1. New START does limit U.S. missile-defense options. First, New START’s preamble not only references missile defense, it accedes to Russia’s insistence that there is an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. While the Bush administration steadfastly refused to accept this Russian position, the Obama administration bows to it. The statement of interrelationship in the preamble, in addition to the specific missile-defense measures in the body of the treaty, amount to a major concession to Russia… (read more)

Share on Facebook

Share This

Obama’s worst foreign-policy mistake
By Mitt Romney
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Given President Obama’s glaring domestic policy missteps, it is understandable that the public has largely been blinded to his foreign policy failings. In fact, these may have been even more damaging to America’s future. He fought to reinstate Honduras’s pro-Chávez president while stalling Colombia’s favored-trade status. He castigated Israel at the United Nations but was silent about Hamas having launched 7,000 rockets from the Gaza Strip. His policy of “engagement” with rogue nations has been met with North Korean nuclear tests, missile launches and the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, while Iran has accelerated its nuclear program, funded terrorists and armed Hezbollah with long-range missiles. He acceded to Russia’s No. 1 foreign policy objective, the abandonment of our Europe-based missile defense program, and obtained nothing whatsoever in return.

Despite all of this, the president’s New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New-START) with Russia could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet. The treaty as submitted to the Senate should not be ratified.

New-START impedes missile defense, our protection from nuclear-proliferating rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Its preamble links strategic defense with strategic arsenal. It explicitly forbids the United States from converting intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos into missile defense sites. And Russia has expressly reserved the right to walk away from the treaty if it believes that the United States has significantly increased its missile defense capability.

Hence, to preserve the treaty’s restrictions on Russia, America must effectively get Russia’s permission for any missile defense expansion. Moscow’s vehemence over our modest plans in Eastern Europe demonstrate that such permission would be extremely unlikely.

The treaty empowers a Bilateral Consultative Commission with broad latitude to amend the treaty with specific reference to missile defense. New START does something the American public would never countenance and the Senate should never permit: It jeopardizes our missile defense system.

The treaty also gives far more to the Russians than to the United States. As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses — presumably carefully crafted by Moscow — provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. For example, rail-based ICBMs and launchers are not mentioned. Similarly, multiple nuclear warheads that are mounted on bombers are effectively not counted. Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers — including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads — without tripping the treaty’s limits. These omissions would be consistent with Russia’s plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs.

Under New START, the United States must drastically reduce our number of launchers but Russia will not — it already has fewer launchers than the treaty limits. Put another way: We give, Russia gets. And more troubling, the treaty fails to apply the MIRV limits that were part of the prior START treaty. Again, it may not be coincidental that Russia is developing a new heavy-load — meaning MIRV-capable — ICBM.

New-START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States. The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1. Obama heralds a reduction in strategic weapons from approximately 2,200 to 1,550 but fails to mention that Russia will retain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads that are categorized as tactical because they are mounted on missiles that cannot reach the United States. But surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella. And who can know how those tactical nuclear warheads might be reconfigured? Astonishingly, while excusing tactical nukes from the treaty, the Obama administration bows to Russia’s insistence that conventional weapons mounted on ICBMs are counted under the treaty’s warhead and launcher limits.

By all indications, the Obama administration has been badly out-negotiated. Perhaps the president’s eagerness for global disarmament led his team to accede to Russia’s demands, or perhaps it led to a document that was less than carefully drafted.

Whatever the reason for the treaty’s failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake. The only responsible course is for the Senate to demand and scrutinize the full diplomatic record underlying the treaty. Then it must insist that any linkage between the treaty and our missile defense system be eliminated. In a world where nuclear weapons are proliferating, America’s missile defense shield must not be compromised. As currently drafted, New START is a non-starter.

The writer was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007.

Here is the link.

By the way, think of the contrast with Huckabee’s recent contributions to the political debate.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I am looking to outline all the reasons to agree and disagree with this belief on my website, and would love your help! Here is the link.

This from the Boston Globe:

By Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff | July 21, 2006

Who knew that undercut anchor bolts could make such gripping television? Ten cameras were trained on Governor Mitt Romney at the State House yesterday as he dropped the latest Big Dig bombshell: He had ordered an immediate shutdown of the eastbound side of Ted Williams Tunnel.

Brandishing photographs of faulty bolts for the cameras, he explained: “This section here should be flush against the ceiling, and it’s not.”

Showing a striking command of engineering lingo, he described a temporary fix as “an ARVA truck.”

“It happens to be about 11 1/2 feet wide when the stabilizing elements are extended,” Romney said.

Reminded by reporters that critics are questioning the independence of the Big Dig inspectors, he shot back: “I’m not quite sure who they have in mind as independent agencies, other than someone from Mars.”

Since falling concrete killed a woman in the I-90 connector 11 days ago, Romney has become the undisputed king of the news cycle. Yesterday was his seventh press conference on the crisis, not counting numerous press availabilities after striding into the tunnel for a look, clad in a hard hat and safety vest.

Click here for me.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Has it come to this again? The president is meeting with his oil spill experts, he crudely tells us, so that he knows “whose ass to kick.” We have become accustomed to his management style — target a scapegoat, assign blame and go on the attack. To win health care legislation, he vilified insurance executives; to escape bankruptcy law for General Motors, he demonized senior lenders; to take the focus from the excesses of government, he castigated business meetings in Las Vegas; and to deflect responsibility for the deepening and lengthening downturn, he blames Wall Street and George W. Bush. But what may make good politics does not make good leadership. And when a crisis is upon us, America wants a leader, not a politician.
We saw leadership on Sept. 11, 2001. Then as now, black billows seemed to come from the center of the earth. Lives had been lost. The environmental impact was immeasurable. The looming economic impact from lost tourism was incalculable. Into the crisis walked Rudy Giuliani. While that was an incomparable human tragedy, how the mayor led New York City to recover is a useful model for the president.

Rudy camped out at Ground Zero — he didn’t hole up in his office or retreat to his residence. His presence not only reassured the people of New York that someone was in charge, it also enabled the mayor to assess the situation firsthand, to take the measure of the people he had on the ground, and to understand the scope of the crisis.

The president has many critical matters that demand his attention, but brief and tardy tours and being photographed with a smudge of oil on a sandy beach don’t work on any level. There is no substitute for being there.

In a crisis, the leader must gather the experts — federal, state, local, public and private — not to discover who is to blame but to secure their active and continuous involvement until the crisis is resolved. There is extraordinary power inherent in an assembly of brilliant people guided by an able leader. In virtually every historic national crisis, our most effective leaders gathered the best minds they could find — consider the Founders in Philadelphia, Lincoln with his “Team of Rivals,” Roosevelt with scientists and generals seeking to end World War II, Kennedy with the “Best and Brightest” confronting the Cuban missile crisis.

What happens when men and women of various backgrounds, fields of expertise, and unfettered intellectual freedom come together to tackle a problem often exceeds any reasonable expectation. Ideas from one may cross-fertilize the thinking of another, yielding breakthroughs. The president of MIT told me that the university spent millions of dollars to build a bridge connecting two engineering departments that had been separated by a road — the potential for shared thinking made it more than worth the cost.

But even a gathering of experts won’t accomplish much unless a skilled leader uses their perspective to guide the recovery. So far, it has been the CEO of BP who has been managing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The president surely can’t rely on BP — its track record is suspect at best: Its management of this crisis has been characterized by obfuscation and lack of preparation. And BP’s responsibilities to its shareholders conflict with the greater responsibility to the nation and to the planet.

The president must personally lead the effort to solve the crisis. He cannot delegate this quintessential responsibility of his presidency in the way he delegated the stimulus bill, the cap-and-trade bill and the health care bill. It may be an instance of learning on the job, but it is a job only he can do.

The first rule of turnarounds is to focus time, energy and resources on what matters most. The president simply cannot treat this crisis like another of his many problems. The oil disaster could hurt millions of families, slam the regional economy, kill untold numbers of non-human lives and irreparably damage the planet. Among other things, he must not hold more rock concerts at the White House — I understand James Carville’s venting: His hero fiddled as oil churned.

Finding fault is easier than finding answers. And worse, it paralyzes many of the very people who may be needed to solve a crisis. When Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast states, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco went on the attack; Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour went to work. His state’s recovery is textbook; hers is not.

President Obama’s instigation of criminal investigations of BP at this juncture is classic diversion politics — and worse, it will engender bunker mentality at a time when collaboration and openness are most critical. BP’s actions and inactions are reprehensible; it must be made to pay the billions upon billions of dollars that this spill will ultimately cost. But call out the phalanx of lawyers later — solve the crisis today.

