michelle isn't going to be happy sharing him with the rest of his harem. I'm sure that Buraq's Turkish mentor doesn't I.dulge in pork either. Normally I wouldn't joke, but he somehow made it into the Whitehouse and it isn't his skin colour that I take issue with, nor his religious choice. It's the fact that Muslim and American Constitutionalist values are not one and the same. Someone was describing Buraq as a Marxist. I think that it is much worse than that. It's just that the remnants of the Constitution haven't fully let that dog off his leash yet. Spending 20 years listening to anti-american rhetoric with a bedmate that talks about how ashamed she is of America just bolsters the point. I'll leave the fact that they and every other American being within the wealthiest group in the world, alone.
Buraq.... Turkey...raiding children. Makes me sick. This sure as hell idn't the farm and America I grew up on and in.
-
"From what I have heard lately, I wouldn't expect Romney to do ANYTHING on gun control if elected to the Presidency. Why? Mormons are the original Disaster Preparedness people in this country, and most Mormon families in the west (UT, ID, NV, AZ, WY, CO) have at least 3 or 4 firearms in the house. Plenty of word from members of the church has already been whispered his way to STFU on gun control, and the answer back has been 'Wilco'. I'm not talking about Church leadership, I'm talking about rank and file members picking up a pen and writing to him. I did."
Not trying to sidetrack the thread but as a Mormon I just learned this from a Non-Mormon last night, LOL
John M. Browning was Mormon too. John M. Browning was responsible for the invention of many firearms too according to this Wikipedia reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning#John_M._Browning_and_Winchester_Repeating_Arms_Company
I just thought it was interesting.
-
"From what I have heard lately, I wouldn't expect Romney to do ANYTHING on gun control if elected to the Presidency. Why? Mormons are the original Disaster Preparedness people in this country, and most Mormon families in the west (UT, ID, NV, AZ, WY, CO) have at least 3 or 4 firearms in the house. Plenty of word from members of the church has already been whispered his way to STFU on gun control, and the answer back has been 'Wilco'. I'm not talking about Church leadership, I'm talking about rank and file members picking up a pen and writing to him. I did."
Not trying to sidetrack the thread but as a Mormon I just learned this from a Non-Mormon last night, LOL
John M. Browning was Mormon too. John M. Browning was responsible for the invention of many firearms too according to this Wikipedia reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning#John_M._Browning_and_Winchester_Repeating_Arms_Company
I just thought it was interesting.
Browning was the Tesla of firearms. Didn't know he was LDS.
-
"I wouldn't expect Romney to do ANYTHING on gun control...Mormons are the original Disaster Preparedness people ... Mormon families in the west (UT, ID, NV, AZ, WY, CO) have at least 3 or 4 firearms in the house. Plenty of word from members of the church has already been whispered his way to STFU on gun control, and the answer back has been 'Wilco'. I'm not talking about Church leadership, I'm talking about rank and file members picking up a pen and writing to him. I did."
Very good point. Nevada in particular is a swing state, also Colorado and Arizona. He will have to make assurances to voters.
Governor Romney is smart enough (IMO) to know there is a difference between governing Massachusetts and governing America - on a host of issues. He knows he won't be getting 270 electoral votes from the Northeast. He needs at least 5 of those 6 states listed in order to win. Colorado is tough - because they let Californians in.
-
"Here's a number you're going to hear a lot on this campaign: 23 million," Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to Mitt Romney, said on "Face the Nation," referring to 12.7 million unemployed, 7.7 million underemployed and more than 3 million Americans who are discouraged from finding work or have dropped out of the job search, according to the latest numbers by the Department of Labor.
President Obama did not create this recession, but his policies are not working for these people..."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/22/fehrnstrom_23_million_reasons_to_vote_for_romney.html
-
Showing good instincts , , ,
-
[Romney] "Showing good instincts , , ,"
... and good discipline. They have not let themselves get led down the wrong road very far on distractions.
Strong America and a robust private economy versus big government, unemployment and a stagnant economy. No shiny objects. No lunar colonies, no matter their merit. No leading with issues that divide your own base.
-
Dorothy Rabinowitz is old school WSJ. Here she lets MR have it:
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
From all corners of the commentariat, advisers friendly and unfriendly have declared it time for Mitt Romney to reveal himself—to let go at last and show the real Mitt he's allegedly been keeping secret. A fetching notion, but not the kind that wins elections. Forget the real Romney. Voters looking for a victory over Barack Obama would settle for the Romney on hand—the only real one, and unlikely to get any more so—as long as he's equipped for the requirements of the battle ahead.
It would help if he showed, first of all, a capacity to run a campaign not obviously dependent on the latest polls, or the fears of consultants. He could begin by ignoring the chorus of hysterics agonizing over the gender gap, then proceed to comport himself like a presidential candidate who grasps that women see themselves as citizens like any other—not as a separate group assigned victim status, to be favored with special tenderness.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
The presumptive Republican nominee and his wife, Ann
.He could see to it that the women of America aren't favored by any more shout-outs from Ann Romney during his campaign appearances. The Romney campaign has had some famous streaks of tone deafness but nothing quite as strange as Mrs. Romney's congratulations to women on Super Tuesday night, with arm-waving and huzzahs, cheerleader-style. Women were concerned with things like the economy, with jobs, Mrs. Romney joyfully announced. A testimonial that suggested, unmistakably, that this interest in jobs and the state of the economy was—in the view of the Romney campaign—a new and wondrous achievement for the gender that had had, until now, hardly a thought about such matters.
The congratulations-to-women-for-thinking theme continues apace. On April 23, Mrs. Romney told a Connecticut audience of her happy discovery that women she had encountered were interested in the economy. "Believe it or not," she marveled, "they were talking about budget deficits." We can believe it. What's hard to believe is that pronouncements like this are anyone's notion of outreach to female voters. Mr. Romney would do well to skip the obeisances to women, along with all other knee-jerk responses to the programmed war-against-women accusations mounted by Democrats.
He'd do well, too, to discard the established wisdom that his indisputably appealing wife is his most powerful weapon—and to cease regularly throwing her at audiences. There is only one campaign presence that counts for voters, and his name is at the top of the ticket.
If that ticket is to be a winning one, Mr. Romney had better begin doing what Republican primary candidates so assiduously avoided doing for so many months. Other than those pronouncements extracted by debate moderators, there has been no silence more deafening, more ridden with fear—fear of the isolationist wing of the tea party—than that shown by the Republican candidates this year on matters of foreign policy.
Mr. Romney had better spell out clear positions on that, and on our national security. Even now the ideologically deranged sector of the tea party—tormented believers whose every living hour is devoted to the discovery of newer and more terrible violations of the Constitution—is pushing a serious legal war on the government's right to detain terrorists.
Related Video
Editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz says Mitt Romney needs to improve his game. Photo: Getty Images
.
.We should hear from Mr. Romney on a matter of this kind. And in full and bold detail, what the voice of America will be in a Romney presidency—what it will stand for in regard to Syria, Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan. It won't be enough to assert in passing that we intend to stand by America's allies, or that there will be no more apologizing for the United States, splendid vows though they are.
Mr. Romney will have to run against President Obama with roughly the firepower with which he dispatched his competitors for the Republican nomination—and he'll have to do it in his own voice, unflinchingly. He might take a lesson from the example of John McCain, today the most formidably cogent, spirited and relentless of Mr. Obama's critics.
Little of this was on display four years ago, during Sen. McCain's own presidential run, a picture of hesitancy and political caution. A campaign in which the candidate—fearing charges of racism—refused even to mention the reality of Mr. Obama's 20 years of happy obliviousness to the hate-consumed, anti-American tirades of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Such cautions did not prevent the Obama campaign and its surrogates from hurling charges of racism at every opportunity, including in the primary race, when Bill Clinton himself—known to some as the first black president—stood accused.
Things won't be different this election season, Mr. Romney should know. The race card will be played even more energetically this time around, despite such proof of racism as white America's overwhelming support that put Mr. Obama into the presidency in the first place. Mr. Romney could do worse than a presidential run in the spirit of the Mr. McCain we see today—a man free of useless caution. Of course, the senator now has a fat target: the four years of the Obama presidency. But so has Mr. Romney.
The Republican nominee to be may not find it easy to drop the habits and training of his primary campaign—the most cautious, heavily managed, no-unplanned-moment-allowed quest for the nomination in memory. He'll have to do it, nevertheless—perhaps by recognizing that he won not because of that caution but in spite of it.
It would help, finally, if Mr. Romney proved himself the first candidate in years to grasp that aspirants to the presidency who appear on late-night comedy shows invariably end up looking like buffoons. That's in addition to denigrating their candidacy, the presidency itself, and looking unutterably pathetic in the effort to look like regular guys.
Most voters with any sense—this will perhaps exclude a fair number of the screamers in the late-night studio audiences—will understand that the candidate isn't one of them, not even close. That voters in their right minds don't choose a candidate for president because they've had the privilege of seeing him look unspeakably absurd while engaging in obsequious exchanges with late-night hosts.
Americans have good reason these days—count the behavior of the Secret Service as the latest—to value a candidate who not only knows but feels the meaning of the office of the presidency of the United States, its symbolism and of all that's connected to it. Standing up for that symbolism against the showbiz convention of political campaigns today wouldn't be a bad way to begin Mr. Romney's run for the White House—if his handlers allow it.
Someone should tell them it's not the gender gap, stupid—it's backbone. Mr. Romney will begin looking good to voters, women included, when he starts flashing some.
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-stewart-slams-critics-of-mitt-romneys-mormon-faith-you-cant-cherry-pick-the-worst-aspects-of-a-religion/
-
http://www.economist.com/node/21554173?fsrc=nlw|mgt|5-9-2012|1694846|36902856|
-
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/12/hfr-with-or-without-romney-d-c-a-surprising-mormon-stronghold/?hpt=hp_c2
By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor
Alexandria, Virginia (CNN) – A few hundred Mormons filed into a chapel just outside the Washington Beltway one recent Sunday to hear a somewhat unusual presentation: an Obama administration official recounting his conversion to Mormonism.
“I have never in my life had a more powerful experience than that spiritual moment when the spirit of Christ testified to me that the Book of Mormon is true,” Larry Echo Hawk told the audience, which stretched back through the spacious sanctuary and into a gymnasium in the rear.
Echo Hawk’s tear-stained testimonial stands out for a couple of reasons: The White House normally doesn’t dispatch senior staff to bare their souls, and Mormons hew heavily Republican. It’s not every day a top Democrat speaks from a pulpit owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
And yet the presentation by Echo Hawk, then head of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, is also a perfect symbol of a phenomenon that could culminate in Mitt Romney’s arrival at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year: The nation’s capital has become a Mormon stronghold, with Latter-day Saints playing a big and growing role in the Washington establishment.
The well-dressed crowd gathered for Echo Hawk’s speech was dotted with examples of inside-the-beltway Mormon power.
In one pew sits a Mormon stake president – a regional Mormon leader – who came to Washington to write speeches for Ronald Reagan and now runs a lobbying firm downtown.
Behind him in the elegant but plain sanctuary – Mormon chapels are designed with an eye toward functionality and economy – is a retired executive secretary of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A few pews further back, the special assistant to the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan sits next to a local Mormon bishop who came to Washington to work for Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and now leads a congressionally chartered foundation.
Mitt Romney, who would be the first Mormon president if elected, is the son of a cabinet secretary under Richard Nixon.
“In a Republican administration, there will be even more Mormons here,” whispers the bishop, Lewis Larsen, pointing out prominent Washingtonians around the chapel. “Every Republican administration just loads up with them.”
Regardless of which party controls the White House, Mormonism in Washington has been growing for decades.
When Larsen arrived in Washington in the early ’80s, there were a just handful of Mormon meetinghouses in northern Virginia, where he lives. Today, there are more than 25, each housing three separate congregations, or wards, as they’re known in the LDS Church.
“There’s been an absolute explosion in Mormon growth inside the beltway,” Larsen says before slipping out of the pew to crank the air conditioning for the swelling crowd.
The LDS Church says there are 13,000 active members within a 10-mile radius of Washington, though the area’s Mormon temple serves a much larger population – 148,000 Latter-day Saints, stretching from parts of South Carolina to New Jersey.
Signs of the local Mormon population boom transcend the walls of the temple and meetinghouses.
Crystal City, a Virginia neighborhood just across the Potomac River from Washington, has become so popular with young Mormons that it’s known as “Little Provo,” after the Utah city that’s home to church-owned Brigham Young University.
Congress now counts 15 Mormon members, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. That means the 2% of the country that’s Mormon is slightly overrepresented on Capitol Hill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, is the highest-placed elected Mormon in Washington.
Even many Latter-day Saints joke about Washington’s “Mormon mafia” – referring to the number of well-placed LDS Church members across town – though they cringe at the thought of being seen as part of some cabal. (Echo Hawk, for his part, left the Obama administration a few weeks after his chapel presentation for a job in the LDS Church hierarchy).
“No one talks about Washington being an Episcopalian stronghold or a Jewish stronghold,” says Richard Bushman, a Mormon scholar at Columbia University. Talk of “Mormon Washington,” he says, “represents a kind of surprise that people who were thought of as provincial have turned up in sophisticated power positions.”
Bushman and other experts note that, despite Mormons’ growing political power, the official church mostly steers clear of politics. It’s hard to point to federal legislation or a White House initiative that bears distinctly Mormon fingerprints, while it’s easy to do the same for other faiths.
For example, the White House’s recent “compromise” on a rule that would have required religious groups to fund contraception for employees was mostly a reaction to pressure from Roman Catholic bishops.
Nonetheless, Mormon success in Washington is a testament to distinctly Mormon values, shedding light into the heart of one of America’s fastest-growing religions.
And though the official church is mostly apolitical, most rank-and-file Mormons have linked arms with the GOP. Romney’s own political evolution mirrors that trend.
Such forces help explain why Mormons’ beltway power is poised to grow even stronger in coming years, whether or not Romney wins the White House.
‘A ton of Mormon contacts’
For many Washington Mormons, religion plays a key role in explaining why they’re here.
Larsen, who sports a brown comb-over and tortoise shell glasses, arrived in Washington in the early 1980s as an intern for Hatch, also a Mormon.
He landed the internship courtesy of Brigham Young University, his alma mater. The Mormon school owns a four-story dorm on Pennsylvania Avenue, not too far from the White House, which houses 120 student interns each year. It’s the school’s largest such program in the nation.
“Part of our church’s tradition is to be connected with civic life, to make our communities better,” says BYU’s Scott Dunaway, who helps place students on Capitol Hill, at the Smithsonian and other Washington institutions. “We don’t believe in being reclusive.”
It’s a perfect characterization of Larsen. He grew up in Provo, in the shadow of BYU, and wanted to prove he could make it outside of Utah.
“Kids growing up in the LDS Church have been told, ‘Go ye out in the world and preach the gospel of Christ - don’t be afraid to be an example,’ ” Larsen said, sitting in the glass-doored conference room of the foundation he runs on K Street.
“So we are on our missions, converting people to Christianity,” he continued. “And coming to Washington, for me and probably for a lot of people, came out of that interest. We see it as our career, but also we’re going out to preach the word of Christ.”
For Larsen, that usually means correcting misinformation about Mormonism or explaining Mormon beliefs and practices – you really don’t drink coffee, ever? – over lunch with co-workers or at business functions, rather than on-the-job proselytizing.
He learned about integrating work and faith from Hatch. He was initially shocked to discover that the senator prays in his office each morning. Larsen and Hatch developed what the bishop calls a “father-son” relationship, with the intern rising up through the ranks to become Hatch’s chief Washington fundraiser.
“We would go on trips, and I’d quiz him on the plane: Why did the church do this? Why didn’t the church do this?” Larsen said. “He was like a tutor to me.”
Now, as the head of a foundation that educates teachers about the U.S. Constitution, the bishop helps other young Mormons with job leads and introductions. Larsen was appointed to the role by Hatch and the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Much of Washington’s Mormon professional network is still anchored by BYU, which operates a handful of big, well-connected alumni groups with major Washington chapters. The most prominent is BYU’s Management Society, a global organization whose biggest chapter is in Washington.
At the chapter’s recent alumni dinner, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was the guest of honor. She has strong ties to the Mormon community and has hired Mormons as top aides. Says Larsen: “Condi’s got a ton of Mormon contacts.”
Patrice Pederson also knows how to work a Rolodex. A lifelong political activist, she moved from Utah to Washington last year and soon tapped into BYU’s local network.
Pederson served as the U.S.-based campaign manager for Yeah Samake, a Mormon running for president in the West African nation of Mali.
Samake traveled frequently to the U.S. to raise money and build political support, so Pederson enlisted the help of BYU’s Management Society and other groups to host events for the candidate.
Both in Washington and across the U.S., many Mormons are watching his candidacy.
“Members of the church on Capital Hill were anxious to introduce the candidate to other members of Congress,” says Pederson, sipping an herbal tea (Mormons eschew black leaf teas) in a strip mall Starbucks near her apartment in Alexandria, Virginia.
“It’s cool to have a member of the church running for president in Africa.”
Beyond making connections, many Washington Mormons say the LDS Church provides an ideal proving ground for careers here.
Unlike most churches, it has no professional clergy; from the bishop to the organist, each role is filled by everyday Mormons, most of whom have other day jobs. As a result, Mormons take church leadership roles at an early age, speaking publicly at Sunday services almost as soon they learn to talk.
“My kids grew up in the church, and we get together for three hours on Sundays, and each member needs to get up and speak,” says U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. “By the time they graduate, they have all these speaking assignments that other teenagers just don’t have.
U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, says Mormonism provides ideal training for aspiring politicians.
“For those who grow up in the Mormon church, they are taught skills that allow them to be successful in a tough city like Washington,” says Chaffetz, who converted to Mormonism shortly after college.
Young Mormons also hone leadership skills by serving missions away from home. The missions last from one and half to two years and happen when Mormons are in their late teens and early 20s and often include intensive foreign language training.
“Young Mormons are more formidable in public settings and international settings than others,” says Terryl Givens, a Mormon scholar at the University of Richmond. “Normally you would have to acquire more age and work experience before you feel comfortable and useful at NGOs and think tanks.”
Chaffetz, whose son is serving a mission in Ghana, says the experience is the perfect preparation for political careers.
“They learn rejection early on,” he says. “If you’re going to be in politics, that’s a pretty good attribute.”
Christina Tomlinson served her mission in nonexotic Fresno, California. But working with the Laotian community there, she acquired the foreign language skills that landed her first internship at the U.S. State Department.
“I look back at that and it’s nothing but divine providence,” Tomlinson says one night at an office building-turned-chapel in Crystal City, after a weekly discussion about Mormon teachings. “I would have never made those choices.”
When she arrived at her foreign service orientation in the late 1990s, Tomlinson was surprised to find that a half-dozen of her State Department colleagues were also Mormon. The thriving LDS community at State even runs its own e-mail list server so Latter-day Saints can find each other wherever in the world they’re stationed.
Like former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, who used the Mandarin language skills acquired through a Mormon mission to Taiwan to help secure his job as President Barack Obama’s previous ambassador to China, Tomlinson leveraged her mission to get ahead at State, where she now serves as special assistant to the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“I’m basically the chief of staff for the president’s representative charged with implementing U.S. foreign policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan,” she e-mailed on a recent plane ride back from the region.
Language skills acquired on a Mormon mission helped Christina Tomlinson get her start at the State Department.
At the point of a bayonet
Like many Mormons, Tomlinson says her professional life is driven by a faith-based patriotism that sounds old-fashioned to modern ears: “I just really wanted to serve my country.”
But that distinctly Mormon patriotism was hard-won. From their very beginning, Mormons had tried to forge a special relationship with Washington. And for decades, they failed.
Joseph Smith, who founded Mormonism in the 1830s, petitioned the U.S. government to protect his fledgling religious community from the violent persecution it was experiencing, even meeting repeatedly with President Martin Van Buren.
But Washington refused, provoking Smith – who Mormons consider their founding prophet – to run for president himself in 1844. He was assassinated by an anti-Mormon mob in Missouri well before Election Day.
In the face of such attacks, Mormons fled west, to the territory that’s now Utah. But they continued to seek ties with Washington, dispatching representatives to the capital to lobby for statehood.
Congress refused to grant it. Instead, Uncle Sam disincorporated the LDS Church and sent the U.S. Army to police Mormon territory.
In the eyes of Washington, Latter-day Saints were flouting federal law by practicing polygamy. The feds saw the LDS Church as an undemocratic rival government that threatened Washington’s power.
Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founding prophet, ran for president in 1844 but was killed before Election Day.
Mormons would eventually ban polygamy, paving the way for Utah statehood in 1896. But Congress nonetheless refused to seat the new state’s Mormon senator, who also served as a top church official.
For four years, the U.S. Senate held hearings to grill U.S. Sen. Reed Smoot and other church leaders, alleging that Mormons continued to practice polygamy despite promises to the contrary.
“The political trial was as much a galvanizing cultural moment as was Watergate,” says Kathleen Flake, a scholar of Mormonism at Vanderbilt University in Tenneessee.
When Smoot was eventually seated – after the LDS Church took further steps to stamp out polygamy – he managed to become a Washington powerbroker. He would chair the Senate Finance Committee and act as a presidential adviser.
“He was Mr. Republican,” says Flake. “For a while there, he was the Republican Party.”
Smoot’s unflagging pursuit of legitimacy in Washington, despite the city’s bias against him and his faith, symbolizes what many call a uniquely Mormon appreciation for American civic life. It helps explain the Mormon fascination with Washington to this day.
It may seen counterintuitive, but Mormons’ early exposure to persecution at the hands of other Americans – aided, Mormons say, by the U.S. government – wound up strengthening their patriotic streak.
In the face of attacks, Mormons clung to the U.S. Constitution and its unprecedented guarantee of religious freedom. They distinguished between the document and those charged with implementing it.
Mormon scripture goes so far as to describe the U.S. Constitution as divinely inspired, establishing a unique environment in which Mormonism could emerge.
“Mormons are superpatriots,” says Columbia University’s Bushman. “Joseph Smith said that if the government was doing its job as laid out in the Constitution, it would protect Mormons from their enemies.”
Mormons began to shed their Utah-only siege mentality and fanned out in the early part of the 20th century. Their patriotic streak, which translated into military enlistments and applications for government jobs, led many to Washington.
That wave included J. Willard Marriott, the hotel chain founder, who launched his business career by opening an A&W root beer stand here. He would go on to forge the kind of deep political connections that would help make Willard “Mitt” Romney his namesake.
Washington’s Mormon community got another boost in the 1950s when President Dwight Eisenhower appointed a top church official, Ezra Taft Benson, as his agriculture secretary.
“Mormons took it as a sign of maybe, just maybe, we’re being accepted,” says Flake. “It signified a cultural acceptance of Mormonism. People thought Mormons believed weird things, but also that they were self-reliant, moral and good neighbors.”
As Mormons became more accepted, they became more upwardly mobile, landing in parts of the country that could sustain careers in commerce, academia and government - another reason Washington was a big draw.
By the time there were enough Mormons in the eastern U.S. to justify the construction of the first Mormon temple east of the Mississippi River, the church chose a site just outside Washington.
The temple opened in 1974, shortly after another high-profile Mormon – George Romney, Mitt’s father – left his post as Richard Nixon’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
“The Washington temple served as a symbol of the triumphant return of Mormonism to the east,” says Givens, the University of Richmond professor. “Mormons left from the point of a bayonet in the 1800s and the temple is this gigantic symbol that says ‘We’re back – and we’re back in the nation’s capital.’ ”
The Mormon temple outside Washington was the first such temple built east of the Mississippi River.
Unlike Mormon meetinghouses, where members meet for Sunday worship, temples are grander buildings reserved for certain rites, such as proxy baptisms for the dead.
To this day, the first monument many Washington visitors see isn’t a federal landmark. It’s the massive Mormon temple, its Georgian marble towers and gold-leafed spires looming above the trees on the Washington Beltway like an otherworldly castle.
The temple houses a J. Willard Marriott-financed mural of Jesus Christ’s second coming, which features a picture of the Washington temple itself in the background.
“Are you implying that the millennium will begin in Washington?” a temple visitor once asked Marriott, referring to Jesus’ return.
Replied Marriott: “What better place is there?”
Good at organizing
These days, the Mormon impulse toward Washington is often as much political as patriotic.
Patrice Pederson - the campaign manager for the Mormon running for president in Mali - made her first foray into politics at 15, hopping the bus from her home in the suburbs of Salt Lake City into town to intern with a Republican candidate for the U.S. House.
“I remember that when Bill Clinton was elected, I wore all black to school that day,” says Pederson, who was in junior high at the time. “I was mourning the death of liberty.”
When then-Vice President Al Gore visited Utah, Pederson protested his speech with a homemade poster that said “Blood, Guts & Gore – Healthcare’94.” (She can’t recall the poster’s exact meaning).
Pederson’s activism as a “total hardcore right-winger” continued into her 20s. She put off college at BYU to start a “pro-family” advocacy group aimed at lobbying foreign governments and the United Nations. The work brought her to Washington so frequently that she decided to relocate last year: “I had more friends here than in Utah.”
Pederson’s path to D.C. speaks to the growing Mormon/Republican alliance since the 1960s, driven largely by the emergence of social issues such as abortion and gay marriage and the rise of the Christian Right.
“In the 1950s and ’60s, Utah became Republican,” says Bushman. “It’s partly about being anti-communist, but it’s also a response to the 1960s and the decay of old-fashioned moral virtues. It’s an anti-1960s movement, and the Republicans seemed to be the party of old-fashioned virtues.”
Pederson’s roommate, Kodie Ruzicka, grew up squarely in that movement, with her mom heading the Utah chapter of Eagle Forum, a conservative Christian group founded by rightwing icon Phyllis Schlafly.
In the 1970s, when the Catholic Schlafly led a successful grassroots campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have made gender-based discrimination unconstitutional, she enlisted the help of Mormons.
To its opponents, including the LDS Church, the ERA was the work of radical feminists who wanted to upend traditional gender roles.
Much of Schlafly’s organizing was among evangelicals, and “given the sometimes hostile evangelical line on Mormons, [Schlafly’s] Mormon outreach was kind of revolutionary,” says Ruzicka, who now works at the Justice Department. “But we’re good at organizing, and we have a lot of useful structures for it, so that was useful to her.”
Today, Mormons head Eagle Forum chapters across the West, including California, Arizona and Nevada, as well as Utah.
Bridge-building between Mormons and the conservative movement helps explain the Reagan administration’s push to hire many Mormons into the White House - which further cemented the alliance. That bond continues to lure Mormons to D.C.
Ruzicka, for one, continued in the political footsteps of her mother, arriving in Washington in her mid-20s to lead a nonprofit that promotes safe haven laws, which allow young mothers to legally abandon young children at fire stations.
Beyond hot-button social issues, U.S. Rep. Chaffetz says the Mormon faith engenders support for limited government.
“The church is very adamant about personal responsibility, and for people to voluntarily participate in service,” the Utah Republican says. “There’s this feeling that service is not something that should be mandated by government.”
The LDS Church, for its part, insists it is politically neutral and that it avoids pressuring Mormon elected officials to tow a church line. “The church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians,” the church’s website says.
Mormon experts say the church’s support for a relatively strict separation of church and state is born of the U.S. government’s refusal to help Mormons in the face of early persecution.
And after being accused of setting up a rival government around the turn of the last century, the church is loath to be seen giving marching orders to LDS politicians.
The church did, however, play a leading role in passing Prop 8, California’s gay marriage ban, in 2008. Church officials called it a moral cause, not a political one.
Plenty of critics disagree. But neither Mormon bishops nor church officials are known to lead the kind of church-based legislative lobbying efforts that Catholic bishops or evangelical leaders do.
Mitt Romney himself embodies the reluctance of Mormon politicians to connect their religion and their public policy positions, in contrast to politicians of other faiths.
That reluctance also appears to be born of anxiety over Americans’ lingering questions and doubts about Mormonism. When Pew asked Americans last year what word they associated with the Mormon faith, the most common response was “cult.”
In recent weeks, Romney’s newfound position as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has produced a mix of excitement and worry among Mormons. That’s especially true in Washington, where politically savvy Latter-day Saints send out frequent e-mail round-ups of Mormon media coverage to their LDS networks.
“A lot of us know it’s ultimately a good thing, but it’s hard to feel like it’s a good thing because so much of the publicity is about things you wouldn’t talk about in polite company, like my underwear,” says Pederson, referring to the enduring fascination with Mormon undergarments.
Like many conservatives, Pederson is suspicious of Romney.
“I don’t like his waffling, to put it gently, on life and family issues,” she says. “But if it comes down to Romney versus Obama, hand me the pom-poms. I’ll be president of the Romney-Is-the-Best-We-Can-Come-Up-With-for-President Club.”
For now, Pederson is working with the National Right to Life Committee’s political action committee to raise money for the Romney effort, even as she makes up her mind about how actively she wants to promote his candidacy.
Some of her calculus is about weighing political reality against her conservative idealism. And some of it is about her next professional move. It’s a very Washington place to be.
Dan Gilgoff - CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
Filed under: 2012 Election • Barack Obama • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints • DC • Jon Huntsman • Mitt Romney • Mormonism • Politics
-
The silver spoon argument of course had to do with how you grew up and how you lived your life, not the metal used in your utensils or the bonus checks your dad cashed after you grew up. The bully story had traction for about a minute but didn't march the guy we know now. Successful people who have their own act together it turns out are actually in a better position to help others than poor people generally are. The WashPost could have uncovered a couple of stories like these that follow, except these don't advance the agenda.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/mitt-romney-community-organizer.php
Mitt Romney, community organizer
Was Mitt Romney a jerk in high school? Maybe. But what is the adult Romney like?
From The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman (pages 120-121):
One Saturday, Grant Bennett got up on a ladder outside his two-story [house] intent on dislodging a hornets’ nest, which had formed between an air-conditioning unit and a second floor window. . . .The hornets went right at him, and he fell off the ladder, breaking his foot. . . .Romney learned what had happened and went over that afternoon to see if there was anything he could do. He and Bennett chatted for a few minutes, and then Romney left.
About nine thirty that Sunday night, Romney reappeared. Only this time, it was dark out. Romney was in jeans and a polo shirt instead of his suit, and he was carrying a bucket, a piece of hose, and a couple of screwdrivers. “He said, ‘I noticed you hadn’t gotten rid of the hornets,” Bennett recalled. “I said, ‘Mitt you don’t need to do that.’ He said, I’m here, and I’m going to do it. . .You demonstrated that doing it on a ladder is not a good idea.’” Romney went at it from inside the house, opening a window enough to dislodge it. Soon the hornets were gone.
Everyone who knows Romney in the church community seems to have a story like this, about him and his family pitching in to help in ways big and small. They took chicken and asparagus soup to sick parishioners. They invited unsettled Mormon transplants in their home for lasagna.
Helen Claire Stevens and her husband once loaned a friend from church a six-figure sum and weren’t getting paid back. Suddenly, they couldn’t to pay their daughter’s Harvard College tuition. Romney who was [a local Mormon] leader at the time, not only worked closely with the Stevens family and the loan recipient to try to resolve the problem, he offered to give Stevens and her husband money and tried to help her find a job. “He spent an infinite amount of time with, all the time we needed,” Stevens said. “It was way above and beyond what he had to do”. . . .
On Super Bowl Sunday 1989, Douglas Anderson was at home in Belmont with his four children when a fire broke out. The blaze spread quickly, and all Anderson could think of was racing his family to safety. “There was no thought in my mind other than ‘Get my kids out,’” he said. “I was not thinking about saving anything.” He doesn’t remember when Romney, who lived nearby, showed up. But he got there quickly. Immediately, Romney organized the gathered neighbors, and they began dashing into the house to rescue what could: a desk, couches, books. . . . “They saved some important things for us, and Mitt was the general in charge of that.” This went on until firefighters ordered them to stop. “Literally,” Anderson said, “they were finally kicked out by the firemen as they were bringing hoses and stuff.”
After the fire was finally out, Anderson, Romney, and other church members shared a spiritual moment on the front steps of the charred home. . . .Anderson recalled, “we talked about how even in a case like this, if we tried to be true to our faith, it could turn out to be a positive thing.” Over the many years since, Anderson said, the family has seen that come true.
Romney’s acts of charity extended beyond just the church community. After his friend and neighbor Joseph O’Donnell lost a son, Joey, to cystic fibrosis. . .Romney helped lead a community effort to build Joey’s park, a playground. . .in Belmont. “There he was with a hammer in his belt, the Mitt nobody sees,” O’Donnell said.
Romney didn’t stop there. About a year later, it became apparent that the park would need regular maintenance and repairs. “The next thing I know, my wife calls me up and says, ‘You’re not going to believe this, but Mitt Romney is down with a bunch of Boy Scouts and kids and they’re working on the park,’” said O’Donnell. . . .”He did it for like the next five years, without ever calling to say, ‘We’re doing this,’ without a reporter in tow, not looking for any credit.”
Perhaps these sorts of actions signify what it meant to be a community organizer before the left politicized the concept.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/us/politics/how-the-mormon-church-shaped-mitt-romney.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1
Romney’s Faith, Silent but Deep
By JODI KANTOR
Published: May 19, 2012
•
BELMONT, Mass. — When Mitt Romney embarked on his first political race in 1994, he also slipped into a humble new role in the Mormon congregation he once led. On Sunday mornings, he stood in the sunlit chapel here teaching Bible classes for adults.
Eric Thayer for The New York Times
Leading students through stories about Jesus and the Nephite and Lamanite tribes, who Mormons believe once populated the Americas, and tossing out peanut butter cups as rewards, Mr. Romney always returned to the same question: how could students apply the lessons of Mormon scripture in their daily lives?
Now, as the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Mr. Romney speaks so sparingly about his faith — he and his aides frequently stipulate that he does not impose his beliefs on others — that its influence on him can be difficult to detect.
But dozens of the candidate’s friends, fellow church members and relatives describe a man whose faith is his design for living. The church is by no means his only influence, and its impact cannot be fully untangled from that of his family, which is also steeped in Mormonism.
But being a Latter-day Saint is “at the center of who he really is, if you scrape everything else off,” said Randy Sorensen, who worshiped with Mr. Romney in church.
As a young consultant who arrived at the office before anyone else, Mr. Romney was being “deseret,” a term from the Book of Mormon meaning industrious as a honeybee, and he recruited colleagues and clients with the zeal of the missionary he once was. Mitt and Ann Romney’s marriage is strong because they believe they will live together in an eternal afterlife, relatives and friends say, which motivates them to iron out conflicts.
Mr. Romney’s penchant for rules mirrors that of his church, where he once excommunicated adulterers and sometimes discouraged mothers from working outside the home. He may have many reasons for abhorring debt, wanting to limit federal power, promoting self-reliance and stressing the unique destiny of the United States, but those are all traditionally Mormon traits as well.
Outside the spotlight, Mr. Romney can be demonstrative about his faith: belting out hymns (“What a Friend We Have in Jesus”) while horseback riding, fasting on designated days and finding a Mormon congregation to slip into on Sundays, no matter where he is.
He prays for divine guidance on business decisions and political races, say those who have joined him. Sometimes on the campaign trail, Mr. and Mrs. Romney retreat to a quiet corner, bow their heads, clasp hands and share a brief prayer, said Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican who has traveled with them.
Clayton M. Christensen, a business professor at Harvard and a friend from church, said the question that drove the Sunday school classes — how to apply Mormon gospel in the wider world — also drives Mr. Romney’s life. “He just needs to know what God wants him to do and how he can get it done,” Mr. Christensen said.
Sacred Tenets, Secular Realm
When Mr. Romney’s former Sunday school students listen to him campaign, they sometimes hear echoes of messages he delivered to them years before: beliefs that stem at least in part from his faith, in a way that casual observers may miss. He is not proselytizing but translating, they say — taking powerful ideas and lessons from the church and applying them in another realm.
Just as Ronald Reagan deployed acting skills on the trail and Barack Obama relied on the language of community organizing, Mitt Romney bears the marks of the theology and culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Mr. Romney declined to be interviewed.)
Mormons have a long tradition of achieving success by sharing secular versions of their tenets, said Matthew Bowman, author of “The Mormon People,” citing Stephen R. Covey’s “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” which he called Latter-day Saint theology repackaged as career advice.
While Mr. Romney has expressed some views at odds with his church’s teachings — in Massachusetts, he supported measures related to alcohol and gambling, both frowned upon by the church — other positions flow directly from his faith, including his objections to abortion and same-sex marriage and his notion of self-sufficiency tempered with generosity. The church, which often requests recipients of charity to perform some sort of labor in return, taught Mr. Romney to believe that “there’s a dignity in work and a dignity in helping those who are in need of help,” his eldest son, Tagg, said in an interview.
Or take Mr. Romney’s frequent tributes to American exceptionalism. “I refuse to believe that America is just another place on the map with a flag,” he said in announcing his bid for the presidency last June. Every presidential candidate highlights patriotism, but Mr. Romney’s is backed by the Mormon belief that the United States was chosen by God to play a special role in history, its Constitution divinely inspired.
(Page 2 of 4)
“He is an unabashed, unapologetic believer that America is the Promised Land,” said Douglas D. Anderson, dean of the business school at Utah State University and a friend, and that leading it is “an obligation and responsibility to God.”
In Mr. Romney’s upbeat promises that he can rouse the economy from its long slump, fellow Mormons hear their faith’s emphasis on resilience and can-do optimism. He believes that people “can learn to be happy and prosperous,” said Philip Barlow, a professor of Mormon history at Utah State who served with him in church. “There is some depth and long tradition behind what can come across in sound bites as thin cheerleading.”
Similarly, he said, Mr. Romney’s squeaky-clean persona — only recently did he stop using words like “golly” in public — can make him seem “too plastic, the Ken side of a Ken and Barbie doll,” Mr. Barlow said.
He and others say that wholesomeness is deeply authentic to Mr. Romney, whose spiritual life revolves around personal rectitude. In Mormonism, salvation depends in part on constantly making oneself purer and therefore more godlike.
In the temple Mr. Romney helped build in Belmont, as in every other, members change from street clothes into all-white garb when they arrive, to emphasize their elevated state. As a church leader, he enforced standards, evaluating members for a “temple recommend,” a gold-and-white pass permitting only the virtuous to enter.
A Man of Rules
Mr. Romney is quick to uphold rules great and small. During primary debates, when his rivals spoke out of turn or exceeded their allotted time, he would sometimes lecture them. When supporters ask Mr. Romney to sign dollar bills or American flags, he refuses and often gives them a little lesson about why doing so is against the law.
Doing things by the book has been a hallmark of his career in public life. When Mr. Romney took over the Salt Lake City Olympics, which were dogged by ethical problems, he cast himself as a heroic reformer. As governor of Massachusetts, he depicted himself as a voice of integrity amid what he called the back-scratchers and ethically dubious lifers of state government.
In church, Mr. Romney frequently spoke about obeying authority, the danger of rationalizing misbehavior and God’s fixed standards. “Most people, if they don’t want to do what God wants them to do, they move what God wants them to do about four feet over,” he once told his congregation, holding out his arms to indicate the distance, Mr. Christensen remembered.
He often urged adherence even to rules that could seem overly harsh. One fellow worshiper, Justin Brown, recalled in an interview that when he was a young man leaving for his mission abroad, Mr. Romney warned him that some parameters would make no sense, but to follow them anyway and trust that they had unseen value.
Church officials say Mr. Romney tried to be sensitive and merciful; when a college student faced serious penalties for having premarital sex, Mr. Romney put him on a kind of probation instead. But he carried out excommunications faithfully. “Mitt was very much by the rules,” said Tony Kimball, who later served as his executive secretary in the church.
Nearly two decades ago, Randy and Janna Sorensen approached Mr. Romney, then a church official, for help: unable to have a baby on their own, they wanted to adopt but could not do so through the church, which did not facilitate adoptions for mothers who worked outside the home.
Devastated, they told Mr. Romney that the rule was unjust and that they needed two incomes to live in Boston. Mr. Romney helped, but not by challenging church authorities. He took a calculator to the Sorensen household budget and showed how with a few sacrifices, Ms. Sorensen could quit her job. Their children are now grown, and Mr. Sorensen said they were so grateful that they had considered naming a child Mitt. (The church has since relaxed its prohibition on adoption for women who work outside the home.)
Among the Belmont Mormons, stories abound of Mr. Romney acting out the values he professed in church. The Romneys left their son Tagg’s wedding reception early to take some of the food to a neighbor being treated for breast cancer.
Page 3 of 4)
But many also see a gap between his religious ideals — in Sunday school, he urged his students to act with the highest standards of kindness and integrity — and his political tactics. The chasm has been hard to reconcile, even though people close to him say he is serious about trying to do so.
Mormonism teaches respect for secular authorities as well as religious ones, but “politics has required him to go against form,” said Richard Bushman, a leading historian of the church who knows Mr. Romney from church.
For example, Mr. Romney had ruled out running personal attack ads against political rivals, those close to him said. When Senator Edward M. Kennedy attacked him as an uncaring capitalist in 1994, using ads that exaggerated Mr. Romney’s role in Bain-related layoffs, Mr. Romney refused to punch back and exploit Mr. Kennedy’s history of womanizing. “Winning is not important enough to put aside my ideals and principles,” Mr. Romney told aides.
But when he ran for governor in 2002, his campaign targeted the husband of his general election opponent, Shannon O’Brien (he had formerly worked as a lobbyist for Enron; the ads linked him to problems at the company that he had nothing to do with.)
Last week, Mr. Romney repudiated efforts to attack President Obama based on his past relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. But earlier this year, he suggested that Mr. Obama wanted to make the United States “a less Christian nation.”
“I have absolutely no idea how he rationalizes it,” Mr. Kimball said of Mr. Romney’s harshest statements and attacks. “It almost seems to be the ends justifying the means.”
