From the official release:
I am heartened and relieved that Chen Guangcheng and his family are on their way to the United States and out of China. I commend the U.S. diplomats and officials who worked to ensure that the Chinese government followed through on its commitments. This episode underscores the need for the United States to forthrightly stand up for the human rights of the Chinese people.
The question has been raised recently; should the Romney Campaign attack Barack Obama on his long-time association with Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ where Obama was a member for twenty years? Mitt says no. Others say yes.
In this I agree with Mitt. He should not use Jeremiah Wright to attack Obama. My reasoning has little to do with what is right or wrong, or high road versus low road. It is really more strategic than anything else. Let me explain.
First, let’s take a stroll down memory lane together and revisit the just recently concluded primaries.
Think back. How many times did we hear during the primaries the lament from the ABR supporters that “if only someone would really take RomneyCare and stick it to Romney, he would fail”? Well, various opponents tried, and they all failed. And yet the lament continued to be heard. “Why doesn’t anybody nail Romney on RomneyCare?”
The problem lies in the fact that MassCare was old news. People had long heard about it, and it was already part of their opinion of Romney. It was baked into the cake, as the saying goes.
I remember several occasions on this board where I likened the idea that “finally” vetting Romney for RomneyCare would hurt him to that old definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. “This time it will be different. This time it will hurt him.” It never did. Yet still they insisted that it would.
So it is with Rev. Wright. That line of attack might have been useful four years ago when it was still a fresh topic, but for whatever reason John McCain refused to go there. The moment was lost. The good reverend is now baked into the Obama cake. All the harping in the world about Wright will likely now move the needle against Obama no more than a point or two. It’s old news. People have moved on.
To those who say, “it may only move the needle a point or two, but any amount will help”, one must ask, “Yes, but at what cost?” What will it cost us to do so? Mitt has worked hard over the past six years to maintain the high road, and he has largely succeeded. Do we want to throw that advantage away? And then there is the fact that if Romney brings up Rev. Wright, that attack legitimizes any and all attacks on Mitt’s religion, and the religions of his supporters. All this for just a slight twitch of the needle?
No, I don’t think so. Let’s leave that can of worms on the shelf unopened.
That doesn’t mean Obama’s long association with Rev. Wright is of no used to us, though. On the contrary, it serves as a very nice counterweight to the Democrats’ desire to make Mitt’s Mormonism an issue. “Oh, you wish to talk about Romney’s religion, do you? Let’s talk about Rev. Wright, shall we?”
Few Democrats will want to go there once that consequence becomes well established.
With Gov. Mitt Romney now the presumptive nominee of our party, we can jump fully into the veepstakes. Here are the latest rankings:
1. Rob Portman, U.S. Senator from Ohio
The junior senator from Ohio is fast becoming the consensus choice among political professionals inside the party. Elected to seven consecutive terms in the U.S. House, Portman would go on to serve as both U.S. Trade Representative and OMB Director under President George W. Bush before becoming a senator. His extensive knowledge of policy and government and his popularity in his home state make the Ohio senator a solid, safe choice for the Romney campaign. Given Gov. Romney’s desires to choose someone prepared to be president over making a “big splash” selection, one would have to consider Portman at the top of the prepared-on-day-one list.
2. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida
This choice seems to be the most obvious on paper. Sen. Rubio is uniquely both the darling of the Tea Party and a rising star in the GOP establishment. Groomed for years as the protégé of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Rubio became a Tea Party sensation in 2010 with his defeat of moderate Gov. Charlie Crist in both the GOP primary and general election. Rubio has gone on to meticulously manage his national image in much the same way Sen. Hillary Clinton did prior to launching her presidential bid. Rubio’s youth, Cuban heritage, popularity with the base, and home state are all seen as adding significantly to the GOP ticket’s potential. However, his lack of experience, similar to then Sen. Barack Obama’s back in 2008, could be a key liability.