The president can learn a good deal from the crisis leadership of men and women in government and in business. Giuliani is a notable example, but so too are Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Kennedy. In a time of national crisis, we look to our president to acknowledge, as Harry Truman did, that it is at his desk where the buck stops.

And even at Day 52, it’s better late than never.

http://www.freestrongamerica.com/oped/item/we_need_a_leader_not_a_politician

Share on Facebook

Share This

NEW ORLEANS - Republican presidential candidate John McCain was sharply critical yesterday of what he called the Bush administration’s disgraceful handling of Hurricane Katrina and vowed, “Never again.”

McCain, putting some distance between himself and President Bush, said if he had been president during the 2005 catastrophe he would have immediately visited New Orleans after the killer storm.

While he said he was not being critical of Bush for not visiting New Orleans, “I’m just saying I would’ve landed my airplane at the nearest Air Force base and come over personally.”

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/25/mccain_criticizes_bush_for_slow_response_after_katrina/

It was OK to criticize Bush. Heck, it was OK for republican candidates for president to criticize him, but when is  All Gore, or John Cary going to grow a backbone, put the country first, and say the truth, come hell or oil-laced water? We are all on the beach, and all we can see is slick salesmen who put party first. All the republicans criticize Obama, and all the Democrats say what a great job he is doing, that this is not his fault, and that he is doing such a great job. But even McCain through Bush under the buss. What is the difference. It is all rewards and punishments. The media rewarded those who criticized Bush so much so that even republicans did it. At least that’s my theory. What do you think?

Need evidence? How many times did we hear, in the media, phrases like this one from CNN: ”One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term. (CNN May 28, 2008)” I heard that so many times: botched federal response, that defined Bush’s 2nd term. And if you repeat something often enough, it becomes truth. But how often are we going to hear that Obama’s response to the Horizon oil spill defined his presidency? The media is who decides how to define someone’s presidency, but do you expect them to point out that Bush didn’t have jurisdiction within a City, but that Obama had direct jurisdiction over the well that was on Federal land?

You already have people blaming Bush for this Oil Spill. Of course Bush wasn’t “responsible” for Katrina any more than Obama is responsible for, what do you call it, the oil spill. But that’s not the point is it. The point is the double standard. The point is the response.

It took Mr. Obama 12 days to show up in the region. Democrats criticized President George W. Bush for waiting four days after Katrina to go to New Orleans.

Yes, the Gulf Spill Is Obama’s Katrina.

Share on Facebook

Share This

: %

1. Republicans are often portrayed as uneducated rednecks.
2. Liberals sort of took over academia, and so some republicans are anti-education, but we need to out-think them, not out-anger them.
3. It will do republicans no good to be anti-achievement, anti-scholarship, or anti-formal education.
4. Romney doesn’t just have academic success, like Obama, but real-world business success.

Reasons to disagree: %

1. Obama has done well academically, but it hasn’t helped him.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) held a fundraiser in Manhattan last week and outperformed Pres. Obama’s own cash grab a day later on behalf of the DCCC, another sign of trouble brewing for Dems this cycle in all corners of the country.

Romney headlined an event at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City on May 12 that raised $1.5M for his Free and Strong America PAC.

By contrast, Obama’s appearance at the St. Regis Hotel on May 13 raked in a lesser $1.3 million for the DCCC.

For Romney, the event was the biggest of the year, according to his aides. And in many ways it was another implicit indication that his is the nascent GOP WH campaign to beat: Some of the event’s sponsors were previously major boosters to Sen. John McCain’s WH’08 bid, including Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets, and Lew Eisenberg, an investment banker who formerly chaired the New York-New Jersey Port Authority and the RNC finance committee.

A DCCC spokesman pointed out that whenever the committee raises money with Obama, PAC donations are not permitted. In addition, the spokesman noted that House Democrats have been working on tough financial regulatory reform.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/05/romney_outraise.php

Share on Facebook

Share This

Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney on the Budget

“When I was running for office I had a debate as you may recall, actually five of them. Don’t know whether you saw the one where Tim Russert was the moderator. He wondered how we were going to be able to close a $1 billion budget gap. And I had to lay out what my plans were for doing so. When I got in office, my Secretary of Finance came to me and said, I’ve got great news and bad news. The great news is we don’t have a one billion budget gap. The bad news is we have a $3 billion budget gap. And there were some people that said all we have to do is raise taxes. And I said, look, if you raise taxes you kill jobs and you hurt working families. There were some other people that said why don’t we just raise debt. We can just borrow our way out of this. But if you raise debt you just put our problems on the backs of our kids. I said no, we’re going to go back to government, we’re going to cut out the waste and inefficiency and duplication. We’re going to do the job we were elected to do. And Republicans and Democrats came together and made a lot of that happen”. Source: Governor Mitt Romney at the NH Federation of Republican Women’s Lilac Dinner

2006

• “Rainy day funds should not be spent during periods of robust revenue growth to support a level of spending that is not sustainable. We are repeating the mistakes of the past, and it would be irresponsible to allow this budget to become law without making significant reductions.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 07-08-2006 Press Release

2005

• “Two years ago, the state budget was out of balance and the economy was in a deep recession. Working together, the Executive Branch and Legislature took decisive action to control costs and manage the budget without raising taxes Today, our economy is strong and producing jobs and the budget outlook is positive.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 03-15-2005- Press Release

2004

• He added that his budget will not raise taxes on the working families of Massachusetts and that he will propose a modest increase in local aid. “I will present a balanced budget. And in case anybody has any other ideas, let me be clear about one more thing: I will not raise taxes.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 01-15-2004 Press Release

• “Being fiscally responsible isn’t easy – and it’s not always popular – but it has its rewards. If we continue the hard work of reform, we can do even more for the people of Massachusetts,” said Romney.
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 06-03-2004 Press Release

2003

• “A true partnership means sharing in good times and bad. In good times, the Commonwealth shared its prosperity with cities and towns,” said Romney in an address to the Massachusetts Municipal Association. “Now that the state has hit hard times, we need cities and towns to join us in tightening their belts,” Romney said. “Our problem is simple: spending is high and cash is low. When we began our transition two months ago, every indication was that the current budget was balanced. That is not the case, and immediate, hard action is required to achieve fiscal balance,” said Romney. According to Romney, his current “9C authority” would force disproportionate cuts on the elderly, poor and disabled. “If we are forced to balance this budget on the backs of our seniors and the poor, we will expose the core services of government to disproportionate cuts,” said Romney. “That is not fair. The best solution is to spread the burden.” ** Governor Mitt Romney, 01-10-2003 Press Release

• While he is sacrificing $2 million in savings by blocking some of the proposed changes, Romney said programs that provide shelter to the homeless “should not be gutted,” calling them “essential services.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 01-17-2003 Press Release

• “The current communications structure in government makes no sense. It grew over time without any planning or thought. It’s an extremely wasteful system,” said Romney. “By streamlining our communications function, we can do a better job with less people for the taxpayers of Massachusetts.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 01-28-2003 Press Release

• “Throughout this process, we have been guided by a desire to simplify our health and human services agencies to better serve recipients. Rather than requiring families to navigate the current red tape jungle, we are consolidating functions to better help those who cannot help themselves,” Romney said. Families requiring HHS services now face a confusing alphabet soup of state agencies to access the help they need.
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 02-24-2003 Press Release

• Romney said the HHS agencies would be divided into four different groups – Children, Youth and Families; Disabilities and Community Services; Health; and Elder Affairs – based on their common functions. Romney said, “We want to make sure that any person or family in need of an HHS service will be able to get that service easily. Under my plan, the bureaucracy will be simpler to navigate while saving significant time for state employees and significant money for taxpayers.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 02-24-2003 Press Release

• “It would be impossible to reach unanimity on every aspect of our budget, but it’s clear there is widespread support for the concept of change. We face a choice between either cutting waste out of government, or facing a new job killing tax increase every year from here on out,” said Romney.
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 02-27-2003 Press Release

• “We will continue to be a generous state when it comes to caring for the poor, the disabled and the elderly. We will be far less generous when it comes to patronage, waste and inefficiencies,” said Romney.
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 02-27-2003 Press Release

• “The members of the Legislature and the Administration have successfully closed the $650 million budget gap and set a precedent of cooperation that will help us produce a fair and balanced budget for the next fiscal year,” said Romney.
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 03- 05-2003 Press Release

Press Releases on the budget:

2003 press releases

01-10-2003, Mitt Romney seeks expanded authority to balance budget

01-17-2003, Mitt Romney signs bill giving him broader budgetary powers

01-28-2003, With budget crisis looming, Mitt Romney moves to cut press operation

02-04-2003, Mitt Romney nixes state printing contract for budget

02- 04-2003, Dispelling the myths, commonly asked questions on the budget

02-24-2003, Mitt Romney announces HHS reorganization as part of budget

02-27-2003, Advocates show broad based support for Mitt Romney budget

03- 05-2003, Fiscal year 2003 deficit closed, focus shifts to 04

2004 press releases

06-03-2004, Mitt Romney delivers first dividend on reform

2005 press releases

03-15-2005-, Governor Mitt Romney announces bond rating upgrade for commonwealth’s debt

2006 press releases

07-08-2006, Governor Mitt Romney signs $25.2 billion fy 2007 state budget

Share on Facebook

Share This

“Machine”: Getting $787 billion from Congress in February when no elected member had fully read and understood the economic stimulus package. This is behavior worthy of the Chicago political machine. If no elected officials know what is in the bill, how can someone assert that this was an act of self-government?