Relying on Prayer
Though Mr. Romney almost never discusses it or performs it in public, prayer is a regular and important part of his life, say friends who have joined him. They describe him closing his eyes and addressing God with thees and thous, composing his message to suit the occasion, whether at a church meeting, at a hospital bedside or in a solemn moment with family and friends.
“Prayer is not a rote thing with him,” said Ann N. Madsen, a Bible scholar and a friend. Rather than requesting a specific outcome, he more often asks for strength, wisdom and courage, according to several people who have prayed with him. “Help us see how to navigate this particular problem,” he often asks, according to Dr. Lewis Hassell, who served with Mr. Romney in church.
Former colleagues say they do not recall Mr. Romney praying in the workplace — some say they barely heard the word “God” come from his lips — but he did pray about work from his home.
“I remember literally kneeling down with Mitt at his home and praying about our firm,” Bob Gay, a former Bain colleague and current church official, told Jeff Benedict, author of “The Mormon Way of Doing Business.” “We did that in times of crisis, and we prayed that we’d do right by our people and our investors.”
Mr. Romney also prays before taking action on decisions he has already made, asking for divine reassurance, a feeling that he is “united with the powers above,” Dr. Hassell said. Sometimes Mr. Romney would report that even though he had made a decision on the merits, prayer had changed his mind. “Even though rationally this looks like the thing to do, I just have a feeling we shouldn’t do it,” he would say, according to Grant Bennett, another friend and church leader.
Mr. Romney has also asked for divine sustenance during his political runs. The night before he declared his candidacy for governor, he and his family prayed at home with Gloria White-Hammond and Ray Hammond, friends and pastors of a Boston-area African Methodist Episcopal church.
His earlier failed run for United States Senate had all been part of God’s plan, Mrs. Romney told Ms. White-Hammond around that time. Mr. Romney had lost, but “just because God says for you to do something doesn’t mean the outcome is going to be what you want it to be,” Ms. White-Hammond remembered Mrs. Romney saying.
(Page 4 of 4)
Having a higher purpose is part of what motivates Mr. Romney, many of those close to him say, and gives him the wherewithal to suffer the slings and arrows of political life. Mormons have a “history of persistence and tenacity, a sense of living out a destiny that is connected to earlier generations,” said Mr. Anderson, the business school dean. Mr. Romney is driven by “responsibility to his father and his father’s fathers to use his time and talent and energy and whatever gifts he’s been given by the Lord to try to make a contribution.”
And while voters tend to see Mr. Romney as immensely fortunate, those close to him say that he never forgets he is a member of an oft-derided religious minority. The chapel where Mr. Romney taught Sunday school burned in a case of suspected arson in the 1980s, a still-unsolved crime that church members attribute to prejudice.
As a candidate for governor, Mr. Romney endured crude jokes, made to his face, including about having more than one wife. After his failed 2008 presidential bid, Mr. Romney told Richard Eyre, a friend, that he wished the church could rebrand itself, replacing the name “Mormon” with “Latter-day Christian” to emphasize its belief in Jesus and the New Testament.
His response to prejudice, friends say, has always been to soldier on and to present the best possible example, knowing that others will draw conclusions about the faith based on his behavior. “In his generation, George Romney was the world’s most famous Mormon, and now Mitt is more famous than his dad,” Mr. Anderson said.
Mr. Romney told fellow Mormons at Bain & Company that they had to work harder and perform better because they had a reputation to defend. With a similar motive, Mr. Romney sent volunteer cleaning crews each week to the churches that lent space to the Belmont Mormons after the chapel fire. Confronted with the nasty joke about Mormons during the race for governor, Mr. Romney brushed it off even as his face tensed, recalled Jonathan Spampinato, his former political director.
“Romneys were made to swim upstream,” he has told friends many times.
About a year ago, Mrs. Romney told Ms. White-Hammond that her husband was probably going to run for president again, and that they were both already praying about the race.
Mr. Romney was still a bit reluctant to re-enter the fray, according to Ms. White-Hammond. But she recalled the soon-to-be candidate’s wife saying that the Romneys both “felt it was what God wanted them to do.”
-
That is a pretty good piece.
"Mr. Romney speaks so sparingly about his faith — he and his aides frequently stipulate that he does not impose his beliefs on others — that its influence on him can be difficult to detect."
Begs the question of whether there will be a companion piece on the opponent's religious upbringing, Muslim in Indonesian, or the 20 years of 'Christian' "God Damn America" themed inspiration he received in his adult life in Chicago. It's 'influence on him' can also be 'difficult to detect'.
-
It's been a good week for Mitt Romney. The polls are up, he's just off a two-day swing through Connecticut and New York, where he hauled in big donors and hard money, and he swept the GOP primaries in Kentucky and Arkansas. On Tuesday Texas will put him over the top and make him, formally and officially, the Republican nominee for president.
Not everything worked—his big education speech Wednesday was wan and pallid—but he's having a moment. In a telephone interview, he reflected on the campaign, tracing his candidacy's upward momentum to an increased sense among voters that the country is on the wrong path and, perhaps, a growing sense that he's proved himself: "I can tell you that we went through those 37 or 38 contests and won the must-win states, and in some cases we started off 10 points behind. And we hustled, worked hard, and convinced the voters." This produced "the kind of track record that people say, 'You know, I think if Mitt can keep that up, in November we're going to see a new president.'"
Candidates on a campaign van look out the window and see America go by. They meet with people, talk. I asked Mr. Romney the difference between the America he saw in 2008 and the one he sees now. "A much higher degree of anxiety today. People much less confident in the security of their job, less confident in the prospects for their children." Four years ago, the economic downturn hadn't occurred. "In my primary, the central issue was Iraq." Now it is the economy.
Enlarge Image
CloseRandy Jones
.Before rallies and town meetings, he always tries to have private, off-the-record meetings with voters. "I sit down with five or six couples or individuals and just go around the table, and I ask them to tell me about their life. And the stories I hear suggest a degree of anxiety which is not reflected in the statistics." He is struck, he said, by the number of people who are employed but in legitimate fear of being let go. He is struck by the number of people who've made investments for their retirement—real estate, 401(k)s—and seen them go down.
He keeps a campaign journal on his iPad: "Now this is going to make my iPad a subject of potential theft!" He used to speak his entries, but now he types them on an attached keyboard. "I've kept up pretty well, actually." He writes every two or three days, so that 10 years from now he can "remember what it was like," but also to capture "the feelings—the ups the downs, the people I meet and the sense I have about what's going to happen. It's kind of fun to go back and read, as Ann and I do from time to time."
Does he love politics—the joy of it, the fight of it? "What I love are the political rallies and town meetings. I love the interchange with individuals that are probing and pushing."
But the game of politics? "I like competition, and I think the game is like a sport for old guys. I mean, you know, I can't compete in competitive sports very well, but I can compete in politics, and there's the—what was the old ABC 'Wide World of Sports' slogan? 'The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.' The only difference is victory is still a thrill, but I don't feel agony in loss."
Do you wake up in a good mood, or do you have to work your way into it? "Depends on the day." He laughs. "Depends on the issue. The only time I'm unhappy is if I've done something that hurt the prospects for the success of our effort."
When was the last time you woke up unhappy? He says he doesn't recall. Then: "Sometimes you're disappointed, but it's mostly disappointment with myself that causes me to be most concerned. This for me is not my life, meaning I don't have to win an election to feel good about myself." He's achieved success in business "beyond my wildest dreams." He's "hoping to make a contribution and go to Washington and go home when it's over. . . . Who I am has long ago been determined by my relationship with the people I love, and with my success in my professional career."
More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns
click here to order her book, Patriotic Grace
.All great political families have myths, stories they tell themselves about how history happened. The great story about Mr. Romney's father, George, is that one word—"brainwashed"—did in his presidential candidacy in 1968. People have hypothesized that Mitt is careful with words and statements, that he edits his thoughts too severely, because of the power of that myth.
"I don't think my father's comment figures into my thinking at all," he says. It's his own mistakes "that make me want to kick myself in the seat of my pants," that "cause me to try and be a little more careful in what I say. . . . I've had a couple of those during the campaign, which have haunted me a little bit, but I'm sure before this is over will haunt me a lot."
Asked for an example, he mentions "I like to be able to fire people." He meant, he says, those, such as health-insurance companies, that provide inadequate services. "I have to think not only about what I say in a full sentence but what I say in a phrase." In the current media environment, "you will be taken out of context, you'll be clipped, and you'll be battered with things you said." He says it is interesting that "the media always says, 'Gosh, we just want you to be spontaneous,' but at the same time if you say anything in the wrong order, you're gonna be sorry!"
What about historic parallelism—the people who say, "This election is 1980 all over again," or, "No, it's 1996"? What year is it?
"It's 2012." He laughs. History sometimes repeats "its lessons," but "history does not repeat itself identically. This is a different time than any other time before it."
"I think there have been inflection points in American history where the course of the nation has changed, where culture, industry, even military strategy have changed." The Civil War was one such time, the turn of the last century another.
He believes we are in one now: "I think America is going to decide whether we will put ourself on a path toward Europe—whether we will become another nation dominated by government, where citizens are dependent on government for the things they want in life, where opportunity is sacrificed, where military strength is depleted to pay for government promises, where unemployment is chronically high and wage growth chronically low. That, in my view, is the course the president has put us upon." If Barack Obama is re-elected, "it will be very difficult to get off that path. If I'm elected, I will usher in a period of economic vitality," that will leave the world "surprised."
Not only the world: "America is going to see a vitality we had not expected."
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html?pagewanted=all
The relationship between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Romney — nurtured over meals in Boston, New York and Jerusalem, strengthened by a network of mutual friends and heightened by their conservative ideologies — has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics and the Middle East.
When Mr. Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Netanyahu offered him firsthand pointers on how to shrink the size of government. When Mr. Netanyahu wanted to encourage pension funds to divest from businesses tied to Iran, Mr. Romney counseled him on which American officials to meet with. And when Mr. Romney first ran for president, Mr. Netanyahu presciently asked him whether he thought Newt Gingrich would ever jump into the race.
Only a few weeks ago, on Super Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a personal briefing by telephone to Mr. Romney about the situation in Iran.
-
Romney’s Historic Opportunity: Low-Cost Energy Fuels Economic Recovery
Posted on May 30, 2012 by Anthony Watts
Editorial by Dr. Fred Singer
Romney can clinch the election by detailing an energy policy that restores jobs, prosperity, and American economic leadership. “To be credible, a reform agenda must have some reform substance.”
——————————————————————————————-
Energy, the life-blood of the economy, is the Achilles heel of President Barack Obama. Mitt Romney can win the November election if he concentrates his campaign on a sensible energy policy.
“Mr. Romney will have to make a case not merely against Mr. Obama’s failings but also for why he has the better plan to restore prosperity.” [WSJ 4-26-12] “…optimistic conservative vision that can inspire the party faithful, appeal to swing voters and set out a governing agenda should he win in November …” source NYT
As a presumed candidate for the US presidency, Romney should spell out now a coherent policy of low-cost and secure energy that would boost the US economy, ensure jobs and prosperity, and raise people up from poverty. Fundamentally, he and his surrogates must educate and inspire the public.
He should pledge specific goals: Lower gasoline prices; cheaper household electricity; cheaper fertilizer for farmers and lower food prices for everybody; cheaper transport fuels for aviation and for the trucking industry; lower raw material costs for the chemical industry. He should also indicate the kind of people who would be part of his team, who would fill the crucial posts and carry out these policies. His running-mate should have a record of endorsing these goals.
Obama has made it easy for Romney
It’s a winning situation for Romney; Obama has already provided him most of the ammunition:
**Under Obama, the price of gasoline has more than doubled, from $1.80 (US average), and is approaching $5 a gallon. His Secretary of Energy, Dr. Chu, wanted the price to rise to “European levels of $8 to $10.” It is really hurting the middle class, particularly the two-car couples who must commute to work. Yet everything Obama has done or is doing is making the situation worse.
**He has vetoed the Keystone pipeline, which would have brought increasing amounts of oil from Canada to Gulf-Coast refineries, created ‘shovel-ready’ jobs, and improved energy security.
** He has kept much federal land off limits for oil and gas production — particularly in Alaska and offshore. The Alaska pipeline is in danger of running dry. Even where exploration is permitted, drilling permits are hard to obtain because of bureaucratic opposition.
** To Obama, oil is a “fuel of the past;” not so to millions of drivers. He’s looking to put algae in their gas tanks – the latest bio-fuel scheme! In his 2008 campaign, Obama promised that under his regime electricity prices would “skyrocket.” He seems to have kept his promise — with help from the misguided ‘Renewable Electricity Standard,’ which mandates utilities to buy costly ‘Green’ energy from solar/wind projects and effectively become tax-collectors.
**He also promised that potential builders of coal-fired power plants would go “bankrupt.” That too would happen, thanks to extreme, onerous EPA regulation. The latest EPA plan would stop the construction of new coal-fired power plants by setting impossible-to-obtain emission limits for carbon dioxide. True, EPA has made exceptions if the power plant can capture and sequester the emitted CO2; but the technology to do this is not available and its cost would be prohibitive.
**It seems likely that, if Obama is re-elected, his EPA will use the CO2 excuse to also close down existing coal-fired plants — and may not permit the construction of any fossil-fueled power plants, including even those fired by natural gas, which emits only about half as much CO2 as coal. The Calif PUC has already banned gas plants (on April 19, 2012) in order to reach their unrealistic goal of 33% Green electricity.
**One can see the signs of impending EPA efforts to stop the exploitation of shale gas by horizontal drilling, using the claim that ‘fracking’ causes water pollution.
The only explanation for this irrational behavior: The Obama administration, from top to bottom, seems possessed by pathological fear of catastrophic global warming and obsessed with the idea that no matter what happens to the economy or jobs, it must stop the emission of CO2.
The starkest illustration of this came in his [Obama’s] answers to questions about climate change in which he promised to make this article of faith for the left a central issue in the coming campaign. This may play well for the readers of Rolling Stone. But given the growing skepticism among ordinary Americans about the ideological cant on the issue that has spewed forth from the mainstream media and the White House, it may not help Obama with independents and the working class voters he needs as badly in November as the educated elites who bludgeoned him into halting the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. This conflict illustrates the contradiction at the core of the president’s campaign
Source Commentary Magazine
The situation is tailor-made for Romney to launch an aggressive campaign to counter current energy policy — and the even worse one that is likely to be put in place if Obama is re-elected.
What Romney must do to win the November election
Romney has to make it quite clear to potential voters why low-cost energy is absolutely essential for economic recovery, for producing jobs, and for increasing average income– especially for the middle-class family, which is now spending too much of its budget on energy essentials. Romney should hold out the entirely realistic prospect of US energy independence – often promised but never before achieved – or even of the US becoming an energy exporter.
**Romney can confidently promise to reduce the price of gasoline to $2.50 a gallon or less, with a gracious tip of the hat to Newt Gingrich, who had proposed such a goal in one of his campaign speeches. To accomplish this, the world price of oil would have to fall below $60 a barrel from its present price of $110.
**But this bright energy promise is entirely possible due to the low price of natural gas, which has fallen to $2 from its 2008 peak of $13 per mcf (1000 cubic feet) — and is still trending downward. All that Romney has to do is to remove to the largest extent possible existing regulatory roadblocks.
It is essential to recognize three important economic facts:
**Since many of the newly drilled wells also produce high-value oil and NGL (natural gas liquids), natural gas becomes a by-product that can be profitably sold at even lower prices.
**Natural gas currently sells for less than 15% of the average price of crude oil, on an energy/BTU basis. This means that it pays to replace oil-based fuels, such as diesel and gasoline, with either liquefied natural gas (LNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG). This may be the most economical and quickest replacement for heavy road-vehicles, earth movers. diesel-electric trains, buses, and fleet vehicles.
**It also becomes profitable to convert natural gas directly to gasoline or diesel by chemical processing in plants that are very similar to refineries. Forget about methanol, hydrogen, and other exotics. Such direct conversion would use the existing infrastructure; it is commercially feasible, the technology is proven, and the profit potential is evident — even if the conversion efficiency is only modest, say 50%.
Thanks to cheap natural gas, Romney’s promise for lower gasoline prices is easily fulfilled: With reduced demand and increased supply globally, the world price of oil will decline and so will the price of transportation fuel. So by satisfying transportation needs for fuel, it should be possible to reduce, rather quickly, oil imports from overseas; at present, 60% of all imports (in $) are for oil. At the same time, oil production can be increased domestically and throughout North America. The US is on its way to become not only energy-independent but also an exporter of motor fuels – with a huge improvement in its balance of payments.
Billionaire oilman Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources and discoverer of the prolific Bakken fields of the northern Great Plains, complains about current energy policy that’s holding back development. “President Obama is riding the wrong horse on energy,” he adds in an interview with Stephen Moore. We can’t come anywhere near the scale of energy production to achieve energy independence by pouring tax dollars into “green energy” sources like wind and solar. It has to come from oil and gas. Hamm is an energy advisor to Romney. Similarly, Governor Bob McDonnell, intent on making Virginia the energy capital of the East Coast by developing offshore oil and gas, complains, in a WSJ op-ed, that Obama’s words are “worlds apart from his actions.”
Another promise Romney can confidently make is that he will cut the price of electricity in half — or even lower. This promise can be fulfilled not only by the low price of natural gas but also by the much higher efficiency of gas-fired power plants that can easily reach 60% or more, compared to the present 35-40% for nuclear or coal-fired plants. Higher efficiencies reduce not only the cost of fuel (per kilowatt-hour) but effectively lower the capital cost (per kilowatt).
Efficiencies can be raised even higher with ‘distributed’ electric generation, if such gas-fired power plants are located in urban centers where co-generation becomes an attractive possibility. This would use the low-temperature heat that is normally discharged into the environment (and wasted) to provide hot water for space heating and many other applications of an urban area: snow and ice removal, laundry, and even cooling and water desalination. Again, this is proven technology and the economics may be very favorable. Distributed generation also improves security (against terrorism) and simplifies the disposal of waste heat.
Low-cost natural gas can also provide the basic raw material for cheap fertilizer for farmers, thus lowering food prices, and feedstock for chemical plants for cheaper plastics and other basic materials. Industries can now return to the United States and provide jobs locally — instead of operating offshore where natural gas has been cheap.
With the exploitation of the enormous gas-hydrate resource in the offing, once the technology is developed, the future never looked brighter. Somehow, Romney must convey this optimistic outlook to the voting public.
“Natural gas is a feedstock in basically every industrial process,” and the price of gas in the U.S. is a fraction of what it is in Europe or Asia. “This country has an incredible advantage headed its way as Asian labor costs rise, as the cost to transport goods from Asia to the U.S. rises, as oil prices rise, as American labor costs have stagnated or gone down in the last 10 years. We have a really wonderful opportunity to kick off an industrial renaissance in the U.S.” [Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, WSJ 4-26-12]
Slaying the ‘Green Dragon’
Romney should speak out on the “hoax” (to use Senator Inhofe’s term) of climate catastrophes from rising CO2 levels. He should also make it clear that there is no need for large-scale wind energy or solar electricity — and even the construction of nuclear plants can be postponed. Many environmentalists will be relieved to avoid covering the landscape with solar mirrors, windmills and – yes — hundreds of miles of electric transmission lines and towers.
In his book Throw Them All Out Peter Schweizer reports that 80% of the Department of Energy’s multi-billion Green loans, loan guarantees, and grants went to Obama backers. Romney should proclaim that there will be no more Solyndras or other boondoggles, and no need for government subsidies for ‘Green energy’ or for crony capitalism. The marketplace would decide the future of novel technologies, such as electric cars, solar devices, etc. Many Washington lobbyists will lose their cushy jobs.
There’s absolutely no need for bio-fuels either. Yes, that includes algae as well as ethanol, which is now consuming some 40% of the US corn crop. The world price of corn has tripled in the past five years – even as EPA plans to increase the ethanol percentage of motor fuels from 10 to 15%! True environmentalists are well aware of the many drawbacks of bio-fuels, the damage they do to crop lands and forests in the US and overseas, and to the vast areas they require that could be devoted to natural habitats.
Finally, Romney should make it clear that if elected he would appoint a secretary of energy, secretary of interior, administrator of NOAA and administrator of EPA who share his convictions about energy. Above all, he should recruit a White House staff, including a Science Advisor, who will bring the promise of low-cost, secure energy to the American economy.
Perhaps the WSJ (April 27) said it all: “Did you like the past four years? Good, you can get four more”
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. Though a physicist, he has taught economics to engineers and written a monograph on the world price of oil. He has also held several government positions and served as an adviser to Treasury Secretary Wm. Simon. He co-authored NY Times best-seller “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years.” In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCC.org]. For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.
-
Main FeedMember FeedCollege FeedConversations I'm FollowingIntel.Close
Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Ben Domenech · Jun 3 at 3:25pm
One of the few Republicans in the country who's been tirelessly pushing for the implementation of Obamacare at the state level has been tapped to head Mitt Romney's transition team, should he become president.
Former HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, and his consulting group Leavitt Partners, are the primary advocates within Republican circles for implementation of Obamacare's exchanges. It just so happens that his consultancy is one of the major beneficiaries of the taxpayer funded gold mine of hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange implementation grants. But that's a coincidence, of course.
Leavitt has said some relatively positive things about certain elements of Obama’s health reform law, suggesting earlier this year that “Obamacare” empowers the HHS secretary “to do certain things that are clearly aimed at trying to move us in the right direction.”
McKeown, who still works with Leavitt at his Utah-based health care consultancy, acknowledged that the former governor does not want to undo one key part of the controversial legislation.
“We believe that the exchanges are the solution to small business insurance market and that’s gotten us sideways with some conservatives,” he said.
The exchanges are not only a matter of principle for Leavitt — they’re also a cash cow.
The size of his firm, Leavitt Partners, doubled in the year after the bill was signed as they won contracts to help states set up the exchanges funded by the legislation.
Over the past year, Leavitt and his staff have repeatedly tangled with conservative and libertarian think-tanks and advocates who oppose him on this point, understanding that there is no such thing as a state run exchange under Obamacare, and that this represents the primary front for states in the battle against Obamacare's implementation. This hasn't stopped him from lobbying all over the country for it. Here's Leavitt speaking last year to the National Governors Association, urging them to implement while failing to disclose his financial stake in doing so.
Speaking to a bipartisan group of governors at the National Governors Association, the former Republican governor who served as secretary of health and human services in the Bush administration, called the exchanges where individuals and small businesses can purchase health plans “a very practical solution to a problem that needs to be solved.” He warned governors who are reluctant to move forward with their state-level exchanges that their intransigence will only empower federal regulators.
And he said the health care law that passed is a compromise that gives the states the flexibility they need.
“This is a profoundly important time for the states,” said Mr. Leavitt. “States need to lead.” ...
The federal law gives the states until January 2014 to set up their own exchanges, with federal oversight. If they fail to do so, their citizens will get access to a federal exchange.
But some Republican governors have been reluctant. They oppose the federal law and say they hope it will be repealed by a Republican president in 2013.
Mr. Leavitt urged them to get moving anyway... He urged the governors not defend their “partisan flags” over the interests of their states.
Thankfully, this has been a push that Leavitt has been losing. A host of Republican governors have turned back his appeal to implement (you can read my own case against exchange implementation here). In fact, their obstinate refusal to implement has become an item of support in the courts for overturning Obamacare. And now most Republican-led states are holding back to see what happens at the Supreme Court, as they should've done in the first place.
One can argue about the merits of an exchange absent Obamacare's rules, regulations, authority shifts, price controls, and taxpayer funded subsidies. But the overwhelming majority of conservative policymakers understand that Obamacare's exchanges are nothing more than delivery mechanisms for massive taxpayer-funded subsidies and bureaucratic regulations from Washington. What's more, states which avoid implementing exchanges may be able to avoid the implementation of Obamacare almost in its entirety.
Those who favor implementation have been rebuffed, and they don't like it. As Michael Cannon notes:
USA Today reports that groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Cato Institute have had much success in discouraging states from creating Obamacare’s health insurance “exchanges.” Even the Heritage Foundation, which once counseled states to establish “defensive” Obamacare exchanges, now counsels states to refuse to create them and to send all exchange-related grants back to Washington.
In response, Obamacare contractor and self-described conservative Republican Cheryl Smith sniffs: "When you work at a think-tank, it’s really easy to come up with these really high-risk plans."
Except, there is no risk to states. The only risks to this strategy are that health insurance companies won’t get half a trillion dollars in taxpayer subsidies, and that certain Obamacare contractors won’t get any more of those lucrative exchange contracts.
Smith works for Leavitt Partners. So does David Merritt, who as recently as two months ago, was making the case that Republicans should ignore the positions of governors like Bobby Jindal and Rick Scott and implement exchanges. Neither, of course, notes their financial stake in doing so (but hey, it's a living).
What's most concerning about all of this is not that Romney selected one of the few Republicans in the country who backs implementation of Obamacare's exchanges. It's what the selection of Leavitt means as an indication of how Romney would potentially "fix" Obamacare if repeal proves impossible. According to Politico, "already, plugged-in Republicans from Washington to Salt Lake City are buzzing that Leavitt could make his own transition next January into the job of White House chief of staff or as a Valerie Jarrett-like personal counselor to a President Romney."
Should the Supreme Court strike down only a portion of Obamacare, it seems clear Leavitt would be a major voice in deciding how to replace it. And he is convinced that "exchanges are part of the future, no matter what."
UPDATE: Matt Lewis reached out to Team Romney for response, and they say not to worry.
Comment (49)· Quote
· UnfollowFollow (5)· Edit
EmailPages:
1
23Comment FiltersContributor Comments
show: all / none
Ben Domenech (1)
Member Comments
show: all / none
Sisyphus (5)
Macsen (1)
Ningrim (2)
libpastor (1)
Bryan G. Stephens (1)
Noesis Noeseos (5)
Scott Reusser (1)
Percival (1)
BrentB67 (3)
Funeral Guy (1)
...plus 15 others
James Gawron (1)
wmartin (6)
Fred Cole (2)
Mothership_Greg (1)
David Williamson (1)
Terrell David (1)
Bradley Ross (1)
Astonishing (1)
Bassett and Wilson (3)
James Of England (4)
Xennady (1)
Douglas (2)
ted trepanier (1)
R. Craigen (1)
Barfly (1)
Comment Popularity
10+ Likes (3)
5-10 Likes (5)
0-5 Likes (40)Comments (displaying 49 of 49):
show Sisyphus's comment (#1) ←
Joined
Jul '10Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Sisyphus
I told you so.
(Not you personally, of course, Ben.)
Edited on Jun 3 at 3:46pm
#1 ·Jun 3 at 3:44pm ·LikeUnlike (8) Like (8) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Macsen's comment (#2) ←
Joined
May '11Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Macsen
I'm not going to panic. It's too nice a day. I'm going to hold my nose, vote for Romney, then reassess in January, or whenever the cabinet appointments are made, whether panic is necessary.
#2 ·Jun 3 at 3:48pm ·LikeUnlike (1) Like (1) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Ningrim's comment (#3) ←
Joined
May '11Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Ningrim
This is the kind of thing conservatives have to push back hard and early on.
The GOP has to understand that business as usual is not acceptable.
A crony capitalist leading the transition team. Good grief.
#3 ·Jun 3 at 3:49pm ·LikeUnlike (16) Like (16) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow libpastor's comment (#4) ←
Joined
May '12Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
libpastor
Ok, I've been encouraged about Romney lately, but this... not so much. The needle ticks down. Nevertheless, Romney's got my vote. This shows the need for conservative wins in the House and Senate. Here's hoping for a Supreme Court smack-down as well.
#4 ·Jun 3 at 3:50pm ·LikeUnlike (4) Like (4) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect link→ show Ben Domenech's comment (#5)
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Ben Domenech
libpastor: Ok, I've been encouraged about Romney lately, but this... not so much. The needle ticks down. Nevertheless, Romney's got my vote. This shows the need for conservative wins in the House and Senate. Here's hoping for a Supreme Court smack-down as well. · 1 minute ago
I think it's just a reminder that Phil Klein is right.
#5 ·Jun 3 at 3:53pm ·LikeUnlike (2) Like (2) · Quote
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Ningrim's comment (#6) ←
Joined
May '11Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Ningrim
I love the new media. Ben only has a few thousand twitter followers, but many of them have a microphone and influential connections in DC.
Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller got a response from the Romney campaign about these concerns.
It's just words, but at least there is a response with firm commitments to repeal.
#6 ·Jun 3 at 3:57pm ·LikeUnlike (2) Like (2) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Bryan G. Stephens's comment (#7) ←
Joined
May '10Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Bryan G. Stephens
He gets elected and tells the rest of real conservatives to go suck lemons. Just watch.
Still have to vote for him over the other guy, though. Lessor or two evils.
Vote Team Romney: Driving America into Tyranny slower than the other Guy!
#7 ·Jun 3 at 4:05pm ·LikeUnlike (11) Like (11) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Noesis Noeseos's comment (#8) ←
Joined
Jan '12Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Noesis Noeseos
John Derbyshire may not be the best liked person among some at Ricochet, but when he wrote We Are Doomed, he wasn't just frothing with uncivilized blather.
He came from a more rural part of England that in some ways resembled small-town America. Neighbors felt they shared a common culture, and they would look out for each other, help each other when they could. British socialism had not expanded so obscenely when he was a child. The insidious conspiracy between the mammary state and the nanny state had only begun to metastasize. But the cancer has only grown to maleficent proportions, fed by the two-stage virus.
So, we push aside Obama's stage-4 only to grasp Romney's virulence-lite. Marvelous! Awesome, even, considering that these seem to be the only two public choices available.
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
Edited on Jun 3 at 7:20pm
#8 ·Jun 3 at 4:26pm ·LikeUnlike (4) Like (4) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Scott Reusser's comment (#9) ←
Joined
May '10Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Scott Reusser
Take it up with Paul Ryan then, because state-based exchanges have been part of his Roadmap since the get-go. I haven't a clue whether such schemes are workable, but let's not suggest that since one element of a gazillion-page bill overlaps with some policy proposal of a Romney advisor, it means, QED, Romney is a stealth Obamacare supporter.
#9 ·Jun 3 at 4:28pm ·LikeUnlike (4) Like (4) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Percival's comment (#10) ←
Joined
Mar '11Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Percival
And here I was feeling bad because I couldn't join in the thrill-up-the-leg fest on Friday.
#10 ·Jun 3 at 4:32pm ·LikeUnlike (6) Like (6) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Sisyphus's comment (#11) ←
Joined
Jul '10Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Sisyphus
If we make it to 2016 without some form of ObomneyCare imposed on the republic, it will be because we sat on this squirming toad of a likely nominee the whole way and whacked him every time he moved in that direction. Of course, if he achieves reelection, we know what 2017 will bring.
#11 ·Jun 3 at 4:43pm ·LikeUnlike (4) Like (4) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow BrentB67's comment (#12) ←
Joined
May '12Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
BrentB67
Gov. Romney is a great business leader with outstanding character, but things like this make me think he and/or his staff do not get it.
Admittedly I may be in the minority around here, but I don't think this election is going to be won with a rallying cry of pragmatic evolution. 2010 wasn't a marginal adjustment (although I concede it is hard to tell from what little the house of reps stands for) it was a statement about making a big course change.
Hiring a guy with a vested interest to implement a bastardized portion of Obamacare isn't a big course change, it is more of the same with a different guy behind the wheel.
#12 ·Jun 3 at 4:47pm ·LikeUnlike (5) Like (5) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Funeral Guy's comment (#13) ←
Joined
Dec '10Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Funeral Guy
Good. Now I can stop pretending that I'm a "Go Romney" guy and return to my original thinking that he's a spineless tool who will sell out conservatives the day after his first nasty New York Times editorial.
#13 ·Jun 3 at 4:48pm ·LikeUnlike (10) Like (10) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow BrentB67's comment (#14) ←
Joined
May '12Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
BrentB67
Bryan G. Stephens: He gets elected and tells the rest of real conservatives to go suck lemons. Just watch.
Still have to vote for him over the other guy, though. Lessor or two evils.
Vote Team Romney: Driving America into Tyranny slower than the other Guy! · 42 minutes ago
Nailed it.
Nobody is going to stay home over something like this, but just showing up and holding our nose isn't going to win this election. It is going to take 'willing to die for what Romney stands for' type enthusiasm.
There are more people on food stamps than live in Spain, as many people receive something from the fed gov't. as there are paying into it via income taxes and all of them are going to be fighting to keep what they have and keep Obama in office.
If Romney doesn't have equal passion supporting him and what he stands for as those that will turn out for the entitlement state then I think we are toast.
#14 ·Jun 3 at 4:51pm ·LikeUnlike (3) Like (3) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow James Gawron's comment (#15) ←
Joined
Dec '10Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
James Gawron
Gentlemen,
Let's get clear about postulate no. 1. Obamacare is 100% complete toast. The mandate will be struck down by the Court. President Romney and the Republican House and the Republican Senate will repeal anything that's left.
We live in a society that still teaches Strict Darwinism (Krypto-Fascism) and Man Made Global Warming (Krypto-Bolshevism) as Science. Such a world can not be trusted with even more Statist control.
Regards,
Jim
#15 ·Jun 3 at 4:54pm ·LikeUnlike (2) Like (2) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow wmartin's comment (#16) ←
Joined
Apr '11Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
wmartin
I guess this is what we're going to be all hysterical about for the next week or so.
#16 ·Jun 3 at 5:41pm ·LikeUnlike (2) Like (2) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Fred Cole's comment (#17) ←
Joined
Nov '11Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Fred Cole
This is why the two parties craft the myth that you MUST MUST MUST hold your nose and vote for their candidate or else the sky will fall.
So it doesn't matter how odious Romney is, you have no choice.
#17 ·Jun 3 at 5:48pm ·LikeUnlike (1) Like (1) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow wmartin's comment (#18) ←
Joined
Apr '11Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
wmartin
Fred Cole: This is why the two parties craft the myth that you MUST MUST MUST hold your nose and vote for their candidate or else the sky will fall.
So it doesn't matter how odious Romney is, you have no choice. · 5 minutes ago
I can't believe this group is going into such hysterics over some guy who will be performing the purely administrative task of overseeing the transition.
"Odious?!?" Geez...
#18 ·Jun 3 at 5:57pm ·LikeUnlike (0) Like (0) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow BrentB67's comment (#19) ←
Joined
May '12Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
BrentB67
wmartin
Fred Cole: This is why the two parties craft the myth that you MUST MUST MUST hold your nose and vote for their candidate or else the sky will fall.
So it doesn't matter how odious Romney is, you have no choice. · 5 minutes ago
I can't believe this group is going into such hysterics over some guy who will be performing the purely administrative task of overseeing the transition.
"Odious?!?" Geez... · 1 minute ago
Because the man who is asking for our support to be the next President of the United States put this gentleman in the position for 'purely administrative task...'.
It isn't about Mr. Leavitt - it is about the person that thinks this is a good idea.
#19 ·Jun 3 at 6:00pm ·LikeUnlike (4) Like (4) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkshow Mothership_Greg's comment (#20) ←
Joined
Nov '11Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Mothership_Greg
Hey Ben, I'll just ignore this sentence:
One can argue about the merits of an exchange absent Obamacare's rules, regulations, authority shifts, price controls, and taxpayer funded subsidies.
and go ahead and pretend that you're arguing against the concept of exchanges. Also, I'll go ahead and ignore the conflict of interest aspect of this story wrt Leavitt. Thanks for trying, though!
#20 ·Jun 3 at 6:08pm ·LikeUnlike (0) Like (0) · Quote
· Flag
· Edit
· Share· See in contextDirect linkPages:
1
23
Would you like to comment on this Conversation?
Become a Member for $3.67 a month.
Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
powered by
Custom Search
Web
.Contributor Feed
→ show Rob Long's comment (#)
Re: Fighting Mad in Colombia
Rob Long
Whoops. Corrected now. But for the record: I misspelled Colombia. But had it automagically fixed.
# ·
11 minutes ago ·LikeUnlike (0) Like (0) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
Rob Long
Fighting Mad in Colombia
24 minutes ago
I have a friend who is doing interesting and dangerous work in Colombia, working with women who have become involved -- and are trying to get away from -- the terrorist organization FARC.
She's written a gripping piece for Foreign Affairs, under a pseudonym:
In the summer of 2009, during a lunch with a retired colonel of the Colombian army, I asked about his experiences fighting female members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), an insurgency that has plagued the country since the mid-1960s. Although the colonel did not say it was official policy to shoot women first during a firefight, he hinted that any sensible soldier would do so. Women, with their "Kamikaze-like" mentality, he said, were the most deadly combatants.
Talk about a powerful lede! She goes on:
Twenty-eight years old today, Athena is barely over five feet tall, compact, and attractive. Her body is never fully relaxed. Even when she sits down, her light eyes scan her surroundings. She always appears at the ready. She grew up with her mother, an older brother, and two younger sisters in an impoverished rural town. She does not describe her home life before she became a militant as abusive, although her brother regularly beat her whenever she "misbehaved." (Misbehavior included her refusal to obey commands to perform random demeaning tasks.) After one such beating, Athena ran away, and within a few weeks of her arrival in a neighboring village, a "kind, old man" named Paco approached her, offering "protection and fun" if she would come with him to la finca (the farm). Had he been making his pitch to a boy, he probably would not have played up physical security. Generally speaking, FARC recruits boys with the promise of a motorcycle, a cell phone, and cool clothes, all of which will help them get girls.
It's a powerful and deep look at what happens inside a terrorist organization -- how young people are recruited and how they're kept, often against their will.
She's a brave person, doing very dangerous stuff, and the article is really worth your time.
Show moreComment (3)· UnfollowFollow (0)· Edit
Email
→ show Diane Ellis, Ed.'s comment (#)
Re: Taylor Morris, American Hero
Diane Ellis, Ed.
The Great Adventure!: Diane - lest you think the limited number of posts on this indicates disinterest, let me say that this touched me deeply. And I promptly had to have everyone else in the house read it as well. · 25 minutes ago
Thank you. When Member bourbonsoaked sent me the link to the story yesterday morning, I read it and was very moved. I thought about it for 7 hours and told two friends about Taylor Morris before I could sit down and write a word about him. So I understand firsthand how a story like this can render people without words.
Show more# ·
48 minutes ago ·LikeUnlike (0) Like (0) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
→ show Bill McGurn's comment (#)
Re: Re: Portrait of a President
Bill McGurn
Here's one of the photos I like:
Show more# ·
2 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (1) Like (1) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
→ show Mollie Hemingway, Ed.'s comment (#)
Re: Romney Personally Advocated For Individual Mandate
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Tommy De Seno: Wall Street Journal scoop? You're being a bit generous there Mollie. Some of us have been talking about Romney's refusal to renounce individual mandates since the day he threw his hat in the ring.
I would rather have a Democrat in office promoting liberal policies than a Republican in office promoting liberal policies. You get the same government, but only one of them makes the rest of us look bad. · 4 minutes ago
Well, I think the personal involvement is important, since some suggested Romney was just following advisors. I also think the discussions about publicly shaming companies is worrisome.
As for the rest, that is part of something I wonder about -- with the memory of Bush's presidency still fresh. He advocated big government solutions but capitalists and free marketers got blamed for them.
Show more# ·
2 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (0) Like (0) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
→ show Tommy De Seno's comment (#)
Re: Romney Personally Advocated For Individual Mandate
Tommy De Seno
Wall Street Journal scoop? You're being a bit generous there Mollie. Some of us have been talking about Romney's refusal to renounce individual mandates since the day he threw his hat in the ring.
I would rather have a Democrat in office promoting liberal policies than a Republican in office promoting liberal policies. You get the same government, but only one of them makes the rest of us look bad.
Show moreEdited 3 hours ago
# ·
3 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (1) Like (1) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
Nancy Gibbs, Guest Contributor
The Presidents Club, Back Center Stage
3 hours ago
Hello Ricocheters! Nancy Gibbs here, also posting for the first time, along with my co-author Michael Duffy.
We’ve watched with particular interest how The Presidents Club has come out of the shadows these last few days. First came the White House reunion: 41, 43 and 44 all together for the unveiling of George W. Bush’s portrait last week, a moment of bipartisan camaraderie even as the two campaigns were hurling mudballs at each other. Meanwhile Bill Clinton, Obama’s unmatched but unbridled surrogate, was causing the White House all kinds of heartburn by calling Mitt Romney’s Bain record “sterling.” He was back on message last night, when he joined Obama for three New York fundraisers and faithfully declared the prospect of a Romney presidency “calamitous” for the country.
We’ll discuss the Clinton Challenge later: for the moment, it is President Bush I am more curious about. At the Club reunion last week, the protocols were generally honored: “It’s been said that no one can ever truly understand what it’s like being President until they sit behind that desk and feel the weight and responsibility for the first time,” President Obama said. “And that’s why, from time to time, those of us who have had the privilege to hold this office find ourselves turning to the only people on Earth who know the feeling. We may have our differences politically, but the presidency transcends those differences. We all love this country. We all want America to succeed. We all believe that when it comes to moving this country forward, we have an obligation to pull together.”
This was all but an echo of what Bush himself had said when he turned over the keys to Obama in January, 2009, with all the Club members standing by: “We want you to succeed,” Bush said. “Whether we're Democrat or Republican we care deeply about this country. All of us who have served in this office understand that the office itself transcends the individual.”
Which just makes me wonder: how will the Romney campaign handle the most recent Republican president—particularly this summer, as the conventions approach and the veepstakes loom and President Bush breaks silence with a new book about strategies for economic growth.
On May 15, the day Bush endorsed Romney, the campaign issued a press release touting the support of Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison; Bush’s endorsement did not merit a mention. The first President Bush and son Jeb have been embraced; is W. radioactive? Or due for a revival? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Show moreComment (11)· UnfollowFollow (2)· Edit
Email
James Pethokoukis
Why Paul Krugman and Larry Summers Are Wrong About America Needing Another Mega-Stimulus
3 hours ago
Here we spend again, I mean, “go” again.