3. Paul Ryan, U.S. Representative from Wisconsin
The Wisconsin congressman has become a hero to the conservative intelligentsia and his reform proposals have become the center of much of the political debate in Washington. With the debt and entitlement crisis hanging over the election, Ryan’s plans will likely become a focus of the campaign at some point with or without him on the ticket. Many feel that Rep. Ryan would bring the experience and budget knowledge of Sen. Portman along with the Tea Party excitement of Sen. Rubio, making the congressman the better all-around choice.
4. Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
The brash New Jersey governor has become one of Mitt Romney’s most trusted and powerful surrogates. In some cases, he seems to make a better case for Romney than Romney has himself. Christie’s attitude and tough talk have earned him rave reviews among both establishment republicans and conservatives. However, in many corners of the conservative movement, Christie is viewed as a moderate, and pairing him with Romney could turn off these voters. But a Romney-Christie ticket could potentially realign the map, putting into play states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey that have not gone to the GOP since 1988.
5. Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
The young Louisiana governor has been a rising star in the GOP for a few years now, despite his fumbled State of the Union response speech. Jindal, at just 40, has amassed an amazing resume of varying experience; governor, congressmen, state secretary of health and hospitals, and president of the Louisiana University System. He has reformed and revitalized one of the most corrupt states in the country and has impressed many in both the establishment and the conservative movement with his brilliant grasp of policy. And he has proven a capable leader in times of crisis, handling natural disasters in his state with all of the competence that his predecessors lacked during Hurricane Katrina. As the nation’s first Indian American governor, Jindal would also bring diversity to the ticket.
6. Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia
The Virginia governor is currently one of the most popular politicians in the country, hailing from one of the key general election states, and carrying with him a solid record on jobs and the economy. A strong social conservative with the ability to attract independent voters and Reagan Democrats, McDonnell has positioned himself strongly for the VP nomination. Along with his statewide experience in the legislature, the attorney general’s office, and now as governor, McDonnell also brings 21 years of military service, which would make him the only veteran on either ticket.
7. Kelly Ayotte, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire
The junior U.S. Senator from New Hampshire just might become the top female choice for Vice President should Gov. Romney decide to select a woman as a running mate. Sen. Kelly Ayotte is both highly accomplished and a close ally of the former Massachusetts governor. The Senator is also the most experienced of the fresh-faced crop of potential female candidates. Her academic, legal, and public service credentials are very similar to other popular VP contenders, like Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, both elected in 2009. Should Romney value adding a woman to the ticket, this mother of two would certainly have both the stature and experience to fit the bill.
8. Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota
The former Minnesota governor has been through the Vice Presidential vetting process before and doesn’t seem eager to go through it all again. However, the fact that he has already been highly vetted and is an experienced Midwestern politician could boost his prospects this time around. Since dropping out of the race and endorsing Romney, Pawlenty has become a top surrogate for the campaign, proving he could fit seamlessly into the VP role. Pawlenty would seem to fit the same role Rob Portman would, except that he is better tested on the national stage and is just as accomplished.
9. Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana
Gov. Daniels passed on an opportunity to run for president in 2012 despite being heavily recruited to do so, and it seems could be just as stubborn when it comes to the Vice Presidency. The Indiana governor gives the standard denials that most VP contenders give, but the political class seems to believe his odds are far higher than meets the eye. Daniels, like Portman and Pawlenty, would instantly pass the qualification test and wouldn’t be a threat to overshadow Romney. His record as governor and his mastery of budgetary matters would also help the GOP message on debt and deficits.
10. Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas
Once Romney’s most bitter rival, the former Arkansas governor is now a much buzzed about option for VP. Huckabee and Romney are said to have buried the hatchet from their tough 2008 campaign and now members of Romney’s team are rumored to be actively discussing the Fox News host as a running mate. With the president flip-flopping on gay marriage, some feel Gov. Huckabee would help energize evangelical voters as well as blue collar voters for the Romney ticket.
