comMITTed to Romney!

Here is a Romney YouTube video just for fun.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

We have all had the experience of sitting in front of the TV or clicking onto a news website and watching as the MSM either totally ignores or spins a story to suit their leftist agenda. Many of us have also said, man, I wish there was someway we conservatives could get our message out there without having it pass through the traditional media’s filter.

There are, of course, some very good news organizations out there, who do give voice to conservatives, FOXNEWS, THE WALL ST. JOURNAL, NRO, IBD, TOWNHALL and others, but they can’t be everywhere and sometimes we find ourselves right in the middle of a story with our trusty mini DV camera at the ready. Those of us who contribute to political blogs have the latitude to cover stories that are not being followed by even the conservative outlets and to give voice to those voters who never get a chance to let their opinions be heard outside of the voting booth and then only every four years.

You may know that Craig Edwards and myself have started a podcast in April of this year that is on the CommittedtoRomney site. We have covered a wide range of subjects and the reception we have received has been very encouraging, but recently we found that we needed to find a different approach, something that would allow us to appeal to a wider spectrum of potential interviewees.

Several weeks ago Craig approached the two economists that he did the recent podcast interviews with and when he identified himself as a contributor to CTR, he was turned down for the interview.

Since the subject matter has by necessity widened way beyond promoting Gov. Romney for President, we thought we would create much more flexibility by creating a site that was a generic conservative blog and not specifically pro Romney.

Subsequent events have proven that to be the case. Some of the people that declined Craig’s first invitations to be interviewed on a Romney site have now said that they would be open to an interview with SOLIDPRINCIPLES.COM

When we find a news item that is centered on Gov. Romney, we will do the pod cast here at COMMITTEDTOROMNEY.COM and we will continue the Romney centered blog commentary here as well.

As you know, the Romney blogosphere is thriving as are Mitt’s Presidential prospects. NYforMitt is growing in the perception as one of the top Romney blogs, Bill Kuchman’s “Tick, Tick, Tick Mitt” YouTube video is one of the best in your face productions that I have seen, Planet Romney is loaded with new blog articles and even the MSM is acknowledging that Romney is the top GOP Presidential contender for 2012.

So, everyone fasten you seatbelts, it’s gonna be a wild ride from now to 2010 and 2012.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

If you think my post come out of the middle of no where, I’m sorry. I hate the news. I hate the 24-hour news networks. I like the Sunday morning news shows better, because they put the most important things from the week, into one hour. I agree with the following statement:

“To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter.”

So this is kind of out of the middle of no where, but I have been thinking about Mitt Romney and his drug policy vs. Barak Obama and his policy. That led me to the following ideas. What do you think?

  (This is a photoshop, just incase you are stupid).

Barack Obama was melodramatic about his drug use.

Reasons to agree:

1. Obama said, “I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind.” People do things for a lot of reasons. To say that he used drugs for one reason, because he was having problems with his racial identity, seems to be playing the melodramatic race card. I’m not saying that it might have been part of the reason that he used drugs, but to fully blame all his drug use with racial identity problems, like he did in his book, seems a little melodramatic.
2. Melodrama involves an oversimplified hero. Obama seems to see himself as a hero, in a very simplistic way. He wrote two or three autobiographies about himself, before he was even un unaccomplished senator. Now that he is president, he can write a few autobiogaphies, but he has already written two or three.
3. Obama goes on and on about how honest he was about drug use. He even went on and on about how he “wasn’t the first president to use drugs, but the first one to be honest about it”. However, if Obama is so honest about his short comings, why did he keep his smoking habit such a secret. And how can the press go on and on about how honest he is and they are, when they never published, and I mean not a single news outlet, published a photo of him with a smoke?
4. When Obama said, “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though” (Dreams from My Father) perhaps he thought he would reach those who had used drugs and convence them to go straight. However he will have reached more straight kids and convinced them to use drugs, by making it sound cool, showing that he was able to beat it, and using their street names, as though he is still trying to have “street cred”.What do you think? Was Obama too self centered with his drug use story? Will heavy drug use go up? Perhaps it will go down. Obama can be a good or bad role model to people in a powerful way. Boys without fathers. Obama was able to beat it… or maybe he never got in far enough.

How about this. Obama ties his drug use with his search for his identity. Bush’s mother started the just say no movement. Republicans are about abstinence. Democrats don’t like the goody-goody, never used drugs image. Steve Jobs said, “I wish him the best, I really do. I just think he and Microsoft are a bit narrow. He’d be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger.” So according to Steve Jobs, Bill Gates wouldn’t be so “narrow” if he had “dropped acid”. Was Barack Obama trying to tell people he wasn’t “narrow” when he told the world all about his drug use, but he hides, and the media helps him hide his continued cigarette addiction? Did Obama think it was sexy of him to have used drugs in the past, but he is embarrassed of his continued cigarette addiction? If not, why did he tell the world about the former, and no one knows about the latter?