Two of America’s leading liberal economists, Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, want Washington to start spending more—probably much, much more—to boost the sputtering U.S. economy. Extremely low interest rates, they argue, both allow government to borrow cheaply and signal a deep hibernation by bond market vigilantes unconcerned by federal debt levels.
Lots of potential reward with little potential risk—or so Krugman and Summers argue.
Their proposal raises many questions and issues:
1. How much? The 2009 stimulus cost $831 billion, not counting borrowing costs. Without it, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the unemployment rate today would be 0.1 to 0.8 percentage point lower. Using, charitably, the most favorable CBO estimate, we are talking about $100 billion per tenth of a percentage point. So how much is enough for Krugman and Summers, $800 billion? $900 billion? $1 trillion? Or is the sky the limit?
2. What would the money be used for? Summers says in his op-ed that it would be “amazing if there were not many public investment projects” that would pay for themselves by “expanding the economy’s capacity or its ability to innovate.”
First, I would like to vet that short list. Second, is a check from Washington the best way to make these supposed projects happen? Third, what happened to Summers’s famous admonition that stimulus should be “timely, targeted, temporary?” These projects would likely take some time to get going. And if you believe the economic forecasts from the Obama White House, the economy is—yet again—approaching a mini-boom: 3% GDP grow this year, 3.0% in 2013, 4.0% in 2014, 4.2 in 2015, 3.9% in 2016, 3.8% in 2017. Now, I don’t place much stock in those predictions from Summers’s old pals on Team Obama, but he just might.
3. Would the bond vigilantes really stay asleep? Krugman and Summers are preternaturally confident that another big step-up in U.S. indebtedness would have no effect on our ability to borrow. That’s a big assumption, argues AEI’s Desmond Lachman: “An important lesson that the U.S. should be drawing from the Greek experience is how mistaken it is to be guided by low market interest rates. Since it might be recalled that as late as 2009, when it should have been obvious to all that Greece’s public finances were on an unsustainable path, the Greek government was able to raise as much long-term money as it liked at a mere 0.2 percentage points above the rate at which Germany could borrow such money. It might also be recalled how quickly markets turned on Greece and how soon a country that had no difficulty in borrowing from the international capital market at unusually favorable terms found itself totally shut out from that very same market.”
And let’s also keep in mind that the last time Summers tried to outsmart financial markets he lost $2 billion for Harvard’s endowment fund.
4. Might not more debt actually hurt long-term U.S. growth? A new paper from Kenneth Rogoff, Carmen Reinhart, and Vincent Reinhart finds that very high debt levels of 90% of GDP are a long-term burden on economic growth that often lasts for two decades or more: “The average high-debt episodes since 1800 last 23 years and are associated with a growth rate more than one percentage point below the rate typical for periods of lower debt levels. That is, after a quarter-century of high debt, income can be 25% lower than it would have been at normal growth rates.”
5. What about taxes? One huge mistake the high-tax EU has made is making nearly half its austerity program come in the form of even higher taxes. Not only should the U.S. not be raising taxes, we should be cutting them. Our corporate tax is so high that cutting it to 25% from 35% might well pay for itself—not to mention boosting business and investor confidence.
The U.S. economy has been malfunctioning since 2006. Shouldn’t it finally be time to address the deep problems of an anti-growth tax code, economy-stifling regulations, and out-of-control spending?
Show moreComment (17)· UnfollowFollow (1)· Edit
Email
→ show Paul A. Rahe's comment (#)
Re: Romney Personally Advocated For Individual Mandate
Paul A. Rahe
Thanks, Mollie. Alas, this comes as no real surprise. If he is elected President, Romney may govern as a conservative. If, however, we are to judge by his record in the past, he will turn out to be just another managerial progressive. In the past, he has been a fervent supporter of the administrative entitlements state and no friend to individual liberty. Let's hope that he has learned a few things along the way or that he is enough of a chameleon to take his direction from us.
Show more# ·
4 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (2) Like (2) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Romney Personally Advocated For Individual Mandate
4 hours ago
This Wall Street Journal scoop is not going to make many folks feel particularly enthusiastic about Mitt Romney Presidency. It's about the discovery of a few emails from the time Mitt Romney worked so hard to pass his controversial health-care law:
When Mitt Romney left office as Massachusetts governor, his aides removed all emails from a server computer in the governor's office, and purchased and carted off hard drives from 17 state-owned personal computers, according to a current state official.
But a small cache of emails survived, including some that have never publicly surfaced surrounding Mr. Romney's efforts to pass his now-controversial health-care law. The emails show the Republican governor was closely engaged in negotiating details of the bill, working with top Democratic state leaders and drafting early copies of opinion articles backing it.
Mr. Romney and his aides, meanwhile, strongly defended the so-called individual mandate, a requirement that everyone in Massachusetts have or buy heath insurance. And they privately discussed ideas that might be anathema to today's GOP—including publicly shaming companies that didn't provide enough health insurance to employees.
Mr. Romney signed the bill April 12, 2006, and that night sent an email thanking a top aide, saying the law would help "hundreds of thousands of people…have healthier and happier lives."
A few days ago, Ben Domenech wrote about how Romney had picked someone who has been tirelessly pushing Obamacare implementation at the state level to lead his transition team.
Here we see the type of ideas that are encouraged in the Romney inner circle, including some tactics that even Barack Obama might find heavy handed.
I know that Team Romney is telling advocates of increased liberty to not worry about what he'll do surrounding Obamacare, but this slow drip of scary information is not helping.
Show moreComment (40)· UnfollowFollow (3)· Edit
Email
→ show C.J. Box's comment (#)
Re: Don't Look Up, Buckaroos
C.J. Box
tabula rasa C.J.: If Obama stays in power you're not going to have to think up any central plot points again. The government will simply provide them to you (though they'll probably want to charge you a fee).
Honestly, if I used this kind of thing in a novel no one would believe it. They'd consider it too over-the-top. That's one of the painful realities about writing novels set in contemporary (Western) settings. It's necessary in plotting to dial things back or they'll be perceived as too reactionary.
Show more# ·
15 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (3) Like (3) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
→ show Dave Carter's comment (#)
Re: "Sending Me Angels" A Medical Journey
Dave Carter
Doug Kimball: Dave:
Nothing like Delbert to keep you company on the road! Remember, no more pretending to be a camel and avoiding fluids while on the road. Get a "Trucker's Helper" (like the character Bert Reynold's used in "Semi Tough" when he cheated whuile trying to get "It".) Keep a water bottle at your side at all times. As a man who lives in the desert knows, the only way to keep kidney stones away is to drink and drink some more. · 26 minutes ago
As luck would have it, I have the movie Semi Tough in the truck. Not a bad idea, that. Thanks for that song too. That's hilarious!
Show more# ·
16 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (1) Like (1) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
Rob Long
Weird Japan
17 hours ago
Japan, I think we can all admit, is often a weird place. Robots, giant lizards, odd comic books, that sort of thing.
But every now and then, they're both weird and cool:
A Segway, essentially, steered by the muscles in the posterior. You just kind of squirm your way along, if you get my meaning. From Yahoo! Autos:
No automaker keeps quite as many strange side projects afloat as Honda, which has everything from jet planes to walking robots underway in its engineering studios. On Tuesday, Honda revealed its plans for another company invention, a rolling stool it now calls the Uni-Cub which users steer by the seat of their pants. One can only hope for a racing version.
Designed to mimic the speed and height of walking, the Uni-Cub's lithium batteries power a trick wheel that can move any direction. Using sensors on the seats, riders simply shift their weight in the direction they wish to travel -- there's also a smartphone control app -- and the unit rides high so that the riders have eye contact with people not cool enough to glide around the office up to 3.7 miles on a charge.
Sign me up.
Show moreComment (29)· UnfollowFollow (4)· Edit
Email
→ show C.J. Box's comment (#)
Re: Don't Look Up, Buckaroos
C.J. Box
Wait a minute - are those Hellfire missiles under the wings?
I believe the are. But not to worry -- they're only fired when cowboys spit tobacco juice in areas not approved for that designated use.
# ·
17 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (4) Like (4) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Taylor Morris, American Hero
17 hours ago
One month ago yesterday, 23-year old Taylor Morris lost all of his limbs in the line of duty. A Navy Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) tech from Cedar Falls, Iowa, Taylor was serving out his first tour in the Kandahar province of Afghanistan. His job—surely one of the highest stress, highest risk jobs in the military—was to defuse bombs, disable mines, and to secure hazardous areas in advance of fellow troops so that they could do their job without being blown up.
But on May 3, 2012, Taylor stepped on an IED and nearly lost his life. Speaking to a reporter at The Chive, Taylor recounts his memory of the explosion:
As soon as I stepped on it, I knew. There was a moment, then I heard the blast. I felt the heat. I knew I had lost my legs. As I summersaulted through the air, I watched my legs fly off.
Taylor remained conscious through the blast, and though he could see that he was bleeding out fast, he called out to his team requesting that no one come to his aid until the area was completely cleared of mines. After the area was secured, the medic was able to administer battlefield trauma care and save Taylor's life.
A few days later, Taylor was transported to Walter Reed hospital in D.C., where he underwent and survived a four limb amputation.
His willingness to pay the ultimate sacrifice for his country and for his brothers-in-arms is more than enough to qualify Taylor Morris as one of America's great heroes. But that's not the part of his story that I find so inspirational and remarkable. Faced with a brutal situation in which most people would despair–and couldn't be blamed for doing so—Taylor has met his suffering with an incredible hope, humility, and courage.
His recovery in the few short weeks that have followed has been nothing short of miraculous. Over the weekend, Taylor's stitches were removed and he was fitted for prosthetics. He's already able to sit up and has begun the long, painful process of rehabilitation and physical therapy.
The other part of Taylor Morris's story that I find particularly moving has less to do with Taylor and more to do with his network of support that has rushed in to care for him. Family, girlfriend, friends have all been there to pray for and with him, encourage him, be with him. But beyond his immediate relations, a vast network of complete strangers has stepped up to do right by this American patriot. A few days ago, on May 31, the aforementioned website called The Chive told Taylor's story and called out for donations to provide for Taylor's dream lakeside cabin. The website set a goal of $30,000 which was met and exceeded within a matter of minutes. In a beautiful outpouring of generosity in response to an even greater generosity, complete strangers donated more than $230,000 over the span of a few hours to provide for a young patriot.
My thanks to Member "bourbonsoaked" for alerting me to the story. The Chive's story of Taylor Morris can be found here (but be forewarned that other stories on the site are definitely not Ricochet CoC compliant).
Show moreComment (10)· UnfollowFollow (1)· Edit
Email
C.J. Box
Don't Look Up, Buckaroos
18 hours ago
The entire congressional delegation from my neighboring state of Nebraska has written a letter to EPA Commissar Lisa Jackson to ask why it is -- and under whose authority -- the rogue agency has been using unmanned drones to spy on...cattle ranchers. That's right.
Under some mind-numbing interpretation of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has been sending up spy drones to count cows in feedlots in Nebraska and Iowa. And who knows what else they've been checking out? It's outrageous. I'll leave it up to the many sharp legal minds on Ricochet to explain -- or rail against -- this kind of encroachment.
Out here in the fly-over states, we are sometimes accused of being the embodiment of the "black helicopter crowd." Maybe there's something to that, since there are so many federal agencies running our land and lives. But when you find out the EPA has hundreds of armed federal agents and now they're using spy drones to intimidate ranchers... what is one to think?
Show moreComment (21)· UnfollowFollow (1)· Edit
Email
→ show Mollie Hemingway, Ed.'s comment (#)
Re: Wisconsin Is Not In The Bag!
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
James Of England:
More is better. Winning, beating the recount threshold, 6% (the poll-based expectations), and 10% seem like landmark numbers, but the numbers really aren't transferable from one race to another in a firm way, so "not close" seems subjective. · 19 minutes ago
I covered a losing campaign in 2010 where some of its staff and volunteers were so convinced of victory that they shut down their GOTV operation in order to travel to the big city for the victory party. Their candidate lost.
What's most important in campaigns is to push hard, hard, hard until that last poll closes. Even if you think you're winning, you need to work to win by more.
Show more# ·
19 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (1) Like (1) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
→ show John Grant's comment (#)
Re: Useful Readings on Progressivism and Contemporary Politics
John Grant
The early Progressives would reject some aspects of later Liberalism (e.g. gay marriage,sexual liberation, no-fault divorce, much of contemporary feminism). But their view of government's power to regulate was quite expansive. See the Progressive Party Platform of 1912 (linked in the original) for some examples.
Ross Conatser: A quote from TR's speech at the end of the Heritage piece caught my eye.
“if we do not have the right kind of law and the right kind of administration of the law, we cannot go forward as a nation.”
. . . . IMHO, they could not envision the world of NGO's, protected classes, and one-size-fits-all legal activism that exists today. Remember in the world of 1910, 20,000 workers per year died in the workplace (mostly coal miners). The Hatfield and McCoy feud was just cooling down. They were going after low hanging fruit.
I suspect that if you explained Title 9, or the Americans with Disablities Act, or Gay Marriage Curriculum for grade schools they would have laughed in your face because those things were so impossibly foolish as to not need consideration.
Consider it now. · 5 hours ago
Show more# ·
19 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (0) Like (0) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
→ show James Lileks's comment (#)
Re: The Devil Votes Obama
James Lileks
I'll take political advice from a botoxed albino mantis when I take fashion advice from a politician.
# ·
19 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (7) Like (7) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link
→ show Mollie Hemingway, Ed.'s comment (#)
Re: The Devil Votes Obama
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
My husband kept playing the original video invite to this dinner over and over and over and guffawing. It's hilarious.
Show more# ·
19 hours ago ·LikeUnlike (0) Like (0) · Edit
· See in contextDirect link..
© 2012 Silent Cal Productions Help • About • Contact • FAQ • Code of Conduct • Terms & Conditions • Privacy • Store • Site Map • DMCA
Welcome Visitor
Already a Member?
Please Sign In Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Let your voice be heard! Join into the conversations-- or even start your own.Follow your favorite Contributors and fellow MembersRead Member-initiated conversationsKeep tab
-
a) May I ask you to delete the portions of that post not relevant to why you posted it?
b) Would someone please summarize the issue(s) with regard to exchanges?
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-targets-hispanics-latest-web-ad_646664.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VC8McJTdTs&feature=player_embedded
"The Obama campaign recently released a Spanish-language web ad asserting that 'we're on the right path,'" the Romney campaign says with the release of this ad. "Mitt Romney disagrees and believes that rising unemployment and more Hispanics in poverty is not the 'right path' for our country. America can do better and, with Mitt Romney as president, we will."
-
Seemingly going against his father, Rand Paul endorsed Romney's presidential bid last night. It remains to be seen as to speculation that Rand will be offered a VP slot from Romney or what the reasoning is.
http://www.dailypaul.com/238449/rand-paul-endorses-mitt-romney
-
By JONATHAN MARTIN
The shorthand to describe Marco Rubio since his arrival two years ago on the national political scene is usually "tea-party senator" or "tea-party favorite" or some variation on those phrases.
The implication that he is a political outsider has puzzled many Floridians, who have known the freshman Republican senator as a member in good standing of the state's GOP establishment since the mid-1990s, when he was a young campaign operative and lawyer in Miami's Cuban-American community.
Now, thanks to two new books, the wider political community will see why such labels are so ill-suited for the Florida phenom.
One of the volumes is the senator's own memoir, "An American Son," the other a biography, "The Rise of Marco Rubio," by Manuel Roig-Franzia, a writer for the Washington Post's Style section. The books chronicle Mr. Rubio's rise within the political system, from serving as a congressional intern and local director of Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign to becoming, at age 36 in 2007, Florida's first Cuban-American speaker of the Florida House. By the time Mr. Rubio turned 40, he was a U.S. senator.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
Marco Rubio, running for the Senate in 2010.
.An American Son
By Marco Rubio
Sentinel, 307 pages, $26.95
.Mr. Rubio's own account and especially Mr. Roig-Franzia's effort show us an ambitious young man with an LBJ-like appreciation for the importance of cultivating political patrons. The pattern was on display when Mr. Rubio took his first law job working at the firm of a Miami-area Republican politico who would go on to become state GOP chairman (Al Cardenas); when Mr. Rubio ran for and won a seat on the West Miami city commission, thanks to the support of the popular mayor (Rebeca Sosa), who dubbed him "Marcito"; and when he got to Tallahassee as a state representative and ingratiated himself with two of the state capital's most powerful Republicans (House Speaker Johnnie Byrd and Gov. Jeb Bush).
"His rise has actually been as conventional as they come," writes Mr. Roig-Franzia. "He'd climbed the staircase methodically, touching each step along the way rather than leaping from the landing to the top floor."
If the two books offer an important corrective to the perception of Rubio-as-political-outsider, what they don't do is drop any political bombshells or even offer much in the way of news about a man regularly included on lists of Mitt Romney's potential running mates.
The preferred euphemism among GOP insiders when it comes to Mr. Rubio's vice-presidential prospects is that his stock lately has been diminished by unspecified "baggage." But neither volume reveals any such freight.
Part of the challenge for Mr. Rubio and his image-obsessed cadre of advisers as they attempt to frame his story—and for an author writing about him—is that he is an object of such fascination that any new material is unlikely to hold until a book comes out.
So much information in these two accounts that might raise eyebrows has already been aired.
For instance, each book addresses allegations that Mr. Rubio improperly used a state party-issued credit card during his two-year tenure as Florida House speaker—a topic that Florida newspaper investigations combed through at great length during the 2010 campaign.
The Rise of Marco Rubio
By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Simon & Schuster, 291 pages, $25
.Would-be newsworthy items about Mr. Rubio's personal biography have been reported more recently. In the past, Mr. Rubio has misstated when his parents emigrated from Cuba—he had portrayed them as fleeing Fidel Castro rather than leaving the island, as they did, for economic reasons before the revolution. The confirmed and practicing Catholic was a Mormon for a time during his youth. Last year, Univision, the Spanish-language television network, aired a story on the drug-trafficking conviction of the senator's brother-in-law in the 1980s (when Mr. Rubio was a teenager). A twist to the story was that, according to Mr. Rubio's advisers, Univision dangled an offer to soften the report in exchange for an appearance by Mr. Rubio on the network's Sunday-morning political talk show. But reports about his parents' immigration history and the Univision spat have been plentiful, with various players fully airing their sides of the story.
The books are themselves testimony to how fierce the competition is in the Rubio marketplace. The two authors raced one another to get into print, with their publishers changing schedules to be first out of the box. Their arrival in a virtual dead heat is a boon for the political junkie, because the books make valuable companions. Mr. Roig-Franzia lays out, in the detached-if-skeptical manner of a journalist, the questions surrounding Mr. Rubio's past (see above) and Mr. Rubio offers his version of events. But beyond the material's lack of freshness, each book is hampered by another challenge: There is only so much to say about the life so far of a 41-year-old.
"An American Son" is of a piece with other quickie books written by still-climbing politicians: cautious, on-message and heavily tilted toward the most recent big campaign. But the book is more valuable than many other such insta-memoirs, partly for the same reason that the senator is a more compelling figure than many of his contemporaries: His story as the son of poor Cuban immigrants makes for good copy. Assisted by the talented former John McCain co-author Mark Salter, who is credited in the acknowledgments for helping to "organize and revise the manuscript," Mr. Rubio is at his best when he depicts his forebears' struggles in pre-Castro Cuba and his close relationship with his father and maternal grandfather, who lived with the Rubios when the senator was a boy.
A chapter on the death of his father, Mario, in 2010 is the book's most affecting section. Mr. Rubio describes in detail his father's last moments, with three generations of family gathered in a hospital room, as lung cancer and mphysema claim him. "At one point, my mother sat next to his bed and stroked his hand and cried. She kept asking him to wake up. They had been married for sixty-one years. It was more than her heart could bear."
Mr. Rubio confesses to doubts familiar to many who have cared for an ailing parent. He made "the terrible mistake," he says, of urging his father to undergo chemotherapy even though the treatment had no effect other than adding to the misery of the man's final months.
It would be unthinkable for a family-values politician writing a book not to honor those who molded him and still shape him, but one can't read the Rubio book without being struck by how consumed he is by the urge to do right by his family. Whenever he has moments of self-pity, he dons the hair shirt of his parents' sacrifices and his politics-averse wife's willingness to be in public life.
But if Mr. Rubio is open about how much he is driven by his family's example, he is less so when it comes to stickier topics. For instance, in recounting how his parents, in search of better jobs, moved the family to Las Vegas for almost six years (beginning in 1979, when he was 8 years old), Mr. Rubio describes a strike by workers at a hotel where his father was a bartender. Marco, then 12 years old, joined his father on the picket line. "I became a union activist," he writes, calling the labor movement his youthful "new obsession." But then he drops the subject, never explaining how his political views were informed—or not—by the experience.
The senator is somewhat more forthcoming about his Mormon boyhood—he had been baptized Catholic, but his mother, impressed by the wholesome influence of Mormons in the Rubios' Las Vegas neighborhood, steered the family to Mormonism. Mr. Rubio, however, handles the matter with the delicacy of one hoping to avoid offending any constituency. He doesn't really explain why, just shy of his 12th birthday, it was he who urged the family to return to its Catholic roots. He simply became curious about his former faith, he says, and began researching it in the World Book encyclopedias that his parents had given him the previous Christmas.
Instead of treating such topics at some length, Mr. Rubio pads his life story with a glut of information about his adolescence and young-adult years. What is an editor for if not to strike discussions like the one about how much football playing time he got as a high-school junior?
A little over the third of "An American Son" is devoted to Mr. Rubio's 2010 Senate campaign. The most dedicated students of politics will appreciate the details of how close he came to dropping out of the Republican primary in the face of an initially tough challenge, but here again there is room for an editor: The references to polls, quarterly fundraising reports and debates begin to blur.
If "An American Son" overfloweth with insidery details, however carefully selected, Mr. Roig-Franzia's "The Rise of Marco Rubio" suffers from the author's lack of access to his subject and those close to the man in question.
The Rubio operation wanted the senator's book to speak for him, and his advisers plainly declined to provide Mr. Roig-Franzia with the cooperation he needed to paint an intimate picture. "The Rise of Marco Rubio" instead relies heavily on press accounts and whatever the author could glean from seeing Mr. Rubio at his public appearances.
During the 2011 mini-controversy over the immigrant story of Mr. Rubio's parents, Mr. Roig-Franzia uncovered fresh information (as did the Tampa Bay Times) and published it in the Washington Post. His book fleshes out that reporting with new material. For instance, he has unearthed a 1962 Edison Voicewriter audio recording of a hearing regarding Mr. Rubio's maternal grandfather. Pedro Víctor García wanted to stay in the U.S. but amid the country's deteriorating relations with Cuba was "caught in an immigration no-man's land," as the author puts it. Yet the discovery of the recording, though interesting, doesn't change the story—eventually the application was approved.
Mr. Roig-Franiza, a former Miami- and Latin America-based correspondent, is most engaging when evoking the Cuba of Mr. Rubio's forebears and the South Florida of his youth and early career. The author notes, for instance, that when Mr. Rubio's parents lived in Havana, their apartment (No. C9) was "on a street called Maloja. A short walk away, through a quilt of angled streets, is one of Havana's most curious sights"—a neoclassical structure called El Capitolio that was the home of the Cuban legislature in the 1950s and today is a museum. "It bears a double-take-inducing resemblance to the U.S. Capitol in Washington," Mr. Roig-Franiza writes, "the unlikely future destination of the Rubios' son Marco."
If Mr. Roig-Franzia deploys shoe leather tracking Mr. Rubio's beginnings, the biographer doesn't answer questions about the politician's public record and finances beyond what has been previously reported. What exactly did Mr. Rubio do for the $300,000 he was paid by the law firm that employed him during his speakership? Mr. Roig-Franzia makes a pregnant reference to a Florida newspaper's analysis that the firm did $4.5 million of work for the state in the three years before Mr. Rubio ran the Florida House but goes no further.
Constrained by lack of access to sources and perhaps by deadline pressure, "The Rise of Marco Rubio" loses steam as it moves from Cuba and Miami to the campaign trail and Washington. The author resorts to quoting his subject's Twitter feed ("There is great wisdom in resting on the Sabbath") and citing cable-news analyses of the politician.
One sympathizes with Mr. Roig-Franzia. It's tough to get an entire book out of a senator entering his second year in Washington, especially one who freezes you out. But that's the peril of writing about an image-conscious and thoroughly establishment-oriented politician.
—Mr. Martin is a senior political reporter at Politico.
-
http://www.aei-ideas.org/channel/pethokoukis/
-
But Romney had lower taxes. I thought this amusing. Romney sounded good here with a Reagan type quote:
http://lybio.net/mitt-romney-wawa-and-competition-in-the-private-sector/people/
-
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/for-romney-superfan-a-new-truck-courtesy-of-the-candidate/?smid=fb-share
Mighty nice of the Romney campaign.
-
In a 2009 op-ed published in USA Today, Romney urged Obama to work with Republicans on healthcare reform, and he held up the Massachusetts system and its use of “incentives” as a model.
“We established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages 'free riders' to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others,” Romney wrote in the article.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-in-sticky-spot-on-health-reform-20120629,0,471209.story
http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/06/28/romney-praises-his-own-individual-mandate.html
-
And this sort of thing is exactly one of the key points of the Santorum candidacy and one of the reasons that most of us here sought alternatives to MR-- that MR simply would not be able to represent well on this issue.
-
While some criticize Obama's golf games or vacations at friends homes, compared to Romney he's a piker.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/03/vacation-primary-why-republican-candidates-win-the-summer.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts
-
JDN, Nothing too shocking in the story. You must have been gone from Wisc too long to remember that going up to the lake with family over the 4th is rather routine in the north country. Looks like they have a boat, a deck, a beach and went to town for ice cream. Sounds nice. You should try it!
For the record, my beef with Obama's golf is not that he plays, but that he is so bad at it and obsessed with it. Strangely he puts it above things like family while raising two small children, not just national security.
A sample: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZjc7q2h5dA It might go back to 1960s ski lessons since anyone taught the up-down method, lol.
Did Romney take more vacations than Obama as President? Hopefully we will learn the answer to that soon.
-
No, WI up north is rather nice; although I didn't stay with anyone that had a "13 acre compound" not to mention New Hampshire real estate costs a lot more than N. Wisconsin.
I'm not begrudging his vacation; it was just a reaction to the criticism that Obama has gotten. Bush took twice as many vacation days. Reagan too took a lot more.
Reagan held the total vacation day record of 436 until the younger Bush left office with a grand total of 977 days away from Washington, representing 1/3 of his presidency.
http://open.salon.com/blog/mpbulletin/2012/04/13/jetting_around_obamas_vacation_record
As for his golf, again, I say so what? But I will concede that is one ugly swing. :-)
-
First, must celebrate that we agree on that golf swing. No big deal. I cant play violin, bt O dont go out and play it in frpmt of pepple every weekend before I learn. There is something delusional exposed there.
Not 13 acres but the 100 year old MacG compound has all the lakelife features. Y'all should come sometime. None of it revolves around money except the EXORBITANT property taxes. It is the government that wants only
rich people at these places.
Pres Reagan was out of Washington a third of his Presidency? GOOD!!
-
Actually it was Bush gone for more than 1/3, not Reagan, but I agree, given modern communication, so what. My parents lived a few doors down from Nixon's "White House" in San Clemente. No one begrudged his "vacations" except maybe the locals since the Coast Guard took over the beach. On that level, if you want to see someone, they come to you. You don't have to be "in the office". Not to mention modern communications allow you to be almost anywhere. For example, as a "break", I'm doing work at a coffee shop at the moment.
I don't begrudge Romney his money. But wrong or right, I do bet it will become an election issue.
I've read that Obama plays to a 16/17. Although I wonder with that swing, :-) so my 10 handicap isn't much better. I'ld like to think my swing looks better anyway, but maybe not..... I do play strict rules; I've got a feeling Mulligans abound when the President plays. You'ld think a few lessons would be in order... :-)
To be fair, I've read that, "The president is private about a lot of things he does during the day; he is fiercely private about his golf game, and rarely allows reporters anywhere near him when he’s on a course." Maybe with that swing, that's good? :-)
The MacG compound sounds fabulous. If I"m in MN or even nearby I might take you up on that kind offer. As for "exorbitant property taxes" I think we had a discussion once before on property taxes so I remember I looked up MN. You do pay a lot! A lot more than Californian's pay as a percentage. I figure taxes like much of life are like a balloon. You push (tax) one place, you try to make it up elsewhere. If I recollect your income taxes are lower in MN.
-
And this sort of thing is exactly one of the key points of the Santorum candidacy and one of the reasons that most of us here sought alternatives to MR-- that MR simply would not be able to represent well on this issue.
"Did Rick Santorum have a point when he said that Romney is “the worst possible person in this field to put up [as nominee] on this most fundamental issue of this campaign?” Uh, yes." :-D
Good call Crafty!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/05/romney-s-big-tax-bluff-why-it-will-haunt-him.html
-
And it continues to get worse.
I know the chattering class had been advising Romney to correct his advisor and call the penalty a tax, but IMHO that is a mistake, his advisor had the analysis right.
By all means list all the various taxes in Obamacare! But the penalty is a penalty, an unconsitutional one but for Rabbit Ears Roberts' cowardice. Any momentary advantage for MR will be undone as soon as BO turns around and points at Romneycare.
Better to stand on principle: It was an unconstitutional penalty, the court got it wrong.
-
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/wall-street-journal-strongly-criticizes-romney-campaign/?smid=tw-share
The Wall Street Journal opinion page on Thursday gave voice to conservative hand-wringing that Mitt Romney’s campaign against President Obama is not living up to expectations.
In a sharply-worded editorial posted online Wednesday evening, The Journal wrote that Mr. Romney’s Boston-based campaign staff is “slowly squandering an historic opportunity” to defeat an incumbent president weakened by a slumping economy.
“Mr. Obama is being hurt by an economic recovery that is weakening for the third time in three years,” the paper wrote. “But Mr. Romney hasn’t been able to take advantage, and if anything he is losing ground.”
Original WSJ editorial is here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577506652734793044.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Uh oh.
-
Outsourcer in Chief and intellectual author of Obamacare-- what could go wrong with Romney's campaign? :-P :roll:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/05/oops-romney-caught-on-video-praising-obamacare-not-romneycare-video/
-
What Romney Needs to Say About Romneycare
By Mona Charen - July 6, 2012
Email Print
147
Comments ShareShare
Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom's blunder -- telling an interviewer that Romney believes the individual mandate is not a tax -- was politically dumb, if revealing. It suggests that the Romney camp continues to struggle with the ghost of Romneycare. Romney's subsequent attempt at clarification, saying that it's a tax because the Supreme Court said it is, though, "I agreed with the dissent," succeeded only in further confusing matters.
The campaign desperately needs clarity on this issue. It needs also to shake that worrying tentativeness on Romneycare -- a timidity that suggests to voters that Romney has something to hide.
The answer to the question: "Wasn't Romneycare exactly the same thing as Obamacare?" is, to quote Nancy Pelosi, "Are you serious?" The Massachusetts law contained an individual mandate, which states -- unlike the federal government -- are allowed to impose. But it did not consist of 2,700 pages of new regulations; 159 new boards and commissions; and more than $500 billion in new taxes (and counting); the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a rationing board whose decisions are unreviewable by the courts and practically untouchable by Congress itself; restrictions on religious liberty; Medicare cuts; affirmative action mandates for medical and dental schools; huge new authority over one-seventh of the U.S. economy for the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and open-ended regulations of the way doctors and others perform their jobs.
Beyond that, a glance at the history of Romneycare in Massachusetts shows that Romney's instincts and initiatives were for free-market reforms. An 85 percent Democratic legislature thwarted his best efforts, and a Democratic successor as governor twisted the law's trajectory dramatically.
Before Romney's time, Massachusetts had enacted a number of laws that made its health care system needlessly expensive. All policies offered in the state were required to cover expensive treatments such as substance abuse counseling and infertility. In 1996, the state passed a law requiring "guaranteed issue" and "community rating" -- meaning people could wait until they got sick to purchase health insurance. Naturally, rates skyrocketed. In addition, a 1986 federal law required hospital emergency rooms to treat all patients, regardless of ability to pay.
Romney's idea was to permit Massachusetts insurers to sell catastrophic plans. As Avik Roy explained in Forbes, "Shorn of the costly mandates and restrictions originating in earlier state laws, these plans, called 'Commonwealth Care Basic,' could cost much less. Romney also proposed merging the non-group and small-group markets, so as to give individuals access to the more cost-effective plans available to small businesses." Romney's plan would also have involved a degree of cost sharing so that those receiving subsidies would have an incentive to minimize their consumption.
Romney agreed to the mandate, believing that Massachusetts citizens would get the opportunity to purchase inexpensive, catastrophic plans. But the legislature, together with Romney's successor as governor, Deval Patrick, changed the law to require insurers to offer three tiers of coverage -- all of them far beyond catastrophic care. Perhaps Romney ought to have foreseen what future legislatures and governors would do -- but that's a far cry from the accusation that Romneycare was indistinguishable from Obamacare.
Romney's proposed reforms included fraud prevention measures for Medicaid, requiring the income of both parents to be considered in children's Medicaid eligibility, medical malpractice tort reform, and giving individuals the same treatment as small businesses in the purchase of health plans. He envisioned a system of increased competition and choice.
The bill that passed the legislature contained a number of features Romney couldn't countenance. He opposed the mandate, preferring to permit individuals to post a $10,000 bond in lieu of insurance. The legislature overrode him. He vetoed the employer mandate, coverage for illegal aliens, the creation of a new bureaucracy to be called The Public Health Council, a provision limiting improvements to Medicaid, and one expanding Medicaid coverage to include dental care. His vetoes were overridden.
The health reform law Romney introduced -- as opposed to the one that was implemented by his successor -- stressed competition, reduced regulation and expanded choice for the consumer.
It was a mistake for Romney to sign the bill. As Avik Roy put it, "The individual mandate was a loaded gun that Romney handed to his opponents, who used it to force individuals to buy comprehensive insurance they didn't need." But Romney's bona fides as a free-market advocate and critic of Obamacare are not undermined by Romneycare. He can rightly claim that he foresaw, and attempted to prevent, the consequences of heavy-handed government control of the health care market.
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/06/what_romney_needs_to_say_about_romneycare_114707.html
-
Good find.
Yet again we see this sort of weakness with MR. In what universe should Baraq be getting away with claiming he saved the auto industry?!? Yet he goes unchallenged as he blathers on about this.
I suspect it is as I have voiced my fear here on various occasions. MR suffers from the same "patrician's guilt complex" as President GWB.
:-P
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/07/09/obama-advisor-continues-to-spread-romney-lies-in-front-of-impotent-media/
-
I don't care about his high school or college grades, but I do care about his tax returns. His father, George Romney offered 12 years of tax returns when he ran. What's wrong with Mitts?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/10/mitt-romney-s-flat-footed-tax-dodge.html
-
There isn't any reason to think something is wrong with his tax returns. We have a federal agency that already went over them. What is wrong is that people who won't vote for him anyway would love to get all the PRIVATE information they can to make more criticisms of his success and achievement. What were the names you called him and his wealth? Filthy??
And it's a little late to get the records that candidate Obama refused. He flunked his behind the wheel test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CCN5-ovvFL0
If you don't need to show a birth certificate to be President, you don't need to show a tax return. The double standard is pathetic. If full disclosure was some kind of requirement, what happened in 2008?
-
Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, in 1967, ahead of his presidential campaign, who released 12 years of tax returns, saying, when explaining why so many years he released, "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show." That was Mitt’s father, George Romney.
I suppose he doesn't have to release these records, but the clamor for him to do so will be become louder and louder and LOUDER.
"I don’t know of any American president who has had a Swiss bank account," end-quote. That’s originally a comment made by Romney’s former Republican presidential rival, Newt Gingrich.
"In 1994, (Mitts) Romney vigorously called for then Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to release his tax returns, in order to prove that he had “nothing to hide”
I'm not, nor is anyone else accusing him of doing anything illegal, but what is Romney hiding?
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/11/as_romney_evades_on_tax_returns
As for Obama, he released multiple years of his tax returns when he ran although he never made even close to the money Romney made. What is your 2008 point?
-
"What is your 2008 point?"
The winner ran on a couple of phony autobiographies and a sixth of a term as a junior senator. We can check the record but I don't recall you or any other supporter pushing for more documents. What a joke.
What part of your voting decision will hinge on his private tax returns? None of it is my guess. The Swiss known for their banking, what's the point of exposing a bank account that isn't where you and I bank? Nothing except to embarrass him to the small minded. Newt said it so it is an okay criticism? Newt said quite a bit that isn't very flattering to Obama too, lol.
"the clamor for him to do so will be become louder and louder and LOUDER"
Yes, the won't be clamoring about JOB GROWTH this election season. Just shiny objects, over there!
-
We will see.... I predict if he doesn't, and soon, fully disclose, it will begin to haunt him. Voters will care....
It IS relevant. Besides high school/college grades which aren't relevant, Obama unlike Romney, offered full disclosure. No more documents were necessary. In contrast, the average guy doesn't have "Swiss Bank Accounts" or accounts in the Cayman Islands. Kinda hard to relate or even understand.
By the way, Obama did serve three terms in the Illinois State Legislature. A "sixth of a term" in the U.S. Senate? I thought he served nearly four years out of six or nearly 2/3rd's of his U.S. Senate term?
I'm not knocking Romney's record. Heck, I like his record while he was governor. :evil:
I can't wait for the debates to begin.
-
What the hell is wrong with a Swiss bank account? Hell, DBI had one to facilitate business in Europe-- until the US authorities badgered the Swiss so much the bank closed accounts like ours down. Now we are fuct up the anus with all kinds of stupid transaction fees :x :x :x
Obama announced for the presidency 18 months after entering the Senate.
And if you think he disclosed or the media pushed him for disclosure on the plethora of wild, weird, and radical things and associates in his background , , ,
-
And if you think he disclosed or the media pushed him for disclosure on the plethora of wild, weird, and radical things and associates in his background , , ,
No one cared about the "wild" "weird" rumors and innuendo except a few zealots and right wing extreme bloggers. In contrast, most of America in my opinion WILL care about disclosure of taxes.
Or do you really think the subject of Romney's taxes will go away and that it's not relevant? :?
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/07/11/msnbc-host-fails-to-spin-white-house-lies/
Click on the clip with AM and John Sununu. What a demolition! She'll be walking bowlegged for a while :lol: :lol: 8-)
-
"Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) flatly told CNN Thursday that Romney needed to make at least six years’ worth of returns public — and soon.
“I think he should release his financial records and I think if he does it in July it would be a lot better than in October,” Jones said. “Whenever you are asking for the vote of the American people that you need to fully disclose what your holdings are, if you have any.”
Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who considered running against Romney in the Republican primaries and advises the conservative American Crossroads on its election strategy, said this week that he saw value in disclosure as well.
Barbour told CNN Tuesday that he would release the returns if he was in Romney’s shoes.
“I would. But should it be an issue in the campaign? I don’t think it amounts to diddly.”
Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele also called on Romney to release additional returns on MSNBC this week, reasoning that it would put Democratic attacks to rest. The Obama campaign highlighted Steele’s quote in a web video on Romney’s Cayman Islands and Bermuda assets.
“If there’s nothing there, there’s no ‘there’ there, don’t create a there,’” Steele said."
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/growing-republican-chorus-pushes-romney-to-release-tax-returns.php
-
"For 2010, the Romneys enjoyed a federal tax rate of only 13.9% on their adjusted gross income of roughly $22 million, which gave them a lower federal tax burden (including payroll, income and excise taxes) than the average American wage-earning family in the $40,000 to $50,000 range. The principal reason for this munificently low tax rate is that much of Romney's income, even today, comes from "carried interest," which is just the jargon used by the private equity industry for compensation received for managing other people's money."
The vast majority of tax scholars and policy experts agree that awarding a super-low tax rate to this one form of labor income is completely unjustified as a policy matter. Romney has not explained how, as president, he can bring objectivity to bear on this tax loophole that is estimated as costing all of us billions of dollars every year.
The U.S. presidency is a position of immense magnitude and requires a thorough vetting. What the American people deserve is a complete and honest presentation by Romney of how his wealth was accumulated, where it is now invested, what purpose is served by all the various offshore vehicles in which he has an interest and what his financial relationship with Bain Capital has been since his retirement from the company.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinion/kleinbard-canellos-romney-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
-
This makes good sense to me:
Can a President seeking re-election with a stagnant economy and high unemployment really be winning the jobs argument against a man who backed hundreds of thriving businesses? Can a President who sank taxpayer dollars into green-energy failures now succeed by attacking an opponent who funded winning start-ups with his own money?
Yes, President Obama's attacks on Mitt Romney and the company he founded, Bain Capital, are deceptive and hypocritical. But Team Romney is compounding the damage from this character assault by conceding too much of the Obama critique.
Related Video
Assistant editorial page editor James Freeman on what argument Mitt Romney should be making on Bain Capital. Photo: Associated Press
.
.When attacked for "outsourcing jobs," the Romney camp responds by saying that Mr. Obama does it, too. Or the Romney campaign suggests that their candidate had already left the firm to save the Olympics when Bain was doing all the really bad stuff. Thus the trivial back-and-forth over when he really, finally, left Bain for good.
Tuesday's Romney response was that Mr. Obama has collected more than $100,000 in contributions from Bain employees even as he has viciously attacked them.