Honorable Mention: Cathy McMorris Rodgers, John Thune, Susana Martinez, Pat Toomey, Nikki Haley, Jeb Bush
From the official release:
Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President, Romney Victory, and the Republican National Committee announced fundraising totals of over $40.1 million in April. The campaign and RNC have $61.4 million cash on hand.
“We are pleased with the strong support we have received from Americans across the country who are looking for new leadership in the White House,” said Romney Victory National Finance Chairman Spencer Zwick. “Along with the hard work of the Republican National Committee, we will continue to raise the funds necessary to defeat President Obama in November.”
“Voters are tired of President Obama’s broken promises,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. “Mitt Romney has the record and plan to turn our country around – that is why he is receiving such enthusiastic support from voters across the country. Along with the campaign, we will work to provide the resources so that we can defeat President Obama and change the direction of the country.”
FAST FACTS About Romney For President, Romney Victory, and RNC Fundraising:
· Over $40.1 Million Raised In April
· 95% Of All Donations Received In April Were $250 Or Less
· $10.1 Million Raised By Donations Under $250 In April
· 259,836 Donations Received Under $250 In April
· $61.4 Million Cash On Hand
· Contributions Received From All 50 States And Washington, D.C.
More from NPR:
The campaign for GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney and the Republican Party together raised $40.1 million in April, just shy of the $43.6 million that President Obama and the Democratic Party took in.
This is the first monthly report since Romney effectively wrapped up the Republican presidential nomination. And because money is one way to keep score during a presidential campaign, the news is getting a great deal of attention from the political media this morning.
Politico points out that “it’s a strong showing for Romney and his allies as they move into the general election. The clearer test of the Obama-Romney fundraising match-up will come with the May money reports, since that’ll be the first time both candidates will be raising campaign and victory money for the entire month.”
The Los Angeles Times says the April figures signal that Romney is beginning to “chip away” at Obama’s fundraising advantage.
Full story here.
New Romney web ad jumps on Biden’s Delphi gaffe. The Romney team has demonstrated they have a ton of video at the ready to attack and counter-attack anything the Obama camp throws at them.
The New York Times has the story:
WASHINGTON — A group of high-profile Republican strategists is working with a conservative billionaire on a proposal to mount one of the most provocative campaigns of the “super PAC” era and attack President Obama in ways that Republicans have so far shied away from.
Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the strategists wrote.
The plan, which is awaiting approval, calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.
“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” says the proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.
The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”
The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”
A copy of a detailed advertising plan was obtained by The New York Times through a person not connected to the proposal who was alarmed by its tone. It is titled “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good.”
Be sure to read the full story here.
Gov. Romney has reacted swiftly to this development, personally repudiating the Super PAC’s strategy of attack:
“I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they’ve described. I would like to see this campaign focus on the economy, on getting people back to work, on seeing rising incomes and growing prosperity — particularly for those in the middle class of America. And I think what we’ve seen so far from the Obama campaign is a campaign of character assassination. I hope that isn’t the course of this campaign. So in regards to that PAC, I repudiate what they’re thinking about … It’s interesting that we’re talking about some Republican PAC that wants to go after the president [on Wright]; I hope people also are looking at what he’s doing, and saying ‘why is he running an attack campaign? Why isn’t he talking about his record?’”
Read Guy Benson’s full story here.
The New York Times recently came out with a poll that showed Obama trailing Romney by an insignificant amount — well within the margin of error. The same poll showed Mitt up among women. Team Obama’s response? “The poll is biased.”
Obama campaign deputy manager Stephanie Cutter dismissed today’s CBS/New York Times poll showing that 67 percent of people believed Obama made his decision on gay marriage for political reasons. Only 24 percent said that Obama did it “mostly because he thinks it is right.”
…
“We can’t put the methodology of that poll aside, because the methodology was significantly biased.” Cutter insisted on MSNBC this morning.