“Machine”: Rejecting the will of the American people expressed through town hall meetings, tea parties, polls and elections by ramming through an unpopular 2,600-page health-care bill. The moment of real clarity came after Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election, when by every traditional American measure the Democrats should have stepped back and said to voters, “I hear you.” Instead, their actions said: “Your voice and vote do not matter.”

Newt is saying that passing a bill that no one had read, and doing something that is unpopular makes the Obama administration a “machine”.

I think we can make a better argument. First of all, republicans say that it good for a president to not be ruled by political surveys. How can we make an argument that Bush should have ignored protest over the war in Iraq, but Obama is operating a political machine when he ignores protest? This has nothing to do with if health care or Iraq were good, just if presidents who do them are operating “political machines”.

Lets help Newt out, and show that we deserve to be spokesmen for our party, more than he does. Machines dole out jobs as political rewards. Obama does seem to be operating a machine the way he doles out rewards to the UAW, trial lawyers, his backers on wall street, and with the reward for unions in the healthcare bill.

Am I wrong that Newt makes a weak argument? If so, help me make a better one and leave a comment.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Perhaps, or better yet, I Should Have elaborated. I’ve watched this video interview before, I am just puzzled as to why it does not appear. It is a few years old, but I don’t imagine that Should have anything to do with it. It says exclusive PJM video interview, I’m hoping its not the case that you have to be a paying member though.

But as I can only imagine it Is the case, would any of happen to have an account with PJM and would be willing to record the video? We won’t be authorized to put it on Youtube or any such thing, but we can view it for our personal use.

I am going to see if its around somewhere on the Internets. I just remember it as being a really good interview with Mitt looking very good and having all the answers.

Share on Facebook

Share This

You would think that if someone made their living by what they right, that they would want to articulate a clear point, with everything the write. Apparently the point is that Obamacare is unpopular, it is similar to Romneycare, and so Romney is going to have a hard time. This is horse race mentality where all you care about is who is doing well, and who is doing bad. It doesn’t make an argument for why something is good or bad. People like allhpundit are the cheerleaders who sit on the side of political debates, and say, “Oh-oh looks like someone is in trouble”.

Romney balanced the budget every year he was in office, and left a 3 billion dollar surplus. He worked in the most liberal of states on an issue that democrats have been bitching about for the past 30 years. He, for the first time, actually got something done, and he did it with the approval of the Heritage foundation. Allahpundit is a cheerleader for one side, and his side is the stupid side. He is not going to tell you that the Heritage foundation approved of Romneycare. He is only going to quote the CATO institute, which is not a republican-ish think tank but a libertarian-ish think tank. Allahpundit is not going to make a clear argument, that because Romney (who balanced the budget every year in the most liberal of states, and Vetoed many of the aspects of Romney care) is going to be an economic liberal because there is no case to be made. He is going to make nonsensical arguments that lead no where. He is going to bring up information that only appeals to other people who only care about image, and who can be made to look bad, in a one way conversation that does not involve smart people.

If Romneycare was having problems in Massachusetts, don’t you think the guy who everyone believes has the most cred as an economic conservative would have fixed his experiment if he was still Governor? Does Allahpundit not want the states to try anything new? Did Allahpundit know that Romneycare wouldn’t work? Why didn’t he warn us then, if it is so apparent now that Romney shouldn’t have done Romneycare?

I’m glad that Liberal states are able to experiment. I’m glad that Romney kept Romneycare from being more liberal. I do not think, as Allahpundit must, that Romney has new secret programs up his sleave that he wants to unleash on America with new individual mandates. Perhaps Allahpundit’s point is that he thinks Romney is going to ask us to all purchase flood insurance. If this is his freaking argument, lets hear it clearly explained, if you make your living writing, lets have your argument.

I’m running late for work, but this is the big question…

Now that we are warming up for a big debate about immigration, is Allahpundant going to bring up Huckabee’s liberal record on immigration every day? That would be an intellectually consistent thing to do. But again, I just have to say, what is the point on Romneycare? He brings it up every day on Hotair, and I never get any new information. Just the same old story, but I never get an argument. Is the argument that Romney who balanced the budget every hear, and left a surplus, would have done Romneycare on the nation, when he says that should be left to the states, but that he would have done it on the nation at a time when we have trillion dollar deficits? Is that the argument? Is that the point? If Allahpundant brings this issue up every day, he must think it serves an important point, or argument. I would like to know what his point is.

This has been a challenge to Allahpundit to make the case that Romney will be an economic liberal as president.

Share on Facebook

Share This

We should gradually increase the retirement age:

Reasons to agree: %

1. If the baby boomer’s take the same social security that has been given out for year, it will leave a terrible burden on the children of the future.
2. The average American’s life expectancy has risen by more than 10 years since Social Security was created.
3. Increasing the retirement age by 1 or 2 years would help get the system closer to sustainability.
4. If the system allowed for exceptions, it wouldn’t be cruel.
5. Most people in there 60s want to keep working.
6. Many older Americans are healthy, vital, and want to stay engaged in meaningful work.
7. No one wants to work forever, and you don’t have have to. So save for your own retirement! Don’t expect the government to keep paying you to retire at the same age, when people keep living longer and longer. You shouldn’t ask what your country can do for you, you should ask what you can do for your country. Social security will go bankrupt.
8. Midnight oil wrote a song that says: “The time has come to say fairs fair, to pay the rent, to pay our share. The time has come, a facts a fact, it belongs to them, lets give it back”. He was talking about some aborigine issue in Australia, but the issue is the same. You shouldn’t expect the government to give you more in retirement, than you payed in while you were working. You can’t be blamed for trying to “get your share” but when we are being honest with each other, we need to do what is right.

R2A(+): 8 R2AA(+): 0 R2DA(-): 0

Reasons to disagree: %

1. (Reasoning score: )

R2D(-): 0 R2AD(-): 0 R2DD(+): 0 Total Score: 8

---

Most Probable interest of those who agree:  %

1. They believe logic supports their position outside of any ulterior motive
2. Strengthening America

Most Probable interest of those who disagree: %

1. They believe logic supports their position outside of any ulterior motive

Share on Facebook

Share This

That’s because the 2008 GOP presidential hopeful elected to skip the conference to continue his book tour, unlike many of his rivals.

Romney triumphed by a single vote over Ron Paul, who took second place, 439 votes to 438. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich tied for third with 18 percent of the vote each.

1,806 ballots were cast by the conservative activists who attended the conference. No other candidate got more than four percent of the vote.

On the straw poll ballot, conference attendees were asked who they would vote for if the Republican presidential primary were today. They were asked for a first and second choice from among nine candidates: Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Gary Johnson, Palin, Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Romney and Rick Santorum. (See the ballot here.)

Huckabee, Pawlenty and Romney did not appear at the conference, though Pawlenty sent in a video address. Some rumored 2012 candidates, including Rick Perry, Haley Barbour and Bobby Jindal asked to be taken off the ballot, Hotline’s Reid Wilson reported.

Supporters of both Romney and Paul spent money in an effort to win the straw poll, with a group called “Evangelicals for Mitt” paying for 200 tickets for supporters and Paul’s Campaign for Liberty offering more than 600 discounted tickets for Paul backers, according to Washington Post’s David Weigel.

Paul’s mostly-college age supporters stood out form the rest of the conference-goers and cheered their preferred candidate loudly when he spoke. Many other attendees remained silent or offered only polite applause during Paul’s speech. Paul won the Conservative Political Action Conference in February on the strength of his passionate if limited following.