This is a fair (if still insufficient) point, and the Romney campaign could add that the President may have benefited himself from Bain capitalism. Firms like Bain may have helped pay Mr. Obama's salary when he taught law at the University of Chicago. While he was a professor there, the school ramped up its investments in private equity, enjoyed outsize returns and, according to a 2000 article in Pensions and Investments magazine, was a limited partner in more than 80 private-equity funds. The school won't say whether Bain funds were among them.
But the next time Mr. Obama talks on the campaign trail about his rise from humble roots, he might also express some gratitude to the Mitt Romneys whose private-equity investments helped to build university endowments and thus helped underwrite Mr. Obama's career in academia. Those same endowments have also helped pay for the education of thousands of middle-class students.
***
In any event, hitting Mr. Obama for his hypocrisy still won't win the argument, if both men merely share the blame for acts of capitalism committed by Bain. Instead, Mr. Romney should enthusiastically defend Bain, and the job-creating contrast with Obamanomics that it represents. Did Bain have to cut some jobs as it built companies that ultimately created many more jobs? Yes, but its companies created more than they lost, and this dynamic spirit of improvement and enterprise represents a far better path to prosperity than the government-directed, political investing of Mr. Obama.
Mr. Romney can happily claim credit for Bain's entire impressive history, rather than just the period through 1999. He has every right to do so as the company's founder. And it will help illuminate the basic difference between his Bain career and the President's 3.5 years running America's economic policy to deliver 8.2% unemployment.
Mr. Romney's Bain worked so well that it became the model for an entire industry. Mr. Romney helped create Staples, a start-up that worked and created tens of thousands of jobs. Mr. Obama financed Solyndra, which did not work. Neither did Abound Solar. The many Obama alternative-energy ventures play in different market segments, but they struggle for the same reason: They serve political agendas more than customers.
Mr. Romney has attacked Mr. Obama's Solyndra investment in particular, but he hasn't linked it consistently to the President's failed model of government-led investing or contrasted it with the successful culture Mr. Romney built at Bain.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
.What Bain did is what all successful organizations do: Seek to deliver products and services that are better, faster, cheaper. In some instances that means fewer employees, even if Mr. Obama still can't or won't grasp the concept that we live in a competitive world. How many readers of this editorial have jobs today because the founders of their companies figured out how to spend more money on a slower manufacturing process to create goods of lower quality?
***
Overall, Bain capitalism means more successes than failures, and many more jobs. In March of this year, the managing directors of Bain Capital wrote to their investors and reported that, over the firm's 28 years, companies backed by Bain have grown their revenues more than twice as fast "as both the S&P and the U.S. economy."
The managers went on to note that after Bain invested, companies have grown their revenues by more than $105 billion globally, including $80 billion in the United States. Bain-backed companies, they added, have opened more than 5,000 stores and facilities during their ownership.
Mr. Romney may have thought that debating Bain was a distraction from focusing on the failed Obama economy. But with Mr. Obama using Bain as his main argument against Mr. Romney's record as a job creator, the Republican has no choice but to fight back or he'll lose the election. Americans will choose Bain capitalism over Solyndra crony capitalism, if Mr. Romney makes the case.
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/what-s-keeping-romney-from-sharing-his-taxpaying-history--20120719
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/dnc-apologizes-to-ann-romney-for-horse-videos-20120719
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/19/right-wing-rips-mitt-romney-for-refusing-to-release-tax-returns.html
-
The 'drumbeat' looks like it's the same three people. I still don't see where Romney acquired the July 19 deadline that he allegedly missed, lol. The drumbeat line JDN took from my Elizabeth Warren post, but the analogy fails. Her deadline is everyday to correct her outright lie. Romney, as far as we know, did nothing wrong.
The witch hunt from Bachmann is offensive but a witch hunt serves the right political purposes, well that is different. Romney is presumed guilty until proven innocent. The charge sounds like a dictionary definition of un-American.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-must-answer-bain-charges-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Dick Morris is partly right. Romney needs to answer persuasively. The problem is that when he does he is on defense instead of on message.
Morris, like Dems, screws up the term outsourcing. Every company of size has a purchasing department and they outsource, not a bad word. I outsourced the ingredients of my lunch today. I think they mean offshore, the verb, to send the jobs outside the US. Still, nothing bad about that either if you believe the U.S. can compete just fine in a healthy global economy.
The WSJ wrote years ago (paraphrasing), globalization is both a) inevitable and b) beneficial. If you disagree with b), please see point a).
-
If Mitt were to handle it correctly, he would knock it out of the park.
-
Romney to VFW, skipping intro: ...
Just consider some of the challenges I discussed at your last national convention:
Since then, has the American economy recovered?
Has our ability to shape world events been enhanced, or diminished?
Have we gained greater confidence among our allies, and greater respect from our adversaries?
And, perhaps most importantly, has the most severe security threat facing America and our friends, a nuclear-armed Iran, become more or less likely?
These clear measures are the ultimate tests of American leadership. And, by these standards, we haven’t seen much in the President’s first term that inspires confidence in a second.
The President’s policies have made it harder to recover from the deepest recession in seventy years … exposed the military to cuts that no one can justify … compromised our national-security secrets … and in dealings with other nations, given trust where it is not earned, insult where it is not deserved, and apology where it is not due.
From Berlin to Cairo to the United Nations, President Obama has shared his view of America and its place among nations. I have come here today to share mine.
I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of this country. I am not ashamed of American power. I take pride that throughout history our power has brought justice where there was tyranny, peace where there was conflict, and hope where there was affliction and despair. I do not view America as just one more point on the strategic map, one more power to be balanced. I believe our country is the greatest force for good the world has ever known, and that our influence is needed as much now as ever. And I am guided by one overwhelming conviction and passion: This century must be an American Century.
In 1941, Henry Luce called on his countrymen – just then realizing their strength – “to create the first great American century.” And they succeeded: together with their allies, they won World War II, they rescued Europe, they defeated Communism, and America took its place as leader of the free world. Across the globe, they fought, they bled, they led. They showed the world the extraordinary courage of the American heart and the generosity of the American spirit.
That courage and generosity remains unchanged today. But sadly, this president has diminished American leadership, and we are reaping the consequences. The world is dangerous, destructive, chaotic. And the two men running to be your commander-in-chief must offer their answers to the challenges we face.
Like a watchman in the night, we must remain at our post – and keep guard of the freedom that defines and ennobles us, and our friends. In an American Century, we have the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American Century, we secure peace through our strength. And if by absolute necessity we must employ it, we must wield our strength with resolve. In an American Century, we lead the free world and the free world leads the entire world.
If we do not have the strength or vision to lead, then other powers will take our place, pulling history in a very different direction. A just and peaceful world depends on a strong and confident America. I pledge to you that if I become commander-in-chief, the United States of America will fulfill its duty, and its destiny.
American leadership depends, as it always has, on our economic strength, on our military strength, and on our moral strength. If any of these falter, no skill of diplomacy or presidential oratory can compensate. Today, the strength of our economy is in jeopardy.
A healthy American economy is what underwrites American power. When growth is missing, government revenue falls, social spending rises, and many in Washington look to cut defense spending as an easy out. That includes our current President.
Today, we are just months away from an arbitrary, across-the-board budget reduction that would saddle the military with a trillion dollars in cuts, severely shrink our force structure, and impair our ability to meet and deter threats. Don’t bother trying to find a serious military rationale behind any of this, unless that rationale is wishful thinking. Strategy is not driving President Obama’s massive defense cuts. In fact, his own Secretary of Defense warned that these reductions would be “devastating.” And he is right.
That devastation starts at home. These cuts would only weaken an already stretched VA system and impair our solemn commitment that every veteran receives care second to none. I will not allow that to happen.
This is not the time for the President’s radical cuts in the military. Look around the globe. Other major powers are rapidly adding to their military capabilities, some with intentions very different from ours. The regime in Tehran is drawing closer to developing a nuclear weapon. The threat of radical Islamic terrorism persists. The threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation is ever-present. And we are still at war and still have uniformed men and women in conflict.
All this and more is ongoing in the world. And yet the President has chosen this moment for wholesale reductions in the nation’s military capacity. When the biggest announcement in his last State of the Union address on improving our military was that the Pentagon will start using more clean energy – then you know it’s time for a change.
We’re not the first people to observe this. It is reported that Bob Gates, the President’s first secretary of defense, bluntly addressed another security problem within this administration. After secret operational details of the bin Laden raid were given to reporters, Secretary Gates walked into the West Wing and told the Obama team to “shut up.” He added a colorful word for emphasis.
Lives of American servicemen and women are at stake. But astonishingly, the administration failed to change its ways. More top-secret operations were leaked, even some involving covert action in Iran.
This isn’t a partisan issue; it’s a national security crisis. And yesterday, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, quote, “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.”
This conduct is contemptible. It betrays our national interest. It compromises our men and women in the field. And it demands a full and prompt investigation by a special counsel, with explanation and consequence. Obama appointees, who are accountable to President Obama’s Attorney General, should not be responsible for investigating the leaks coming from the Obama White House.
Whoever provided classified information to the media, seeking political advantage for the administration, must be exposed, dismissed, and punished. The time for stonewalling is over.
It is not enough to say the matter is being looked into, and leave it at that. When the issue is the political use of highly sensitive national security information, it is unacceptable to say, “We’ll report our findings after Election Day.”
Exactly who in the White House betrayed these secrets? Did a superior authorize it? These are things that Americans are entitled to know – and they are entitled to know right now. If the President believes – as he said last week – that the buck stops with him, then he owes all Americans a full and prompt accounting of the facts.
And let me make this very clear: These events make the decision we face in November all the more important. What kind of White House would reveal classified material for political gain? I’ll tell you right now: Mine won’t.
The harm done when national security secrets are betrayed extends, of course, to the trust that allies place in the United States.
The operating principle of American foreign policy has been to work with our allies so that we can deter aggression before it breaks out into open conflict. That policy depends on nurturing our alliances and standing up for our common values.
Yet the President has moved in the opposite direction.
It began with the sudden abandonment of friends in Poland and the Czech Republic. They had courageously agreed to provide sites for our anti-missile systems, only to be told, at the last hour, that the agreement was off. As part of the so-called reset in policy, missile defenses were sacrificed as a unilateral concession to the Russian government.
If that gesture was designed to inspire good will from Russia, it clearly missed the mark. The Russian government defended the dictator in Damascus, arming him as he slaughtered the Syrian people.
We can only guess what Vladimir Putin makes of the Obama administration. He regained the Russian presidency in a corrupt election, and for that, he got a congratulatory call from the Oval Office. And then there was that exchange picked up by a microphone that President Obama didn’t know was on. We heard him asking Dmitry Medvedev to tell Mr. Putin to give him “space.” “This is my last election,” President Obama said, and “After my election I’ll have more flexibility.”
Why is flexibility with Russian leaders more important than transparency to the American people?
President Obama had a moment of candor, however, just the other day. He said that the actions of the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez have not had a serious national security impact on us. In my view, inviting Hezbollah into our hemisphere is severe, serious, and a threat.
But at least he was consistent. After all, this is the president who faltered when the Iranian people were looking for support in their struggle against the ayatollahs. That uprising was treated as an inconvenient problem for the President’s policy of engagement, instead of as a moral and strategic opportunity. That terrible misjudgment should never be repeated. When unarmed women and men in Tehran find the courage to confront their oppressors, at risk of torture and death, they should hear the unequivocal voice of an American president affirming their right to be free.
I will leave Reno this evening on a trip abroad that will take me to England, Poland, and Israel. And since I wouldn’t venture into another country to question American foreign policy, I will tell you right here – before I leave – what I think of this administration’s shabby treatment of one of our finest friends.
President Obama is fond of lecturing Israel’s leaders. He was even caught by a microphone deriding them. He has undermined their position, which was tough enough as it was. And even at the United Nations, to the enthusiastic applause of Israel’s enemies, he spoke as if our closest ally in the Middle East was the problem.
The people of Israel deserve better than what they have received from the leader of the free world. And the chorus of accusations, threats, and insults at the United Nations should never again include the voice of the President of the United States.
There are values, causes, and nations that depend on American strength, on the clarity of our purpose, and on the reliability of our commitments. There is work in this world that only America and our allies can do, hostile powers that only we can deter, and challenges that only we can overcome.
For the past decade, among those challenges has been the war in Afghanistan. As commander-in-chief, I will have a solemn duty to our men and women in uniform. A president owes our troops, their families, and the American people a clear explanation of our mission, and a commitment not to play politics with the decisions of war.
I have been critical of the President’s decision to withdraw the surge troops during the fighting season, against the advice of the commanders on the ground. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat.
As president, my goal in Afghanistan will be to complete a successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and solicit the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.
We face another continuing challenge in a rising China. China is attentive to the interests of its government – but it too often disregards the rights of its people. It is selective in the freedoms it allows; and, as with its one-child policy, it can be ruthless in crushing the freedoms it denies. In conducting trade with America, it permits flagrant patent and copyright violations … forestalls American businesses from competing in its market … and manipulates its currency to obtain unfair advantage. It is in our mutual interest for China to be a partner for a stable and secure world, and we welcome its participation in trade. But the cheating must finally be brought to a stop. President Obama hasn’t done it and won’t do it. I will.
We’ll need that same clarity of purpose and resolve in the Middle East. America cannot be neutral in the outcome there. We must clearly stand for the values of representative government, economic opportunity, and human rights. And we must stand against the extension of Iranian or jihadist influence.
Egypt is at the center of this historical drama. In many ways, it has the power to tip the balance in the Arab world toward freedom and modernity. As president, I will not only direct the billions in assistance we give to Egypt toward that goal, but I will also work with partner nations to place conditions on their assistance as well. Unifying our collective influence behind a common purpose will foster the development of a government that represents all Egyptians, maintains peace with Israel, and promotes peace throughout the region. The United States is willing to help Egypt support peace and prosperity, but we will not be complicit in oppression and instability.
There is no greater danger in the world today than the prospect of the ayatollahs in Tehran possessing nuclear weapons capability. Yet for all the talks and conferences, all of the extensions and assurances, can anyone say we are farther from this danger now than four years ago?
The same ayatollahs who each year mark a holiday by leading chants of “Death to America” are not going to be talked out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. What’s needed is all the firmness, clarity, and moral courage that we and our allies can gather. Sanctions must be enforced without exception, cutting off the regime’s sources of wealth. Negotiations must secure full and unhindered access for inspections. As it is, the Iranian regime claims the right to enrich nuclear material for supposedly peaceful purposes. This claim is discredited by years of deception. A clear line must be drawn: There must be a full suspension of any enrichment, period.
And at every turn, Iran must know that the United States and our allies stand as one in these critical objectives. Only in this way can we successfully counter the catastrophic threat that Iran presents. I pledge to you and to all Americans that if I become commander-in-chief, I will use every means necessary to protect ourselves and the region, and to prevent the worst from happening while there is still time.
It is a mistake – and sometimes a tragic one – to think that firmness in American foreign policy can bring only tension or conflict. The surest path to danger is always weakness and indecision. In the end, it is resolve that moves events in our direction, and strength that keeps the peace.
I will not surrender America’s leadership in the world. We must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose, and resolve in our might.
This is very simple: if you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.
The 21st century can and must be an American Century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
Fewer members of the Greatest Generation are with us today – and they can’t hold the torch as high as they have in the past. We must now seize the torch they carried so gallantly and at such sacrifice. It is an eternal torch of decency, freedom and hope. It is not America’s torch alone. But it is America’s duty – and honor – to hold it high enough so that all the world can see its light.
Believe in America.
Thank you and God Bless the United States of America.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/24/transcript-mitt-romneys-remarks-at-vfw-national-convention/
-
This is a pretty good story about Mitt's management of the SLC Olympics 2002:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/865559550/Romney-and-the-Olympics-What-the-SLC-Games-say-about-a-Mitt-Romney-presidency.html
Romney and the Olympics: What the SLC Games say about a Mitt Romney presidency
By Lisa Riley Roche , Deseret News July 25 2012
(excerpts)
"Both supporters and critics of Romney's three years as the CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee say his experiences in Utah offer insights into what he would bring to the White House. "
...
"Romney's expertise is data-driven analysis."
...
"Bullock, who was Romney’s No. 2 at SLOC as chief operating officer of the Olympics, said Romney has had to tone down his personality since throwing his hat in the ring."
...
“I wish the rest of the world knew Mitt as we did,” Bullock said. “He’s just a blast to be around.”
;;;
“I always found him very unique because he was a leader and an executive."
...
“If he ever got in the White House, that would absolutely mirror what he did in the Games,” Eynon said. “When Mitt says he would cut nonessential things … I would take him at his word.”
...
"Gillespie said Romney’s ability to focus on what’s important and give up what isn't, no matter how much pressure there may be not to, will win over voters."
...
Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, who’s heading the planning for Romney’s transition to the White House, said the results of the Olympics speak for themselves.
“Discouragement was replaced by belief. The $400 million deficit was replaced by a $100 million surplus. The 2002 Winter Olympic Games are widely respected as among the best ever put on,” Leavitt said.
Romney accomplished this, he said, by applying the principles learned at Harvard Business School and put in practice building a personal fortune estimated at $250 million: Start with tearing apart the books and bringing in experts from both the finance and Olympic world.
"I heard Mitt over and over again giving a speech talking about the need to separate 'want-to-haves' from 'need-to-haves.' He set clear priorities, made hard decisions and stuck with them."
-
John Adams once said, "facts are stubborn things." These days, another Massachusetts politician has found that saying to ring especially true.
While it's still unclear how Mitt Romney can be the CEO, chairman, president and sole shareholder of Bain Capital, a company that he claims no responsibility for, it's become increasingly evident that candidate Romney simply doesn't want to talk about the facts of his business record.
In an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, Romney suggested that to question his experiences is to "attack success." If this is the case, and if we're also not supposed to talk above a whisper about Mitt's record as governor, including his signature accomplishment in health care reform, then which parts of his biography remain on the table?
Donna Brazile
Romney clearly prefers his largely undisclosed experiences in the private sector over his publicly poor record in Boston. At every turn, Romney and his campaign have attempted to steer the discussion toward business matters for just this reason.
John King: Why is 1999 so important in 2012?
But when the Washington Post took him up on it last month and published an article headlined "Romney's Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas," the Romney campaign was caught flatfooted. The Post found that Bain Capital, the firm Romney spent much of his professional life building up, had invested in companies that had not only shipped jobs overseas -- a practice of some concern to working- and middle-class Americans -- but had pioneered the practice.
Romney defends Bain departure date More questions on Romney's Bain tenure
Romney's campaign pushed back hard, claiming that the Post had its facts wrong. The campaign met with the Post's editors and demanded a retraction, claiming that Romney had left Bain in 1999, supposedly before the outsourcing investment began. The Washington Post listened to the Romney side of the story but stood its ground.
Now we know why. The Boston Globe reported two weeks ago that Romney had signed official documents claiming to be the president and CEO of Bain Capital as late as 2002, when the company was actively building up firms that outsourced American jobs. He didn't just say this casually at some dinner party; he swore it was the truth on Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
What did the Romney campaign do this time? It hit the "repeat" button and demanded a retraction from the Globe. Who are you going to believe, the campaign asked its hometown paper, me or your lying eyes? Once again, the investigative journalists stood by their reporting.
Since the Globe story, the hits have kept coming. The AP reported this week that Romney stayed in "regular contact" with Bain during his so-called absence, "personally signing or approving a series of corporate and legal documents through the spring of 2001." Several sources are now saying that Romney made repeated trips to Boston to meet with Bain executives during this period, even though he recently told CBS's Jan Crawford that he doesn't "recall even coming back once to go to a Bain or a management meeting" during the period in question.
So despite what the Romney campaign claims, media interest in this story has nothing to do with attacking personal success in the private sector. It has nothing to do with avoiding the real issues of the campaign.
It has everything to do with attempting to get to the bottom of a situation in which what a candidate is saying seems to have come unglued from the stubborn facts.
Opinion: Why won't Romney release more tax returns?
Americans know that a level playing field empowers a successful economy. You want to talk about soaking the rich? Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, paid an effective tax rate of nearly 37% in 1967. The elder Romney didn't complain and released his tax returns to prove his compliance with the law of the land he wanted to lead. In 2010, Mitt Romney's tax rate bobbed and weaved its way below 15% -- and we know that only because the public had to pry his return (he has released only a full one) out of his clenched hands.
Even more fascinating than the fact that Romney's father released 12 years' worth when he ran for president in 1968 is the reason why. "One year could be a fluke," the elder Romney said, "perhaps done for show."
This country has a noble habit of withholding elected office from people who have trouble with the facts. Romney could end these discussions overnight by releasing his tax returns, as he has been called on to do by Republicans like Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.
Until he makes peace with the facts, Romney will be stuck at the intersection of what is both a character issue and a policy issue. If Romney won't stand by his record at Bain, just like he won't stand by his record as governor of Massachusetts, how exactly is the American public supposed to evaluate the candidate? And if he won't disclose his own relationship with tax loopholes and offshore tax havens, leaving voters more questions than answers, how can the American people trust him to reform our tax code in a way that closes loopholes, eliminates free-riding and ensures that everyone is playing by the same rules?
Facts and the Romney campaign have a difficult relationship these days. But they do share one thing in common: They're both stubborn.
-
There seems to b e a misconception, Romney is running for President of Bain Capital, been there done that. Were you going to reply on what is the minimum number of years of tax returns made public required by law to be President and their exact deadlines he seems to have missed? You've added Donna Bazille to the list of people who won't vote for him until he releases at least 4, 6 or was it 12 returns? Funny.
If Hillary went all the way back honestly without a statute of limitation she would be an options trading felon. And no one cares. Not running for President? Well she was.
"Romney could end these discussions overnight by releasing his tax returns"
That just isn't so, is it?
Romney's tax returns will tell you what tax policy was and some implications of it at the time of the returns. You should already know that or else that information is available elswhere. There is no reason to believe he hasn't followed all applicable laws or missed any reporting requirements to the various agencies.
Unlike the Senator who was the 60th vote to pass Obamacare, Al Franken, who owed taxes in 17 states amounting to over $50,000 or the Obama's Secretary of the Treasury who had filed wrong in 10 years of returns counting 4 years wrong twice.
Like the Registrar of Records for Hawaiian birth records, maybe some middle level IRS manger can certify that the former Governor is up to snuff on his returns and payments. Would that satisfy you? No.
He's running for POTUS. You have to be 40 and a natural born citizen. Do you have any questions of him as to what he might do as President?
-
Several of Dem party hack Donna Bazille's assertions have been given Pinochio Awards for quite some time now. There is no way she does not know any better-- which simply means , , , Given the closeness with which you follow these matters, , ,
-
Deception and distraction are what they sell. Economic disaster is what you buy if you buy it. At their very best they can accuse opponents of exactly what they are doing in plain sight, whether it is false context or refusing full disclosure.
-
http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-respects-israeli-right-to-attack-iran-20120729 but, http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-clarifies-comments-on-iran-20120729.
-
Piece on Romney's trip to Israel and its domestic impact.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/25/mitt_s_pilgrimage
-
Another take on this trip is that Romney is shoring up support from conservative Republicans and evangelicals who have a concern or passion for Israel in numbers larger than Jewish Americans.
-
Romney says Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/07/30/israel-romney-declares-jerusalem-capital/RczP2bLOMmYw3o57CmX4IJ/story.html
That was easy.
In other news, Sacramento is still the capital of California, lol.
-
Romney says Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel
Romney says a lot about what he doesn't know about. :evil:
That was easy. ]
In other news, Sacramento is still the capital of California, lol.
And IT'S LEGITIMATE. That's more than Jerusalem can say! LOL :-D
[/quote
-
If you already posted why my version of the facts is wrong or anything that supports your version of the facts, I missed it. Are the other 192 nations in the United Nations all legitimate and just Israel is illegitimate?
If your story is right and they are the worst of 193 nations, why stop at denying them a capital? Obama is bragging that he, in the first person, has given them record levels of aid. If they are an illegal nation, why have an embassy at all? Why not cut off trade? Cut off aid. Kick them out of the UN if they are illegitimate in borders and actions. But Obama proposes none of that. Why not? He wants it both ways. Being deceitful is complicated.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312572/romney-s-remarkable-speech-jerusalem-daniel-pipes
The Corner
Romney’s Remarkable Speech in Jerusalem
By Daniel Pipes
July 30, 2012
Mitt Romney, the all-but-official Republican presidential nominee, delivered a stem-winder of a speech to the Jerusalem Foundation yesterday, packing emotional support with frank policy statements. The contrast with Obama could hardly be more dramatic. Indeed, one could go through the speech and note the many refutations of Obama. For example, the opening comment that “To step foot into Israel is to step foot into a nation that began with an ancient promise made in this land” directly contrasts with Obama’s crabbed statement in Cairo about “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland [being] rooted in a tragic history.”
Also, in contrast to the nonsensical Obama administration stance on Jerusalem being Israel’s capital — sneaking into change captions that mistakenly identified it as that and going through verbal gymnastics to avoid calling it that — Romney came out and plainly called Jerusalem “the capital of Israel.”
Many of his statements are paeans to the Jewish state and its extraordinary ties to the United States. Some quotations, with my italics on the key words in each quotation:
Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel. . . .
It is my firm conviction that the security of Israel is in the vital national security interest of the United States. . . .
We have seen the horrors of history. We will not stand by. We will not watch them play out again. It would be foolish not to take Iran’s leaders at their word. They are, after all, the product of a radical theocracy. … We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran’s leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions.
. . . our alliance runs deeper than the designs of strategy or the weighing of interests. The story of how America – a nation still so new to the world by the standards of this ancient region – rose up to become the dear friend of the people of Israel is among the finest and most hopeful in our nation’s history. Different as our paths have been, we see the same qualities in one another. Israel and America are in many respects reflections of one another.
. . . the enduring alliance between the State of Israel and the United States of America is more than a strategic alliance: it is a force for good in the world. America’s support of Israel should make every American proud. We should not allow the inevitable complexities of modern geopolitics to obscure fundamental touchstones. . . . A free and strong America will always stand with a free and strong Israel. . . .
By history and by conviction, our two countries are bound together. No individual, no nation, no world organization, will pry us apart. And as long as we stay together and stand together, there is no threat we cannot overcome and very little that we cannot achieve.
But of the whole speech, it is the final words that most struck me: “May God bless America, and may He bless and protect the Nation of Israel.” When last did a politician ask the Lord to protect another country?
Comments: (1) Obama and Romney stand as far apart on Israel as they do on the sources of economic growth. (2) Over and over again, Romney returned to the moral bonds between the two countries; yes, there are mutual benefits from our connection, but ultimately it reflects something higher and greater than any of us. (3) If he is elected, it will be fascinating to watch to what extent the outlook expressed today will translate to the workaday policy issues. I expect it will have a substantial effect.
-
Doug I have clearly said Israel, as a country, is legitimate. However if Israel says Jeruselum is their capital THAT is illegitimate. ALL countries seem to agree that Jeruselum is NOT the legitimate capital of Israel.
Got it?
-
No. I still did not catch any supported reason why you believe that, just a smear.
-
Given the state of the economy, beating Obama should be like shooting a sitting duck. But Romney is a buffoon. Too bad the Republicans couldn't find someone better. Romney may still win, but it will be in spite of himself, not because of himself.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/31/the-ugly-american-mitt-romney-s-disastrous-overseas-excursion2.html
-
"Romney is a buffoon. Too bad the Republicans couldn't find someone better. Romney may still win, but it will be in spite of himself, not because of himself."
Is ad hominem - against the person - the best that you've got? Notghing about governing philosophy or policy? Bob Shrum, a Dem operative, doesn't like him either. And we were counting on his vote.
Gaffes that aren't gaffes and not a mention of the 2 things that did happened on the trip, the stand with Israel speech in Jerusalem and the Reagan-like pro-freedom speech in Poland.
On the Olympics, they asked someone who ran them once and he gave an honest answer. They'll get through it.
If you don't get the culture difference, maybe I can help you. The GDP per capita of Israel is $32,300.http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Middle-East/Israel/gdp-per-capita The GDP of West Bank - Gaza Strip is 1/11th of that, $2900. One is a true Silicon Valley, they other is a third world country in the most negative ways, illiteracy, poverty, terrorism. You don't know there is a cultural difference? What a joke. You ought to go read George Gilder's book 'The Israel Test' http://www.amazon.com/The-Israel-Test-George-Gilder/dp/0980076358
"...Israel...a leader of human civilization, technological progress, and scientific advance. Tiny Israel stands behind only the United States in its contributions to the hi-tech economy. Israel has become the world's paramount example of the blessings of freedom." Then he backs it up with data and examples.
To JDN and Mr. Shrum, there IS a cultural difference.
I'll post the two excellent Romney speeches separately.
Must admit Shrum knows his losing Presidential campaigns though. He holds the all time record for running them. Pres. Gephart, Dukakis, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, John Kerry, critics often point out a "curse" associated with the presidential campaigns that Shrum has worked on, since he has yet to claim victory for any of his candidates in eight presidential elections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9895-2004Sep9.html
-
The Romney Foreign Tour
He commits the Washington error of telling the truth. .Article Video Comments (115) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.2EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.smaller Larger
So Mitt Romney's foreign tour has ended, and the media verdict is that it rated somewhere between an embarrassment and a fiasco. We guess that's one way to describe a trip that garnered virtual endorsements from Israel's Prime Minister and Poland's most famous citizen, raked in $1 million or so in campaign cash, and gave the presumptive GOP nominee a chance to lay out a foreign-policy agenda.
Granted, this is a trip that got off on the wrong foot. Many Londoners might privately agree that some of the security preparations for the Olympics were "disconcerting," as Mr. Romney put it in an interview, but they didn't need a traveling American politician to tell them.
Yet one definition of a gaffe is to tell the truth, and that's certainly the case with Mr. Romney's other supposed mistakes, this time in Israel. One was to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Another was to talk tough on Iran. The third was to suggest—egads!—that Israeli and Palestinian culture might have something to do with the respective state of their economies.
Related Video
Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on Mitt Romney's remark that culture explains Israel's economic success and Palestine's poverty. Photos: Associated Press
.
.Jerusalem is the capital of Israel—the seat of its government, the home of its President and Prime Minister, the location of its parliament and supreme court. That's true even if the U.S. State Department puts its embassy in Tel Aviv.
The tough talk on Iran was no different from what Mr. Romney—or President Obama—has been saying for years. At least Mr. Romney showed that he understood that Tehran is a dedicated and fanatical enemy of Israel and the U.S., not a misunderstood nation seeking a better bargain from the West. Too bad Mr. Obama didn't demonstrate the same realism about the mullahs four years ago.
As for Mr. Romney's observations about "culture"—denounced as "racist" by one Palestinian spokesman—it's worth noting that forward-looking Palestinians are also seeking to emulate Israel's culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. The pity for Palestinians is a political culture in which Hamas is a dominating force, economic co-operation with Israelis is called "collaboration" and often punished by death, and children are reared to think of terrorists as martyrs. If Palestinians now complain of the restrictions Israel imposes on them, perhaps it has something to do with a "culture" they continue to celebrate.
Equally to Mr. Romney's credit was his celebration of Poland both as a role model for defying political tyranny during the Cold War and for its economic policies ever since. "A march toward economic liberty and smaller government has meant a march toward higher living standards," he said in Warsaw, one of the rare European capitals that has lived within its means and not tipped into a sovereign debt crisis.
That's another statement of the obvious that rankles in Washington because it's true, and because it is so markedly at odds with America's own economic mismanagement.
A version of this article appeared August 1, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Romney Foreign Tour.
-
Glenn Hubbard: The Romney Plan for Economic Recovery
Tax cuts, spending restraint and repeal of Obama's regulatory excesses would mean 12 million new jobs in his first term alone.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577562842656362660.html
By GLENN HUBBARD (Romney adviser, Dean of Columbia Business School)
We are currently in the most anemic economic recovery in the memory of most Americans. Declining consumer sentiment and business concerns over policy uncertainty weigh on the minds of all of us. We must fix our economy's growth and jobs machine.
We can do this. The U.S. economy has the talent, ideas, energy and capital for the robust economic growth that has characterized much of America's experience in our lifetimes. Our standard of living and the nation's standing as a world power depend on restoring that growth.
But to do so we must have vastly different policies aimed at stopping runaway federal spending and debt, reforming our tax code and entitlement programs, and scaling back costly regulations. Those policies cannot be found in the president's proposals. They are, however, the core of Gov. Mitt Romney's plan for economic recovery and renewal.
In response to the recession, the Obama administration chose to emphasize costly, short-term fixes—ineffective stimulus programs, myriad housing programs that went nowhere, and a rush to invest in "green" companies.
As a consequence, uncertainty over policy—particularly over tax and regulatory policy—slowed the recovery and limited job creation. One recent study by Scott Baker and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago found that this uncertainty reduced GDP by 1.4% in 2011 alone, and that returning to pre-crisis levels of uncertainty would add about 2.3 million jobs in just 18 months.
The Obama administration's attempted short-term fixes, even with unprecedented monetary easing by the Federal Reserve, produced average GDP growth of just 2.2% over the past three years, and the consensus outlook appears no better for the year ahead.
Moreover, the Obama administration's large and sustained increases in debt raise the specter of another financial crisis and large future tax increases, further chilling business investment and job creation. A recent study by Ernst & Young finds that the administration's proposal to increase marginal tax rates on the wage, dividend and capital-gain income of upper-income Americans would reduce GDP by 1.3% (or $200 billion per year), kill 710,000 jobs, depress investment by 2.4%, and reduce wages and living standards by 1.8%. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the large deficits codified in the president's budget would reduce GDP during 2018-2022 by between 0.5% and 2.2% compared to what would occur under current law.
President Obama has ignored or dismissed proposals that would address our anti-competitive tax code and unsustainable trajectory of federal debt—including his own bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform—and submitted no plan for entitlement reform. In February, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner famously told congressional Republicans that this administration was putting forth no plan, but "we know we don't like yours."
Other needed reforms would emphasize opening global markets for U.S. goods and services—but the president has made no contribution to the global trade agenda, while being dragged to the support of individual trade agreements only recently.
The president's choices cannot be ascribed to a political tug of war with Republicans in Congress. He and Democratic congressional majorities had two years to tackle any priority they chose. They chose not growth and jobs but regulatory expansion. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act raised taxes, unleashed significant new spending, and raised hiring costs for workers. The Dodd-Frank Act missed the mark on housing and "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions but raised financing costs for households and small and mid-size businesses.
These economic errors and policy choices have consequences—record high long-term unemployment and growing ranks of discouraged workers. Sadly, at the present rate of job creation and projected labor-force growth, the nation will never return to full employment.
It doesn't have to be this way. The Romney economic plan would fundamentally change the direction of policy to increase GDP and job creation now and going forward. The governor's plan puts growth and recovery first, and it stands on four main pillars:
• Stop runaway federal spending and debt. The governor's plan would reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20%—its pre-crisis average—by 2016. This would dramatically reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases, thus increasing business and consumer confidence.
• Reform the nation's tax code to increase growth and job creation. The Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. The governor would also reduce the corporate income tax rate—the highest in the world—to 25%. In addition, he would broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.
• Reform entitlement programs to ensure their viability. The Romney plan would gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors and give more choice in Medicare programs and benefits to improve value in health-care spending. It would also block grant the Medicaid program to states to enable experimentation that might better serve recipients.
• Make growth and cost-benefit analysis important features of regulation. The governor's plan would remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs to consumers and limit new job creation. He would also work with Congress toward repealing and replacing the costly and burdensome Dodd–Frank legislation and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health-care reform.
In contrast to the sclerosis and joblessness of the past three years, the Romney plan offers an economic U-turn in ideas and choices. When bolstered by sound trade, education, energy and monetary policy, the Romney reform program is expected by the governor's economic advisers to increase GDP growth by between 0.5% and 1% per year over the next decade. It should also speed up the current recovery, enabling the private sector to create 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month, or about 12 million new jobs in a Romney first term, and millions more after that due to the plan's long-run growth effects.
But these gains aren't just about numbers, as important as those numbers are. The Romney approach will restore confidence in America's economic future and make America once again a place to invest and grow.
-
Rubio Ethics Charges: Where There's Smoke...There's No Fire
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on August 1, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
The phone lines around Romney Headquarters are buzzing with worried campaign operatives wondering if Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the obvious front runner for vice president, should be dropped from consideration because of ethical issues that may surface should he run.
So I looked into them and called the reporter who's been covering them. Here's the story:
The two big worries about Rubio appear to be non-starters. He has been very close to two men who are in a lot of trouble, but there is no evidence that any of it has rubbed off on him.
Are Middle Class White People Ruining America?
That's what one of the most popular financial analysts in the country recently wrote.
When asked if he was serious, this wealthy Floridian said: "Yes, I am. In fact, the evidence is undeniable." He continued...
"I want to show you the most thoroughly researched evidence available to the public. Then you'll see America's problems clearly – in a way that's free of any bias."
"Think carefully about this – because it's going to have major implications for you and your family."
To see the full, and quite controversial, analysis, go here...
Former Florida House Speaker Ray Sansom, who Rubio -- his predecessor as Speaker -- hand-picked to be the House's budget chairman, has been convicted in a corruption probe. But, other than bad judgment in trusting him, it doesn't seem to involve Rubio.
Marco's other close friend -- Florida Republican Congressman David Rivera -- is reportedly under serious federal investigation. Federal investigators say he was "essentially living off" the state Republican Party credit card over the past decade.
Rubio, himself, has been accused of racking up $100,000 in Amex bills on the state card. He paid $16,000 back, apologized for the error, and says the rest is legit. The reporter who broke the story - Jay Weaver of the Miami Herald - says there is no ongoing federal investigation of Rubio over this issue. A complaint with the Florida State Ethics Commission was thrown out last week.
The other issues that surround Rubio are also nickel and dime stuff:
• He took $210,000 in campaign contributions that the Federal Elections Commission said were not legal and he paid a $8,000 fine for doing so. Lots and lots of Senators - most notably former Senator Hillary Clinton - have done a lot worse.
• He double-billed for nine plane trips. Said it was an oversight and paid it back.
• He didn't report a $135,000 home equity loan. Again, he apologized and reported it.
Are these charges enough to keep a charismatic, principled conservative off the ticket? I don't think so.
But the standards for a VP nominee are worse than those for Caesar's wife. Any hint of scandal is enough to make the party operatives run for cover. The rule for any VP choice is the same as the Hippocratic Oath for doctors: "first, do no harm."
It may be that these brush-fires lead the party honchos to run to the nearest boring white man for the nomination. But, where there's smoke, there isn't always fire.
-
This is the time for VEEP choices. The campaign and media are having some fun with trial balloons, Rubio, Portman, Condaleeza Rice and now Gen. Petraeus. Take your own shot at it, lay out your preference for running mate and your reasons soon - or else no complaining about the choice later. :wink: The predictions all seem to be based on what Romney thinks he needs and where he sits in the race when he makes the choice, which is right about now.
They say his favorite surrogate is Pawlenty. Advantage is that as a 2-term Gov and pretty serious candidate himself he already faced the scrutiny. He doesn't bring you his home state or any other state with any certainty. What he brings is a good salesman for Romney and the discussion remains about Romney, not the running mate.
Rubio is my favorite for future President. He is the best orator and spokesman for the cause. He is a big picture visionary for a very young man. Besides wonderfully clear and persuasive explanations, he puts a friendly, non-threatening face on freedom and conservatism. He offers some help attracting or minimizing the damage with Hispanic voters. 2 years in the senate is his drawback though he has a very accomplished Florida background.
Maybe Rubio helps with crucial state Florida and gives a more uplifting speech, maybe Portman helps with Ohio, maybe Jindal makes the picture not so white for anti white racists, but Paul Ryan is the heavyweight in the room if this comes done to arguing the agenda, as it most certainly will.
As suggested elsewhere, this election is a one legged stool - upside down; picture the Eifel Tower. The base is built on economic freedom and the American entrepreneurial spirit connecting throughout a complex grid to the pinnacle which is American strength. There isn't a foreign policy of strength that comes out of a domestic economy of weakness.
This election is either about the economy and an agenda to bring back its greatness, or it about convoluted discussions of arguing sideways and pointing to shiny objects. Romney has to make the case that his agenda, the unread 59 point plan, will grow the economy and create opportunity and prosperity available to everyone. It will, but the question between now and November is whether the sale is made and whether the plan becomes a mandate for real reform. Enter Paul Ryan...
---------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313326/ryan-rises-robert-costa
These days, you hear it everywhere — from Republican donors and veteran operatives, and at Capitol Hill watering holes. A few weeks ago, it was a wishful rumor floating in the Beltway ether. Now, sources close to the Romney campaign say it’s for real, that the taciturn former Massachusetts governor is quietly warming to the idea.
Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the budget king of the GOP, may be Mitt Romney’s veep.
“Ryan is very highly respected not only by the candidate, but by Romney’s policy shop,” says Tom Rath, a Romney adviser. “Beyond the political relationship, he has a good personal relationship with Romney, and he has been a strong and reliable surrogate since the primary.”
For months, Ryan has been considered a dark horse for the number-two spot. At age 42, he has accomplished much, such as winning seven straight congressional races and authoring his party’s blueprint for entitlement reform. But his lack of executive experience, and his criticism of the Bay State’s health-care program, made his chances look relatively remote.
Yet behind the scenes, Ryan’s stock has been steadily rising. Romney, a former Bain Capital consultant who relishes data and metrics, has clicked with the youthful Badger State wonk. They have campaigned together and speak frequently on the phone, comparing notes on policy and strategy. And earlier this year, with Ryan’s blessing, Romney hired three of Ryan’s Budget Committee advisers to help him in Boston.
“Romney has spoken out about how we can’t let ourselves evolve into an entitlement society, so you can see why Ryan is attracted to Romney,” says former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour. “You can also see why Romney likes Ryan: He’s bright, articulate, and courageous. He’s willing to tell the truth to the American people, and he understands entrepreneurship. He’s also from Wisconsin, which is an important state.”