Some of this may be old news, but I hope I am covering new territory.

Perhaps the important question is what party are we? Obviously, we are Bill Gates. We are not the party tries to glorify dropping acid. And it all goes back to these old battles from the 60s, that just won’t go away. Forget Romney’s Mormonism. It had nothing to do with his church… if Mitt Romney had used drugs in his youth, like Glen Beck, no one would have cared about his Mormonism. Perhaps Romney reminded people of things they don’t want to admit were mistakes. Saying you don’t like people like Romney is an important part of convincing yourself that people like him are narrow.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you do gain some great insight from dropping acid. Maybe Obama doesn’t think he is really a cool guy because he used to use drugs. Maybe there is a logical explanation why he was “honest” about using drugs in the past, but doesn’t admit his un-politically fashionable current cigarette use.

Of course the “I used to do drugs” thing glamorizes it, but the “I don’t use drugs, made something out of myself, and became president” thing also de-glamorizes it. But that is not my point. I don’t care about the glamorizing drugs thing. I don’t even care about the hypocrisy of Obama saying how honest he was, when it serves his purposes of appealing to people who love to pat themselves on their back by saying how “nuanced” they are. What I really care about is what the whole thing says about Obama, and about the democratic and republican parties.

How many democrats are democrats, even though they want smaller government, but because they think it is cooler to be in a party that embraces nuance, or to put it another way, they are embarrassed of the goody-goody-religious right image of the republican party.

Everyone I know who grew up republican, and religious, when they started experimenting with drugs or Alcohol, they stopped calling themselves religious, and republican.

When Obama was looking for a political party, was their anyone that he could identify with?

Do we want to be the party of Youth? Do we want to be the cool party? What image do we have? I don’t want the Bill Gates Microsoft image, and I don’t want the Steve Jobs Apple image. What about the Mitt Romney image? I think Mitt Romney would make a hell of a president, and do the right things, and make things run more efficient, but what image would he present for our party? Is Mitt Romney cool?

Mitt Romney’s dad was cool. Mitt Romney’s dad was a man’s man, told it like it was, was entertaining, and fun to listen to.

I think if we are going to win in 2012, we have to win the debate, and show how self serving and shallow the democrats are in their immature attempt to be cool.

That shouldn’t be too hard.

Share on Facebook

Share This

(EDITORS NOTE: I respectfully disagree with this editorial about Michael Steele and his remarks in regards to Mitt Romney. -ANN MARIE CURLING - Founder comMITTed to Romney)

We must not take Michael Steele out of context. That is what killed Mitt Romney. If we want Romney to have a chance in 2012, we have to change the way we debate issues as a party. We can’t turn the word “nuanced” into a bad word, and we must never take people out of context. If we removed Steele for what he said, we would be serving the emotional shouters of the party… we are not the party of emotion… we are not the overly-idealistic, naive, party of people who get riled up by something that someone says out of context. We are the party of ideas. It doesn’t matter what it sounds like Steele said, it only matters what he really said.

Jay Cost thinks that it is tie for Michael Steele to go, over what he said about Romney. Jay Cost is wrong.

Michael Steele was saying what a lot of people believe. We need to win the argument, with reason, not by kicking those people out of power that don’t see things “the true way”. We need Michael Steele out there saying what people believe, and having the conversation. It was fine for Romney to disagree with Steele, but Romney did not “slap” him. Romney disagreed with Steele. You can disagree with someone without “slapping” them. Lets all just calm down, Ace… no one has to walk the plank.

The caller was saying Romney could have won against Obama. Who cares? Maybe Romney would have won, maybe he wouldn’t. Who cares? Michael Steele was pointing out that Romney did not win. I think Michael Steele tried brainstorming some of the reasons Romney did not win. Romney is a shrewd businessman. Business people who do not learn from their mistakes do not have the kind of careers that Romney had. I’m sure Romney sat down and made a list of all the things that he did right, and all the things that did wrong.

“Chairman Steele regrets the way his comments have been interpreted,” RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said. “Chairman Steele believes Mitt Romney is a respected and influential voice in the Republican Party and looks to his leadership and ideas to help move our party and our nation in the right direction.” 

Yes democrats could do what John Stewart does every night, and take something that Steele said out of context. But there probably things that Romney said that they could more easily take out of context.

You could take what Steele said out of context, and say that Mormons do not have the right to be republicans.  But that is not what he said. Steele said, “It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism.” He never said that he had issues with Mormonism, or that it was right that the base did. He listed it as one of other reasons, and he is right that it was a factor. It doesn’t matter if what Steele said “sounds wrong” because he is right. It was a factor.