“Evangelicals for MItt” gave away books, buttons and piggy banks to conference attendees and urged them to cast ballots. Organizers claimed they did not coordinate with Romney’s Political Action Committee or staff, though one attendee speculated that they found her via Romney’s e-mail list and offered a free ticket.

Straw polls offer a signal about the level of support for various candidates, though detractors are quick to note they are easily manipulated and that the pool of respondents do not necessarily represent the party overall. The winner in 2006 was former Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist, who won when the conference was held in his home state of Memphis.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Well of course a General is going to say that. A general’s self interest is tied up in his citizens willingness to sacrifice for the good of the country. But Eisenhower wasn’t talking to the world at large. If I lived in North Korea I might decide (if I had access to the facts) that North Korea is not worth sacrificing “all” for. Also, after WWII the people of Germany felt like they were “used” to fulfill a mad man’s nightmarish vision of the world. If everyone was willing to be cannon fodder for every general, our planet would be a mess.

John Lennon also seemed to doubt if we should sacrifice all for our country. He said: “Imagine there’s no countries. It isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for… Imagine all the people. Living life in peace.”

If debates rewarded those who used sound logic we would live in a much better world. But if sound logic is not rewarded in presidential debates, no one cares at all about sound logic in pop songs. The goal of pop songs is to express your feelings. And if you are a self absorbed, self righteous person that gets their kicks from sounding counterintuitive, you will write songs that make you feel good, and those songs will carry those types of messages.

But if you don’t mind being a kill-joys, lets look at the words. If we didn’t have countries, would we loose things to “kill or die for”? True, John, you wouldn’t kill for your country any more, but you would drastically improve the chances of being killed because there is NO country. Countries provide order. A country can be pretty bad and still be better than anarchy. But it is like arguing with the wind. He didn’t say it as a serious argument, wanting to have a serious debate. It is like trying to have an intelligent debate with John Stewart when he has decided to get on his high horse and pat himself on his back for how superior he is. John Lennon, and Stewart some times don’t want to have debates, they just want to say counterintuitive things deciding to project a style, instead of projecting a substantive argument…

But when idiots are not willing to argue, we need to still prove them wrong.

Our country, which Eisenhower was talking about, has a unique history. Lincoln said that we are constantly “testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived (in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal) and so dedicated, can long endure.” If our country is under threat, and we fail to solve its problems, we will be letting down those tens of thousands of people who died thinking they were dying for something bigger than themselves.

But I digress.

Intellectuals from the west… self hating intellectuals all across America and Europe are asking if our values are worth fighting for. No Apology: The Case for American Greatness says that Western values are worth “giving your all”, and deep sacrifice.

Perhaps I bring up John Stewart and John Lennon in an incoherent way. I like John Stewart a lot of the time. He if funny. But that is just the thing: I am tired of stupid funny people, and people that can sing, who think they can think. Romney’s book is not as Funny as America: A Citizens Guide to Democracy Inaction. But I think our country needs another smug sarcastic commentator (again I don’t know why I am contrasting Romney to Stewart) like Stewart about as much as we need another sub-prime loan disaster.

I like Stewart. I think he is perhaps a good way to introduce idiots to serious topics. But at some point our country is going to have to grow up, and seriously fix the problems we have. Our country is worth every sacrifice that we have to make to fix it. Because, as Ike said, “history does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.”

Lets not be weak. We need to be serious about our future, and be willing to make the corrections that are needed to fix our country.

If a serious person was to read the books written by Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin there is only one potential president in the bunch. But does our country read serious books any more? Do people care about the issues, or are we going to sit back and make stupid decisions by getting all our information from people who think everything is a joke.

Romney’s father lost to Richard Nixon, because the media freaked out over the use of the word “brainwash” and our country suffered for it. I don’t mean to say that history repeats itself, but you saw the joy in people’s faces when Obama won the nomination, but they should have seen the future: they should have seen that he was not prepared. They were warned. America, consider this warning. You need to think about your future. You need to read the books written by the possible presidential candidates. Make your decision based on good information, not what the journalist tell you. Don’t let the media focus on stupid things.

I have not joined a tea party. I don’t want to carry a sign. Nothing worth being said can be put on a sign. I don’t just hope that Republicans win, but I hope that we use this time to really figure out what the best course of action will be when we get back in power. Lets focus less on the power, less on the people, and more on what is right. Lets be the most educated, best read, and most articulate side in 2012. I continue to think, after these years, that Romney is the right person for this job.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Its sort of a boring topic, but the kind of thing that a former CEO, and business consultant would bring to government.

Join the debate! Just leave a comment, and I’ll add it to the correct location. Once I get some programmers to help me, this will be automatic.

Reasons to agree: %

1. The federal government requires companies to publish a balance sheet.
2. A budget doesn’t tell the whole story. A balance sheet would tell how much debt their is, undersized equity, it would show amoritized liabilities. Publishing all this information would allow us to see, talk about, and fix our real problems. We only fix the problems that we know about. As far as government is concerned, those of us who work for a living only know about problems with the government that we hear about from the media. The media reports what is in the budget, and what is in the budget does not tell the entire story.
3. Not publishing a balance sheet helps politicians “give big gifts to their friends, donors, or special interest groups without the public at large becoming aware.”

R2A(+): 1 R2AA(+): 0 R2DA(-): 0

The current price to buy stock in this belief is $0.95 per share

The Idea Stock Exchange score for this idea is: +3-1=2

The percent that agree is: 92%

Share on Facebook

Share This

Reasons to agree: %

R2A(+): 10 R2AA(+): 1 R2DA(-): 0

Reasons to disagree: %

1. In 2007 several reputable polls determined that Europeans believe America posed the greatest threat to international peace. That many people can’t be wrong, without reasons to agree with them.

2. People should fear American power because during the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviet Union and USA came very close to destroying the planet.

R2D(-): 1 R2AD(-): 0 R2DD(+): 0 Total Score: 10+1-1=10

---

Most Probable interest of those who agree:  %

1. They believe logic supports their position outside of any ulterior motive
2. Groupism.

Most Probable interest of those who disagree: %

1. They believe logic supports their position outside of any ulterior motive
2. Groupism. If you are not from America, you will think it is bad.

---

Books that can be said to agree: %

1. No Apology, By Mitt Romney

Books that can be said to disagree: %

---

People that agree:

1. Mitt Romney

People that disagree:

1. Europeans from 2007.

---

Webpages that agree:

Webpages that disagree:

---

Values that agree:

1. 
   

Values that disagree:

It is nerdy to analyze issues with this much detail.

The current price to buy stock in this belief is $0.95 per share

The Idea Stock Exchange score for this idea is: +3-1=2

The percent that agree is: 92%

Share on Facebook

Share This

America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation — rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends. He promised better; we deserved better.

He calls his accomplishment “historic” — in this he is correct, although not for the reason he intends. Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process — he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting. What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, “what starts twisted, ends twisted.”

His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.

Obama one payer system

Reducing Spiraling Health Care Costs

Rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all, government-run system, we must recognize the importance of the role of the states in leading reform and the need for innovation in dealing with rising Health Care costs and the problem of the uninsured. By expanding and deregulating the private health insurance market, we can decrease costs and ensure that more Americans have access to affordable, portable, quality, private health insurance.

CHALLENGE: Health Care costs are spiraling out of control. Tens of millions of Americans can’t afford health insurance and millions more are worried about losing their coverage. Democrats believe that the solution to these problems is a one-size-fits-all, government-run, socialized Health Care system — a course that threatens medical progress and restricts free markets. They think that government can do a better job of choosing a doctor and making better Health Care decisions than individual Americans can. Reform of our Health Caresystem must address the twin problems of high costs and the uninsured while leaving in place the elements of our system that promote creativity, innovation, and consumer choice.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “We need to find a way to reduce the rate of growth of spending in Health Care in our country – it’s now 17 percent of our GDP. When I was a consultant in the insurance industry, some years ago in the 1980s, it was 11 percent. The idea it would get to 17 percent was unthinkable. And it continues to move northward.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Florida Medical Association, 8/24/07)

“The 45 million who don’t have insurance – if they get sick they go to the emergency room for care. And that’s not ideal care, as you know, it’s not the preventative care they need, doesn’t get them the prescription drugs to stave off an acute condition developing from a chronic condition.