In late June, National Review Online reported that the Romney campaign was seriously vetting Ryan — and that Ryan had shared paperwork detailing his financial and personal records with a handful of Romney’s Boston-based counselors.
Since then, sources say, Ryan has slowly floated to the top of Romney’s vice-presidential shortlist. In conversations with senior advisers and donors — at the campaign’s summer retreat in Park City, Utah, and at his lakefront home in New Hampshire — Romney has repeatedly expressed his admiration for the Wisconsin lawmaker.
“Having observed Romney and Ryan together at some events, it’s clear they have very good chemistry,” says Charlie Black, an outside adviser to the Romney campaign. “They are philosophically in tune, especially on economic and fiscal policy.”
The Romney-Ryan alliance actually began during the early days of the primary, months before Ryan formally endorsed. Romney was struggling against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, and Ryan offered candid, private advice on numerous occasions, which Romney reportedly appreciated.
Speaking with NRO in late March, a week before Ryan endorsed him, Romney highlighted their political kinship. “We chat on a regular basis,” he said. And on policy, “we’re very much inclined in the same direction.”
Publicly, Ryan has consistently been a loyal soldier — championing Romney’s positions, especially to skeptical conservatives. “He doesn’t need to lay out new policies,” Ryan told NRO last week, when asked about Romney’s specificity. “It’s simply about getting up there and offering a vision, emphasizing the choice between two futures. It’s a counter-narrative, a myth of sorts, that [Romney] hasn’t been specific enough.”
Romney is a low-key, non-ideological nominee who has found Ryan’s support invaluable in maintaining friendly relations with the base. If he were tapped, Ryan would continue to generate conservative enthusiasm for the ticket, and he’d further reinforce Romney’s aura of number-crunching competency.
“We are big fans of Ryan,” says Sal Russo, a strategist for the Tea Party Express. “Ryan learned a lot from the great Jack Kemp,” the late fiscal hawk and the GOP’s 1996 vice-presidential nominee. “And anyone who shares Kemp’s ideas gets an A from me.”
Ryan worked as a speechwriter for Kemp and former Reagan cabinet member Bill Bennett before becoming a top Republican staffer to a couple of senators during the Clinton years. Born and raised into a large, Irish-Catholic family in Janesville, Wis., he returned there in 1998, after his stint as an aide, to run for the House.
Of course, a Ryan pick would come with some potential problems. National Journal recently dubbed him Romney’s “riskiest running mate,” owing to the Democrats’ eagerness to blast Ryan’s entitlement proposals. Conservative leaders also have some reservations about potentially sending one of the House’s leading reformers to the Naval Observatory.
“If I had my druthers, I would hope Romney would pick one of the other options,” says Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and a Ryan supporter. “The most important thing in the first year of a Romney administration would be a U-turn on the road to serfdom, and the way to do that is by passing the Ryan budget, which requires a major mover not just at the White House, but in Congress. It’d be easier to do that with Ryan in the House, since he has walked through it already with every Republican.”
Romney, however, may want Ryan to walk through his plan with the country. It would be a bold pick, but if you have been reading the tea leaves, it wouldn’t be a surprise.
-
Special Report with Bret Baier had a segment on Ryan last night. As always, he impressed. I learned of his time with Jack Kemp, whom he considered a mentor. By my lights this is a very good thing-- Kemp knew how to make free minds and free markets and win-win appeal to regular folks and Ryan has that touch too. My own in-house marketing survey, my wife, resonated to him very well. This is a good sign!
He would have my hearty support.
So too would Rubio!
Pawlenty IMHO would be a very poor choice. Not only was he outdebated by Michelle Bachman :roll: :lol: he would be seen as a bland, timid, and white bread choice. He would deflate enthusiasm.
The notion of Petraeus intrigues, but next to nothing is known of his position on various issues, his ability to speak, his familiarity with the political process, and so forth.
-
Crafty: "My own in-house marketing survey, my wife, resonated to him very well. This is a good sign! "
Yes, how they inspire the base and how they received by voters who are more independent are both important. Picking Ryan means he is serious about solving our economic problems. Seldom do you see a real congressional leader put on the ticket by either party. Ryan has been front and center on reform to stand up against the President who has been the antithesis to reform.
It isn't just about winning, but to convey that they know how to govern if they win. If the House,the Executive Branch and 50+ Senators can get on the same page, we are a few cloture votes away from turning this country around.
46% may like Obama but well over 60% say we are on the wrong track. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html
-
If he wins, it's in spite of himself, not because of himself.
"The poll also shows that Romney's unfavorability rating has increased since May, when 45% had a negative view of the Republican candidate. According to the poll's release, Romney is "laboring under the lowest personal popularity ratings for a presumptive presidential nominee in midsummer election-year polls back to 1984."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/08/poll-romneys-unfavorability-rating-on-the-rise/
-
Why Not Paul Ryan?
Romney can win a big election over big issues. He'll lose a small one..Article Video Comments (188) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.0EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.smaller Larger
The whispering over Mitt Romney's choice of a running mate is getting louder, and along with it we are being treated to the sotto voce angst of the GOP establishment: Whatever else Mitt does, he wouldn't dare pick Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, would he?
Too risky, goes the Beltway chorus. His selection would make Medicare and the House budget the issue, not the economy. The 42-year-old is too young, too wonky, too, you know, serious. Beneath it all you can hear the murmurs of the ultimate Washington insult—that Mr. Ryan is too dangerous because he thinks politics is about things that matter. That dude really believes in something, and we certainly can't have that.
All of which highly recommend him for the job.
We have nothing against the other men Mr. Romney is said to be still closely considering. Tim Pawlenty twice won the governorship of Minnesota, the second time in the horrible GOP year of 2006. His working-class roots and middle American values would counter the stereotype of Mr. Romney as too rich and disconnected to average concerns. The media would say he's another middle-aged white male, just like Mitt, but he'd certainly be a safe, mature choice.
Editorial board member Joe Rago on why Paul Ryan would make a good VP pick. Photo: Getty Images.
.Ohio Senator Rob Portman is well respected nearly everywhere for his thoughtful, disciplined brand of conservative politics. Like Mr. Pawlenty, he's no orator, but he's quick on his feet and a practiced debater who would carve up Joe Biden. His biggest liability is his association with the Bush Administration. Many voters still blame President Bush for our current economic troubles, and the Obama campaign would use Mr. Portman to reinforce its claim that Mr. Romney is Bush 2.0.
Marco Rubio would be a somewhat riskier choice given that he is new to the national scene and has less Washington experience. But he's a tea party favorite who would energize the GOP base while also signaling Mr. Romney's outreach to Hispanic voters. Mr. Rubio's family history is one of escaping tyranny (Cuba) and poverty, and he speaks movingly about the American Dream.
The case for Mr. Ryan is that he best exemplifies the nature and stakes of this election. More than any other politician, the House Budget Chairman has defined those stakes well as a generational choice about the role of government and whether America will once again become a growth economy or sink into interest-group dominated decline.
Against the advice of every Beltway bedwetter, he has put entitlement reform at the center of the public agenda—before it becomes a crisis that requires savage cuts. And he has done so as part of a larger vision that stresses tax reform for faster growth, spending restraint to prevent a Greek-like budget fate, and a Jack Kemp-like belief in opportunity for all. He represents the GOP's new generation of reformers that includes such Governors as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and New Jersey's Chris Christie.
As important, Mr. Ryan can make his case in a reasonable and unthreatening way. He doesn't get mad, or at least he doesn't show it. Like Reagan, he has a basic cheerfulness and Midwestern equanimity.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
.As for Medicare, the Democrats would make Mr. Ryan's budget a target, but then they are already doing it anyway. Mr. Romney has already endorsed a modified version of Mr. Ryan's premium-support Medicare reform, and who better to defend it than the author himself?
Republicans are likely to do worse if they merely play defense on Medicare and other entitlements. The way to win on the issue is go on offense and contrast Mr. Romney's patient-centered reform with President Obama's policy of government price controls and rationing medical care via a 15-member panel of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
***
Personalities aside, the larger strategic point is that Mr. Romney's best chance for victory is to make this a big election over big issues. Mr. Obama and the Democrats want to make this a small election over small things—Mitt's taxes, his wealth, Bain Capital. As the last two months have shown, Mr. Romney will lose that kind of election.
To win, Mr. Romney and the Republicans have to rise above those smaller issues and cast the choice as one about the overall direction and future of the country. Americans tell pollsters they are anxious and unhappy precisely because they instinctively know the country is troubled in ways it hasn't been since the 1970s. They know the economy is growing too slowly to raise middle-class incomes, while the government is growing too fast to be affordable.
Above all, Americans are hungry for leadership. They want leaders willing to take on the hard issues, preferably without the rancor and polarization that have defined Mr. Obama's Presidency. But they will reward leaders who succeed despite the rancor, as Wisconsin voters showed by their huge turnout in support of Governor Scott Walker this year.
Whatever doubts Americans may have about Mr. Romney's empathy or background, more of them will turn out for him if they see a leader with a vision and plan worthy of the current difficult moment. This is the kind of candidate and message that voters need to see in the Republican convention this month and into the fall, and it is the message that Mr. Romney's choice of a running mate should reinforce.
-
second post
http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2012/08/08/two-cents-on-the-veepstakes/?singlepage=true
-
The negative to Ryan as a choice it is said is that it ties Romney to Ryan's budget and its specifics, except where he has said he differs.
The problem with that thinking though is that the Obama/Dem camp is tying Romney to the Ryan budget anyway. Might as well run on it as a strength and as an agenda for a mandate and bring on board the person best able to defend it.
That is roughly the point of Stephen Hayes and Bill Kristol here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/its-romney-ryan-plan-why-not-romney-ryan-ticket_649616.html
-
If we are to go after Baraq on spending we have to offer specifics. Baraq fears Ryan and Ryan does not fear Baraq. He has extraordinary mastery of the facts and the numbers and excellent communication skills (note the history with Jack Kemp btw). He has what it takes to get in Baraq's face and under his skin.
-
"If he wins, it's in spite of himself, not because of himself." - JDN, attached to no position on any issue.
Ad hominem (directed at the person), ad nauseum (unpleasurable to the point of nausea).
Do you troll or post opinions on issues? You haven't even said you will vote against the guy. Hundreds of millions are being spent to drive up his negatives and then they poll to ask same people what do you think of his negatives. Then the poll becomes the news story. Not anti-growth, anti-employment policies, just at the person BS.
If the poll is the news story, how about posting the poll internals. How many Dems, how many R's, and now many independents in the "random adult survey"?
-
Doug, the poll IS the news story. Simply put, Romney isn't liked very much. Personally, I think the guy is just fine.
As for my calling him "Mitts" well lots of new publications on the left and right call him Mitts. I don't think it's derogatory
nor is it meant to be.
And while I agree, issues are important, many, most? people vote for who they simply "like".
So wrong or right, "likability" is very very important.
-
http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/obama-team-salivates-over-ryan-pick-20120811
-
"In essence, Obama's entire campaign to date has been aimed at taking economic doubts and worry -- which Romney has tried to pin on Obama -- and increasing them by portraying the GOP nominee as a predatory capitalist indifferent to middle class suffering. They now believe Ryan gives them a contemporary policy toehold in Washington to take that argument from the distant past (Bain Capital) and make it a cutting issue in Romney and Ryan's present-day campaign."
Every time I think it through it all comes down to whether there are more people who are tired of supporting the entitlement groups then there are in those groups.
Are there more people who are afraid that Republicanns will take away their benefits, medicare, medicaid, welfare, unempolyment, disability,student aids, housing loans, quotas, etc. vs those who are tired of working like dogs paying for the Demcorat party taxes, regulations, control, etc?
To me this is the question. It all boils down to this. Ideology, future direction of America, freedom, capatilism, tyranny, are certainly all part of it. Yet in the end we are all going to vote our pocket books. So are there more of them (dependents) or us?
Just .... as Mark Levin recently said.
*****
I always knew it could happen here but I guess I didn't think it would. Like we Jews always said about the holocaust, yes it can happen again. Same for marxism.
Progressives just keep moving *forward* - to one world government, secular with total central control of all of us.
Every time I hear liberals use that word this IS what is meant.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either in denial or I guess oblivius, not paying careful attention, or dumb.
-
Mitt Romney: What I Learned at Bain Capital
My business experience taught me how to help companies grow—and what to do when trouble arises. When you see a problem, run toward it before the problem gets worse..
Article Comments (394) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.27EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.
smaller Larger
By MITT ROMNEY
The back-to-school season is here, and as parents take their children to shop for school supplies, I suspect that many of them will be visiting a Staples store. I'm very familiar with those stores because Staples is one of many businesses we helped create and expand at Bain Capital, a firm that my colleagues and I built. The firm succeeded by growing and fixing companies.
The lessons I learned over my 15 years at Bain Capital were valuable in helping me turn around the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. They also helped me as governor of Massachusetts to turn a budget deficit into a surplus and reduce our unemployment rate to 4.7%. The lessons from that time would help me as president to fix our economy, create jobs and get things done in Washington.
A broad message emerges from my Bain Capital days: A good idea is not enough for a business to succeed. It requires a talented team, a good business plan and capital to execute it. That was true of companies we helped start, like Staples and the Bright Horizons child-care provider, and several of the struggling companies we helped turn around, like the Brookstone retailer and the contact-lens maker Wesley Jessen.
My presidency would make it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses to get the investment dollars they need to grow, by reducing and simplifying taxes; replacing Obamacare with real health-care reform that contains costs and improves care; and by stemming the flood of new regulations that are tying small businesses in knots.
My business experience confirmed my belief in empowering people. For example, at Bain Capital we bought Accuride, a company that made truck rims and wheels, because we saw untapped potential there. We instituted performance bonuses for the management team, which had a dramatic impact. The managers made the plants more productive, and the company started growing, adding 300 jobs while Bain was involved. My faith in people, not government, is at the foundation of my plan to strengthen America's middle class.
I also saw firsthand through these investments how energy costs impact the ability of a business to grow. Today, energy costs are weighing on job creators across America because President Obama has limited energy exploration and restricted development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs. I will take a sensible approach to tapping our energy resources, which will both create jobs and make energy more affordable for every sector of our economy.
Enlarge Image
Close
Bloomberg
.
In the 1990s, when the "old-technology" steel industry in the U.S. was failing, Bain Capital helped build a new steel company, Steel Dynamics, which has grown into one of the largest steel producers in America today, holding its own against Chinese producers. The key to its success? State-of-the-art new technology.
Here are two lessons from the Steel Dynamics story: First, innovation is essential to the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. We are the most innovative, entrepreneurial nation in the world. To maintain that lead, we must give people the skills to succeed. My plan for a stronger middle class includes policies to give every family access to great schools and quality teachers, to improve access to higher education, and to attract and retain the best talent from around the world.
The second lesson is that we must have a level playing field in international trade. As president, I will challenge unfair trade practices that are harming American workers.
Running a business also brings lessons in tackling challenges. I was on the board of a medical diagnostic-laboratory company, Damon, when a competitor announced that it had settled with the government over a charge of fraudulent Medicare billing. I and fellow Damon outside board members joined together and immediately hired an independent law firm to examine Damon's own practices.
The investigation revealed a need to make some changes, which we did. The company, along with several other clinical-laboratory companies, ended up being fined for billing practices. And a Damon manager who was responsible for the fraud went to jail. The experience taught me that when you see a problem, run toward it or it will only get worse.
That will be my approach to our federal budget problem. I am committed to capping federal spending below 20% of GDP and reducing nondefense discretionary spending by 5%. This will surely result in much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington. But a failure of leadership has created our debt crisis, and ducking responsibility will only cripple the economy and smother opportunity for our children and grandchildren.
I'm not sure Bain Capital could have grown or turned around some of the companies we invested in had we faced today's anti-business environment. Andy Puzder, the chief executive of CKE Restaurants Inc., which employs about 21,000 people at Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants, has said that the "current unfriendly economic environment perhaps best explains why American companies are sitting on over $2 trillion which they could invest."
President Obama has piled on excessive regulations, proposed massive tax increases, added more than $5 trillion in federal debt, and failed to address the coming fiscal cliff—all of which is miring our nation in sluggish growth and high unemployment.
I know what it takes to turn around difficult situations. And I will put that experience to work, to get our economy back on track, create jobs, strengthen the middle class and lay the groundwork for America's increased competitiveness in the world.
Mr. Romney is the Republican Party candidate for president.
-
It was nice to see candidate Romney in the neighborhood yesterday. Energy independence for North America. That makes perfect sense. It would be good for national security, manufacturing, exports, trade deficit balnace of payments, revenues to the treasury, deficits, debt, the value of the dollar, consumer prices, national income and our standard of living. Yet the opponent opposes it, with opposition to pipelines and opposition to drilling in ANWR, federal lands and offshore.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/167272555.html?refer=y
John Hinderacker reports for us:
An Evening With Mitt Romney
I didn’t exactly spend the evening with Romney, of course. I spent it driving to the Lafayette Club on Lake Minnetonka for Romney’s only Minnesota appearance of the campaign; waiting in line for a photograph for a considerable time because the candidate ran an hour late; listening to Norm Coleman warm up the crowd, following Congressmen John Kline and Erik Paulsen in that role; and finally hearing Romney speak for 20 minutes or so.
It was great fun. The event was a big success, raising a considerable amount for Romney’s campaign. And how was Romney? Sensational. But let’s go back to the beginning.
Rounding the corner to pull into the Lafayette Club’s parking lot, security was tight. Across the road, a pathetic, ragtag group of left-wing protesters were chanting, as usual, “We are the 99 percent.” There were conservative counter-protesters too; I couldn’t tell which group was more numerous. The largest sign said “Romney Creates Jobs.” I wanted to park my car, get out and confront the leftists, but unfortunately the security arrangements didn’t permit that. Otherwise, I would have approached some of them and taped interviews. The question I always want to ask is, “If you are the 99 percent, why are there only 11 of you?”
Once inside, the size of the crowd was impressive. Staff diverted me to the photograph line, where I spent quite a while, saw a lot of old friends, and made a few new ones. Once Romney arrived the line moved fast, and I only had time to say, “Governor, you and I overlapped at Harvard, but you were more successful in later life.” Which provoked a cordial laugh from the candidate.
When I proceeded to the main hall, Norm Coleman was speaking; he and the others performed heroic service because of the delay. This photo gives you an idea of the size of the crowd: (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/an-evening-with-mitt-romney.php)
Before long the photo line was done and Romney appeared to thunderous applause. Which is, of course, the point of this post: how did Mitt do? The answer is, he was great. He spoke for 20 minutes or so, no notes, no teleprompter, totally comfortable with his material. He tossed in facts and figures here and there, but his themes were generally broader: the power of the individual, the Constitution, entrepreneurship and rewarding success, the importance of American power, and so on. His themes were deeply conservative, yet unifying. At no time did he pit one group of Americans against another. He said, “I don’t want to raise anyone’s taxes!” Even though there was probably not a single Democrat in the audience, he said that there are good Democrats and independents, and he wants to work with them in Washington. He did, really, a beautiful job of weaving together the various strands of conservative thought.
What was most striking was how impassioned Romney was. He was nearing the end of a very long day, but he was not just energetic but passionate. America has obviously gone off the rails under the direction of an incompetent administration, and he wants to restore America’s greatness for the benefit of future generations. The strength of his emotional commitment to this cause was palpable.
As I listened to Romney, I asked myself: what better spokesman for conservative ideas have we had in recent years? I couldn’t think of any. You can go back to Reagan, of course. Reagan’s style was more cerebral, less passionate. He was a great articulator of conservatism, but no better, in my opinion, than Romney. Since Reagan? I can’t think of anyone.
While Romney spoke, I was flanked by two of Minnesota’s most dedicated conservative activists and donors. I asked each in turn, what better spokesman for conservative principles has our movement had in recent years? Like me, they couldn’t come up with any. Romney is as effective on the stump as any conservative I can remember. Of course, most voters will never see him this way. I think the Romney campaign needs to film him before audiences like tonight’s, and edit 30 or 60 second ads of him speaking to a friendly crowd the way he did tonight. Or, as one of my friends suggested, they could emulate Reagan and buy 30 minutes of network time for a more comprehensive speech. One way or another, Romney needs voters to see him unleashed and unedited.
I think Mitt Romney is going to be our next president. I heard tonight that the latest private polling has Obama leading Romney in Minnesota by only one point. This is down from five points a month or two ago. If Romney comes close to winning Minnesota, the election won’t be close. But let’s not take any chances. I dug down a bit to support Romney’s campaign tonight; if you haven’t yet done so, you should. This is the pivotal election of our lives. There is, as Adam Smith wrote, a lot of ruin in a country. But I am not certain that the United States could come back from another four years of the incompetent and foolishly left-wing Barack Obama administration. So if you haven’t already contributed to the Romney campaign, please do so. If, God forbid, Barack Obama is re-elected, it would be hard to look in the mirror and realize that we didn’t do all we could to put America back on the path to prosperity and freedom. - John Hinderacker, PowerLine
-
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829?print=true
-
Thanks for posting, good to be aware of these stories. It is all just pointing to shiny objects to me.
If it is all true and we dont know that, a number of key points are still not refuted:
a. Romney has very extensive business experience,
b. that experience includes start ups and turnarounds,
c. his experience and record overall was unquestionably one of success by every measure,
d. no business career has all ups and no downs,
e. the playing field of business today includes wading through many artificial factors, tax avoidance, regulatory hurdles, tax deductions, shelters, bailouts, you name it. Opposing those rules doesnt mean you dont play by them.
f. None of the mudslinging even begins to imply he isnt the most ethical executive possible, and successful.
g. The question isnt whether Mitt Romney is up to the job of running Bain. The question is whether Barack Obama is up to the job of being President.
-
While I think you make some good points Doug, I take exception to
"g. The question isnt whether Mitt Romney is up to the job of running Bain...."
Actually it is; if not Bain, do we look closer at his Governorship? Remember, his pinnacle achievement as Governor was a health care plan similar to Obama. :-)
I mean what qualifications does Romney have if not Bain? He himself is running on his success and experience at Bain so.... it seems fair game.
-
Unless we are going with "the YA Strategy" for dismembering Pakistan, as best as I can tell there is no point to staying in Afg. That said, the larger point of this piece makes sense to me:
The Silence of the Republican Lamb
Mr. Romney's reluctance to outline a policy on the war does not make the conflict go away..
By WILLIAM MCGURN
When the first of the Twin Towers came crashing down that terrible September morning in 2001, I was stepping on a Hudson River ferry bound for downtown Manhattan.
Five years later, I spent the anniversary in the White House helping President George W. Bush with his remarks for his prime-time address to the nation.
In the run-up to this Sept. 11, my family attended a party for a hometown Marine who will soon deploy to Afghanistan. He's the brother of one of my daughter's grade-school classmates, a recent Annapolis grad and perhaps best described as the kind of man you'd want leading your son if he were being sent into harm's way. As we approach this November's election, it is this Marine who occupies my thoughts.
At West Point in December 2009, Barack Obama summarized what a president owes men like this one. "As your commander in chief," he told those cadets, "I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service." While Iraq had been a distraction, he said, in Afghanistan "the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake."
Since that speech, others have noted President Obama's reluctance to speak of "victory" in association with Afghanistan. A search of the White House website confirms it is not because he's unfamiliar with the word: The president happily talks about victory for health reform, for women, for stem-cell research, for the economy, for same-sex marriage, for working families, for trade.
Nor is he shy about using it pejoratively, as he does when he talks about victories for "big oil," for "special interests," for "Wall Street" and the like.
Some of us were not surprised to find Afghanistan disappear from the president's discourse after he put forth his timetable for withdrawal in the same speech that announced his surge. Nor were we surprised that he would leave unmentioned the real gains our troops were making on the ground. What we did not expect was the Republican Party's acquiescence, most vividly illustrated by the campaign of Mitt Romney.
Enlarge Image
Close
Associated Press/Brennan Linsley
A U.S. Marine with 3rd Platoon, Kilo Company, 3/4 Marines mans a small checkpoint near Patrol Base 302, in the Gesresk Valley, Helmand province.
.In the section devoted to Afghanistan on his website, Mr. Romney's starts out strong. He scores Mr. Obama for the "protracted deliberation process" he pursued before he announced his Afghanistan policy, for pulling back troops against the advice of his commanders, indeed, for a withdrawal dictated more by election year politics than military goals. All these things give Mr. Romney an opening to present the American people with a real choice about what ought to come next.
So what does he offer? The next paragraph lays it out. Mr. Romney vows a "review" based on "discussions with our commanders in the field." Not only that, but "a full interagency assessment." More cooperation "with both the Afghan government and Pakistan." And so on.
Maybe that makes political sense, with unemployment stuck above 8% and the economy sputtering. Maybe it represents a calculation that the American people are exhausted by war and unwilling to hear anything but how we are leaving. More charitably, maybe it reflects an old-fashioned sense of honor, of treading lightly on a wartime president's strategy regarding a place where Americans are on the front lines being killed.
Whatever the reason, even after Mr. Obama's surge forces return home, America will have 68,000 men and women in uniform there. Mr. Romney's reluctance to outline a thoughtful policy on Afghanistan does not make it go away. To the contrary, it only ratifies President Obama's contention that the only choice is between getting out quick and an open-ended commitment as far as the eye can see.
That is a disservice. It is, first, a disservice to the stronger foreign policy Mr. Romney is alleged to represent. Does he really believe, for example, that the Israelis will be encouraged and the Iranians deterred by expressions of resolve from a political leader so reluctant to bring up a war Americans are actually fighting?
Silence is also a disservice to those whom we ask to do our fighting. On the night of our Marine's deployment party, we discussed so many things: his favorite books, his future, his dreams. On the failings of this president or his Republican rival, he refused to be drawn out. Plainly the responsibility for the care and leadership of other Marines that came with his lieutenant's bars are worry enough.
There are thousands of young Americans just like him. In my family, I now have one nephew at West Point, and another with the Corps of Cadets at Virginia Tech. So I know the mixed pride and apprehension our military families feel when they look out at this dangerous and unsettled world.
They deserve better. Even at his most unpopular, President Bush got his surge and his war funding by taking his case to the American people. If Mr. Romney wants to be America's commander in chief, he ought to start presenting himself as one.
A version of this article appeared September 11, 2012, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Silence of the Republican Lamb.
-
What Romney Might Have Said
Draft remarks for the candidate on taxes, dependency and the 47%..
Article Video Comments (555) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.2EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.
smaller Larger
Mitt Romney has been taking a beating for his remarks, taped at a May fundraiser, that 47% of Americans would automatically vote for President Obama because they are "dependent" on government. We could pile on, but instead we can report that we've been leaked pages of draft remarks that Mr. Romney might have delivered on the same subject but curiously didn't.
Maybe he'll deliver them some time before Election Day:
Related Video
Columnist Kim Strassel on how Mitt Romney can turn his leaked fundraising video to his advantage. Photo: Associated Press
.
.
"One tragedy of the Obama Presidency is how many more Americans have become dependent on the government. I know it's not their fault. Most want to be self-sufficient, to provide for their families, but they can't because there aren't enough jobs.
"That's why 46 million Americans are on food stamps now, compared to 30 million in 2008. That's why 10.6 million were on Social Security disability in 2011 compared to 9.3 million three years earlier. That's why 40% of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more, and the smallest share of the U.S. population is looking for work than at any time since 1981.
"This is a national scandal. Not because those fellow Americans are free-loaders, but because they aren't able to get a good job that pays enough to be self-sufficient and lets them fulfill their human potential.
"I want Americans to be less dependent on government not because it costs too much. We will always help Americans who need our help. I want Americans to be independent so they can realize the pride of accomplishment and the dignity of work and contribute their God-given talents to build a better country.
"I think the success of a Presidency should be measured by how many fewer people need food stamps, how many fewer need disability, not how many more people are added to the rolls. I don't want to take food stamps away from Americans in need. I want fewer Americans to need food stamps.
"Sometimes I wonder if President Obama shares that view. He and his economists keep saying that food stamps and unemployment benefits are a form of 'stimulus.' Well, we've sure had a lot of that kind of stimulus, and all we have to show for it are more people on food stamps and more people on welfare and more people looking for work. I think a real stimulus is a job, and I intend to help Americans create more of them.
Enlarge Image
Close
Getty Images
.
"You've probably also heard some people—some even in my own party—divide Americans between 'makers' and 'takers.' As if half the country wants to live off the other half. I've never believed that. That's no different from the kind of divisive politics that the President practices when he pits the wealthy against everyone else.
"We want a society in which one person's success lifts everyone else. The job of government is to create the incentives and opportunity so everyone can become a maker. But too often government wants to take more from Americans so it can make more Americans dependent on government. That's when we lose our way, and too many Americans lose hope that they can work and prosper.
"It's the same with our broken tax policy. You may have heard some people say that about half the American people pay no income tax. That's true. But I know millions of those people do pay Social Security taxes, which are a tax on work. They're making their contribution to our government, and I don't want to—and will not—raise their taxes.
"In fact, I want to reduce the tax on work by repealing ObamaCare, which will force employers to pay a tax if they don't offer health insurance. That means they'll hire fewer workers, as many companies are already doing.
"But I don't want to stop there. I also want to fix our tax code so everyone plays by the same rules, and that includes the richest and most powerful. You know, the President seems to say every day that 'millionaires and billionaires' should pay higher tax rates.
"But what he doesn't say is that if you raise tax rates, those millionaires and billionaires will hire lawyers and lobbyists to avoid those rates, to exploit loopholes and tax shelters, or to get special favors. Like Solyndra did. The government will get less revenue, and that means the middle class will end up paying more. The President won't tell you that either.
"Think about it. Do you have a lobbyist in Washington? Do you have a guy you can call to get you in to see the Treasury Secretary or the Senators in Gucci Gulch? Of course you don't. But the millionaires and billionaires do.
"That's why so many people in both parties support tax reform that lowers tax rates and pays for it by closing loopholes and helping the economy grow faster.
"That's what Ronald Reagan did with Democrats like Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt in the 1980s. That's what Democrat Alice Rivlin and Republican Pete Domenici have proposed. And that's what the President's own deficit commission—led by Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles—proposed.
"I don't agree with all of the details in these plans, but I do know they have the right general idea. We have the most complicated tax code with some of the highest tax rates in the world and yet it doesn't raise the revenue we need to fund the government.
"We need tax reform to spur faster growth and to make American workers more competitive. But we also need reform to make the tax code fairer, and less open to exploitation by the rich and powerful who have friends in Washington."
***
That's where the speech excerpts end. No doubt there's more, sitting in the PC of some young wordsmith in Boston who's working for Mr. Romney. Somebody should sneak it past Stuart Stevens. Surely a man as smart as the former CEO of Bain Capital can give a better speech on taxes and dependency than he delivered at that fundraiser. If he can't, he'll lose, and he'll deserve to.
-
Peggy Noonan takes out the dagger and cuts deep in her latest WSJ column, going where few have publicly about Mitt Romney's general election effort:
"It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment. All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change. People want to focus on who at the top is least constructive and most responsible. Fine, but Mitt Romney is no puppet: He chooses who to listen to. An intervention is in order. “Mitt, this isn’t working.”
She also takes note of the Romney campaign strategy of fundraising quite frequently, with few public events, in the name of stockpiling cash for a final-weeks ad blitz, and calls the logic "slightly crazy:"
"... at the end will they make much difference? Obama is said to have used a lot of his money early on, to paint a portrait of Romney as Thurston Howell III, as David Brooks put it. That was a gamble on Obama’s part: spend it now, pull ahead in the battlegrounds, once we pull ahead more money will come in because money follows winners, not losers."
The entire column is not uplifting for Romney's supporters, many of whom are already feeling fairly grim after a rough few weeks, and it's not meant to be. What has been surprising for Republicans, including some of Romney's donors, has been how different the general election campaign has been from a primary campaign effort that was more able to win the day.
On the home page tonight, my colleagues Glenn Thrush and Byron Tau note that the race is not over yet, for all the hand-wringing among Republicans and ball-spiking among Democrats - the fundamentals nationally still have Obama as a weak and vulnerable incumbent.
The race is winnable, empirically. But Romney has been on defense for a solid stretch now, unable to push out his own narrative. And the problem, Noonan is arguing, is less with the team than the man running. Romney has proven impervious to calls to shift strategy in the past, and it's hard to see him doing something dramatic now, with the first debate in two weeks.
His team is hoping for a national approach that can jolt numbers in some of the swing states - like Ohio, where Romney is, according to private polling on both sides, in a hole - and a press narrative that says the race is still close (the Gallup numbers nationally provided some measure of that earlier today). They're also hoping to highlight things like 14-year-old video that suggests Obama believes what his detractors already think he believes.
It will likely take a few factors to shake things up, including a major Obama stumble. It is by no means out of the realm of possibility. But the days are going.
-
http://freebeacon.com/romneys-gave-4m-to-charity-in-2011/
-
Mitt and Ann Romney took steps to pay more in taxes than he had to last year, despite the Republican nominee's previous statements suggesting he abhors the idea of paying more taxes than required.
According to an announcement by the campaign Friday, the Romneys could have had a lower tax rate than 14.1% in 2011 if they had claimed more of their charitable deductions–an amount that equaled 30% of their income. Romney made $13.7 million mostly off of investment income last year.
However, the Romneys only claimed 16% in charitable deductions, thus keeping their income tax rate higher, in order "to conform" to Romney's previous comments about his tax rate, the statement read Friday.
Speaking with reporters in South Carolina last month, Romney said he had never paid less than 13% over the last decade. While he had released an estimate for 2011 at the time, he did not release the completed return until Friday. The document showed he in fact paid 14.1% last year.
The Republican presidential nominee has faced intense criticism from Democrats and some Republicans who have called on Romney to release more than his 2011 and 2010 returns. Releasing the documents, they argued, would answer questions about the candidate's offshore accounts and tax history.
His move to limit his charitable deduction-and keep a higher rate of taxes-last year, however, seems to butt heads with statements the former Massachusetts governor has made regarding taxes.
"I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," Romney told ABC News in July. "I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."
Earlier in the year, at a Republican primary debate in Tampa, Romney made a similar remark, criticizing the notion of paying more than owed.
"I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more," Romney said, one day before he released his 2010 return. "I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."
To be fair, Romney did pay what he "legally owed" last year; he just kept his legal requirement lower than what it could have been.
Romney's campaign responded to the discrepancy, saying the candidate wanted to be "consistent" with his August comment.
"Gov. Romney has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13%. He directed his preparers to ensure that he is consistent with that statement," a campaign official said in a statement.
-
http://freebeacon.com/romneys-gave-4m-to-charity-in-2011/
First kudo's to Romney. And shame on Biden. Then again, I don't know the circumstances.
That said however, Romney gave approximately 75% of the money to the Mormon Church (some of my good friends are Mormon; I have nothing against the church).
Somehow however, and I'm not sure why, I differentiate church and charity a little. Church almost seems personal; not communal.
I think most of us respect Bill Gates. He has given away 48% of his wealth to various causes (see below). But if he had given
75% of his money to his church, would we have the same opinion? If he gave most of his millions/billions to build a new mosque, or
to promote Islam or money for proselytizing would we all say "kudo's to him"?
I guess that is why I always like Huntsman. Yes, he would lower the tax rate quite a bit, BUT he would also take away nearly
all deductions including charity giving. If you want to give to your church, then give, it is admirable, but don't give to your God
because of tax reasons.
http://www.inquisitr.com/181177/since-2007-bill-gates-has-given-away-48-percent-of-his-net-worth-for-charity-infographic/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/mitt-romney-gives-million_n_924414.html
-
I'm under the impression that the Mormon Church is particularly efficient and effective in its charity work.
-
I meant no criticism of the Mormon Church; it is a fine organization from what little I know, although that is a slippery slope; criticizing another's religion.
But for discussion's sake, I remember seeing Mormon Missionaries in the Japanese hinterlands proselytizing for new members.
They were efficient, marginally effective, very polite, but it was not charity work. Yet OUR tax dollars support their proselytizing.
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/lat-na-tt-romney-illusions-20120923,0,7389502.story
-
That story was about the author and his hatred. I feel sorry for him but don't find that his work fits in the non-fiction section.
-
"As soon as the video came to light, critics -- including many conservatives -- pointed out that the 47% is composed mostly of disabled veterans, retired people, the working poor, a few thousand millionaires with good tax lawyers and millions of former members of the middle class who have lost their jobs. Some further noted that the policy that gives them a break from paying taxes was an idea championed by many Republicans, such as President Reagan. Only about 15% of the 47% are underemployed poor families who receive food stamps and other government assistance."
These facts did not seem to faze Romney."
-
"...did not seem..." - Keyword: seem, meaning in the head of the author the story admittedly takes place.
Romney did not stand by that statement. Did THAT fact slip past the author?
No comment on his or your hatred and stereotyping of the rich. That is acceptable and you don't see the irony?
The correction is that most Obama voters are actually rich, but all rich are stupid.
Deep discussion JDN (sarc.).
-
Romney did not stand by that statement. Did THAT fact slip past the author?
Actually he DID stick by his statement, although he called it "inelegant". :?
"Last week, Romney said his comments were "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated," but he defended the main message of his remarks."
"Inelegant". Is there an award for understatement of the year? :-D
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/leaked-videos-show-mitt-romney-unscripted/
As Priebus (Republican National Committee chairman on Sunday) said, ""It probably wasn't the best-said, you know, moment in
the campaign and probably not the best week in the campaign," Priebus said on ABC's "This Week." :evil:
-
He did stand by the bigger point, which is that there has been a vast expansion in the % of the American people sucking on the government tit. He' not defending the cranial-rectal interface aspect of his portrayal of that number being 47%.
-
When given the opportunity by 60 minutes to blame mistakes like this on the campaign, Romney unflichingly said that was not the campaign, that was me. It's been a long time since a President took responsibility.
-
"So when they hear a guy worth a quarter-billion dollars say he’s cutting taxes but won’t discuss loopholes, this is what I think they hear: he’s going to help himself and his friends, and we’re going to be left paying the bill. There may not be much class envy in America, but there is that much, anyway."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/25/michael-tomasky-on-mitt-romney-s-sham-economic-plan.html
-
Mitt Romney has given more money to charity over the past two years than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden have in the last DECADE. Look at it as a percentage of their incomes and the picture is even uglier for Obama and Biden. Nevertheless, the pathetic Left in this country continues to whine that Romney is a "spoiled rich brat" and "out-of-touch with working Americans." And Barack Obama is IN TOUCH with them? How has that worked out for the increasingly vast numbers of unemployed and underemployed over the course of his presidency? Someone is out of touch, but it isn't Mitt Romney.
-
"this is what I think they hear: he’s going to help himself and his friends, and we’re going to be left paying the bill"
More us versus them, could we just have a separate thread for JDN to express his hatred?
Where is the basis in fact or reality that Mitt Romney wants to help his friends over helping the country? Just hate speech. Nothing else I can imagine could be worse for the people who are "going to be left paying the bill" than the path we are on.
Are you better off now than you were SIX TRILLION DOLLARS of new debt ago?
-
Mitt Romney has given more money to charity over the past two years than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden have in the last DECADE. Look at it as a percentage of their incomes and the picture is even uglier for Obama and Biden. Nevertheless, the pathetic Left in this country continues to whine that Romney is a "spoiled rich brat" and "out-of-touch with working Americans." And Barack Obama is IN TOUCH with them? How has that worked out for the increasingly vast numbers of unemployed and underemployed over the course of his presidency? Someone is out of touch, but it isn't Mitt Romney.
That's because Romney has more money! :-) Actually, as a percentage, Obama has given a very fair share.
In Romney's case, as pointed out above in this thread, 75% of his giving is to his Mormon Church; our tax dollars pay for those fine young fellows in white shirts and ties proselytizing around the world.
And yes, most Americans think Romney is "out of touch" with working Americans. And yes, his economic plan is to lower taxes for the rich, he's quite definite about that, but rather vague about what deductions if any he will cut for his rich friends. So his friends get richer and America pays. Most people don't "like" or trust Romney; that's his problem.
Recent trends show the economy is improving including housing. Objectivist1, unless there is some major event, it looks like you will have Obama as your President for FOUR MORE YEARS. Aren't you excited Ojectivist1? :evil:
PS Doug, I have no hatred; I'm not claiming poverty and I have quite a few very wealthy friends. It's the majority of Americans don't particularly "like" Romney. If the economy wasn't in the doldrums, Obama would crush Romney in nearly every state. Romney's a poor candidate, but it's too late to ask for a refund. :-)
-
"75% of his giving is to his Mormon Church; our tax dollars pay for those fine young fellows in white shirts and ties proselytizing around the world."
Giving to one's church is a well recognized form of charity. The proslytizing is but one aspect of the Church's work. Regardless of what you may think of the LDS church and its works, the simple fact is that Romney had the generosity of donate 30% of his income. That really is a very high percentage, considerably above BO, and leaving Biden far, far, far in the dust. Nonetheless the media focused on the 14% he paid because his income is mostly capital gains.
"And yes, his economic plan is to lower taxes for the rich, he's quite definite about that, but rather vague about what deductions if any he will cut for his rich friends. So his friends get richer and America pays."
JDN, you please don't continue to play Groundhog Day on tax rates. I suspect some of the snarkiness sometimes directed your way is a result of frustration with your tendency to do this on some issues. His plan is NOT to "lower taxes". His plan is to "lower tax rates". As has been repeatedly explained to you the two are not the same thing. Romney has repeatedly said that deductions will be eliminated in a manner so that net revenues will be unchanged. The vagueness is a political calculation that specificity would set off a special interest firestorm. One may agree or disagree with this calculation, but please accurately describe what his stated position is.
Also, in how you frame what you say, please remember that pretty much everyone here was looking for someone/anyone instead of Romney and that we now support him strongly because Obama is the alternative.