Steele didn’t say it was good that the party reject people like Romney, Reagan, and George HW Bush, who were once pro-choice. If Michael Steele would have been smarter, he could have pointed out that Reagan was once pro-choice. But Steele was on the program for an hour or two…

He also could have been more nuanced (a word that Hotair is trying to turn into a bad word… not a good move for the republican party) in his explanation of Mitt Romney’s pro-life position. Romney said he was always pro-life, but believed in the rule of law and promised he would not change the law in Massachusetts. When the democrat called him a liar, and said that he was pro-life, would always be pro-life, Romney had to convince them that he would not change the law. He would not make the laws more pro-life, or pro-choice. Romney kept that promise, but people took what he said out of context. It didn’t matter than any person with 1/2 a brain knew that Romney was always pro-life, that he just promised not to change the laws, all that mattered was they have videos that could have been taken out of context. Well it is the same with Michael Steele. But we have to reform as a party. We can’t keep Steel out of the party leadership because he can be taken out of context, and hope to get Romney into leadership, another person who was totally taken out of context.

PS If Romney is unable to address these issues in the next 3-1/2 years, or with the book he is working on, than nothing that Michael Steele says matters.

Romney’s dad lost his presidency because something that he said was taken out of context. It would be sad of Steele lost his spot, while talking about Romney, because of something Steele said out of context.

Share on Facebook

Share This

President Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests.

By Mitt Romney

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas (rta&d).

In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.

The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.

Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.

Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.

Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.

— Mitt Romney, formerly the governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I am glad that former Romney supporters have this site and that we can comment on whatever is currently happening in politics (like the Tea Parties, and even the pirates). I think it is important that we write about whatever interest us, and that we continue to network in preparation for 2012.

However, we do not know if Romney will be running for president in 2012. We do know one person who will be running: Barack Obama.

I agree with Romney when he said; “[Obama] will not always be wrong, and he’s done some things I agree with.” In fact, I am going to be spending the next few years outlining when I agree with Obama (so that we can get those problems fixed) and when I disagree with Obama, so that we can try to win the argument when he is wrong.

In 2008, the democrats had 8 years to prepare all the reasons to disagree with Bush. They had a very ugly and stupid Bush derangement syndrome. We do not want to play into the hands of the media, and become just the angry part. Anger is fine, when we back it up with good reason, logic, and coherent arguments.

In order to prepair for 2012 all of our Romney websites should have all the reasons why Obama is wrong, so that when Palin, Romney, Jindal, or whoever runs for president, we can already have high ranking blog post that outline the bad things Obama is trying to do, and what makes them bad.

We should also do like Romney said, and focus on those areas that we agree with Obama, so that we are not labeled the “just say no party”, so that we can actually get some things done, and so we can stay the party of ideas, principles, reasons, and logic.

We need to get things done when we agree with Obama, so we can fix those problems, put these issues behind us and get back to the debate!

In order to do this I imported my Romney blog into a “Reason to agree and disagree with Obama” blog, because I don’t think Romney is going to get as much news media as Obama will in the next 4 years. Talking about Romney for the next 4 years will not have as much material as talking about Obama. So let’s not waste our time. Let’s make our arguments. Let’s organize ourselves. Not with anger, but with reason.

So please check out my Obama blog when you get a chance. Here is the address:

http://r2aadwo.blogspot.com/

ComMITTed to Romney has always been the biggest source of people to my site, and I am very grateful Ann lets me blog here. If I ever think of anything profound on my site, I will cross post it on here also.

2012 can’t get here fast enough.

Click here to see all the times I think Obama is right, and here to see all the post when I think he is wrong. For any of the post, leave a comment, and I’ll add your reasons to the post itself.

Share on Facebook

Share This

According to press reports, today was moving day for the Romney’s. The contents of the family home in a suburb of Boston was emptied out today. I am not being more specific on all the details, just to err on the side of caution.

Some items will be sent to the former governor’s new digs in California and others will be brought to the family’s vacation property in N.H., according to the movers.

Best wishes to the family as they settle into their new home in California!

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Help Mitt Help Jim!
Jim Tedisco is seeking the Congressional seat in NY-20 in a special election to be held on March 31, 2009. Find more information on Mr. Tedisco at http://www.jimtedisco.com.
More on Jim Tedisco from Mitt’s Free and Strong America PAC here.
We’re running out of time people. Help out all you can.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

Please go register yourself, and become a part of the best Social Networking site for Romney.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I found this article this morning while checking up on Mitt around the web, and found it a very great read. It talks about how Romney just seems to be the perfect fit now. The comments section has very positive comments as well. Take a look see…

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

Here’sssssssssssssss Romney:

Larry King: Some are seeing a problem with the president doing the “Tonight Show,” the first sitting president ever to do a late-evening [talk] show. Do you have a problem with it?

Mitt Romney: Well, this probably isn’t the right time for it. I line up with Warren Buffett on this. I prefer to see the president focusing all of his time and energy on the economy.