And the cost of the health provided there at the emergency room is not paid for by them because they don’t have insurance.Who’s it paid for by? Well, by the people who do have insurance So not having insurance is not good for them, doesn’t give them good quality Health Care – and it’s not good for everybody else, because they’re having to pay for it, through their taxes or their premiums. The problem of the uninsured is a problem for all Americans.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Florida Medical Association, 8/24/07)

The Romney Plan: Use A Free Market, Federalist Approach To Make Quality, Affordable Health Insurance Available To Every American

Deregulate State Markets. Encourage states to eliminate the cumbersome insurance regulations that drive costs up and providers out of the market.

Fix The Tax Code. Level the playing field by making all Health Care expenses tax deductible, eliminating the special treatment afforded employer-provided health plans.

Stop The Free-Riders. Use some of the money currently spent on providing expensive “free care” for the uninsured at emergency rooms to instead help the truly needy buy private insurance.

Reform The Medical Liability System. Institute federal caps on non-economic and punitive damage awards to eliminate frivolous lawsuits and bring an end to the practice of defensive medicine.

Promote Innovation In Medicaid. Give states flexibility to spend their Medicaid dollars in whatever way they find most efficient and effective.

Bring Health Care Into The 21st Century. Improve quality and enhance transparency by introducing the same competitive forces that drive innovation in other sectors of the economy.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “My plan would allow people to purchase private insurance, not government insurance. No government-managed Health Care and no increase in taxes.” (Tim Rohwer, “Romney Visits Bluffs,” Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil, 3/23/07)

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “But we say let’s rely on personal responsibility. Help people buy their own private insurance. Get our citizens insured, not with a government takeover, not with new taxes needed, but instead with a free marketbased system that gets all of our citizens in the system. No more free rides.” (ABC, Republican Presidential Debate, Des Moines, IA, 8/5/07)

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “Conservative principles have the answers for health care. I think I’m going to be able to demonstrate to you today the conservative principles of personal responsibility and free market dynamics and choice and personal care – these kinds of elements allow us to reform Health Care in such a way that we can solve the problems that America faces in Health Care without having a government takeover, without having socialized medicine with all its drawbacks and all its weaknesses.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Florida Medical Association, 8/24/07)

Press Release from Governor Romney regarding Health care

2006

• 02-07-2006, Romney proposes $36.5m in funding for pandemic preparedness
• 04-12-2006, Romney signs landmark health insurance reform bill
• 05-25-2006, Renowned health care strategist named to head connector
• 07-26-2006, Governor Romney announces federal approval for commonwealth’s healthcare reform plan

2005

• 04-06-2005, Romney launches health care reform in Massachusetts
• 04-07-2005, Romney takes health care reform on the road
• 10-18-2005, Romney launches new health care tool for consumers

2004

• 01-12-2004, Romney proposes increased funding for medical examiner
• 06-18-2004, Romney makes smoking history in bay state
• 11-15-2004, Romney appoints physical fitness and sports committee
• 12-06-2004, Romney, health care leaders tout medical innovations

2003

• 01-16-2003, Romney appoints new public health commissioner
• 02-21-2003, Romney fights for prescription drug coverage for seniors
• 03-19-2003, Illness outbreak detection system is national model
• 04-14-2003, Romney calls for reforming state employee health care
• 09-29-2003, Romney announces shot in the arm for flu vaccine program

Share on Facebook

Share This

What a question! Can you imagine what would have happened to the reporter who asked Obama that? He would have lost his job.

From page 10 it says: “There are a number of thoughtful people around the world who don’t welcome America’s strength. In 2007, several reputable polls asked European citizens which nation they perceived as the greatest threat to international peace. Their answer was the United States. I was incredulous when I first read this, and presumed the respondent must have had the Iraq War on the minds when they answered. Surely they hadn’t considered what Russia would do in Eastern Europe if America was weak; what China would do in Taiwan; what the Taliban would do in Afghanistan what Fidal Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have in mind for their neighbors. The very existence of American power helps to hold tyrants in check and reduces the risk of precipitous war.”

“Does America make mistakes? Absolutely. We never fully understood the enormously complex political, economic, and military issues we faced in Vietnam, and we were wrong in our assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. But in every case throughout modern history in which America has exercised military power, we have acted with good intentions–not to colonize, not to subjugate, never to oppress.

Share on Facebook

Share This

So anyways it seems that Romney is very informed, and makes an obvious case for how we can stay strong. Democrats try to say that it is a republican talking points as though a republican should not make republican recommendations, and that democrat politicians never write books making democratic recommendations. If you oversimplify, and misrepresent something it much easier to dismiss. But I believe that if America dismisses the warnings in this and other books written by intelligent people (that aren’t just self obsessed blather) we risk the freedoms of our children, and billions of people.

Well it’s sort of a rough draft of a book review, but I don’t get paid for this, and so it will have to do. Read the book, tell me what you think, but more importantly buy it for a democrat. I’m listening to Guilty by Ann Coulter on the way to work, and reading Romney at home… and let’s just say that Romney is more likely to reach an independent and less likely to brow beat them. Coulter is entertaining to watch as a warrior with the left, she makes serious arguments, and brings facts to the table. But for me Romney writes a presidential book that I think would be very difficult to argue with his policy recommendations. Again, if it says the truth, and we ignore it, we will be hurt not him. The only question is if what Romney says we should do what we should really do, and I think it is obvious that we should not spend more than we have, that we need strong families, and that more specifically his policy recommendations will lead to these outcomes.

Check out the article on Wikipedia here.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Tracy Parker, a wedding hostess from Centerville, was already starting to read her pre-autographed copy of his book, included in the ticket price. Parker said the evening was a surprise 50th birthday present from her husband, Rich.

“I’m excited to read it. Oh my gosh, there are so many things I think about,” she said, tapping the cover of the book. “I have no idea what we should be doing. But this man is so smart.”

Some Utahns in the audience paid extra to spend time with Romney at a reception held before the speech that also was attended by fellow Republicans politicians, including Sens. Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

Chaffetz joked about the large turnout for Romney. “He’s a rock star. Jon Bon Jovi doesn’t get this many people.”

Larry Deans, who moved from Southern California to Hooper, Weber County, after losing his aerospace job, said Romney spoke at the reception about his time as head of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and “how warm and wonderful the people of Utah are.”

Deans said he wants to see Romney make another run for the White House to bring his business expertise to Washington, D.C. “I shook his hand and told him I wanted him to run again in 2012,” Deans said.

Romney’s wife, Ann, spoke to the crowd before his speech, reminding them of the years their family spent in Utah during the 2002 Winter Games.

“We had a life-changing experience by being here. It was such a wonderful blessing in our lives,” Ann Romney said, noting they were just in Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

“Yes, those Games are nice, but there’s nothing like Salt Lake,” she said.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700016373/Rock-star-Mitt-Romney-gets-big-ovation-in-Utah.html?pg=2

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mitt Romney’s new book, “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness,” will debut on top of the New York Times bestseller list due out March 21, a source tells me.

Romney’s book tour has, so far, attracted pretty large crowds, serving — along with the book sales — to reassure his supporters that, though he may not draw Sarah Palin style hordes, he’s a figure of genuine popular interest. He reportedly attracted more than 1,000 people to a book signing in Naples, Fla. last night.

Romney’s in Michigan today on a leg of his 19-state book tour.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s recent endorsement of Arizona Sen. John McCain’s re-election was widely viewed as another sign of how far the relationship between the two fierce rivals from the 2008 Republican presidential primaries has evolved.

More cynical observers noted that Romney, a leading GOP 2012 White House prospect, likely wants to remain on the good side of McCain, his party’s 2008 nominee.

But to some in the camp of Senate challenger J.D. Hayworth, Romney’s embrace of McCain came as a personal blow.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, perhaps Hayworth’s highest-profile ally in the state, previously was Romney’s honorary Arizona campaign chairman, going so far as to stump for Romney and against McCain in the key early presidential-race states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Arpaio said Romney’s decision to back McCain won’t diminish his respect for him.

“If he runs again, I’m sure he would like to have McCain support him,” Arpaio said. “Is that how politics operates? One day you’re on one side, and the next day you’re on the other side?”

Jason Rose, Hayworth’s campaign spokesman and political consultant, was Romney’s state director during the 2008 race.

“Governor Romney is a good man who would make a great president,” Rose said in an e-mail when asked about Romney’s choice of McCain over Hayworth.

Meanwhile, a Facebook group called “Mitt Romney Supporters for J.D. Hayworth” as of late Friday had 137 members, including Hayworth himself.

In other developments:

• Local “tea party” activists apparently aren’t totally sold on Hayworth as a conservative alternative to the more moderate McCain. Organizers of four tea-party groups in Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff and Mohave County issued a joint statement Monday saying they are declining to endorse in the GOP Senate primary.