-
Second post of the morning
A Foreign Policy for Mitt What the Republican candidate might say Tuesday in New York.
By BRET STEPHENS
Editor's note: Mitt Romney delivers an address Tuesday to the Clinton Global Initiative in New York. Here's an advance copy—as interpreted by your columnist:
Thank you, President Clinton. Thank you for being a true believer in American exceptionalism. Thank you for being a president who worked with a Republican Congress to balance our budgets and end welfare as we knew it. Thank you for building on the work of your Republican predecessor to expand free trade and bring millions of jobs to America. Thank you for using American power to rescue the people of the Balkans against a butcher in Belgrade—even when the U.N. and Russia tried to get in your way.
And, by the way, thanks for that line about my "sterling business career."
Ladies and gentlemen, you all know the choice we make on election day will count not just for the next four years, but for the next 40.
You know how much the choice will count here in America. It will decide whether we have socialized medicine or a marketplace of medical solutions. It will decide whether our economy creates companies like Staples or like Solyndra. It will decide whether we take advantage of our untapped domestic energy resources, or continue to outsource our energy future to OPEC while we tilt at windmills here at home. It will decide whether we'll be a low-tax country that makes investments for the future, or a high-tax country paying interest on the ever-growing debts of our past.
But the choice Americans make in November will count far beyond America's shores.
It's no secret that we're in a world of crises. Europe's economic woes seem to have no end in sight—even if they are a lesson in plain sight of what happens to countries that favor entitlements over entrepreneurs. In the Middle East, Islamist governments are trafficking in illiberal ideas that, as we saw two weeks ago, can have tragic consequences for Americans. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have squandered the sacrifices of our troops with withdrawals and timetables intended to suit political convenience, not strategic necessity. In the Far East, we see a bullying regime in Beijing trying to lay claim to entire seas at the expense of democratic allies like Japan and the Philippines.
And in Russia, Vladimir Putin thinks being a manly man means throwing three young punk rockers into prison. But I say Mr. Putin has the courage of a pussy cat next to these gallant ladies.
Above all else is the challenge of Iran. President Clinton, when you were in the White House you said a nuclear Iran was unacceptable. President Bush said it was unacceptable. And President Obama calls it unacceptable as well. But Iran doesn't think we mean it. They think they can tiptoe across the nuclear finish line while we squabble publicly with Israel over how and when to stop them.
So the questions we face with Iran are these: Will we allow Tehran to flout the will of three U.S. presidents and get away with it? Should a regime that can take a stone in its right hand to execute a defenseless woman be given a nuclear weapon in its left hand to use likewise against Israel or, someday, us?
The right response begins by communicating our purposes with unmistakable clarity. Let the leaders of Iran know that on the day I become president their choices will narrow to two: Either they abandon their nuclear program, immediately and completely, or we will make them abandon it. Nobody wants a third Middle Eastern war. But much less do we want the Third World War we would risk if Iran gained nuclear weapons.
The right response also requires standing for our principles. I deplore slanders against any religious faith—believe me, I know whereof I speak. But as president of the United States I will stand above all for American principles, beginning with the right of free speech. And I will not apologize for that right under the foolish and dishonorable assumption that we can pacify our enemies by joining in their denunciations of acts of free speech.
And speaking of principles, one of mine is that friends come first. So we will not try to appease the Russians at the expense of the Poles, or the Egyptians at the expense of Israelis, or the Chinese at the expense of anybody.
So clarity, principle—and then there's credibility. As my running mate Paul Ryan has said, our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course. "To provide for the common defence" is a constitutional duty of government. And yet with each passing year, entitlements take up a larger share, and defense a smaller one, of our federal budget.
In Europe, they had a solution to this problem—and it was called the United States. But who has our back? The U.N.?
Make no mistake: As we debate our budgets, our adversaries in Tehran and Moscow and Beijing are looking for every gap in our defenses, every strain in our alliances and every sign of weakness in our will. And they are awaiting opportunities to exploit all three.
When I'm president, they won't find those opportunities. I know it is a heavy burden for America to be the world's policeman. But far heavier would be our burden if we were to forsake that role. Because we are not a disinterested party when it comes to securing democracy against despotism, civilization against barbarism, and order and fair play against the rule of the jungle.
Ladies and gentlemen, when President Kennedy said we would pay any price and bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty, he was telling us not to expect to have it easy. Greatness never is. But neither is America a country that has ever chosen the easy road. We're not about to begin now.
-
Lest anyone try to make the tired argument endlessly repeated by the Left that a capital gains tax rate which is lower than the general income tax rate is "unfair," take note that there is sound reasoning behind this idea. When income is taxed at the capital gains rate, that is the SECOND TIME the government has stuck its hand into that income. The person has ALREADY PAID TAXES ON THAT INCOME AT THE REGULAR RATE BEFORE THEY MADE THE INVESTMENT.
-
"75% of his giving is to his Mormon Church; our tax dollars pay for those fine young fellows in white shirts and ties proselytizing around the world."
Giving to one's church is a well recognized form of charity. The proslytizing is but one aspect of the Church's work. Regardless of what you may think of the LDS church and its works, the simple fact is that Romney had the generosity of donate 30% of his income. That really is a very high percentage, considerably above BO, and leaving Biden far, far, far in the dust. Nonetheless the media focused on the 14% he paid because his income is mostly capital gains.
"And yes, his economic plan is to lower taxes for the rich, he's quite definite about that, but rather vague about what deductions if any he will cut for his rich friends. So his friends get richer and America pays."
JDN, you please don't continue to play Groundhog Day on tax rates. I suspect some of the snarkiness sometimes directed your way is a result of frustration with your tendency to do this on some issues. His plan is NOT to "lower taxes". His plan is to "lower tax rates". As has been repeatedly explained to you the two are not the same thing. Romney has repeatedly said that deductions will be eliminated in a manner so that net revenues will be unchanged. The vagueness is a political calculation that specificity would set off a special interest firestorm. One may agree or disagree with this calculation, but please accurately describe what his stated position is.
Also, in how you frame what you say, please remember that pretty much everyone here was looking for someone/anyone instead of Romney and that we now support him strongly because Obama is the alternative.
Nothing wrong with the Mormon Church; I do however think it's relevant that he gives 75% of his charity to the Mormon Church. Obama didn't do bad either re a percentage given.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/07/news/economy/candidates_charity/index.htm
As for terms, I understand your point about "tax rate" being more precise, however I might point out that Bloomberg and numerous other publications often interchangeably use the terms "lower tax rate" and "lower taxes". Often you will read in respected publications that Romney is going to "lower taxes". It's semantics; most Americans don't differentiate. They do differentiate however because the perception is that he is only going to lower the taxes burden for the rich.
As for deductions, what Romney is saying is that "Yes, I am a very wealthy man, yes, I intend to lower the tax rate for the rich substantially by x %, and yes, I will eliminate some deductions the rich often use, but I don't know what they are at this time. Just trust me. wink wink"
And that's why he's having a credibility problem.....
Huntsman, on the other hand suggested drastically reducing the tax rate AND eliminating all deductions including charity. (Huntsman was also Mormon so I assume he also gave his 10%). That kind of plan I like and respect.
-
Huntsman had a real big credibility problem-- he only got the support of 1-2% of the voters. :lol:
I get that Bloomberg et al are sloppy in their terminology, but that is not reason for us here to do so. I ask you to please keep this in mind so that we do not have to have this conversation again.
I get that many folks don't trust Romney on this issue, but that is not reason or justification for you to misstate his position which is to cut rates AND deductions so that net progressivity remains unchanged i.e. total revenues generated remain the same (per static revenue assumptions)
-
Lest anyone try to make the tired argument endlessly repeated by the Left that a capital gains tax rate which is lower than the general income tax rate is "unfair," take note that there is sound reasoning behind this idea. When income is taxed at the capital gains rate, that is the SECOND TIME the government has stuck its hand into that income. The person has ALREADY PAID TAXES ON THAT INCOME AT THE REGULAR RATE BEFORE THEY MADE THE INVESTMENT.
I'm missing something.
Let's say I buy a 100 shares of Apple at 100. Yes, I paid tax on the money to buy the stock.
Now let's say Apple rises to 700 per share. Have I already paid tax on the 600 gain? No.
So why should that gain be taxed at a lower rate than a wage earner?
Why should the stock picker who makes a million dollars a year (the increased amount of his portfolio) pay a lower tax rate on the increased amount than the policeman who is merely a wage earner?
No one is asking anyone to pay tax on money that has already been taxed; but rather pay tax on money that has not been taxed before, i.e. the income.
If I put money in a Savings Account. My principle isn't taxed, but the interest I earned is taxed at a high rate. What's the difference if I buy a stock or a company or a piece of real estate and it goes up in value versus my savings account?
-
Huntsman had a real big credibility problem-- he only got the support of 1-2% of the voters. :lol:
You are right; the right wing did not accept him, but he made sense to me and he was eminently qualified. I bet if he was running, he would be ahead in the polls.
I get that Bloomberg et al are sloppy in their terminology, but that is not reason for us here to do so. I ask you to please keep this in mind so that we do not have to have this conversation again.
Odd, what I post you concede is good enough for Bloomberg et al but not here....., but others can post absurdity without being chastised?
I get that many folks don't trust Romney on this issue, but that is not reason or justification for you to misstate his position which is to cut rates AND deductions so that net progressivity remains unchanged i.e. total revenues generated remain the same (per static revenue assumptions)
I think I've seen Obama's position misstated or simply quoted inaccurately here often enough without the poster being chastised? Is there a double standard?
-
JDN, You are ignoring the corporate tax of the US and Calif, HIGHEST IN THE WORLD, in your Apple stock example. Are they secretly exempt from corporate taxation? Is Bain?? The income on the 600 in your example was ALREADY TAXED.
The tax rate on that income is roughly 35% + 10% + 15% + 10% and that equals 15% ?? ?? ?? ?? This should be on the education/math thread
In making the same mistake over and over you are also ignoring years and years of posts on the forum that pointed this out ad nauseum.
"Tedious".
Huntsman: "the right wing did not accept him"
Nor did the middle wing or left wing. Someone rational would support Huntsman's economic plan to the right of Romney but then vote for Obama's agenda for collective decline and redistribution?
"I bet if he was running, he would be ahead in the polls." - HE DID RUN AND HE LOST!
"I think I've seen Obama's position misstated or simply quoted inaccurately here often enough without the poster being chastised? Is there a double standard?"
No, we don't have to misquote him to make points in opposition. All you're defeating with that is the straw man. With everyone else here, inaccuracies caught are followed with corrections and apologies it seems to me. Romney isn't raising taxes or tax rates on the middle class; that is pure drivel and intentional deception. Typical of your posts IMO there, you throw your mud while offering NOTHING to back it up. Where did we lie about Pres. Obama?
Driving away good posters and bringing down the discussion, is what you are doing intentional?
-
"I think I've seen Obama's position misstated or simply quoted inaccurately here often enough without the poster being chastised? Is there a double standard?"
No, we don't have to misquote him to make points in opposition. With everyone else here, inaccuracies caught are followed with corrections and apologies it seems to me.
Really?
Romney isn't raising taxes or tax rates on the middle class; that is pure drivel and intentional deception.
Did I say Romney was raising taxes or the tax rate on the middle class? No, I never said that. I said he was lowering taxes (the tax rate) for the upper class.
Typical of your posts IMO there, you throw your mud while offering NOTHING to back it up. Where did we lie about Pres. Obama?
Surely you jest?
-
Did I say Romney was raising taxes or the tax rate on the middle class? No, I never said that. I said he was lowering taxes (the tax rate) for the upper class.
Poster JDN wrote: in Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 18, 2012, 08:55:08 AM
"Romney's tax plan? It's a give to to rich and take from the middle class plan. So he and his friends can all own their own private aircraft AND deduct it from their taxes."
Drivel, deception and hate speech. I regret the time spent going through your posts to find what you don't admit or remember posting.
-
Since Crafty wants us to be precise... :-)
I repeat, I never said "Romney was raising taxes or the tax rate on the middle class".
I did say he will cut the tax rate for the upper class, and he, or the Republicans, are proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs.
i.e. "He is giving to the rich and taking from the middle class."
But I never said he is raising the middle class' tax rate.
No drivel, no deception, and definitely no hate. Further, I'm pleased that my memory is still functioning perfectly. :-)
-
Umm sorry, that strikes me as pure sophistic horsefeathers.
"So why should that gain be taxed at a lower rate than a wage earner?"
a) Because unlike the wage earner, one can LOSE money in the market. I speak from experience. :cry:
b) Furthermore, though the gain may have occurred over years, it is taxed in the year it the gain is actualized. If income tax rates were applied this often means a person will be pushed into the higher brackets even though were the gain to be spread out over the years in question on an annualized basis it would be in a lower bracket;
c) Inflation. Capital gains occur over longer time frames, sometimes quite long. Thus a goodly portion of the gain is often nominal and not actual.
I could swear we have covered this previously , , ,
-
"proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs"
No JDN. You said "take from the middle class" in a statement that YOU called "the Romney tax plan".
Here you were endorsing the Obama elegance while he was lying about Romney's tax plan which I already called you out on:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.msg65769#msg65769
"Under my opponent's tax plan, 106 fans at the game would get an average tax cut of $250,000, and about 100,000 fans would have to pay for it,"
--------
"Tax" and "pay for it" in terms of public finance have different meanings?? An ugly waste of my time trying to prove to you what YOU posted recently on these pages. The adventure detoured.
-
I did say he will cut the tax rate for the upper class, and he, or the Republicans, are proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs.
i.e. "He is giving to the rich and taking from the middle class."
1. Why would anyone who is middle class need a program?
2. How is allowing people who made money legally keep a bit more of it "taking it from the middle class"?
-
I did say he will cut the tax rate for the upper class, and he, or the Republicans, are proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs.
i.e. "He is giving to the rich and taking from the middle class."
1. Why would anyone who is middle class need a program?
2. How is allowing people who made money legally keep a bit more of it "taking it from the middle class"?
Yes, admitting middle class dependency is the objective. They must have worn out the take from the poor, push Granny off the cliff lines or admit those votes are already sewn up within the alleged 47% - while the middle class are starting to see they and their children will be paying for the Obama disaster if we should survive it.
-
Reducing Americans to groveling wards of the state isn't a bug, it's a feature of this ideology.
I did say he will cut the tax rate for the upper class, and he, or the Republicans, are proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs.
i.e. "He is giving to the rich and taking from the middle class."
1. Why would anyone who is middle class need a program?
2. How is allowing people who made money legally keep a bit more of it "taking it from the middle class"?
Yes, admitting middle class dependency is the objective. They must have worn out the take from the poor, push Granny off the cliff lines or admit those votes are already sewn up within the alleged 47% - while the middle class are starting to see they and their children will be paying for the Obama disaster if we should survive it.
-
Damn glad to see you back, GM.
-
"I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible.
Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/romney-tax-plan-on-table-debt-collapses-table-.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/even-mitt-romney-admits-hell-need-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/
-
Damn glad to see you back, GM.
Thanks BD.
-
"I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible.
Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/romney-tax-plan-on-table-debt-collapses-table-.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/even-mitt-romney-admits-hell-need-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/aboutus/index.cfm
Who We Are
The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.
What We Do
TPC provides timely, accessible analysis and facts about tax policy to policymakers, journalists, citizens, and researchers. Its major products are
Model estimates: The TPC Microsimulation Model produces revenue and distribution estimates for the latest tax proposals and bills. More information about the tax model is available in the overview and a detailed methodology paper.
Library: Research by TPC staff is disseminated in a variety of publications, including two TPC series - Issues and Options briefs and Discussion papers. The TPC also has regular columns in Tax Notes magazine.
Tax Facts: The Tax Facts database compiles facts and figures from government agencies and other sources.
The Tax Policy Briefing Book: A Citizens' Guide for the 2012 Election and Beyond A handy primer on how the tax system works."— Tom Herman, WSJ. A compendium of information on a host of questions likely to be addressed during the 2008 presidential election debate and beyond. This briefing book is intended as a resource for the public, the press, and even the presidential campaigns-in short, for anyone who wants to be well informed about current tax and budget matters.
TaxVox The Tax Policy Center's tax and budget policy blog. Join the discussion on tax legislation, administration, and more.
-
www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org Date: 9/26/2012 5:44:14 PM
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION (BI)
1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC
20036
Phone :202-797-6000
URL :http://www.brook.edu/
Leading Democratic Think-Tank in Washington, D.C.
The Brookings Institution defines itself as "a private nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and innovative policy solutions." Professing to be without a political agenda, it aims to "provide the highest quality research, policy recommendations, and analysis on the full range of public policy issues … for decision-makers in the U.S. and abroad on the full range of challenges facing an increasingly interdependent world."
The Brookings Institution is an outgrowth of the Institute for Government Research (IGR), which was founded in 1916 to analyze public policy issues at the national level. In 1922 and 1924, one of IGR's supporters, St. Louis businessman and philanthropist Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932), established two sister organizations: the Institute of Economics and a graduate school (as part of Washington University) bearing his name. In 1927, the three entities merged to form the Brookings Institution. Its first Board included Mr. Brookings; Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter; Charles W. Eliot, former President of Harvard; Fredric Delano, uncle of future President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Herbert Hoover; and Frank Goodnow, who would become the first Chairman of the IGR's Board of Trustees and President of Johns Hopkins University.
Mr. Brookings officially opposed FDR's expansion of the welfare state during the Great Depression, and then-Brookings Institution President Harold Moulton concluded that the National Recovery Administration had actually impeded recovery. The Institution assisted in the planning of World War II, providing the government with manpower estimates and price control data; it also offered suggestions on the most efficient way to carry out the rebuilding of Europe after the War.
The Brookings Institution's capacity to shape government policy increased dramatically in the 1950s, when it received substantial grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. President Robert Calkins reorganized the Institution into Economic Studies, Government Studies, and Foreign Policy Studies programs, and by the mid-1960s Brookings was conducting nearly 100 research projects per year for the government as well as for private industry, making it the preeminent source of research in the world.
Under the Nixon administration, Brookings' relationship with the White House deteriorated, largely because many of the Brookings staff were Democrats who identified with the policies of the Great Society, opposed the Vietnam War, and advocated America's accelerated or unilateral nuclear disarmament. Brookings became part of the Watergate investigation as a result of Nixon’s decision to authorize a break-in to the Institution’s headquarters in 1971, in connection with the Pentagon Papers leak; He also ordered the FBI to wiretap the telephone of Morton Halperin, a Brookings Fellow.
Brookings tipped back to the political right in the 1970s and 80s, as evidenced by the presence of longtime Republicans like Stephen Hess (one-time speechwriter for President Eisenhower) and Roger Semerad (former Assistant Secretary of Labor under Ronald Reagan) in key positions. Brookings' then-President, Bruce MacLaury, was Under-Secretary of the Treasury for President Nixon.
Brookings has in recent years shifted back to the political left, particularly in its foreign policy positions. Condemning President Bush's Iraq policy, in April 2004 Brookings hosted Senator Edward Kennedy in an event aimed at discrediting the Iraq War. As the 2004 Presidential election neared, the Institution's Fellows endorsed Democratic candidate John Kerry's call for a "more sensitively" fought war on terrorism. They have also called for the American government to permit Islamic radicals like Tariq Ramadan to enter the U.S. with work visas.
Brookings has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including the Global Governance Initiative, which aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government, based in part on economic and Third World considerations. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush's tax cuts in 2003.
The research topics addressed by the Brookings Institution include: Business, Cities and Suburbs, Defense, Economics, Education, Environment and Energy, Governance, Politics, Science and Technology, and Social Policy.
The Brookings Institution's President since 2002 has been Strobe Talbott, who served as President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State. The Board of Trustees features Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of John Kerry; Zoe Baird, failed Clinton appointee for Attorney General; and Lawrence Summers, former Harvard President and U.S. Treasury Secretary.
Brookings income derives from a wide variety of sources, including seminars run for government and businesses, and a vast array of corporate and government contracts. In recent years, Brookings has received grants from the Aetna Foundation; the American Express Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the Fannie Mae Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Ford Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the MacArthur Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Rockefeller Brothers Fund; the AT&T Foundation, the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, the Heinz Family Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Turner Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, and the Verizon Foundation. In 2004, grants to the Brookings Institutions totaled $32,107,359.
Also as of 2004, the Brookings Institution's net assets were valued at $248,205,816.
______________________________________________________________________
2100 "M" Street NW
Washington, DC
20037
Phone :202-833-7200
URL: Website
Describes itself as a "nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization established to examine the social, economic, and governance problems" facing the U.S.
Favors socialized health care, expansion of federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners
Ascribed the 1992 Los Angeles riots to the rioters' justified rage at society's economic and racial inequities
The Urban Institute (UI) was founded in 1968 by a panel of government officials and civic leaders. Then-President Lyndon Johnson called the group together to monitor the vast array of Great Society programs his administration had created. UI's first President was William Gorham, who had served from 1965-1968 as Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In 2000, he was succeeded as UI President by Robert Reischauer.
The Urban Institute describes itself as a "nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization established to examine the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation [the United States]." It publishes studies, reports, and books on topics it deems worthy of public consideration. UI's research focuses on the areas of Crime and Justice; Economy and Taxes; Education; Healthcare; Housing; Welfare; and Work and Income. In addition, it operates an "Assessing the New Federalism Project," a multi-year survey on the effect of the transfer of social welfare programs from the federal government to the states. Financed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and a consortium of philanthropies, the findings of this project confirmed the Casey Foundation's belief that adequate incomes and child care arrangements can best be ensured by increased government spending and an expansion of federal welfare programs.
In 1980, UI called for socialized health care in the United States, and in 1982 began a running critique of the Reagan Administration under its Changing Domestic Priorities Project; the critique ran to 26 volumes, with research paid for by the Ford Foundation.
In 1990, UI put together a similar critique of the administration of President George H.W. Bush. In the wake of the Los Angeles riots in 1992, UI became a leading policy-center apologist for urban black violence, focusing on societal and economic, rather than moral and criminal, factors in its analysis of the riots.
In 2001, UI and the Brookings Institution began collaboration on a Tax Policy Center (TPC) to discredit President George W. Bush's tax cut plans, which UI claimed disproportionately and unjustly favored "the wealthy."
Lamenting the societal obstacles that allegedly prevent African Americans from prospering, a May 2006 UI report "exposes the dire education and employment straits of young black men," stating that "- nly half of black men age 16 to 24 who are out of school are employed at any given time." The report explains this phenomenon as follows: "The good blue-collar jobs that men with high school diplomas or less could expect to get a generation ago -- in manufacturing and other sectors -- have either disappeared or pay much less than before. The education and skills required for higher-paying jobs have clearly risen…. Meanwhile, the prospect of getting stuck in low-wage service jobs, which are available, holds little appeal."
Making a case for taxpayer-funded system of socialized medicine, another May 2006 UI report concludes that "public insurance appears to offer the best financial protection from high out-of-pocket expenses and financial burden for low-income families."
In a June 2006 report on immigration and government tax revenues, UI concludes that: "Immigrants in Washington, D.C. pay their fair share of the region's tax bill. The most educated foreign-born earners actually pay more in taxes than natives; the lower skilled contribute too." This report makes no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal aliens, the latter of whom it refers to as "unauthorized immigrants."
Among UI's donors are the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Ford Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Aetna Foundation; the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation; the Nathan Cummings Foundation; the Ahmanson Foundation; the Energy Foundation; the W.K. Kellogg Foundation; the American Express Foundation; the Fannie Mae Foundation; the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; the JEHT Foundation; the J.M. Kaplan Fund; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the Public Welfare Foundation; the Surdna Foundation; the Bank of America Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Joyce Foundation; the Minneapolis Foundation; the Woods Fund of Chicago; and the Verizon Foundation.
From 1996 to 2003, UI received over $60 million in foundation money. In addition, the federal government awarded UI nearly $55 million during the last few years of the Clinton administration. UI now employs a staff of 378 and has an annual budget of $70 million.
-
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/25/romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-have-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/
Romney’s Tax Plan Doesn’t Have to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class
Curtis Dubay
September 25, 2012 at 4:43 pm
(2)
The Tax Policy Center (TPC) made headlines with its analysis of Governor Mitt Romney’s tax reform plan. The authors of the TPC report found, incorrectly as it turns out, that Romney’s plan would “necessitate” a tax increase on middle- and low-income taxpayers.
Their conclusion is wrong and the report flawed because the authors made a series of assumptions and choices that lead them to their carefully selected result.
Romney’s plan does what most sensible tax reform plans do to increase incentives to engage in the activities that create economic growth: It cuts marginal tax rates and reduces the tax bias on saving and investment.
The Romney plan offsets the revenue lost from those improvements by broadening the tax base (i.e., eliminating credits, deductions, exemptions, and exclusions, otherwise known as “tax preferences”) in unspecified ways. And it makes these changes without shifting the share of taxes paid by various income groups.
The TPC authors chose to frame their analysis on the hot-button issue of tax distribution by ignoring the fact that Romney’s plan doesn’t shift the tax burden. They could’ve chosen to analyze all the aspects of the Romney plan. Instead, though the Romney plan doesn’t specify, the TPC authors chose which tax preferences they thought the plan would eliminate.
Importantly, they “took off the table” (their words) several tax preferences that mostly benefit upper-income taxpayers. Then they analyzed how the Romney plan’s pro-growth changes would affect tax distribution after closing their selected tax preferences.
However, changing the assumptions the TPC authors made leads to a different conclusion. Governor Romney’s tax plan can make pro-growth changes to taxes without raising taxes on middle- and low-income taxpayers.
Tax reform is an issue vital to the economy’s revitalization. Until Washington overhauls the tax code to lower rates and make other growth-oriented changes to the tax code, the economy will not recover as strongly as it should.
For politicians and the public to make the right decisions about tax reform, they need accurate information. To help advance the debate, instead of weighing it down with flawed analysis, the TPC authors should show how Governor Romney’s plan doesn’t have to raise taxes on middle- and low-income taxpayers. They could further advance the debate with a discussion of the benefits the Romney plan would have for economic growth.
-
WSJ: Mathematically Possible -- Correcting the False Assumptions of Obama's Tax Gurus
Following up on my previous posts (links below): Wall Street Journal editorial: Mathematically Possible: Correcting the False Assumptions of Obama's Tax Gurus:
It isn't easy being the intellectual frontmen for President Obama's re-election campaign, as the boys at the Brookings-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center are discovering. Their ballyhooed study of Mitt Romney's tax plan looks worse with each new examination.
Mr. Romney's tax plan would cut income tax rates across the board by 20%, while cutting loopholes that mostly benefit those in the highest income classes. The Tax Policy Center claims it is "mathematically impossible" to finance the rate cut without jacking up taxes by $86 billion on the middle class and poor. Mr. Obama has jumped on the study to support his claims that Mr. Romney would raise taxes, though the Republican has proposed no such thing.
The study's biggest distortion is its raw assertion that Mr. Romney would refuse to close certain loopholes. In the appendix, the Tax Policy Center lists, among others, two giant tax deductions that it says would go untouched: the exclusion of interest on tax-exempt municipal bonds, and the exclusion of interest on life insurance savings. The study claims that Mr. Romney won't close these because they are incentives for saving and investment.
One problem: Nowhere do Mitt Romney or his advisers say that these deductions can't be touched. Senior economic adviser Glenn Hubbard says these deductions are definitely "on the table." ...
Scholars at the American Enterprise Institute examined what happens to the Tax Policy Center math when this error is corrected. AEI economic research associate Matt Jensen found that "Both of these exclusions largely benefit the wealthy, and, according to the Treasury Department, added together their repeal would net upwards of $90 billion that could be redistributed to lower-income individuals. That would go a long way towards balancing the supposed $86 billion windfall for the rich and tax hike on the middle class and poor, and it could make the impossible suddenly possible." [How the Tax Policy Center Could Improve its Romney Tax Study]The AEI analysis warns that these numbers change from year to year, but it concludes that by eliminating these two deductions and a few other smaller ones, Mr. Romney can make his math add up. In other words, poof, no tax hike on the middle class.
This won't stop the Obama campaign from making its false claims, but it ought to at least embarrass the media into questioning them. It should also embarrass the analysts at the Tax Policy Center who claim to be nonpartisan, above-the-fray economists but somehow always seem to provide analysis that serves those who want to raise tax rates.[/b]
-
Nice job by GM of answering the Tax Policy Center left wing opinion piece. Brookings, Urban Institute and TPC are objective, unbiased? I wonder if the original poster takes groups like Heritage and Cato as non-partisan as well.
Deductibility of municipal bonds is off-limits? What kind of an assumption is that when Romney has said explicitly that big deductions will be closed for the wealthiest. Isn't an end to deductibility of municipal bond interest a certainty if 2nd term Obama triples the tax rate on capital gains? Otherwise how would ANY private money ever flow into capital investment?
Mathematical impossibility was already proven for the status quo; we don't need a TPC analysis: “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office", he said.
What did the 'non-partisan' TPC write about THAT?
What standard are we holding the Romney to? The choice is a competing economic plan that yields 0.0% growth and trillion dollar deficits that will quadruple when Obamacare's full costs materialize and when QE is exposed as witchcraft and interest rates on our debt jump up to market rates.
-
Tax Policy Center left wing piece.... :?
As pointed out in the article...
"But the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was one of the principals on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased simply isn’t credible -- a point underscored by the fact that the Romney campaign referred to the group’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary campaign."
or the comment,
"Mr. Romney's tax plan would cut income tax rates across the board by 20%, while cutting loopholes that mostly benefit those in the highest income classes."
What loopholes is he going to cut? :? The silence is deafening.
It's all a mystery. "reduce taxes" It's a soundbite; heck even I like lower taxes; who doesn't, but he is ignoring the tough part; the offsetting/cutting of "loopholes".
-
Mitt Romney to NBC on Wednesday:
"I think throughout this campaign as well, we talked about my record in Massachusetts, don't forget -- I got everybody in my state insured," Romney told NBC's Ron Allen in an interview before his rally here tonight. "One hundred percent of the kids in our state had health insurance. I don't think there's anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record."
Right! Good! But while today's words are welcome, they coexist uncomfortably with the healthcare platform to which Mitt Romney has committed himself."
Romney supports ObamaCare :?
Or not?
Flip Flop.... Flip Flop.....
-
Do we really have a regular poster here that does not know the difference between state and federal legislation?
-
Doug, Romney thought mandated health care for all residents was good/great for the people of his state.
Further, he is using his mandated medical plan, in his own words, on national TV, as his best example that he
"shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record."
Yet he opposes ObamaCare which is much like his own plan.
And you don't think that's not a Flip Flop? :?
-
Except to the extent that it makes him a weak candidate on what would be a major issue but for his flip flop, I don't care. He's taken a stand that as best I can tell he cannot reverse to stand for undoing Obamacare on the national level.
-
JDN, In the future, will you please not use my name in your posts when you are being UNRESPONSIVE to the points made or the questions posed. You DO or you DO NOT see a distinction between state and federal legislation? You didn't say.
One difference between a Massachusetts state plan and Obamacare is ... CONSENT of the GOVERNED. In Mass, the people wanted the program and sent legislators there to the tune of 85% Democrats to get it done. The most Romney could do is shape it slightly with the powers of being Governor and spin it positively the best that he could.
In Obamacare, there was no consent of the governed for the people of Texas as an example. Who in WYOMING wanted this or voted for it? Pres. Obama rounded up a temporary majority that already has been disbanded to force down the throat of Americans what MOST DO NOT WANT.
Yet you see no distinction, you never acknowledge where you are wrong, just move on with more deception and blurring.
One candidate has a signature achievement of ramming this down our throats and one has promised to repeal it. That makes for a VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION. Why not argue the merits of the legislation or the repeal with one side for it and one side against it instead of the ad hominem attacks that you throw?
Your example is not a flip flop, it is a distinction you choose to ignore. Romney's past was too moderate and too compromising for many of us on the right. So we choose between too moderate and far left - that's easy!
You say he changed a position where he did not and you said he will raise tax rates where he has said he will not. Why can't you argue policies and positions of the candidates honestly?
Pres. Obama chose to write special deals in the bill for special Dem Senators rather than negotiate on substance to win even one Republican vote. Did you show where that same thing happened in Masschusetts under Gov. Romney? If so, I missed it.
-
Noonan: 2012 Debates: This Is It, Mitt How Romney can make the most of his face-off with Obama.
By PEGGY NOONAN
"Governor, the success or failure of your entire presidential campaign will come down to what happens between the hours of 9 and 10:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 3. We're at a hinge point in history. It's not too much to say the future of the American republic depends on how you do in that hour and a half."
"Um, specifically, what do you want me to do?"
"Be relaxed!"
That's what's coming from some of Mitt Romney's supporters right now—Wednesday night is critical, the last chance, so don't forget it's nothing, a walk in the park. He doesn't strike me as easily given to freak-outs, but if he is, this would be the moment.
Let's take a different approach.
It is true that the debate has the potential to alter the dynamic of the election. A good or great one, followed up by an improved, more serious campaign, could make everything new again. A bad one would do damage indeed.
But there will be three debates, and it's possible the truly high-stakes one will be the last, on Oct. 22. And there are some institutional and personal elements surrounding the Wednesday debate that may well work in Mr. Romney's favor.
From a canny journalist with a counterintuitive head: "The media will be rooting for Romney." Two reasons. First, they don't want the story to end. They're in show biz: A boring end means lower ratings. Careers are involved! Second, the mainstream media is suddenly realizing that more than half the country (and some of their colleagues) think they are at least operationally in the tank for the president, or the Democrats in general. It is hurting the media's standing. A midcourse correction is in order, and Wednesday will offer an opportunity: I think it's fair to say Gov. Romney more than held his own this evening, and a consensus seems to be forming that the president underperformed.
Mr. Romney walks in as the underdog, behind in the polls. He's not the president, the other guy is. He's not world-famous, the other guy is. The president is known for smooth presentation and verbal fluidity, Mr. Romney more recently for awkwardisms and gaffes.
It's good to be the underdog. "Politics is exceeding expectations."
As the Republican candidate, Mr. Romney is used to being battered about. He can take a shot. But once you're president, you're never battered about. The mystique of the Oval Office is too great. People tell you what you want to hear. Everyone's too easy on you.
President Obama hasn't been challenged in public in a long time. He hasn't been challenged in private in a long time. So if Mr. Romney treats him with respect but not deference, if he really engages, challenges, questions and pushes, he just might knock the president off his stride.
There was something Mr. Romney did in the primary debates. When his competitors were answering questions, he didn't stand at the podium looking distracted. He'd turn and smile at them sweetly and encouragingly, as if he were thinking, "You're the cutest little shrimp." No one has looked at Mr. Obama like that since 2003. It's possible he wouldn't like it.
Everyone is waiting for the "Are you better off now . . ." question, but that's a little complicated. No one knew Reagan was going to uncork it in 1980, and so it had a chance to be devastating. This year, everyone knows it's coming. So maybe it won't come. Mr. Obama surely will have memorized a response. Or maybe he will bring it up first. "I'd actually like to talk about whether some people are better off now. It's a complicated question, but teachers and firefighters who've kept their jobs because of what we did might say they're better off . . ."
***
Mr. Romney should be wondering Which Obama he'll meet.
More-in-Sorrow-Than-in-Anger Obama? He patiently explains, until your eyes cross, the real facts of the economy and the beginning of recovery, the competing and even contradictory forces that determine outcomes. He speaks in soft, rounded phrases.
Peggy Noonan's Blog
Daily declarations from the Wall Street Journal columnist.
.
Faux-Humble Obama? I've made some mistakes, I'll admit it. I didn't always do so well explaining exactly what I was doing, in terms of policy, and all the reasons why. I haven't been perfect, but I wasn't wrong to help people get through the height of the crisis. I've learned a lot, but I didn't need to be told to save the U.S. auto industry.
Perturbable Obama? This is a proud man. He doesn't like to be questioned too closely, as he showed when he was pressed on Univision last week.
Rope-a-Dope Obama? As he showed on "60 Minutes," he can make it up as he goes along when he feels he needs to. If you endlessly correct his numbers, it could leave you sputtering digits, slinging factoids, losing the larger point.
Cool McCool? This Obama is tall, friendly, shows up on "The View" and has a smile so big it wrinkles his nose. But he can refer to himself as "eye candy," and reminds you of the old McCain commercial: "He's the biggest celebrity in the world."
Maybe Mr. Romney will meet all five.
***
Mitt Romney still sounds, at this late date in the campaign, as if he's talking to Republicans. But they don't have to be persuaded, they think Mr. Obama is a disaster and want him out. He should be talking to independents, centrists, suburban women, those who might be won over. A lot of them would be grateful to be impressed.
In that area, an idea. In 1980, a lot of people thought incumbent Jimmy Carter wasn't cutting it. It wasn't personal, he just didn't have the right answers for the problems at hand. But people had real doubts about Ronald Reagan—he was too shoot-from-the-hip, he'd start World War III. These were understandable reservations! He had to prove he was a pair of safe hands.
People think Mr. Romney's rich, doesn't understand regular people's lives. They're not sure he can turn things around. He has to prove he's a pair of safe hands.
One way to get at that: People hate it that Washington doesn't work anymore, that it's incapable of solving problems, that it can't even pass a budget. There is widespread knowledge that Mr. Obama, whatever his virtues, doesn't work well with others—he can't negotiate, can't bend them to his will, doesn't really listen, can't work it out, can't win them over. It's all stasis now. And will be if he is re-elected. The complaint that he is at once convinced, detached and uninterested is heard not only in Washington and among Republicans, but among foreign leaders.
Maybe Mr. Romney can note that he once ran a great state, that he faced a legislature dominated by the other party, that he worked with them, heard them, negotiated with them, and that together they produced a great deal. Even a health-care bill that didn't tear the state apart, didn't cause widespread bitterness, didn't inspire broad public resentment. It was, in these respects, the opposite of ObamaCare. Mr. Romney learned much from the experience about what works locally and can work nationally. It's actually not a story to avoid, it is a story worth telling.
-
Well gents, what do we make of this?
Mitt Romney: A New Course for the Middle East
Restore the three sinews of American influence: our economic strength, our military strength and the strength of our values..
By MITT ROMNEY
Disturbing developments are sweeping across the greater Middle East. In Syria, tens of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power, and the country's peace treaty with Israel hangs in the balance. In Libya, our ambassador was murdered in a terrorist attack. U.S. embassies throughout the region have been stormed in violent protests. And in Iran, the ayatollahs continue to move full tilt toward nuclear-weapons capability, all the while promising to annihilate Israel.
These developments are not, as President Obama says, mere "bumps in the road." They are major issues that put our security at risk.
Yet amid this upheaval, our country seems to be at the mercy of events rather than shaping them. We're not moving them in a direction that protects our people or our allies.
And that's dangerous. If the Middle East descends into chaos, if Iran moves toward nuclear breakout, or if Israel's security is compromised, America could be pulled into the maelstrom.
We still have time to address these threats, but it will require a new strategy toward the Middle East.
The first step is to understand how we got here. Since World War II, America has been the leader of the Free World. We're unique in having earned that role not through conquest but through promoting human rights, free markets and the rule of law. We ally ourselves with like-minded countries, expand prosperity through trade and keep the peace by maintaining a military second to none.
But in recent years, President Obama has allowed our leadership to atrophy. Our economy is stuck in a "recovery" that barely deserves the name. Our national debt has risen to record levels. Our military, tested by a decade of war, is facing devastating cuts thanks to the budgetary games played by the White House. Finally, our values have been misapplied—and misunderstood—by a president who thinks that weakness will win favor with our adversaries.
By failing to maintain the elements of our influence and by stepping away from our allies, President Obama has heightened the prospect of conflict and instability. He does not understand that an American policy that lacks resolve can provoke aggression and encourage disorder.
The Middle East is a case in point. The Arab Spring presented an opportunity to help move millions of people from oppression to freedom. But it also presented grave risks. We needed a strategy for success, but the president offered none. And now he seeks to downplay the significance of the calamities of the past few weeks.
The same incomprehension afflicts the president's policy toward Israel. The president began his term with the explicit policy of creating "daylight" between our two countries. He recently downgraded Israel from being our "closest ally" in the Middle East to being only "one of our closest allies." It's a diplomatic message that will be received clearly by Israel and its adversaries alike. He dismissed Israel's concerns about Iran as mere "noise" that he prefers to "block out." And at a time when Israel needs America to stand with it, he declined to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In this period of uncertainty, we need to apply a coherent strategy of supporting our partners in the Middle East—that is, both governments and individuals who share our values.
This means restoring our credibility with Iran. When we say an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability—and the regional instability that comes with it—is unacceptable, the ayatollahs must be made to believe us.
It means placing no daylight between the United States and Israel. And it means using the full spectrum of our soft power to encourage liberty and opportunity for those who have for too long known only corruption and oppression. The dignity of work and the ability to steer the course of their lives are the best alternatives to extremism.
But this Middle East policy will be undermined unless we restore the three sinews of our influence: our economic strength, our military strength and the strength of our values. That will require a very different set of policies from those President Obama is pursuing.
The 20th century became an American Century because we were steadfast in defense of freedom. We made the painful sacrifices necessary to defeat totalitarianism in all of its guises. To defend ourselves and our allies, we paid the price in treasure and in soldiers who never came home.
Our challenges are different now, but if the 21st century is to be another American Century, we need leaders who understand that keeping the peace requires American strength in all of its dimensions.
Mr. Romney is the Republican Party candidate for president.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/more-than-500-economists-5-nobel-laureates-back-romneys-economic-strategy/
More than 500 economists — including five Nobel laureates — have endorsed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s economic plan as the right choice for jobs creation and economic growth.
The pro-Romney group “Economists for Romney” announced Monday that its statement of support for the former Massachusetts governor’s economic plan now has 526 signatories, up from 400 a week ago.