King: That’s what he was talking about.

Romney: He is talking about it. He’s out doing a rally in California. He’s posing for the cover of magazines and doing a number of things. He’s putting together a health care plan, putting together a cap and trade program, a lot of things on the agenda.

And frankly, if you’re doing too many things, a couple of important things can slip by. And one of them that slipped by was the AIG legislation that allowed AIG executives to get these bonuses. It was put in a specific bill.

King: Are you as angered over this AIG thing as probably 90 percent of the public?

Romney: Yes, my view is that this is really the fault of two parties. One, the members of our government that weren’t paying attention, at best. That’s the most favorable way to characterize it. …

The other, of course, is the folks at AIG. And you ask yourself, why couldn’t they have done what other enterprises do that get in trouble, which is people come together; they talk about the sacrifice they are going to make to try and keep the enterprise going. But these guys seemed not to be willing to do that. …

This is a president who is learning on the fly. He’s never turned anything around before. He hasn’t had the experience of leading a nation or a business or a state in trouble. And the first rule I can tell him is focus, focus, focus.

King: How do you account for the fact that his popularity stays high?

Romney: I know that people recognize that this is a man who is a decent fellow. He’s intelligent. He’s well-intentioned. He’s just not experienced in the matters that we’re dealing with right now.

King: The latest polls say you are the leader to get the party’s nomination the next time around. Others say it’s Rush Limbaugh leading the party. Is he the head of your party?

Romney: He’s a very powerful voice among conservatives. And I listen to him. A lot of other people listen to him. He’s not a spokesman for the party, of course. But we don’t have one spokesman right now.

Don’t Miss
Romney picked as GOP front-runner in 2012
King: You are apparently [leading] in recent polls …

Romney: Kind of early, don’t you think?

King: Are you going to run again?

Romney: I can’t imagine making that decision at this point.

King: But you’re going to run again.

Romney: No, I don’t think [so]. I’m glad that you’re so insistent.

King: What did you make of Gov. [Sarah] Palin?

Romney: Boy, she was able to connect with our party in a very powerful way, ignite a lot of enthusiasm and excitement. That kind of political skill is rare. I hadn’t met her before the announcement that she was going to be our VP nominee.

And I thought, boy, she’s going to have a tough time up there on the stage at the Republican convention. Was I wrong. She got out there and just lit the place up.

King: The House today passed a measure to slap a hefty tax on big employee bonuses paid by companies getting federal bail outs. Good idea?

Romney: Well, look, everybody is mad at AIG and their executives for doing what they did. But to suggest that this is not the fault of the people in Congress who passed the specific measure allowing them to take these bonuses is a diversionary tactic and wrong. You don’t have a government take punitive action against a small group of people. Frankly, it’s unconstitutional, in my view.

King: Former President Bush said he’s not going to spend anytime criticizing Obama. He says he deserves silence. However, former Vice President [Dick] Cheney is taking a very different tact, charging that he’s making choices which would make us vulnerable for another attack. Which way do you go here?

Romney: Well, I think there’s a standard which is applied to former presidents, and that standard is that they have had their time on the stage and it’s best for them to step aside and let the new president have his or her chance. I think President Bush is doing the right thing.

King: Do you think we’re more vulnerable to an attack?

Romney: I think if we’re going to release the detainees that are in Guantanamo and put them out either in our own prisons or at prisons in nations that are going to release them, that will make us less secure. … I’m glad that President Obama decided to pull back on his original plans to immediately bring our troops home from Iraq. We’re succeeding there. He’s decided to go a little more slowly. … That’s the right course, and I appreciate that.

King: Do you have faith in American business?

Romney: Yes. … Every job we have that isn’t working for [the] government comes because somebody had an idea and began a business. Small business people, big business people, they’re just American citizens who took a risk, and some of them find the chance to make that risk became positive and generate jobs and income. That’s a great thing.

King: What about when business goofs?

Romney: To err is human and to make bad decisions is also human. You’ve seen some very bad characters. But whether that’s an executive or a basketball player or a politician, it’s throughout every society I know of. … I’m not going to be taking my time taking pot shots at the entire profession of business or any other profession in this country. Except maybe lawyers — I’m kidding.

King: Your wife has multiple sclerosis, a disease some scientists think will be cured through stem cell research. How is she doing?

Romney: She’s doing terrifically well. She’s riding horses on a regular basis. And she’s one of the few that has had very little progression from the disease. So I’m pleased and hopeful.

King: Do you support the stem cell thing?

Romney: I support stem cell research. I do not support creating new embryos for the purpose of taking away the life of that embryo, and taking stem cells from those embryos.

King: Do you think we’re going to cure MS?

Romney: I sure hope so. I think eventually we’ll be curing most of the major diseases we know during our lifetimes.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Governor Romney on Larry King Live

Share on Facebook

Share This