“The Tea Party is a non-partisan, grass-roots movement that stands for limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility,” Tucson Tea Party co-founder Robert Mayer said in a written statement. “Both McCain and Hayworth’s records during their many years in Washington leave much to be desired on these issues.”

But Hayworth still can point to local tea-party support - many in attendance at his Feb. 15 campaign kickoff identified themselves with the movement - and he recently did secure the endorsement of the national group TaxDay TeaParty.com.

• Rep. Charles Rangel’s ethics troubles have prompted three House Democrats from Arizona to jettison campaign cash linked to the embattled New York Democrat.

Rep. Harry Mitchell returned $28,000 and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords donated $21,000 to veterans groups, aides confirmed. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick relinquished $14,000, the Associated Press reported.

Rangel, under fire for multiple ethics issues, on Wednesday said he was stepping aside as chairman of the prestigious House Ways and Means Committee.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mitt Romney, who is clearly positioning himself for a 2012 run at the White House starts his book tour this week.

The book is called “No apology: The case for American greatness.”

Despite the rumor, it is not called “Mitt Romney Goes Rogue”. That’s Palin territory. And it is not called, “I’m a Mormon. Deal With It.”

Anyhow, this media blitz looks like a presidential campaign schedule. He’s going to 19 states and among them are the political hot bed states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania and Nevada.

The Romney campaign says the former Massachusetts governor will stop by The Brody File for an interview.

I promised that we would have bagels and lox in the green room for him. Not sure if he cares but that would be a big draw for my family members.

Quick Brody File straw poll. You like salted or unsalted lox?

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2010/03/01/romneys-presidential-book-tour.aspx

Share on Facebook

Share This

By MICHELE DARGAN
Daily News Staff Writer

Saturday, February 27, 2010

The Palm Beach Republican Club will host former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney March 7.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidate will appear at a reception, lecture and book signing at 5 p.m. at the Marriott West Palm Beach, 1001 Okeechobee Blvd.

Romney will sign copies of his book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.

The event is open to the public at $95 per person. The price includes the reception and photographs, one beverage ticket, lecture and one book.

The club also is organizing another gathering after the public event: dinner with Romney at a private home in Palm Beach. That ticket is $500 each, which includes all of the above plus dinner in a small setting. There is a limited number of tickets available for the dinner.

R.S.V.P. by Wednesday. Send a check payable to The Palm Beach Republican Club, P.O. Box 2622, Palm Beach, FL 33480.

Call 655-5545 or 644-4229.

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/2010/02/27/briefromney022710.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=7

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mitt Romney is the early preference, by a small margin, among Republican voters in both Texas and New Mexico to be their 2012 nominee for President.

In Texas he gets 32% with Mike Huckabee right behind at 29%, and Sarah Palin further back at 23%. In New Mexico he receives 33% to 32% for Palin and 18% for Huckabee.

The internals of these polls suggests a path to the nomination for Romney: stay competitive among conservative voters while holding a large lead with moderates. In Texas the three are bunched up among conservatives with Huckabee leading at 32% to 30% for Romney and 27% for Palin. But Romney’s blowing the other two out of the water with moderates, getting 40% to 22% for Huckabee and 13% for Palin.

It’s a similar story in New Mexico. Palin leads Romney 34-31 with conservatives, but Romney has the overall advantage thanks to a 37-29 advantage with moderates.

In each state Romney is particularly strong with senior citizens, who tend to comprise a large portion of the Republican primary electorate. He has an 11 point lead over Huckabee with them in Texas and 13 point lead over Palin with them in New Mexico.

One of the more interesting things about Palin’s numbers is that she performs worse with women than men in both states. In New Mexico she gets 33% from men and 31% from women, while in Texas she gets 26% from men and 21% from women. It doesn’t appear she’d be able to count on a boost from Republican women in a hypothetical White House bid.

Obviously it’s incredibly early and things will change a lot between now and 2012, but it’s a good sign for Romney to have even this small early advantage in a couple of states that are a long way from home.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/02/good-numbers-for-romney.html

Share on Facebook

Share This

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is among the most respected and effective public policy organizations fighting for hardworking Californians. The association is the state’s largest grassroots taxpayer organization with more than 200,000 members. There is no organization that better understands the relationship between low taxes and individual prosperity.

I am honored and grateful to receive the endorsement.

“High taxes and out-of-control spending have pushed state government to the brink of bankruptcy, and we need strong leadership to put California back on track,” Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal said. “Meg Whitman is the only fiscal conservative in the race, and her commitment to cutting spending and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse is the way to restore prosperity to the Golden State.”

Share on Facebook

Share This

Peter Flaherty is a former prosecutor and is considering a run at Coakley. Flaherty was an assistant district attorney in Suffolk County under District Attorneys Newman Flanagan and Ralph Martin.

Peter Flaherty served as deputy manager of Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign. He then served as the director of Romney’s new national political vehicle, the Free and Strong America PAC.

The Boston Globe quoted Flaherty recently:

“I’ve been approached by several people, and I’ve told them I’m flattered by their interest, and it’s something I’m going to discuss at length with my family.”

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/19439/Longtime_Mitt_Romney_Aide_to_Challenge_Martha_Coakley.html

Share on Facebook

Share This

One of the first big moves of 2012 — Mitt Romney Names Matt Rhoades PAC Executive Director:

BOSTON — Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC announced today that Matt Rhoades, who has held senior positions on major presidential campaigns and at the Republican National Committee, will serve as the PAC’s executive director. … ‘He’s been a friend and an adviser for several years now and I’m pleased that he has agreed to run the day-to-day operations of my Free and Strong America PAC. He shares with me the view that 2010 is going to be a critical election year, with many races and lots of opportunities to elect Republican candidates,’ said Governor Romney.

“Rhoades is currently a Vice President with DCI Group … He replaces Peter Flaherty, who will become a Senior Adviser to the PAC. He previously served as Communications Director for Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign … During the 2006 election cycle, Rhoades was a Deputy Communications Director in charge of research for the Republican National Committee. He also was Research Director for the 2004 Bush/Cheney re-election campaign. Rhoades also has held the position of White House Liaison at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in the Bush Administration. Prior to that, he was an Associate Director in the White House Presidential Personnel Office. He holds a B.A. from Syracuse University and an M.A. from George Washington University.”

Rhoades, a big J-E-T-S fan, will be moving to Red Sox Nation.

Kevin Madden: “Matt is one of those rare professionals who blends strategic thinking with a superb management style. The governor has a lot of respect for and confidence in Matt and his leadership abilities. Those sentiments are widely shared by everyone counted as part of the Romney team.”

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

After four long years of political drift and massive deficits, we are going to have to unite behind the “best businessman in North America,” as CNBC’s Jim Cramer said a couple of years ago. We can’t afford the luxury of anymore bone-headed experiments in socialism in this country. We are going to have to return to the discipline of the “profit and loss” statement. If any proposal, from either party, can’t be proven to be deficit-neutral, the automatic answer is “No!”

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

To the editor:

Hudson Todd is correct in his analysis that this year’s IMPACT Symposium does not feature a Democrat. However, the lineup that the Speakers Committee developed over the last six months has depth and promises to be the most compelling IMPACT in several years. Both major parties are sympathetic to capitalism, and, as such, the committee needed to go beyond the labels of Republican and Democrat, as we have many times in the past, to find speakers who would cause us to ask the deepest question: Is capitalism right?

The goal of our committee was to focus on a domestic issue for this year’s IMPACT, as the past few years have dealt with foreign policy. We selected former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as the keynote because he has the experience of an American businessman and politician. He was CEO of Bain & Company, a management-consulting firm, not to mention a former presidential candidate and a strong contender for the Republican nomination in 2012. Yes, he will present a more conservative economic dialogue, but we hope that his perspective will be refreshing and balanced.

As for the evening with journalist John Stossel and former presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader, it will not be a “debate.” It will be a point-counterpoint discussion that will provide two unique outlooks on the current economic situation and what the future looks like for our capitalist system. We hope that following this event students will take both the positions and information provided to them and form their own opinions. We have chosen two speakers who are radically opposed in their viewpoints in an attempt to cover the entire spectrum during the discussion. The tradition of IMPACT is to have controversial discussions about current events, and Speakers Committee expects Stossel and Nader to disagree with each other in the spirit of this tradition.