“We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney’s economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom,” Economists for Romney’s statement of support reads, proclaiming Romney’s plan as based on “proven principles” to restrain the federal government and expand opportunities in the private sector.
The 526 economists — including Nobel laureates Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Myron Scholes — point to six facets of Romney’s economic approach that they see as beneficial to future economic success.
Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards.
End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy.
Restructure regulation to end “too big to fail,” improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests.
Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement.
Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy.
Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.
Seven of the signatories are from Harvard University and five from Columbia University — two of President Barack Obama’s alma maters.
The economists’ statement of support pillories Obama’s economic record, claiming that his expansion of the federal government has resulted in “anemic economic recovery and high unemployment,” which will continue if his future plans are implemented.
Among the Obama policies with which the 526 economists take issue include:
Relied on short-term “stimulus” programs, which provided little sustainable lift to the economy, and enacted and proposed significant tax increases for all Americans.
Offered no plan to reduce federal spending and stop the growth of the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Failed to propose Social Security reform and offered a Medicare proposal that relies on a panel of bureaucrats to set prices, quantities, and qualities of healthcare services.
Favored a large expansion of economic regulation across many sectors, with little regard for proper cost-benefit analysis and with a disturbing degree of favoritism toward special interests.
Enacted health care legislation that centralizes health care decisions and increases the power of the federal bureaucracy to impose one-size-fits-all solutions on patients and doctors, and creates greater incentives for waste.
Favored expansion of one-size-fits-all federal rulemaking, with an erosion of the ability of state and local governments to make decisions appropriate for their particular circumstances.
-
Excerpts:
----
The attack on our consulate there on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001.
This latest assault can't be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the administration has finally conceded: These attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others -- especially on women and girls -- who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.
---
The relationship between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel, for example -- our closest ally in the region -- has suffered great strains. The president explicitly stated that his goal was to put "daylight" between the United States and Israel, and he succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.
----
When we look at the Middle East today, with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threatening to destabilize the region, and with violent extremists on the march -- and with an American ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates -- it's clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office. I know the president hopes for a safer, freer, and more prosperous Middle East allied with us. I share this hope.
----
I'll roll back President Obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I'll make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war. The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I'll restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I'll implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2% of their GDP to security spending. Today only three of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.
-
“I HOPE you’re sitting down for this,” said Ali Velshi, the CNN anchor, staring into the camera, his voice booming with incredulity about a campaign promise issued by Mitt Romney: that, if elected, Mr. Romney would create 12 million jobs in four years.
Having framed this idea as preposterous, Mr. Velshi introduced R. Glenn Hubbard, the dean of Columbia Business School, a Romney campaign adviser and a “very smart man,” as the host put it. So smart, Mr. Velshi told Mr. Hubbard, that “you couldn’t have been involved in the writing of that policy.” Why? “Because you would know that that is just not possible.”
Wearing a dark suit and projecting an air of geeky, avuncular calm, Mr. Hubbard appeared before a blue backdrop festooned with the words “Columbia Business School.” If he was supposed to be cowed or disarmed by the bluster or flattery, he did not show it.
“It is absolutely possible, Ali, both in terms of models of policy effects on the recovery and historical experience,” he said, in a tone that was professorial but not patronizing, “If you look at the recovery from ’74, ’75, or ’81, ’82, you can easily get job growth in this range. We have the wrong policy mix. We’ve had a nasty shock, we’re in a different situation, but we could do a lot better.”
Succinct, authoritative and unabashedly partisan. Leave aside that most economists see a vast difference between the recessions of the ’70s and ’80s and the crisis that began in 2008. This was exactly the sort of performance Mr. Hubbard has been delivering for the Republican candidate, both on television and in op-ed articles, for more than a year. Straddling the occasionally uncomfortable line between academia and politics, Mr. Hubbard is playing a role now familiar in modern campaigns: the in-house economist.
Mr. Hubbard has helped to draft many of Mr. Romney’s economic and tax policies, and, at least implicitly, lent his imprimatur to others he did not conceive. The benefits are potentially mutual. If Mr. Romney is elected, Mr. Hubbard is considered a strong candidate for the job of Treasury secretary and even, after Ben S. Bernanke’s term expires, chairman of the Federal Reserve. (Robert Zoellick, former president of the World Bank, is another possible contender for the Treasury job.)
To the job of in-house economist, Mr. Hubbard brings a rare ability to translate complex policy into plain English, as well as a conservative’s love for small government and a faith that cutting taxes will spur growth. During a stint as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President George W. Bush, from 2001 to 2003, Mr. Hubbard was known as the principal architect of the Bush tax cuts.
Mr. Hubbard also brings to this job a certain amount of baggage. He appeared briefly in “Inside Job,” a scathing and Oscar-winning 2010 documentary about the financial crisis. The film has a segment about high-profile professors who blessed many of the financial instruments that led to the fiasco. Enter Mr. Hubbard, who is presented as a leading thinker far too cozy with industries he ought to be assessing at a critical distance.
“You have three more minutes,” he tells an interviewer who is pressing for the names of his consulting clients. And then, as his face contorts with rage, he adds, “Give it your best shot.”
MR. HUBBARD is hardly the only marquee economist to parlay his experience and stature into millions of dollars, for speeches, papers and expert witness testimony. Lawrence H. Summers, once the Obama administration’s top economic adviser, pocketed about $5.2 million in compensation for giving advice to a hedge fund. But in Mr. Hubbard’s case, some of his amply compensated work takes policy stands that buttress the viewpoints of the corporate interests that are paying him.
That’s been true of the mutual fund industry, which has paid him more than $1 million over the years. In an academic paper and a book, he took a strong position favoring the industry’s approach to fees, which critics say hurt everyday investors. He was paid what he called an honorarium of $150,000 for the academic paper by the insurance arm of the Investment Company Institute, the mutual fund industry trade and lobbying group.
“Dean Hubbard is a mercenary,” says John P. Freeman, emeritus professor of business and professional ethics at the University of South Carolina School of Law, who has accused the mutual fund industry of profiteering, “out to protect fund managers who are taking advantage of investors.”
Mr. Hubbard says the source of funding is irrelevant because his academic writing stands on its own.
Some of Mr. Hubbard’s extracurricular activities have also made faculty members at his Columbia Business School unhappy, because, they say, they reflect poorly on the institution. Others complain that he has run the school with a somewhat autocratic hand and feel that they have been buffaloed into casting votes and rallying behind causes that they haven’t necessarily supported.
One of those causes was Mr. Hubbard himself. It’s been a well-kept secret, but faculty members say that in 2008, the president of Columbia, Lee C. Bollinger, wanted to bounce Mr. Hubbard from his job. Why? Nobody has offered an explanation, not even to the senior faculty members who were asked at a meeting to rally behind their leader by signing a petition of support. Neither Mr. Hubbard nor Mr. Bollinger would answer questions on the subject.
Mr. Hubbard’s friends and fans note that he is a conservative leading an institution dominated by liberals, and that some friction is inevitable. As for calling Mr. Hubbard a mercenary — that suggests that he will fight for causes he doesn’t believe in. Which, one former colleague says, is not so.
“Glenn is ideologically conservative,” says Ron Miller, a former economics professor at Columbia who now works for NERA, an economic consulting firm. “Nobody has to pay him to say this stuff. That’s what he believes.”
Mr. Hubbard declined to be interviewed for this article, citing a busy schedule. He agreed to answer questions via e-mail, though many seemed the answers of a man striving to come across as nothing-to-see-here bland. He also provided the names of some friends, many of whom wanted to underscore the same idea: the guy is not bland.
“Did you know, for instance, that he has a brother who is a country music star?” asked Kevin A. Hassett, a friend and scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Hubbard’s younger brother, Gregg — known to fans as Hobie — is a member of Sawyer Brown, a country rock band that gained fame via “Star Search,” a sort of precursor to “American Idol.”
“He’s always had a great sense of humor,” says Gregg Hubbard, speaking by telephone before a flight to a concert. He recounts celebrating his 40th birthday in New York City and sharing a gift he had just been given, a Razor scooter, with his brother. “We were with my older nephew,” he says, “and we took turns, the three of us, riding up and down Broadway on a scooter.”
Glenn Hubbard was raised in Apopka, Fla., a suburb of Orlando known as the “Indoor Foliage Capital of the World,” because of its many greenhouses. His father taught at a community college, and his mother taught at the high school he attended. She is remembered by her students as both pleasant and exacting, a formidable presence whom Mr. Hubbard’s friends regard as the wellspring of her son’s discipline and ambition.
“I write a column for a local paper,” says Bryan Nelson, a state representative and a onetime pupil of Ms. Hubbard’s, “and to this day, when I run into her she has no qualms about telling me what I got wrong — the grammar, the spelling.”
Glenn Hubbard was an Eagle scout, a star of the chess team and a stellar student who graduated at the top of his class. He scored high enough on College Level Examination Program tests to enter the University of Central Florida with enough credits so he could graduate with two degrees in three years.
“At the age of 8 or 9, we both began collecting coins,” says Nelson Smith, a childhood friend and now a physician. “That led to questions about currencies: how the concept of money evolved over the centuries, how systems of finance are set up. He never said, ‘I’m going to be an economist,’ but you could see that’s where his mind was headed.”
Mr. Hubbard received his master’s and Ph.D. at Harvard and became a hugely productive scholar with a wide range of interests. Fellow conservatives view his work with pure reverence. From the left, you hear grudging caveats like, “He’ll never win the Nobel Prize.” He is best known for research in tax policy and government spending programs. One influential study quantified the major role that cash flow plays in driving corporations to invest.
“The lesson,” says James Poterba, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an admirer of Mr. Hubbard, “is that if someone is looking for policy instruments that might raise investment, then lower corporate rates could do it because you change the current availability of cash for firms.”
On behalf of the Romney campaign, Mr. Hubbard has argued that the Obama administration has “stuck the economy in a slow growth trap,” as it was put in a recent position paper, “The Romney Program for Economic Recovery, Growth and Jobs,” of which he was a co-author.
The way out of this trap, he and his co-authors wrote, is to reduce federal spending, cut marginal income tax rates by 20 percent across the board and gradually reduce the growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors. He would also like to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial legislation and the Affordable Care Act.
That paper, of course, is a campaign document, but if Mr. Hubbard has any differences with Mr. Romney on economic matters, he won’t name them. “I support Governor Romney’s economic program,” he wrote when asked if his candidate had any taken positions he does not support.
If Mr. Hubbard becomes Treasury secretary, cutting taxes would very likely be his highest priority. Altering the tax code to encourage savings and bolster investment has been one of his favorite causes. While serving under President Bush as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, he pushed to reduce dividend taxes to zero. (Ultimately, the top tax rate on dividends was cut by more than half, to 15 percent.)
In that job, he also demonstrated great skills as political player. He turned the council, which had existed until then mainly to rah-rah administration policy, into a force in Washington.
Glenn usurped the Treasury Department on tax policy,” says Leonard E. Burman, a professor of public affairs at Syracuse University who worked at the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration. “I had friends who worked at the department after I left, and they said that Glenn shifted the balance of power dramatically.”
As Mr. Hubbard has moved seamlessly through the Republican upper echelons of Washington, he has also cultivated relationships in corporate suites. He serves on three corporate boards, which collectively paid him $785,000 last year. One of those is the board of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, the private equity firm of which Henry R. Kravis was a co-founder. In 2010, Mr. Kravis pledged $100 million to the Columbia Business School, his alma mater, for the construction of a new building. It was the largest gift in the school’s history.
DURING his eight years as dean, Mr. Hubbard has charmed some faculty members and alienated others. A few say that despite his buttoned-up appearance, he is approachable and is always up for some banter.
“He was teaching a class across the hall and I would complain to him, ‘Glenn, why is my classroom such a sauna?’ ” says Jonathan Levav, a former member of the faculty who is now an associate professor of marketing at Stanford. “And he would say: ‘That’s funny. The temperature in my classroom is perfect.’ When the person in power can have fun with you like that, it puts you at ease. It puts a human face on your boss.”
Mr. Hubbard can take a bit of needling, too, says Raymond Horton, a professor of ethics and corporate governance at Columbia Business School.
“When Romney made his 47 percent boo-boo, I went to the dean’s office and said ‘Way to go, Glenn,’ ” Professor Horton says. He diplomatically declined to put Mr. Hubbard’s response on the record.
There is another, more prickly side to Mr. Hubbard, though it is not a side he has shown very often. One faculty member who saw it is Noel Capon, a tenured professor in the school’s marketing department. In October 2010, he received a letter from Christopher J. Mayer, a professor in the finance and economics division who was then the senior vice dean, accusing him of violating a number of Columbia University rules on outside commercial ventures. The letter had what Mr. Capon considered an aggressive tone; it took him aback. After a few months and a conversation with a fellow professor, Mr. Capon concluded that Mr. Hubbard was behind what he regarded as a carefully orchestrated campaign against him. The point, he believes, was to bully him into line.
“There were situations in the past where I might have made statements that challenged Glenn,” says Mr. Capon, who acknowledges that he has a hard time keeping his opinion to himself. One opinion he couldn’t keep to himself concerned a decision, in May 2010, to offer tenure to a professor from another university — a decision he opposed. He wrote a letter saying so, copying the provost, and stating that the process had not allowed him to air his dissenting views. (The issue went away when the outside professor turned down the job.)
Eventually, Mr. Capon met with Mr. Hubbard to discuss the issues raised in Mr. Mayer’s October letter.
Mr. Capon says Mr. Hubbard told him that “you’ve given me crap from the day I started” and that “you’ve been abusive from Day 1.”
Mr. Hubbard says that he never said those words. “I would not speak in that manner to anyone, let alone a faculty colleague,” he wrote.
Mr. Mayer did not reply to e-mails requesting comment.
The dispute ultimately fizzled away. But Mr. Capon is no longer buying Mr. Hubbard’s placid exterior.
“If he’s crossed,” Mr. Capon said, “he can be brutal.”
As dean, Mr. Hubbard has made some high-profile hires, including Patrick Bolton, a specialist in contract theory who was lured away from Princeton, and twice revamped the curriculum, to give students more flexibility in choosing classes and to shorten the time it takes to complete required courses.
Neither change was controversial, but the way some decisions have been made at the school was described as “Brezhnevian” by one professor, who like many interviewed for this article requested anonymity in order to preserve relationships with the school. In one vote, faculty members were asked to raise a hand if they were in favor of a particular change. There were no dissenters, several attendees recalled.
The most memorable vote came in the fall of 2008, when Mr. Mayer gathered senior faculty members and made a surprising announcement: Dean Hubbard’s job was in peril. President Bollinger was balking at appointing him to a second five-year term.
According to several participants, Mr. Mayer urged professors to demonstrate their support for Mr. Hubbard with a petition, which attendees were asked to sign on the spot. Several current and former faculty members used the identical word to describe the experience: bizarre.
It wasn’t just that some professors, even fans of Mr. Hubbard’s, felt a little coerced. It was that nobody had any idea why President Bollinger wanted to jettison him.
“I was not happy,” one faculty member says. “There was no way to have a view on the subject. It was like signing a contract that you haven’t read.” Mr. Mayer did not reply to e-mails seeking comment.
In an e-mail, Mr. Hubbard kept his thoughts on this subject to an anodyne minimum. “I am honored that President Bollinger gave me the opportunity to be dean,” he wrote.
Mr. Bollinger declined to discuss this episode or respond to written questions about it. He sent an e-mail that described Mr. Hubbard as “a distinguished academic economist who as dean has maintained an active, engaged voice in the public debate.”
In absence of any official word, faculty members have been left to speculate about why Mr. Hubbard nearly lost his job. Nor does anyone know why Mr. Bollinger decided to reappoint him, though current and former faculty members have a pet theory: that Mr. Bollinger was worried about losing the financial support of Mr. Hubbard’s friends, most notably Mr. Kravis.
As several faculty members pointed out, a little acidly, Mr. Hubbard had helped to cut taxes for people like Mr. Kravis. “They owed him,” one professor said.
IN conversations with Columbia Business School faculty members, you hear occasional hints of irritation with Mr. Hubbard over his cameo in “Inside Job” and the embarrassment they say it visited on the school. Part of the reason is that the fallout led to new and more stringent conflict-of-interest and disclosure rules — and that those forced many professors to drop lucrative side projects. It’s as though Mr. Hubbard was caught overeating, so everyone had to go on a diet.
Others question whether it is wise for Mr. Hubbard to take on certain clients. For instance, he served as an expert witness in the defense of two Bear Stearns hedge fund managers accused of defrauding investors in 2009. Both men were ultimately acquitted, and in a recent interview, one of their lawyers, Edward Little, praised Mr. Hubbard’s testimony as “absolutely critical.” Some at the school wonder whether it served the institution’s interests for its leader to be publicly linked with people accused in one of the only Wall Street cases to stem from the great recession.
Asked whether he was concerned about connecting the school to matters like the Bear Stearns prosecution, Mr. Hubbard wrote, “I am comfortable that I balance my scholarship and teaching, deanship, and outside activities very well.”
That balance has included work for many corporations that have generated unflattering headlines in recent years. On his résumé, in the category of “consulting or advisory relationships,” Mr. Hubbard lists Freddie Mac, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. He was co-author of a paper with William C. Dudley, then the chief economist of Goldman Sachs, titled “How Capital Markets Enhance Economic Performance and Facilitate Job Creation,” which praised derivatives and the housing boom in 2004, as both were inflating into an epic bubble.
“Credit derivative obligations have become an important element that has helped protect bank lending portfolios against loss,” he and Mr. Dudley wrote.
The mutual fund industry has been a major source of income for Mr. Hubbard, and through that work he has taken a solidly pro-industry stand on a much-debated and much-litigated question: Do mutual fund advisers gouge clients by charging excessive fees? No, Mr. Hubbard argued in a paper he wrote with John C. Coates IV of Harvard Law School, titled “Competition in the Mutual Fund Industry.”
In the paper, the authors argued that it was essentially impossible for mutual fund advisers to overcharge on fees because the mutual fund business was so competitive. As the authors wrote, “fund investors may fire advisers at any time by redeeming shares and switching to other investments.”
Unlike Mr. Hubbard, who was paid that $150,000 honorarium for the paper, Professor Coates said in an interview that he had not taken any money from the Investment Company Institute and that as a matter of personal policy did not accept money in such circumstances for academic work.
Mr. Hubbard earned much more making the same pro-industry point in several court appearances, as an expert witness on behalf of corporations and mutual fund interests. One of those cases was a lawsuit by employees of ABB, a power generation products manufacturer, against the company and Fidelity, the mutual fund giant, over accusations that ABB paid excessive fees, at the employees’ expense, to manage the company’s 401(k) plan.
During a cross-examination, Mr. Hubbard said Fidelity had paid him $420,000 for his participation in the case. About $200,000 of that was direct billings — he charged $1,200 an hour — and the rest came from a company called the Analysis Group, which provides teams of experts for research projects. Mr. Hubbard earned 7.5 percent of the amount that Analysis Group researchers charged Fidelity.
A federal judge in Missouri ultimately found that ABB and Fidelity had breached a number of their fiduciary duties and in March of this year ordered ABB to pay $35.2 million and Fidelity to pay $1.7 million for losses.
But Professor Freeman at the University of South Carolina says he believes that Mr. Hubbard’s scholarship on this subject — particularly the paper he co-wrote — was shoddy and did genuine damage.
Page 5 of 5)
“What Hubbard and Coates have done is pour holy water on the Investment Company Institute’s hopelessly stupid defense of fees charged by mutual funds,” he said in a telephone interview. That Mr. Hubbard took money for the paper casts doubts on his motives, Professor Freeman says.
Mr. Hubbard wrote that he did not worry that the money might appear to influence his findings.
“Any work of scholarship rises or falls on its ideas, empirical support, and argument,” he wrote. “Readers can then make whatever judgment they wish.”
IF Mr. Hubbard becomes the Treasury secretary, the job will surely mean a drastic cut in pay. What it would mean for the rest of the country is not easy to divine; the Romney campaign has been vague on many details, particularly how it would offset a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut without adding to the deficit.
But you can get a pretty good sense from looking at the economic priorities of the George W. Bush administration, says Martin N. Baily, who served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton and is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Mr. Baily was a critic of the Bush tax cuts because, he says, they left the country without the wherewithal to battle the great recession.
“When I read the Romney economic plan,” he wrote in an e-mail, “it seemed to me that it was basically the Bush plan.”
There are plenty of centrist and right-of-center economists who think that Mr. Hubbard would make a fine Treasury secretary. They are impressed by his intellect, trust his instincts and commend his leadership during previous stints in Washington.
Some right-leaning economists, though, have reservations. Their worry is that Mr. Hubbard is not enough of a deficit hawk, and that if he follows through with tax cuts as articulated in the Romney plan, the results could be a disaster.
“Cutting taxes in 2001 wasn’t a crime,” says Luigi Zingales, an economist at the University of Chicago, who was one of the co-authors of an op-ed article with Mr. Hubbard. “Not fixing the deficit today is. If you think he’s a guy who’ll go ahead and play the same strategy, which I have to say most people do, then we’ll ultimately wind up with an even bigger deficit. I trust he’s smart enough not to play the same strategy.”
-
As was mentioned tangentially in the Media thread, Mitt's answer in Debate 2 to a question on women's issues was how he was unsatisfied with the list of candidates that was brought to him because it did not have enough women and how he told his people to bring him "binders of women" etc. and how he then appointed lots of women. The question was raised there, and I move it to this thread here,
Isn't this affirmative action?
-
Leaving aside the desperate and crazy assertion that the use of this term was anything but a clumsy choice of words (I chuckled as he said it live, and thought: "he means to say binders of women's resumes" - big deal), the answer to Crafty's question is YES.
This thought occurred to me as well as I watched debate #2. I would have preferred that Romney had attacked the entire idea of a "gross disparity in women's pay" as demonstrably false for at least the last 20 years. However, that admittedly might have been getting into the weeds in an unwise manner during a political debate. The average person watching would need to have this explained in detail to grasp it, and this wasn't the right forum.
But yes - this is unquestionably affirmative action, and is as ill-advised as any other form of mandated hiring or admission preference IMHO.
-
Can we fairly distinguish this on the basis of it being voluntary?
-
Crafty: Sure. That's a clear distinction. To clarify, I think what Romney described doing was perfectly fine - it was his decision after all - and wasn't mandated.
All I'm saying is that from a broader philosophical perspective, GENERALLY, arbitrary quotas are a bad idea. Hiring a person because she is female, or gay, or black, or Catholic or whatever is illogical from a competitive standpoint in business. The over-riding primary criteria should always be how well the person can perform in that job.
-
Another possible distinction is lurking implicity in what you just said-- that of private-public.
For example, it can be argued that all groups in the society should feel represented in its government e.g. surely it would be a bad idea for a black ghetto to be protected by a white police force. Seen thusly there is nothing wrong with Romney saying that he did not want an all-male coterie of advisors. Of course most of us here suspect he was pandering (at least I do :lol: ) but the two notions I offer in my preceding post and this one can serve to distinguish what he did and hopefully neuter the precedentary claims of the progressives.
-
Gosh, Who Talks Like That Now? Romney Does
Richard Perry/The New York Times
Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, left, made cherry pies with Linda Hundt, the owner of Sweetie-licious Bakery Cafe in DeWitt, Mich., during a campaign stop in June.
By MICHAEL BARBARO and ASHLEY PARKER
Published: October 20, 2012
•
GOFFSTOWN, N.H. — At a campaign stop in Rockford, Ill., not long ago, Mitt Romney sought to convey his feelings for his wife, Ann. “Smitten,” he said.
A Romney Soundboard
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
A sampling of some of Mitt Romney's common quips and expressions.
• 0:11
"Dickens"
0:10
• 0:10
"Goodness Gracious"
• 0:17
"Gosh"
• 0:17
"Heck"
• 0:15
"If You Will"
• 0:14
"For Pete's Sake"
• 0:18
"Stinks to High Heavens"
Related
Not merely in love.
“Yeah, smitten,” he said. “Mitt was smitten.”
It was a classic Mittism, as friends and advisers call the verbal quirks of the Republican presidential candidate. In Romneyspeak, passengers do not get off airplanes, they “disembark.” People do not laugh, they “guffaw.” Criminals do not go to jail, they land in the “big house.” Insults are not hurled, “brickbats” are.
As he seeks the office of commander in chief, Mr. Romney can sometimes seem like an editor in chief, employing a language all his own. It is polite, formal and at times anachronistic, linguistically setting apart a man who frequently struggles to sell himself to the American electorate.
It is most pronounced when he is on the stump and off the cuff, not on the stuffy and rehearsed debate stage. But Mr. Romney offered voters a dose of it during his face-off with President Obama last week, when he coined the infelicitous phrase “binders full of women.”
Mr. Romney’s unique style of speaking has distinguished him throughout his career, influencing the word choices of those who work with and especially for him. Should he reach the White House, friends and advisers concede, the trait could be a defining feature of his public image, as memorable as Lyndon B. Johnson’s foul-mouthed utterances or the first President Bush’s tortured syntax.
Mr. Romney, 65, has spent four decades inside the corridors of high finance and state politics, where indecorous diction and vulgarisms abound. But he has emerged as if in a rhetorical time capsule from a well-mannered era of soda fountains and AMC Ramblers, someone whose idea of swearing is to let loose with the phrase “H-E-double hockey sticks.”
“He actually said that,” recalled Thomas Finneran, the speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives when Mr. Romney was governor. “As in, go to ‘H-E-double hockey sticks.’ I would think to myself, ‘Who talks like that?’ ”
Mr. Romney, quite proudly. In fact, he seems puzzled by the fascination with something as instinctive (and immutable) as how he talks, as if somebody were asking how he breathes. “It’s like someone who speaks with an accent,” he said in an interview. “You don’t hear the accent.”
His Mormon faith frowns on salty language, and so does he. A man of relentless self-discipline, he made clear to lawmakers in Boston and colleagues in business that even in matters of vocabulary, he “held himself to a high standard of behavior,” said Geoffrey Rehnert, a former executive at Bain Capital, the firm Mr. Romney started in the 1980s. Mr. Romney’s father, George, whom he idolized, shared the same style of refined and restrained speech.
Those around him are so accustomed to his verbal tics that they describe them in shorthand. “Old-timey,” said one aide. “His 1950s language,” explained another. “The Gomer Pyle routine,” said a third.
Asked about his boss’s word preferences, Eric Fehrnstrom, a veteran Romney adviser, responded knowingly: “You mean like ‘gosh, golly, darn’?”
For Democratic strategists, Mr. Romney’s throwback vocabulary feeds into their portrayal of a man ill-equipped for the mores and challenges of the modern age. David Axelrod, a top adviser for an Obama campaign that has adopted “Forward” as its slogan, once quipped that Mr. Romney “must watch ‘Mad Men,’ ” the hit television show set in Manhattan in the 1960s, “and think it’s the evening news.”
His exclamations can sound jarring to the contemporary ear — or charming, depending on whom you ask. Midway into a critique of Mr. Obama’s economic policies a few months ago, Mr. Romney declared: “They’ve scared the dickens out of banks,” he said. “They’ve scared the dickens out of insurance companies.”
•
(Page 2 of 2)
He declared, “To heck with it!” while urging reporters to use their fingers to dig into a box of pastries he was passing around on a plane. “Darn good question,” he replied to a voter in Kalamazoo, Mich., who asked how he would work with Congress if elected. (His wife also got the “darn” treatment in Michigan, when he enthused, “Gosh, darn, she is amazing!”) “Thank heavens” is another favorite.
For people used to peppering their speech with four-letter words, time with Mr. Romney can prove an exercise in self-control. A half-dozen people recalled the precise moment when they swore — almost always accidentally — in his presence.
When Robert Travaglini, then the Democratic president of the Massachusetts State Senate, would curse in front of Mr. Romney, the governor would frown and interject, “Well, I wouldn’t choose that diction,” Mr. Travaglini recalled.
Mr. Rehnert, the former Bain executive, was mortified when a potential client he took into Mr. Romney’s office promptly dropped a string of profanities. “Mitt wanted to know what cats and dogs I was dragging in here,” Mr. Rehnert said.
His cussing colleagues said Mr. Romney took pains not to judge them publicly. “He did not impose his language preferences on us,” Mr. Finneran said. “But I wonder if we became a little bit more restrained because we knew this about him.”
Mr. Travaglini recalled lawmakers’ discussing how Mr. Romney “should be more in tune with the vernacular of the day and express himself more passionately.”
“But,” he added, “that’s not who he is.”
Mr. Romney does have his own distinctly G-rated arsenal of angry expressions — “Good grief,” “flippin’,” “good heavens” and even the occasional “crap.”
Perhaps the most intriguing of these is “grunt.” Most people just grunt. Mr. Romney, however, talks about grunting. “Grunt” he says, onomatopoetically, when annoyed with a last-minute change in his campaign schedule.
Many of Mr. Romney’s verbal habits can sound like those of a hyper-literate graduate student who never left school. (In college, he majored in English.) He favors the gentlemanly qualifier “if you will,” which he invoked three times during a recent speech.
On how to reduce the debt: “You have to start accumulating, if you will, reserves.”
On speaking to a group of soldiers: “The cadets were all lined up and sitting at attention, if you will.”
On his business background: “I’ve had the experience of working in the real world, if you will.”
In interviews, voters expressed an equal measure of admiration for and curiosity about his quaint dialect, which many described as a conspicuous break from the normally harsh tone of politicians.
“It’s a wonderful change,” said Irene Sperling, a retiree from Allentown, Pa. “He’s a gentleman.”
Wendy Tonn, 63, a Romney supporter who splits her time between Michigan and Florida, said she found comfort in his vocabulary, comparing it to the simple innocence of “Leave It to Beaver.” “We are of that era, and we’d like to be returned to that kind of era,” she said.
Even Dennis Miller, the comedian, has weighed in, suggesting that after four years of having a “hipster president” in the White House, Americans craved a “gosh president.”
A few acquaintances have tried to drag him linguistically into the 21st century. Mr. Finneran, an admitted serial curser, said that after years of working closely with Mr. Romney, he began to fantasize about provoking him to utter a particularly crude word.
“It got to the point where I started to think that my greatest achievement of all time would be if I somehow or other got him to say the word,” he said.
Once, Mr. Romney seemed on the cusp of fulfilling that wish during a heated discussion. But he caught himself. “And I thought, ‘Oh, God, my closest moment ever,’ ” Mr. Finneran said. “But it’s not going to happen.”
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334232.php
October 25, 2012
A Fat Lot of Nothing: Romney's Testimony, Now Released, Called "Devastating" To Allred's Claims
Romney didn't testify at her divorce -- there was no hearing on it.
Rather, he testified in 1991, when the Former Mrs. Stemberg sought to re-litigate her original settlement. Romney was called in to talk about the value of the 500,000 shares in Staples she received. Or Stemberg's net worth. Something like that.
Her theory was that Stemberg had put up Romney to deliberately lowball the value of Staples. Like I've noted, this makes no sense -- if Staples stock isn't worth all that much, than The Former Mrs. Stemberg's shares from the settlement are worth less, and that increases the chances a judge would agree that the original settlement was unfair, and put it aside.
But whatever. Her claim rests on the idea that Romney knew Staples would grow in value, but lied about.
Here's the problem: As an initial investor, Romney had the option to buy a lot of Staples stock. If he really thought Staples were a surefire hit, he'd have exercised all those options, and bought as much stock as he was legally entitled to.
He didn't. He said Staples could grow, or could fail, because, apparently, he believed it could grow, or could fail. Thus he hedged his own bets, buying some Staples stock, but not as much as he was entitled to.
From the court transcript. The questions come from "Stemberg's lawyer," the article says, which I assume means Tom Stemberg, because this seems like friendly questioning. The answers are from Romney.
Q: "Thank you. Now, you say that before making the investment in Staples round C you read the statement 'Additionally, this is planned to be Staples final equity offering prior to a public offering of mid 1989.' And you say that you did not - Strike that. You say you read that statement. Let me ask you this, sir. Did you, therefore, as a result of that subscribe to the full amount to which you were entitled to subscribe?"
A: "I did not."
Q: "And why was that, sir?"
A: "Because while I believed that there was a realistic probability that we would achieve that outcome, there was also a realistic probability that we would either lose our money or we would achieve something less than that. And my personal assessment and that of my partners was that the risk that we would not achieve the plan was high enough that we should not subscribe to our full amount."
Q: "And you did not subscribe to the full amount?"
A: "We did not subscribe to the full amount."
The Former Mrs. Stemberg sold half of her shares before Staples went public. The price did indeed grow after that. Though, as a matter of fact, it seems to have grown by only modest amounts until it began taking off in the mid-nineties, then really jumped around 1998. The bigger growth came well after this 1991 relitigation.
The Former Mrs. Stemberg seemed to have done what Romney did -- hedged her bets by dumping half the stock early for some cash money, rather than pinning her hopes to an explosive gain in value. And she seems bitter about that decision of hers, and looking for someone to blame for her own decision.
If she'd kept all the 500,000 in shares, she'd be fabulously wealthy. She didn't, so she's not quite as wealthy.
She didn't have full confidence in Staples -- some, but not much. Turns out, that's the level of confidence Mitt Romney had in it, too, based on his own investments in the stock.
As Powerline says, what this has to do with Mitt Romney remains something of a mystery.
By The Way: I'm suuuuure this is nothing -- like, totes sure -- but Gloria Allred met privately with Barack Obama two weeks ago.
The Endless Divorce: And I do mean endless.
As I said, this divorce is now celebrating its silver anniversary -- its 25th anniversary -- and is as passionate as ever.
t's hardly news that Stemberg believes she settled for too little.
"The entire spectacle is about her client's divorce, which began almost twenty-five years ago. It has been litigated and re-litigated," one source with knowledge of the the divorce proceedings tells me. "She has attempted to get her settlement overturned, but failed. She appealed the decision, and failed. She tried to take her case to the State Supreme Court, and was rejected. She has accused her husband and others of defrauding her, to no avail. She has sued her attorneys for malpractice, and lost. She has declared bankruptcy, and tried to sell her story as a book and a movie, also to no avail."
...
[T]he court rejected Sullivan-Stemberg's request [to set aside the settlement] in 1994. Instead, Stemberg-Sullivan was found to have sold her stock expeditiously, before it matured to what it would be worth only a couple years later. "[T]he wife cannot blame the husband for her uncoerced decision to sell approximately one half of her shares prior to the initial public offering of the Staples stock," the judge ruled. She had 500,000 shares of Staples, from the first divorce settlement.
Tom Stemberg was granted a divorce on grounds of "cruel and abusive treatment," incidentally.
I guess that just about wraps this up. Not only is it a non-story, I think it's pretty plain it's such a non-story -- at least about Mitt Romney; I guess there's a story here about one of the bitterest divorced women in recent history -- not even the Obama-loving media will take this stinky bait.
-
Hat tip to Big Dog
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116250/mitt-netflix-documentary-best-thing-romney-campaign
-
http://nypost.com/2014/01/25/putins-a-better-president-than-obama-romney-says/
and
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/24/guess-which-hollywood-actor-and-major-obama-supporter-mitt-romney-was-seated-next-to-for-an-entire-flight/
-
second post of the evening
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/110811-mitt-romney-slow-jams-news-jimmy-fallon-doesnt-pull-punches/
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/04/23/glenn-receives-a-thank-you-note-from-mitt-romney/
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/04/23/glenn-receives-a-thank-you-note-from-mitt-romney/
Romney would have been better than what we have now.
Then again, a random person picked from the phone book would be better than what we have now.
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/04/23/glenn-receives-a-thank-you-note-from-mitt-romney/
Romney would have been better than what we have now.
Then again, a random person picked from the phone book would be better than what we have now.
It was a major loss to the country, to the world, and to history, that America could not connect with Mitt Romney given the stark contrast between the candidates.
-
For all his many shortcomings, essentially he was, and is, a good man who loves America, and could have been a good president of all of us.
-
Oy vey , , ,
-
Oy vey , , ,
I take back the thought that Romney might have been a great President. Why wouldn't he point out any ONE of the points on his own 59 point economic plan:
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-debate-economic-plan-2012-10?op=1
Probably because he hasn't read it and doesn't believe in his own plan. (Minimum Wage isn't in there!) Instead he endorses more of the Obama-leftist shrink the workforce plan.
Shall we bring back Cash for Clunkers as well?
President Obama's magnificent political success can be attributed to one main cause: weak opponents.
-
Doug writes,
"President Obama's magnificent political success can be attributed to one main cause: weak opponents."
No doubt Republican candidates are all with flaws.
But we are up against a very antagonistic media.
We are up against a very antagonistic educational class.
We are up against racial and gender and class politics.
We are up against buying of votes that cold hard taxpayer cash can buy.
Worse, "establishment Republicans" certainly are part of the problem.
Doug I hope your are right and I am wrong. I think it is too late.
-
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/143000-mitt-romney-mocked-democrats-saying-back-2011-100-right-va/
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-democrats-avoid-obama-romney-is-in-demand-on-the-midterm-campaign-trail/2014/08/02/e71a8446-198e-11e4-85b6-c1451e622637_story.html
-
Romney and Paul Ryan appeared on the Kelly Files on FOX the other night. I must say the man looked and sounded very presidential and Ryan looked very Vice-Presidential next to him.
Worth finding on youtube and taking a look.
-
Romney and Paul Ryan appeared on the Kelly Files on FOX the other night. I must say the man looked and sounded very presidential and Ryan looked very Vice-Presidential next to him.
Worth finding on youtube and taking a look.
3rd time the charm?
I hope not.
-
"I must say the man looked and sounded very presidential and Ryan looked very Vice-Presidential next to him"
Well they have had many years to practice.
We need someone with charisma to beat the Hillary MOB. Neither of these guys have it.
If this is the best the right can do (again) than we're sunk. So far it appears that way.
-
Watch the clip.
-
Romeny-Ryan on Kelly Files
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=139j-HAWiL0
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/mitt-romney-2016-election-iowa-poll-110392.html
-
I'm headed out for a couple of hours.
Would someone be so kind as to post the following here on this thread:
1) Romney's piece last week in the Washington Post;
2) Romney's interview yesterday on Chris Wallace's Sunday morning show on FOX. I must say I found him quite presidential-- and sounding like a much better candidate than before.
-
I'm headed out for a couple of hours.
Would someone be so kind as to post the following here on this thread:
1) Romney's piece last week in the Washington Post;
2) Romney's interview yesterday on Chris Wallace's Sunday morning show on FOX. I must say I found him quite presidential-- and sounding like a much better candidate than before.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-world-needs-a-mighty-us-military/2014/09/04/f5234064-342d-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html
Mitt Romney: The need for a mighty U.S. military
By Mitt Romney, September 4 2014
Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen,” according to the defense secretary ) threatens — and Washington slashes the military. Reason stares.
Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation of our defense. All of them are wrong.
The president asserts that we must move to “a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity.” The old order, he is saying, where America’s disproportionate strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to be replaced.
It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip. So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S. strength, there must be something effective in its place — if such a thing is even possible. Further, the appeal to “common humanity” as the foundation of this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one people calls evil another calls good.
There are those who claim that a multipolar world is preferable to one led by a strong United States. Were these other poles nations such as Australia, Canada, France and Britain, I might concur. But with emerging poles being China, Russia and Iran, the world would not see peace; it would see bullying, invasion and regional wars. And ultimately, one would seek to conquer the others, unleashing world war.
Some argue that the United States should simply withdraw its military strength from the world — get out of the Middle East, accept nuclear weapons in Iran and elsewhere, let China and Russia have their way with their neighbors and watch from the sidelines as jihadists storm on two or three continents. Do this, they contend, and the United States would be left alone.
No, we would not. The history of the 20th century teaches that power-hungry tyrants ultimately feast on the appeasers — to use former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour’s phrase, we would be paying the cannibals to eat us last. And in the meantime, our economy would be devastated by the disruption of trade routes, the turmoil in global markets and the tumult of conflict across the world. Global peace and stability are very much in our immediate national interest.
Some insist that our military is already so much stronger than that of any other nation that we can safely cut it back, again and again. Their evidence: the relative size of our defense budget. But these comparisons are nearly meaningless: Russia and China don’t report their actual defense spending, they pay their servicemen a tiny fraction of what we pay ours and their cost to build military armament is also a fraction of ours. More relevant is the fact that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is significantly greater than our own and that, within six years, China will have more ships in its navy than we do. China already has more service members. Further, our military is tasked with many more missions than those of other nations: preserving the freedom of the seas, the air and space; combating radical jihadists; and preserving order and stability around the world as well as defending the United States.
The most ludicrous excuse for shrinking our military derives from the president’s thinking: “Things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago.” The “safer world” trial balloon has been punctured by recent events in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria and Iraq. “Failures of imagination” led to tragedy 13 years ago; today, no imagination is required to picture what would descend on the United States if we let down our guard.
The arguments for shrinking our military fall aside to reveal the real reason for the cuts: Politicians, and many of the people who elect them, want to keep up spending here at home. Entitlements and programs are putting pressure on the federal budget: We either cut defense, or we cut spending on ourselves. That, or raise our taxes.
To date, the politicians have predictably voted to slash defense. As Bret Stephens noted in Commentary magazine this month, the Army is on track to be the size it was in 1940, the Navy to be the size it was in 1917, the Air Force to be smaller than in 1947 and our nuclear arsenal to be no larger than it was under President Harry S. Truman.
Washington politicians are poised to make a historic decision, for us, for our descendants and for the world. Freedom and peace are in the balance. They will choose whether to succumb to the easy path of continued military hollowing or to honor their constitutional pledge to protect the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News SUnday:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2014/09/07/mitt-romney-obamas-handling-global-issues-key-lawmakers-discuss-strategies-dealing-isis#p//v/3771928351001
-
I'm curious as to everyone's take on these two items.