Stossel will not be discussing global warming, and Nader will not be dwelling on his presidential campaigns. Their discussion, as well as Romney’s speech, will focus entirely on the American economy and its future. Since 1964 IMPACT Symposium has enhanced the political dialogue on campus by inviting diverse speakers. This year’s symposium follows up on last year’s (which did not feature a Republican) in returning IMPACT to its great days of the 1960s and 1970s.

In one year, IMPACT hosted Stokley Carmichael, Martin Luther King Jr. and Strom Thurmond, and the committee more recently convinced Ann Coulter and Al Sharpton to share a stage. We’ve also brought Bobby Kennedy, George H.W. Bush and Margaret Thatcher to campus. The Speakers Committee invites everyone to join us for what is expected to be another animated, enlightening symposium.

Ralph Nader and John Stossel will speak on March 30, followed by Mitt Romney on March 31. Both events are free and will take place in Langford Auditorium. All attendees of the Mitt Romney event will receive a copy of his new book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.”

Ethel Mickey
Speakers Committee

http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/12789

Share on Facebook

Share This

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Last week, America turned to Washington to tune in to the President’s State of the Union address and his budget proposal. We were promised hope for a path through these difficult economic times; we wanted change from Washington’s status quo. Unfortunately, we got neither.

As I was talking to Californians this week, I heard people say again and again how tired they are of Washington’s rhetoric and lack of real action. Barbara Boxer and her colleagues say they will fight for you and me, but they waved the white flag a long time ago when it comes to saying no to the special interests.

We don’t need another career politician in Washington. We need common-sense problem solvers who will put the needs of Californians first. As a U.S. Senator, I will stand up for California and remind Washington who is really in charge: you.

Share on Facebook

Share This

He originally had planned to take his seat Feb.11, but a series of votes is on the Senate calendar and Sen. Brown decided he couldn’t take the chance on missing an important vote. In my opinion, given this Congress’ shameful record of passing major legislation on weekends and slipping in toxic 300 page amendments in the dead of night, Sen. Brown has made a wise choice. If we have learned anything over the course of the last year, it is that this collection of tax and power hungry politicians can not be trusted with anything that is not welded to the floor.

We have witnessed history in the making over the course of the last several weeks and some of us have actually participated in that history. Scott Brown’s “Brigade” was a group of grassroots activists in MA. and from around the country who rose up spontaneously, much like the Tea Party movement. It has been the best civics lesson that I have ever had, to be a part of a group of free Americans, exercising our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to help steer the country back from the edge of the cliff, a cliff that Obama and his hard left enablers in Congress were trying to push us over.

Of course, none of this would have happened without the courage and vision of two men. Mitt Romney and Scott Brown.

Mitt Romney, because of his foresight and dedication. Scott Brown because of his courage and willingness to buck the MA. Democratic machine.

Gov. Romney endorsed Scott Brown in October of 2009, when Scott had the proverbial snowball’s chance in a hot place to beat Martha “Landslide” Coakley and her armies of union and out-of-state campaign workers. That move was the essence of political leadership. Romney came out for Scott Brown before he became the hottest commodity in Washington or anyplace else for that matter.

No one on the national scene had ever heard of Sen. Brown at that point, but Gov. Romney used his unique knowledge of Massachusetts politics to pluck Scott from the state Senate and encourage him to run for the “Kennedy seat,” or as Scott famously put it, the “people’s seat.”

Gov. Romney then used his vaunted fund raising ability to help provide the seed money for Scott’s campaign and a group of Romney political operatives then swung into action to advise Scott on tactics and branding. They did a masterful job of that, winning convincingly in a state that has an Independent registration of 50% of the electorate and a 3 to 1 Democrat advantage.

In the process of helping to elect Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, Mitt Romney did more than any one person I can think of, with the possible exception of Scott Brown himself, to spare this country from the tender mercies of Obamacare. The significance of what happened in this special election may not have dawned on many people yet. We have seen the emergence of a strong, disciplined and a very effective opposition to the hard Left in this country.

I think it is highly ironic that the same people who tried in vain to label Mitt Romney a “flip-flopper” on abortion are strangely quiet these days. Where were you folks when the MA. election was coming down to the wire? You had plenty to say in 2007-2008 when Gov. Romney was running in the primaries and you were constantly informing the rest of us that Mitt was a johnny-come-lately to the pro-life camp. It’s unfortunate that you didn’t use some of that lung power to make calls from home to help Brown get elected and stop Obamacare from permanently funding abortion with your tax dollars.

So, the man who was derided as not having pro-life bona fides, who had allegedly taken the position only to court the Right Wing of the Republican Party, is the man who helped stop Obamacare dead in it’s tracks. In the process of achieving this historic win, Gov. Romney has worked to ensure that everyone in the medical profession who believes that abortion is morally wrong can continue to work in the field that they love. He has ensured that the monstrous taxes contained within this bill will not be implemented in an already weak economy.

As we move toward the 2010 elections, Gov. Romney will continue his role in rebuilding the Party and in the process, staking his richly deserved claim to the Republican Presidential nomination!

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

For those who have never been to my Encyclopedia Mittanica here are some links. I think we need to all link to each other and build up our audience.

2012 is not far away. Before we get there we need to know the past.

Here is a rundown of his 2008 Platform:

1. Keeping Americans Safe
2. Confronting Radical Jihad
3. Combating Nuclear Terrorism
4. Strengthening Latin American Allies and Confronting Tyrants
5. Winning the Global Economic Competition
6. Ending Energy Dependence
7. Curbing Out of Control Federal Spending
8. Ending the Tide of Illegal Immigration
9. Reducing Spiraling Health Care Costs
10. Confronting Threats to American Culture, Values, and Freedoms
11. Raising the Bar on Education

Share on Facebook

Share This

By Hannah Twillman

Ralph Nader, John Stossel will also debate during the IMPACT week.

The speakers at this year’s IMPACT Symposium will focus on “The Future of Capitalism,” bringing the spotlight to the U.S. for the first time in recent years.

Journalist John Stossel and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader will kick off the two-day event on March 30 with a point-counterpoint discussion titled “Business or the consumer first?” and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will present on “American Capitalism in the World” the following night, according to Speakers Committee co-chairs Heather Borowski and Theo Samets. Audience members will have the opportunity to ask questions after each speech.

“When I applied to chair IMPACT for this year, my goal was to bring the impact home,” Samets said. “Since Heather and I have been here, the theme of impact has always been foreign-policy related. For me, my first priority was really to have a domestic impact.”

Borowski echoed the current need to focus on the state of the country.

“The recession has given us a great opportunity to focus more internally. Society is trying to re-evaluate what to do,” Borowski said. “To bring in three prominent personalities to discuss that when clearly there are no right answers at this point is going to be interesting.”

Speakers Committee, part of Vanderbilt Programming Board, has planned and hosted IMPACT Symposium since 1964, featuring speakers to discuss controversial and current events during the two- to three-day event. This will be the first symposium since the death of former Chancellor Alexander Heard, who helped conceive the idea for the student-run event. His legacy will be honored the first night of the symposium, Samets said.

http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/12609

Share on Facebook

Share This

My husband and I opened Cielito Lindo, a Mexican restaurant in South El Monte, in 1986. We provide jobs for more than 60 people and contribute our fair share to federal, state and local tax authorities. But like so many small businesses in California, we’ve been forced to lay off employees, trim paychecks and cut overhead just to stay afloat.

For California’s economy to rebound, we must encourage growth among the state’s small businesses.

That’s why I am supporting Republican Meg Whitman to be California’s next governor. Meg has the right kind of leadership experience and bold vision to help small businesses grow our economy, and she will make certain California stays friendly to small business owners.

As governor, Meg will cut taxes, reduce regulations and modify workplace rules to give small businesses like mine greater incentive to invest, expand and hire more workers as well as keep California competitive with other states.

Meg Whitman is the only candidate in this race with common sense solutions to stimulate our economy. And return California again to a place where small businesses can prosper.

Teresa Hernandez
South El Monte

Share on Facebook

Share This

The group of Massachusetts operatives from The Shawmut Group who guided the former Massachusetts governor’s bid for president in 2008 were also behind Brown’s come-from-behind special election victory this week. Romney is also considered a likely White House contender in 2012.

The Shawmut Group was responsible for general consulting and media for Brown’s campaign, while survey giant Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies performed polling on behalf of the campaign and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

“In a very short period of time, the Brown campaign shifted from a sleepy Massachusetts campaign to a national campaign and did it with relative ease due in large part to the circle of folks around him,” said Joe Wall, a fellow former Romney aide. “A marathon presidential campaign prepares you for just about everything and their pedigree was a tremendous asset to a candidate that was largely unknown outside of Wrenthem, Mass., a mere couple weeks ago.”