PS Thank you Doug!
-
Romney (and Palin, and us for that matter) foresaw what a catastrophe Buraq would be.
This does not mean Mittens should run again.
-
Romney (and Palin, and us for that matter) foresaw what a catastrophe Buraq would be.
This does not mean Mittens should run again.
Romney foresaw but didn't make the case strongly enough or reach enough people. Same for us.
He did a nice job in this interview of making the case of administration failure and what our policies should be, without making it at all about himself.
-
"without making it at all about himself."
Class act I thought.
"He did a nice job in this interview of making the case of administration failure and what our policies should be"
I go a bit more enthusiastic than that-- I think he did an outstanding job of making the case in a way that can rally the American people.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/26/Mitt-Romney-Republicans-Should-Swallow-Hard-Pass-Permanent-Amnesty-Bill?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+November+27%2C+2014&utm_campaign=20141127_m123307895_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+November+27%2C+2014&utm_term=More
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/26/Mitt-Romney-Republicans-Should-Swallow-Hard-Pass-Permanent-Amnesty-Bill?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+November+27%2C+2014&utm_campaign=20141127_m123307895_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+November+27%2C+2014&utm_term=More
I think we can say at this point, Romney is running for President. In some ways he is the strongest candidate. In a few crucial areas, he is not. One is Romneycare/Obamacare, and with that, the tie with Gruber.
Now he would like to reverse course on amnesty. How about telling us what changed since "self-deportation"? He has already reversed course too many times. He has too much ability to say what different people want to hear, in Massachusetts, in Republican primaries, and in a general election, and not enough adherence to principles for my taste.
What Republican strategy is that, to do it exactly Obama's way, give him credit, solve nothing and get nothing in return?
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/9/mitt-romney-to-donors-am-considering-2016-bid/
-
I don't how we can win with a candidate who has no charisma. Romney has none and while moderately articulate is just not that persuasive to me. He wins by default not because people want to rally around him and follow.
He is like food that comes out of a can. Just doesn't have charisma. Never will. Few people really do. Charismatic leaders are not made they are born (in my opinion).
Romney is what he is. Smart, well groomed, usually prepared, preppy, buttoned down. He makes a good captain but a general?
-
Romney Recycled
Mitt would have to explain why he’d be a better candidate now.
Updated Jan. 13, 2015 10:04 p.m. ET
470 COMMENTS
If Mitt Romney is the answer, what is the question? We can think of a few worthy possibilities, though one that doesn’t come immediately to mind is who would be the best Republican presidential nominee in 2016.
Mr. Romney told donors last week he is mulling a third run for the White House, confirming cheering whispers from his coterie of advisers. The question the former Massachusetts Governor will have to answer is why he would be a better candidate than he was in 2012.
The answer is not obvious. The logic offered by his admirers is that voters have a case of remorse about rejecting Mr. Romney in 2012, he can raise money and knows how to run a campaign, and even Ronald Reagan didn’t win until his third try.
The Gipper analogy is a stretch. Reagan’s first effort was belated in 1968, he nearly upset President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976, and when he did finally win the nomination in 1980 he also won the general election. Mr. Romney lost the nomination decisively to John McCain in 2008, and he defeated a historically weak field in 2012 thanks mainly to his ability to raise more money and then pound his competitors with negative ads.
Mr. Romney is a man of admirable personal character, but his political profile is, well, protean. He made the cardinal mistake of pandering to conservatives rather than offering a vision that would attract them. He claimed to be “severely conservative” and embraced “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants, a political killer. But he refused to break from his RomneyCare record in Massachusetts even though it undermined his criticism of ObamaCare. A third campaign would resurrect all of that political baggage—and videotape.
The businessman also failed on his own self-professed terms as a superior manager. His convention was the worst since George H.W. Bush ’s in 1992, focusing more on his biography than a message. This left him open to President Obama ’s barrage against his record at Bain Capital, which Mr. Romney failed to defend because that would have meant playing on Democratic turf, as his strategists liked to put it. The unanswered charges suppressed GOP turnout in key states like Ohio.
Mr. Romney’s campaign team was notable for its mediocrities, led by a strategist whose theory of the race was that voters had already rejected Mr. Obama so the challenger merely needed to seem like a safe alternative. He thus never laid out an economic narrative to counter Mr. Obama’s claim that he had saved the country from a GOP Depression and needed more time for his solutions to work.
And don’t forget the management calamity of Mr. Romney’s voter turnout operation, code-named Orca. Mr. Romney likes to say he reveres “data,” but Mr. Obama’s campaign was years ahead of Mr. Romney’s in using Big Data and social media to boost turnout. The Romney campaign was so clueless on voter mobilization that well into Election Night the candidate still thought he would win. He lost a winnable race 51%-47%, including every closely contested state save North Carolina.
Mr. Romney had his good moments, notably choosing Paul Ryan as running mate and the first debate. He also, eventually, adopted solid proposals on tax and Medicare reform after his initial and forgettable 59-point plan. More comfortable with slide decks than ideas, he still struggled to make a compelling argument for the agenda he claimed to favor.
Mr. Romney’s post-election diagnosis also doesn’t inspire confidence that he has learned the right lessons. He said Mr. Obama won because he promised “extraordinary financial gifts” to voters. “It’s a proven political strategy,” Mr. Romney said. “Giving away free stuff is a hard thing to compete with.” Maybe so, but if he can’t sell a larger message of growth and opportunity, he won’t defeat Hillary Clinton ’s gifts either.
The GOP should have a strong chance in 2016, after two Democratic terms of trying to take the country sharply to the left. Democrats are already preparing to run a campaign focused on economic populism and government favors to the middle class. With his instinctive belief that “47%” of America would never vote for him, and his inability to defend his Bain record, Mr. Romney would be the ideal foil for such a campaign.
Republicans are likely to have a far better field in 2016, so voters won’t lack for plausible Presidents. It’s hard to see what advantages Mr. Romney brings that the many potential first-time candidates who have succeeded as governors do not.
-
Romney: His Defeats Are His Credentials
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 14, 2015
Hillary, Bush, and Romney -- the three front runners -- each find their candidacies greeted with a widespread response of "not again!" Voters wonder if we don't have someone better than a retread Romney, yet another Bush, or Hillary Clinton.
But don't sell Mitt Romney short. Republicans like losers and retreads. In fact, six of the last eight GOP candidates for president ran for president before and lost. Dole, McCain, and Romney all lost in their second bids. But Nixon, Reagan, and Bush-41 prevailed. (Reagan on the third try).
The Republican Party has a great deal in common with the old Tory Party in Britain, the precursor of the modern day Conservatives. They are truly the King's Party, even though we have no king. Legitimacy and familiarity are the hallmarks of its selection process. New names do not fare well.
Consider the contrast in attitudes on each side of the Atlantic. Describing the CEO of a major company, Americans would express respect. But on learning that his father founded it, they would scoff that he hadn't "made it on his own." But the British -- like the Republican Party in America -- have it the other way around. They would wonder if the CEO was but "a flash in the pan" but would be reassured to know about his father's work because they would figure that the son was of "good stock."
In our current world of harsh negative ads and intricate vetting of a candidate's past where any mistake or errant comment -- no matter how long ago -- becomes a possible cause for defeat, the dynastic logic makes some sense. It's pretty clear that there is nothing in Romney's past that we don't know. All the negatives are out there. We won't be surprised by a sexual harassment suit as with Cain or a comment on the safety of vaccinations as with Bachmann or a comparison of Social Security with a Ponzi scheme as with Perry. All is in the public domain already. His negatives and positives are very well known. Republicans like to be secure.
Can Romney win? Very possibly he can. There is no reason why his formula of massively outspending his primary rivals with his own money and savaging them with negative ads shouldn't work this time as well.
His main competition in the early going will be Bush and Christie (and perhaps Perry) for the mainstream, establishment place in the semi-finals. There he will meet the likes of Cruz or Paul or Rubio in the match that will determine the GOP nomination.
The nice thing for Mitt is that he doesn't look like a has-been next to Bush or Hillary. If the need for new blood will go unmet among candidates of the past, then perhaps Mitt is the best of the bunch.
-
Mittens can run to the right of Jeb and still be to the left of the base.
:roll:
-
Mittens can run to the right of Jeb and still be to the left of the base.
:roll:
Yes. He will run the to the right of Jeb, he governed to the left of Jeb, and the main problem he needs to overcome is a lack of authenticity.
Michael Barone asks if there is someone who can run with the same platform in the primaries, the general election and to govern.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/michaelbarone/2015/01/13/can-jeb-bush--or-anyone--come-up-with-a-platform-for-primaries-general-and-presidency-n1941918
I know of one.
-
"I know of one."
Doug do you mean Rubio?
What is your take a Jindal? All know he is not a front runner but he appears to want to run.
-
"I know of one."
Doug do you mean Rubio?
What is your take a Jindal? All know he is not a front runner but he appears to want to run.
Jindal would be one I could support.
-
ccp: "I know of one."
Doug, do you mean Rubio?
Yes. I think he is saying now exactly what he plans to say in the general election and while governing. He doesn't say he is more conservative than some other Republican. He is saying this is the agenda we need, economic freedom and strength, and here is how we can do it. He doesn't have an authenticity problem or need to shift directions later.
ccp: What is your take a Jindal? All know he is not a front runner but he appears to want to run.
GM:Jindal would be one I could support.
(Doug) Me, too. Jindal would be just fine with me. Two term governor, smart and conservative, young and qualified. Not a boring white guy. He is not my first choice because I don't rank him first for persuasive skills and connecting with people, but he could make a fine President if elected. Pundits are saying a little bit condescendingly that he is running for Vice President. He would be great for that too.
Louisiana is the median population state, 25th, (8 times larger than Howard Dean's Vermont). Major port, major cities, major energy producer, diverse economy, mixed race population, divided politics. Survived plenty of troubles. Being a two term governor of La. is significant, executive, governing experience.
People who know him say he is brilliant, but thinks and talks at a mile a minute and people can't follow him. So when he gave a national response speech, they told him to slow it down and he sounded like he was reading to children. He needs to be himself, communicate clearly and persuasively, and let the chips fall.
-
Don’t Do It, Mr. Romney
He’d have been a better president than Obama. That’s not nearly enough.
By Peggy Noonan
Jan. 15, 2015 7:13 p.m. ET
Hershey, Pa.
WSJ
A conversation with a Republican governor who is a possible presidential aspirant:
I told him I’d been thinking about something and wanted his response. You can argue that a governor is a better presidential nominee than a senator because governors, unlike lawmakers, have to do something and can be judged by their performance, which is measurable. You can look at their terms and say they raised or cut taxes, which helped or hurt the economy. They reformed the prison system, or they failed to. They balanced the budget or they didn’t. They improved education or not. They succeeded or failed in creating a favorable business climate. There are numbers and statistics that can to some degree test their claims. They know domestic issues and can be judged on domestic issues.
But they know nothing about the world. They haven’t been filling their brain-space with foreign policy and foreign affairs the past 20 years; they’ve been filling their minds with the facts of Indiana or Louisiana or New Jersey.
And so when they go national, they farm out these key areas to the party’s foreign-policy eggheads. And they unknowingly become captured by this worldview or that, this tendency and attitude or that. And they don’t even know they’ve been captured, they’re not that sophisticated. They just think they handed the foreign-policy portfolio over to someone respectable who’s called a thinker. (The first thing the thinker usually shares is not a thought but political advice: “You have to sound strong!”)
Senators, on the other hand, can’t be judged by clear domestic measures. They don’t have to do anything but talk on TV. Their communications offices send out press releases on their latest bill, which goes nowhere because the Senate doesn’t really do anything anymore, it’s just a big talking machine. You can’t judge them by what they did on unemployment or schools or taxes because they haven’t done anything.
But on foreign affairs they actually know a few things, because foreign affairs is in their portfolio. They’re on the Foreign Relations or Armed Services committee, they’re on subcommittees dealing with serious international issues, they go on fact-finding trips to Iraq and Africa and Asia. They visit and to some degree witness the results of American action or inaction. They get a more worldly view. (Once a senator told me his life is an intellectual feast. He gets to meet with scientists, prime ministers, visionaries, historians, great men—he has access to everyone, being a senator. I thought jeesh, glad you’re having a good time on our dime. But I also thought, OK, he’s going to know some things by the time he’s done.)
Anyway, to the governor I said, in a world in which foreign affairs continue to be more important than ever, in a dangerous world with which we have ever more dealings, shouldn’t we be thinking about senators for the presidency, and not governors?
He listened closely, nodded, then shook his head. No, he said, governors still have the advantage. Why? Because foreign policy still comes down, always, to your gut, your instincts. And your instincts are sharpened by the kind of experience you get as a chief executive in a statehouse, which is constant negotiation with antagonists who have built-in power bases. You learn what works from success and failure with entrenched powers that can undo you, from unions to local pressure groups to unreliable allies. Being a governor is about handling real and discernible power. A governor can learn what a senator knows more easily than a senator can learn what a governor knows.
This will be one of the subtexts of the 2016 GOP presidential race.
Regarding that race, the news this week was of Mitt Romney ’s seriousness in considering running again for the nomination. I just spent two days at the Republican joint congressional retreat in Hershey, Pa., and can tell you there was exactly no Mitt-momentum. The talk, when it turned to 2016, was of others. Those in attendance seemed to be trying to get the possibility of Mitt Part 3 through their heads, because while they understand it on a personal level—no one who’s been in the game ever wants to leave the game—they could see no compelling political rationale.
Everyone this week came down on Mr. Romney. In major newspapers and on political websites they listed their reasons he shouldn’t run. He is yesterday, we need tomorrow. He is an example of what didn’t work, we have to turn the page. He is and always has been philosophically murky—it’s almost part of his charm—but it’s not what’s needed now. He ran a poor campaign in 2012 and will run a poor one in 2016. He was a gaffe machine—“47%”; “I have some great friends that are Nascar team owners”—and those gaffes played into the party’s brand problems.
In defense of Mr. Romney’s idea, and what must be the impulse behind it, is this. If every voter in America were today given a secret toggle switch and told, “If you tug the toggle to the left, Barack Obama will stay president until January, 2017; if you tug it to the right, Mitt Romney will become president,” about 60% of the American people would tug right.
It must be hard for him to know that, and make him want to give it another try. But it’s also true that America would, right now, choose your Uncle Ralph who spends his time knitting over the current incumbent.
I add two reasons Mr. Romney should not run.
This is a moment in history that demands superior political gifts from one who would govern. Mitt Romney does not have them. He never did. He’s good at life and good at business and good at faith. He is politically clunky, always was and always will be. His clunkiness is seen in the way he leaked his interest in running: to multimillionaires and billionaires in New York. “Tell your friends.”
Second, Romney enthusiasts like to compare him with Ronald Reagan, who ran three times. This is technically true, though 1968 was sort of a half-run in which Reagan got in late and dropped out early, because he wasn’t ready for the presidency and knew it. But his 1976 run was serious, almost triumphant, and won for him the party’s heart.
The real Romney-Reagan difference is this: There was something known as Reaganism. It was a real movement within the party and then the nation. Reaganism had meaning. You knew what you were voting for. It was a philosophy that people understood. Philosophies are powerful. They carry you, and if they are right and pertinent to the moment they make you inevitable.
There is no such thing as Romneyism and there never will be. Mr. Romney has never encompassed a philosophical world. He has never become the symbol of an attitude toward government, or an approach to freedom or fairness. “Romneyism” is just “Mitt should be president.” That is not enough.
He is a smart, nice and accomplished man who thinks himself clever and politically insightful. He is not and will not become so. He should devote himself to supporting and not attempting to lead the party that has raised him so high.
-
WSJ
SAN DIEGO, Ca.—Two-time Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Friday cast himself as a leader for the “post- Obama era,” attacking likely Democratic contender Hillary Clinton in remarks viewed as a stump speech for another White House quest.
A gathering of Republican Party leaders was the setting for Mr. Romney’s first public comments since signaling his interest in a 2016 candidacy and forcing many donors and activists to reassess their early allegiances.
Mr. Romney stopped short of announcing a 2016 campaign, but leaned heavily into the prospect, saying he was “giving serious consideration to the future.”
He quipped that his wife, Ann, “believes people get better with experience—and heaven knows I have experience running for president.”
Mr. Romney’s call to “end the scourge of poverty” was the most striking departure from his 2012 campaign, in which Democrats attacked him as a wealthy corporate raider who lacked concern for the poor. Mr. Romney contributed to the unflattering narrative during that campaign by scoffing in a private fundraiser at the “47 %” who receive government assistance and recommending “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants.
On Friday, Mr. Romney called for helping “all Americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in.” He also noted his work as a pastor helping the poor, a biographical detail largely overlooked in his 2012 bid. Mr. Romney didn't offer any specific policy proposals, but by listing income inequality as one of three priorities, he suggested his next campaign would seek to reach voters from a wide range of income levels and racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Some of his Mr. Romney’s potential rivals, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have signaled they will address economic anxiety in their campaigns. Mr. Romney was joined by his wife, who thanked the party for its support and work electing Republicans in 2014.
Mr. Romney touted an interventionist foreign policy, as he has in previous campaigns, and sounded ready to direct his criticism at Mrs. Clinton, who is expected to announce another White House bid in the next few months.
“The results of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama foreign policy have been devastating,” Mr. Romney said at the reception held aboard the USS Midway aircraft carrier, which is now a military museum. He described their approach as “based in part on the premise that if we’re friendly enough to other people, and if we smile broadly enough and press the reset button, peace is going to break around the world.”
The 13-minute speech capped off a three-day gathering of Republican Party leaders in which Mr. Romney’s intentions were a constant topic of conversation in hallways and ballrooms.
Mr. Romney described the event as “like coming back to a high school reunion to see all my friends,” and he received warm applause. But interviews with party leaders over the course of the Republican National Committee conference found little enthusiasm for another campaign by Mr. Romney, outside of his most loyal allies.
This year’s deep bench of potential candidates is a point of pride for many Republicans after losing the White House two times in a row.
“No disrespect to Gov. Romney, but we need to move on,” said Kris Warner, the national committeeman from West Virginia. “I don’t want to go back and relive the presidential campaign of four years ago."
Gov. Romney is certainly a good man, but he has much convincing to do as a politician, because if the strategy is the same, the result will be the same,” said South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Matt Moore. “Most voters want to at least hear from the new, conservative leaders in our party and we owe that to them. It’s clear no one is going to hand Gov. Romney the nomination on a silver platter.”
Appearances by some of Mr. Romney’s potential rivals at the RNC’s annual winter meeting reinforced the growing breadth of the potential 2016 field. The speakers included Ben Carson, a firebrand speaker who has never run for office; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who cast himself as a refreshing Washington outsider; and outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry , who stressed his success at creating jobs.
Bruce Hough, Utah’s national committeeman and a personal friend of Romneys, said Mr. Romney’s warnings about the slow economic recovery and the national-security threat posed by Russia have been borne out since his 2012 campaign.
“He’s been vetted and vindicated,” Mr. Hough said. “If he doesn’t run and we lose in 2016, he will have a pit in his gut.”
Only two weeks ago, Mr. Romney wasn't considered to be in the mix for 2016, outside of sporadic murmurs. The former governor and his closest allies have made a spree of calls to former staff members, elected officials and fundraisers in an effort to hastily lay the groundwork for a potential campaign.
The past week has also seen other likely candidates rolling out names of top political advisers, courting voters in the states that hold the earliest nominating contests and heading out on book tours.
On the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton is nearing a decision on another White House bid as the overwhelming favorite in the polls for her party’s nomination.
“There’s intrigue, there’s drama, it’s interesting,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said of the GOP field. “I think that it’s all great for our party.”
—Janet Hook contributed to this article.
-
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/23/mitt-romney-backs-climate-change-supporters/
-
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/23/mitt-romney-backs-climate-change-supporters/
It appears he is going to run on Obama's 2008platform, minus the enthusiasm.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/mitt-romney-email-hillary-clinton
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mitt-romney-fights-evander-holyfield-salt-lake-city-charity-n359546
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mitt-romney-fights-evander-holyfield-salt-lake-city-charity-n359546
At least he actually threw a punch here....
-
http://moelane.com/2015/07/09/katherine-archuleta-mitt-romney-hacking-opm/
When Obama promised the most transparent administration ever, who knew he meant the background information of every American with a security clearance ?
-
Also worth noting is the big general who in testimony today/yesterday to Congress when asked who were the biggest dangers to the US said:
1) Russia
2) China
3) North Korea
4) ISIS
-
http://moelane.com/2015/07/09/katherine-archuleta-mitt-romney-hacking-opm/
When Obama promised the most transparent administration ever, who knew he meant the background information of every American with a security clearance ?
Paraphrasing one of our own, they warned me that if I voted for Romney all this would happen.
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/romneys-2012-mali-terror-threat-ignored/article/2576870?utm_content=buffer2d5a3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
3 or 4 time loser is giving speech tomorrow . "Major speech"
He will kill the Republican party not save it. I will not vote for him.
We have Cruz and Rubio.
He should be rallying around one of them or if they cannot do it - Trump.
We will see.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/02/romney-to-make-major-speech-on-2016-race.html
-
Date unknown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlD4hwzGhdY
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/03/romney-will-do-whatever-it-takes-to-topple-trump-even-if-that-means-a-convention-fight-for-the-nomination/
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/373944-romneys-trump-feud-looms-over-utah-senate-race?userid=188403
-
or maybe he simply is looking to define his space in what is to come , , ,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-president-shapes-the-public-character-of-the-nation-trumps-character-falls-short/2019/01/01/37a3c8c2-0d1a-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.72f17faf6a1f
-
just when we thought McCain was dead
he reincarnates the day after New Years.
-
just when we thought McCain was dead
he reincarnates the day after New Years.
Politicians talk about all kinds of issues all the time but they hit the national news when they criticize Trump [or any Republican President or leader].
It may be a help for republicans to separate character from policies. He crosses the line if/when he does those other things of the never-Trumpers, withholds vote against key policies like McCain did with Obamacare did for personal reasons, holds up judicial appointments like Flake did over a fake issue of [not] firing the special prosecutor, endorses Democrats for Congress like George Will did.
Romney represents Utah now. I don't think he will stray too far from the will of his voters on policies. He is not in Massachusetts anymore, and he won't go any further in the primaries than Jeb Bush or John Kasich did.
Romney is the living answer to the eternal question that America has, Why Trump. When we put up an honorable man, a softer more empathetic man, a more agreeable man, a family man who never strayed, a more moderate candidate, one who wouldn't rock the boat with allies, trade partners and international organization, one who never blasted the media, the moderator or his opponent, YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM.
-
" Romney is the living answer to the eternal question that America has, Why Trump. When we put up an honorable man, a softer more empathetic man, a more agreeable man, a family man who never strayed, a more moderate candidate, one who wouldn't rock the boat with allies, trade partners and international organization, one who never blasted the media, the moderator or his opponent, YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM. "
Doug you are exactly right. Nice finish LAST the way this game is played today . Since when have Democrats been "nice".
Romney calling Trump "anti immigrant" is the exact reason the Republican Party is heading for extinction .
Does Romney think he is going to get the 10s of millions of legals and illegals to vote for him?
W used this theory:
'Don't stop them pouring in over ALL the borders from all over the world and leave our immigration laws open for complete abuse, and simply expect to win their hearts and minds over to the REpublican Party .
That works - just look at California NY NJ Florida Colorado New Mexico though I am not sure if Virginia is due to illegals etc vs massive government creating a giant influx.
Now with felons voting in Florida that state is lost . We are done . We can't even win the electoral college anymore.
-
"Romney calling Trump "anti immigrant" is the exact reason the Republican Party is heading for extinction. Does Romney think he is going to get the 10s of millions of legals and illegals to vote for him?"
Worth remembering here is Romney's insincere pandering to the Right in the primaries on this-- remember how he went after Newt when Newt said not to deport grannies who had been here for decades?
-
"Romney calling Trump "anti immigrant" is the exact reason the Republican Party is heading for extinction. Does Romney think he is going to get the 10s of millions of legals and illegals to vote for him?"
Worth remembering here is Romney's insincere pandering to the Right in the primaries on this-- remember how he went after Newt when Newt said not to deport grannies who had been here for decades?
(https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Screen-Shot-2019-01-02-at-6.46.22-AM-600x331.png)
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/378960.php
January 02, 2019
The Romney/Establishment Attack on Trump Is All About Open Borders, and Always Has Been
I've wanted to write about this myself for a long while.
Dave Reaboi makes different points than I have in mind, but he makes the basic point: all this shrieking about "character" by the neocons, liberal Republicans, and Establishment types is just some ideological camouflage to disguise the real objection to Trump, that is, that it's racist to oppose Open Borders.
They don't want to say that -- they believe it intensely, but they don't want to admit they share yet another key ideological premise with their close cousins on the globalist hard left -- so they pretend this is all about a rather small difference in free trade and the tactics to achieve actual free trade and, of course, about "character."
It's not. It's just that these people have such low character -- they are inveterate liars and are long practiced in misrepresenting their believes and their intentions to the voters they con into voting them into power -- that they lie without a thought about it.
They will go on lying about it. Bill Kristol, Mitt Romney, Jonah Goldberg, almost all of National Review, etc., will continue playing hide-the-ball regarding their real views on immigration -- which are open borders in all but name, just keep doing what we're doing, which is virtually nothing (which is why the open borders people endorse our current #FakeNews immigration enforcement) -- acting as perfect cowards in refusing to clearly announce their actual beliefs and preferences and pretending this is all merely a dispute about "character."
Well it is -- in a way. They believe that anyone who opposes their de facto open borders position is a racist and therefore has bad "character."
They just won't say so. They've grown accustomed to lying to their readers, constituents, and voters about just how monstrously racist and evil they believe them to be. They only gain the courage to state these beliefs forthrightly when, like Max Boot, they officially defect to the liberal Democrat camp.
But your character is bad.
Their character -- all lies and cowardice and self-dealing -- is sterling.
And super-Christian.
Just ask them!
David Reaboi
✔
@davereaboi
Immigration is really the only issue that matters—but not in the way you might think.
269
7:42 AM - Jan 2, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
151 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
We've got now a significant minority in the country--and a powerful majority in elite institutions like media and academia--that believes we don't have a right to restrict immigration into the US at all, because it's racist.
This loud minority is amplified on social media, sure--but conservatives understand that these are the people who’re teaching their children and creating the intellectual environment for them. They see, correctly, that it's only a matter of time.
When Trump says "if we don’t have borders, we don't have a country," that aphorism resonates because it’s *more essentially true* than anything in GOP orthodoxy you'd read about in any conservative media pre-Trump.
The Trump/Romney argument on the Right, at this point, is utterly boring. It's the same conflict, like the Eternal Recurrence, between people who know what time it is, and people who don't. It's rancorous precisely because it's a conflict about perception of the threat.
It's also a battle that’s been won by the Trump side--even if the folks cheering Romney today don’t realize it.
The status quo GOP candidates were totally routed in 2016; both Trump and Cruz resonated with the GOP electorate because they're "America is in Crisis" candidates.
Marco Rubio was the quintessential status quo GOP candidate. It's like he was weaned on Weekly Standard and WSJ op/eds.
His message of optimism was rejected by people who knew what time it was--people who understand that America had changed significantly since Reagan and Bush.
If you know what time it is, and understand that we’re losing not just our common culture American identity--that's pretty much gone--but now, the concept of national sovereignty full-stop, you are legitimately furious at would-be allies who are knifing you in the back.
If you believe this massive cultural & philosophical conflict will be won without "tribalism," you do not know enough about this to be of much use going forward.
Many of the pro-Trump people you hate understand this, and that's why they're frustrated AF with you.
A final thought: Rubio voter types seem to believe that taking in any amount of any kind of immigrants would not change the character or politics of America in any real way, certainly not negative.
For people in the real world, however--people who know what time it is--this insane belief is proof you're so ideologically blinded on something so basic, you can't be trusted.
It's not that these people are stupid or evil; they just believe a bunch of things that manifestly are not true in order to reach what they believe is the only conclusion that's possible given these assumptions.
I'll have to do another Universal Values Delusion thread, because it's worth repeating. It's a misunderstanding of American principles that’s so tightly held, it's become a dogma that’s crowded-out even self-evident, plainly observable truths.
-
"Romney's a Republican by registration, yes, but not much of a conservative."
- IBD https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/romney-trump-criticism/
He did not govern as a conservative, as they document.
-----------------------
Ironically, it is Trump who had the best, most wise, succinct, spot-on retort to Romney's criticism:
Trump: If Mitt Romney Fought Against Obama The Way He Fights Me, He Would Have Won Election [and I wouldn't be President].
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/02/trump_i_hope_mitt_romney_is_going_to_be_a_team_player.html
As I was saying, Romney et al is why we have Trump with all his warts. No one has stood up and fought against progressivism and Leftist since Reagan.
-
72-9: Romney’s Puzzling Move
As reporters, editors, and producers in the mainstream media seek to lionize former Massachusetts Governor and incoming Utah Senator Mitt Romney for his recent Washington Post op-ed criticizing President Trump, they should consider this critical set of numbers: 72-9.
These figures represent the margin by which President Trump would beat Mitt Romney in a four-way 2020 Republican Primary if it were held today, according to a December McLaughlin & Associates survey. I’ve been studying politics for a long time, and 72-9 is fairly decisive.
I faced Romney in the 2012 primary, and he won. He is a smart, competitive, serious man who genuinely wants America to succeed. This is why I am so puzzled by his decision to start the year attacking the president – before even being sworn into the Senate or given committee assignments.
Romney has no doubt had a successful career (in politics and business). However, I suspect he will soon learn that regardless of his past achievements, he is now a freshman senator – and the Senate doesn’t care who you used to be.
Most immediately, he should be learning how to operate in the Senate. It is a complicated, arcane body that can take decades to understand. Romney should reach out to Senators like Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, and Lindsey Graham, to learn how to move the system and make it work.
I can’t figure out why Romney thought ribbing the president was strategically more useful than offering ideas to solve the problem at the border and get the government fully-funded. In fact, Romney and every other Republican should join Senator Graham in talking to Americans everywhere about the plan to secure the border while protecting the Dreamers.
Instead of picking a fight with his own party’s president, Romney should be asking why the Democrats apparently care more about hating President Trump than they do about helping nearly 700,000 people who were brought to our country as children and have lived as Americans their entire lives.
Additionally, Romney could be offering Republicans insight into defeating Senator Elizabeth Warren’s presidential candidacy – since she represents the state he once governed.
Instead of starting his Senate service by seeking to lead a small, shrinking anti-Trump faction of congressional Republicans, I hope Romney takes advantage of his very real chance to help our country – and the Republican party at the same time.
More than perhaps any other person in Congress, Romney could become a very effective bridge between the White House and business leaders. If he spends his time focusing on policy objectives instead of noise, he could make a serious impact on our future.
However, if he allows his political staff to turn him into the premier anti-Trump senator, he will severely limit his effectiveness and potentially endanger the Senate majority and Republican agenda.
I hope Senator Romney gets beyond the noise and learns to find common ground for the common good.
Your Friend,
Newt
P.S. Kick off your 2019 reading list with the bestselling Trump Collection, featuring autographed copies of Understanding Trump and Trump's America.
Order now>>
-
72-9 is why Romney is not running again. Romney's motives for that column are unknown but best explanation is that he wanted to distance himself loud and clear before his arrival so that he wouldn't constantly have to answer questions like that. Most of it said nothing, I will vote for legislation if it's good for the country and his [new] state.
Utah is conservative but not Trump country. They draw a line between honoring the vows of polygamy and cheating.
-
True enough, but he went well beyond saying I will vote according to my conscience.
-
True enough, but he went well beyond saying I will vote according to my conscience.
Busted, I didn't read it. Didn't want to give Bezos the revenue clicks and Romney the attention.
-
:-D
-
"So failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney took to the op-ed pages of the WaPo to lambaste President Trump's character, by which he means banging porn starlets and publishing mean tweets. Presumably, Romney doesn't do these awful things, which makes him, in his mind, morally superior to Donald Trump. But there's more to 'character' than this. For example, there's courage. There's commitment. There's leadership. There's not backing down, caving in to criticism, and sticking to a course of action when things get tough. To my knowlesge, none of these characteristics have ever been attributed to Mitt Romney. In fact, in recent years, Romney has turned out to be quite a weasely little Vichy Republican, kind of like Evan McMullin, but with not as much estrogen. Oh, and then he whines, quote, Trump's words and actions have caused dismay around the world, unquote. So why is that a bad thing? A lot of these guys, you *want* to have dismayed. I'm sure Robert E. Lee was "dismayed" by General Grant on more than one occasion. And no doubt the Soviets were "dismayed" by Ronald Reagan. That's what we call a feature, not a bug. If you're not pissing somebody off, you're not doing your job. Trump understand this. Mittens does not. There's speculation that this op-ed is Romney getting into position for the 2020 primaries. Which makes me wonder what Mitt's advisors are telling him, because I don't see any big groundswell of support for a Romney presidency. He'll find this out the hard way if he keeps up his weasel act. If he dares to put up a primary challenge in 2020, Trump is going to schlong him good and hard. Nobody likes a backstabbing coward."
-
:-D
-
https://www.dennisprager.com/mitt-romney-fails-again/
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/romney-casts-lone-gop-vote-trump-judicial-pick-disparaging-comment-obama/?fbclid=IwAR2BI4vCm4Qgmf97HCefgV-BOKaosBKJmCGe_a4XeIFgPak96f3UqNlqDbA
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/romney-casts-lone-gop-vote-trump-judicial-pick-disparaging-comment-obama/?fbclid=IwAR2BI4vCm4Qgmf97HCefgV-BOKaosBKJmCGe_a4XeIFgPak96f3UqNlqDbA
Mittens. :roll:
-
My rant yesterday on the impeachment (weasel) thread:
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2748.msg122996#msg122996
I don't want to waste more time on Romney. Byron York puts the issue to bed nicely here:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/mitt-romneys-profile-in-courage
--------------------
What has he ever been politically but an opportunist - and he admits it. The life of the unborn depends on the constituency you are working.
Just look at his current position, junior Senator from Utah. He's not from Utah. He leveraged his religion for political opportunism and used his money to buy a house there. Did he sell his other houses? Does he live there? He couldn't get elected nationwide and he couldn't get elected ever again in Mass. He is taking up a place of high profile and experience that should go to the future leader that he is not.
BTW Mitt, there is no such thing as "severely conservative". Try "Common Sense Conservative" and tell me how much of it is too much.
-
As almost always Byron sums it up beautifully
Romney is so deeply religious he can't decide if he is pro life or pro abortion
that flip flop alone makes his sudden piousness appear totally contrived!
He waited till the last minute to announce his decision even lying to Mike Lee about what he was going to do.
then as Byron points out went to all the Leftist outlets to announce he is with THEM
Traitor is the only word I can think of for it.
* I think I have Romney pegged *
He absolutely is running again for President.
He thinks he can run as a centrist . Perhaps after Trump he thinks the field will be so weak he will come in on his white horse and get independents etc
He is positioning himself to run somehow some way as the more traditional good boy Republican who can work both sides and reach out with politeness and civility to all and unify our nation
In his mind he is thinking MACA. - make America cordial again
But the reality is MRLA - he would make Republicans losers again
-
He is running for something, but getting endorsement of the Republican Party can't be part of it, not even of Utah.
His Senate votes are about as responsible as Trump's tweets, his version of Pelosi tearing up the speech.
He is only 72 but is trying in retirement, like post-President Carter, to repair the damage he did in his career. He is trying to impress and appease someone, must be the mainstream media.
I don't like changing the rules in midstream or looking backward, but it would help right-size his ego to have his political career end by being recalled by the voters of Utah.
Truly bizarre that he wanted to be Trump's Secretary of State. True to the deep state establishment, his purpose could only have been to undermine the President and his policies.
Not one Democrat voted for him when it mattered. Now almost no Republican would.
-
"Truly bizarre that he wanted to be Trump's Secretary of State."
oh my God yes!
could anyone imagine how that would have went over ?
not only would he have been fired , but this would have happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVZwoLZgrRs
it would have made Rex Tillerson's firing look cordial by comparison.
-
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/21/romney_i_dont_know_biden_well_but_he_seems_to_be_a_man_of_honor.html
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO-aE4N76rg
Mitt: Biden is a nice guy with good intentions
"old time Republicans " are not what we need......
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO-aE4N76rg
Mitt: Biden is a nice guy with good intentions
"old time Republicans " are not what we need......
Romney doesn't like the Democrat agenda. Maybe he shouldn't have sabotaged the Republican one.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-mitt-romney-says-republican-212144366.html
first it is the debate format and the biased moderators not the debates altogether
we don't want the deep staters picking their favorite left leaning moderators
also Romney lost the election to O'Bams twice
he was even winning the second one when he said something totally stupid (I can't remember what it was )
notice he only gets headlines when he criticizes his party
otherwise no one listens to him anymore
-
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/2/2/22913085/do-republicans-like-mitt-romney-poll-numbers-joe-biden-donald-trump-hinckley-inistitute-utah
heaven help us if Utah voters can't get rid of him.
-
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1511114324621901827
-
why does he only find the need to call out Republicans he does not like, but never Democrats [to my knowledge]?
unless he does, and we just don't ever read or hear about due to media bias
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2023/02/08/romneysantos-exchange-n2619304
it is like Kinzinger or Steele on CNNPCP or MSLSD
wonder what CNN pays Kinzinger
how much does it cost to bribe a Senator to come out to day in and out speak Democrat points?
I wonder
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/after-classified-briefing-romney-backs-bidens-handling-of-chinese-spy-balloon-incursion-190436122.html
always happy to help the crats on give CNN a see " I told you so"
piece
can Utah votes please get rid of him once and for all in '25?
https://www.senate.gov/senators/Class_I.htm
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-mitt-romney-approval-rating-030000056.html
about now deceased Dan Jones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_E._Jones
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-mitt-romney-approval-rating-030000056.html
about now deceased Dan Jones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_E._Jones
From the article: “Because our state deserves someone who can actually get things done, "
"Our state"?? Wasn't he the Governor of Massachusetts?? Raised in Michigan? Lives and works in Washington DC area now? Sold his place at Deer Valley. Kept his place in New Hampshire.Sold the place with the car elevator in La Jolla. It's hard being conservative.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sen-mitt-romney-places-11-5m-ski-resort-home-market.
Kept the place he bought to set up "residence" in Utah. Who lives there? Did he raise his kids there? No. Does he run a business there? No.
-
I have not been a Mitt fan since he lost in '12.
I found this from him on line dated 12/30/22:
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2022/12/30/23529589/utah-mitt-romney-senate-accomplishments-2022
-
Mitt Romney is not running for reelection. Wants a new generation of leaders. Want to focus on stopping Trump, whatever that means. Wants to focus on fighting the deficit, but on his Senate page he is focused on not cutting entitlements. Whatever that means.
From the top of this page, here is Peggy Noonan telling mitt not to run for president in 2015. (Just before Trump announced.)
https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=2291.msg85491#msg85491
-
Van Jones pointed out the absurdity of Dems bashing Mitt to no end when he ran against Obamsky
Recall the "swift boat" attack on having his dog on the roof of his car?
And comparing it to now where we have the libs calling him a great statesman etc,
bash your own Republican party makes you a great statesmen
as far as CNN et al are concerned
Thus no Dem is a great statesmen since they never do this to members of their own party
say go on Fox or Bongino report to bash themselves
-
Bye.
-
"BYE" - LOL short and sweet
and I might add don't let the swivel door kick you on the way out !
-
Tis a line from John Booth's character in Tombstone.
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-scramble-to-find-replacement-for-retiring-mitt-romney?utm_source=The%20Babylon%20Bee%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email
-
I ‘spose hoping this yutz just fades away once he and the Senate part ways is too much to expect, but holy magic underwear I’m tired of encountering his endless, self-important machinations:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4250885-romney-says-he-has-encouraged-booker-warner-to-challenge-biden/
-
A study in Romney irony & cluelessness:
https://thefederalist.com/2023/10/30/mitt-romney-we-hardly-knew-ye/?fbclid=IwAR2IL_6_5__xcQJdrsbZwhsipZgvX2ZfZr8OpWMaluRF_VsrIV0PuaE0sdk
-
I was looking for a link to this story and found Jonathon Turley had already made the same point I was going to make:
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/24/romney-and-the-wrong-question-the-senators-statement-on-trumps-guilt-captures-the-problem-with-the-manhattan-trial/:
Yesterday, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) had a much covered interaction with CNN’s Manu Raju who asked him about Trump’s criminal trial and whether he was guilty of the underlying criminal conduct. Romney responded “I think everybody has made their own assessment of President Trump’s character, and so far as I know you don’t pay someone $130,000 not to have sex with you.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/24/romney-and-the-wrong-question-the-senators-statement-on-trumps-guilt-captures-the-problem-with-the-manhattan-trial/
First I was going to say, Hey Mitt, this is a CRIMINAL trial, how about a little innocent until proven guilty in this country if you don't mind.
Secondly, what happened between the two people privately DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUES ON TRIAL.
And thirdly Mitt, just s.t.f.u. Why don't you go run Harvard, or Columbia. I heard they need your help.
But Mitt took the opportunity as he does, with every microphone, with every camera running, what can I do to hurt Trump. F.u. Mitt. The Obama era went to 8 years, now 12, because of you Mitt. Debt at 35 trillion. That's on you. The wars, all of it, that's on you. You had a chance to stop the madness at 4 years and you failed, Mitt. Trump wouldn't have happened if Republicans had won the previous, and neither would Biden.
The year we picked the wrong guy was 2012.
Trump is the only person in the world left who can stand up to the march to Leftism that Mitt fears so little. The guy in Argentina can't do it alone.