The GOP consulting group includes former Romney campaign manager and gubernatorial chief of staff Beth Myers, Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom and former Romney deputy campaign Peter Flaherty. All three principals at the firm continue to work with Romney at his Free and Strong America Political Action Committee.

In an online post about the Brown victory, Newhouse also hailed the consulting team and the NRSC’s efforts.

“For a state so bereft of GOP officeholders, it’s a gold mine of political talent,” Newhouse wrote. “It was a seamless and selfless effort made possible by the NRSC and Mitt Romney’s on-the-ground team that made the difference here.”

In addition to Brown, The Shawmut Group also advises George Demos’ (R) bid in New York’s 1st District against Democratic Rep. Timothy H. Bishop, state House Minority Whip Rep. Rick Lazio’s (R) bid for governor in New York. The group used to work with Connecticut businessman Tom Foley(R) on his bid for Senate until November, when the Republican shifted races to run for governor instead.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee used Mark Mellman of The Mellman Group for polling and Saul Shorr for media.

State Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), who was expected to win the seat in a landslide until the last few weeks, used 4C Partners for national fundraising, GMMB for media and Celinda Lake to do her polling for the race.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

In a survey of 109 party leaders, political professionals and pundits, Palin finished 5th on the list of candidates most likely to win the party’s ‘12 WH nomination. Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was the overwhelming choice of the Party insiders.

Voters were asked to rank 5 candidates in the order of likeliness to capture the GOP nod. The results:

Likely To Win WH’12 Nomination (First place votes)

Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney 81 points (62%)
MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty 46 (9%)
Sen. John Thune 38 (12%)
MS Gov. Haley Barbour 28 (6%)
IN Gov. Mitch Daniels 25
Ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin 25

Rounding out the top 10: Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee, ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush, LA Gov. Bobby Jindal. Candidates other than Romney, Pawlenty, Thune and Barbour split the remaining 11% of first-place votes.

Meanwhile, Dem insiders too think Romney is the most likely candidate to run against Pres. Obama next year. The results, from interviews with 111 Dem insiders:

Likely To Win WH’12 Nomination

Romney 29%
Thune 15
Pawlenty 13
Daniels 11
Gingrich 6

And Dems are even less convinced Palin is a serious candidate. Just 3% of Dem insiders said she would be the candidate running against Obama in ‘12.

Then again, Palin fans can take heart, given just how long candidates have to go until the first nominating contests. In ‘06, insiders predicted that ex-Sen. George Allen (R-VA) would be the GOP nominee, and that Sec/State Hillary Clinton would easily win the Dem nomination.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/gop_insiders_so.php

Share on Facebook

Share This

As Romney likes to say: “Facts are stubborn things” and the fact is that Pastor Mike raised taxes in Arkansas and he will raise them nation wide if we are naive enough to give him the opportunity.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

HARDCOVER: $25.99
UNABRIDGED COMPACT DISC: $34.99

On his first presidential visit to address the European nations, President Obama felt it necessary to apologize for America’s international power. He repeated that apology when visiting Latin America, and again to Muslims worldwide in an interview broadcast on Al-Arabiya television.

In No Apology, Mitt Romney asserts that American strength is essential—not just for our own well-being, but for the world’s. Governments such as China and a newly-robust Russia threaten to overtake us on many fronts, and Islam continues its dangerous rise. Drawing on history for lessons on how great powers collapse, Romney shows how and why our national advantages have eroded. From the long-term decline of our manufacturing base, our laggard educational system that has left us without enough engineers, scientists, and other skilled professionals, our corrupted financial practices that led to the current crisis, and the crushing impact of entitlements on our future obligations, America is in debt, overtaxed, and unprepared for the challenges it must face.

We need renewal: fresh ideas to cut through complicated problems and restore our strength. Creative and bold, Romney proposes simple solutions to rebuild industry, create good jobs, reduce out of control spending on entitlements and healthcare, dramatically improve education, and restore a military battered by eight years of war. Most important, he calls for a new commitment to citizenship, a common cause we all share, rather than a laundry list of individual demands. Many of his solutions oppose President Obama’s policies, many also run counter to Republican thinking, but all have one strategic aim: to move America back to political and economic strength.

Personal and dynamically-argued, No Apology is a call to action by a man who cares deeply about America’s history, its promise, and its future.

[Editor's Note: As soon as I receive information on Gov. Romney's book tour schedule I will post it here.]

Share on Facebook

Share This

WASHINGTON - Later this winter, Mitt Romney will strike out on a national book tour, but unlike his party’s most successful recent author he does not expect to make headlines with bits of fresh gossip from the 2008 campaign, see his fans camp overnight outside bookstores, or chat with Oprah Winfrey about his family.

“Inevitably there are going to be comparisons with the Sarah Palin book,’’ said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman. “We’re not going to match her crowd size or sales. These are two different people with different ways of expressing themselves.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/03/romney_will_hit_key_primary_states_on_book_tour/

Share on Facebook

Share This

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/?p=2963

The early contours of the Republicans’ national-security narrative against Mr. Obama and his party can be seen in the theme of a book to be published this spring by Mr. Romney. The book, “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness,” touches on GOP allegations that Mr. Obama, with appeals such as his conciliatory speech over the summer to the Muslim world, has been too willing to apologize for his country’s past actions.

Share on Facebook

Share This

1. Mitt Romney is not the “average Republican activist’s cup of tea.” He may not have been in 2008, but now that Republican activists have had a chance to fully sort out the 2008 primary campaign, Mitt Romney is soaring in the estimation of these same grassroots activists.

Sarah Palin has morphed into a celebrity author, famous for being famous and her announcement that she will campaign for candidates possibly outside the Republican Party makes her anathema to this Republican activist. If we are able to regain our ability to filibuster the Obama administration’s toxic bills, it will be because we have 41 Republicans in the U.S. Senate. We will not have the luxury of electing any third party candidates who may or may not vote with the Pubbies.

2. Mitt Romney kept a “low profile in 2009.” Huh? He endorsed winning candidates across the country, including the election of two high profile Republicans in New Jersey and Virginia and he has written well received Op-Eds in respected newspapers at regular intervals.

The bottom line is simply this. Mitt Romney continues to be the candidate that the Left and their sycophants in the Dinosaur Media fear the most. Don’t buy the Dem talking points that it’s Palin that they fear most. Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson destroyed Palin by asking her simple questions in televised interviews. Can you picture her at the podium debating Obama on the details of rebuilding the American economy, or the minutiae of the Health Care bill? Or try to picture her debating venture capitalist Mitt Romney during the 2012 primary. To a growing body of party activists, the candidate that they are looking at to restore their viability is Mitt Romney.

~~John Cronin~~

Question No. 7: Will Sarah Palin go back to Alaska and tackle its thorny problems as governor or pursue a career as a national media figure? Answer: All too obvious. Palin resigned as governor in midsummer and mounted a national tour as co-author of a tell-and-tease autobiography trashing the campaign staff of her ticketmate John McCain. We expect to see a lot of her on TV and in the blogosphere in months to come. And she will campaign for other Republicans around the country in 2010. But don’t bank on her being in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2011. She will flirt with another national campaign, but the downside of a poor showing would be too steep. She will opt for the spotlight but not the hot seat.

Question No. 6: So who will emerge as an early favorite for the GOP in 2012? Answer: No one so far. Mitt Romney, the venture capitalist and former governor of Massachusetts who ran a pretty good campaign in 2008, remains the class of the field but kept a low profile in 2009. Mike Huckabee led in some polls of Republicans that also found Sarah Palin popular. But Huckabee ended the year uncertain about running (and damaged by a clemency scandal from his days as Arkansas governor). Romney remains too much a general election candidate, a problem for the Democrats to be sure but far from the average Republican activist’s cup of tea. His past positions on social issues were too styled to Massachusetts, and his Mormonism still leaves the party’s religious base lukewarm at best.

Share on Facebook

Share This

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/79762447.html

By Eyewitness News staff

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. – Bakersfield Business Conference organizers announced today that four additional speakers will join the October 9, 2010 speaker lineup: Newt Gingrich, Jane Seymour, Tony Plana, and Joe Clark.

Next year’s conference will feature 24 speakers in a format that will allow attendees to choose between some of the best platform speakers in America based their interests and preferences.

Conference organizers previously announced several speakers confirmed for the 2010 conference that includes 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Vice President Dick Cheney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Share on Facebook

Share This