Three thoughts come to my mind on this:
I have mentioned a number of times on these pages the number one rule of organizations. They tend to take on the characteristics of their leader. You can see this play out here.
When Team Romney is faced with a problem, their first instinct is to do like their boss and identify the problem and fix it. When Team Obama is faced with a problem, their first instinct is to do like their boss and figure out how they can avoid the blame for it.
It has been my long experience that a team with the first attitude will likely succeed far more than a team with the second attitude. The first approach allows the team to rapidly identify problems and quickly deal with them. It also lets team members know that it is safe to bring up issues of concern. The second approach tends to cover up problems more than solve them. People become afraid of bringing up problems that they might get blamed for, so the tendency is to hide problems instead of dealing with them.
Things like “Julia” would never had made it very far in a team like Mitt’s that is more concerned about solving problems than affixing blame. Someone would have expressed misgivings about it, the problems would be addressed, and if they couldn’t get it to work, it would have been scrapped. In teams that place a high priority on avoiding blame, any criticism of ideas is looked upon as attempts to cast blame, and people get defensive. You do NOT want to make your boss defensive, so you learn to keep your mouth shut if you see a potential problem. So “Julia” likely sailed through the various committees and levels with nary a dissenting voice.
I suspect that this, more than anything else, may be a big reason why little if anything coming out of the Obama Campaign seems to be working. Their internal error checking is severely impaired by their instinctual blame avoidance. With Barack Obama as their head, I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on how the VP vetting process works. It is written by A.B. Culvahouse who lead the McCain team’s efforts in 2008. While no two vetting processes are the same, it offers some excellent insights on the process from one who has been on both sides of it.
A few excerpts:
A short list of five to 15 leading Americans soon will be notified that the presumptive Republican nominee for president believes they are serious contenders to be his running mate. They will be asked for their agreement to join him on the GOP ticket if chosen, and in the meantime, to submit to a most intrusive and far-reaching vetting by lawyers and advisers working for the campaign. No other candidate, not even the presidential nominee himself, is subjected to the same scrutiny.
…
In our current presidential election, despite the many political risks and personal indignities involved, I predict that few on Gov. Mitt Romney’s short list will decline the opportunity to be considered. In my experience, when potential VP nominees are asked to submit themselves to the vetting process, their thoughtful reasons to decline—and perhaps their ambitious motives to accept—are overcome by feelings that are more instinctively noble.In the summer of 2008 I asked each person on John McCain’s short list, “Why do you want to be vice president?” The question hardly was a surprise, but after the scripted answer was finished, every potential nominee began to speak from the heart about honor, service and obligation, on occasion with moist eyes. Their successors on the short list this election cycle deserve our respect in the same measure as they will receive our scrutiny.
That last bit is why I am convinced that despite protestations to the contrary, almost every single person who manages to make Romney’s shortlist would serve if asked. That would include Tim Pawlenty who just this week seemed to take himself out of contention.
Mr. Culvahouse also talks about the vetting of Sarah Palin. His final assessment on her? “High risk, high reward.” He stands by that today.
Robert E. Lee is often popularly thought of as a military genius. In truth, he was really very good, but not quite great. What gave him that reputation is for three years of war, he faced mediocre generals at best. It is very easy to appear a genius when faced with poor opponents, and that is all he faced until the Battle of Gettysburg where he faced George Meade.
Meade was certainly not a great general. You really couldn’t say that he a very good one, either. His grasp of strategy was not the best, nor was he inclined to show much initiative. However, he was superb at tactics, and if given a specific limited task to do, he could and would do it. It made him the perfect subordinate general. Ulysses S. Grant later kept him on as the head of the Army of the Potomac when he took over as General-in-chief. Grant would issue the orders, and Meade would competently and efficiently carry them out. It worked out very well for the both of them.
At Gettysburg Meade’s job was to hold on to the high ground against the Confederates. And as usual for him when given a specific limited task, he did a superb job.
By July of 1863, Lee had had success after success. When all you face are opponents considerably below your level, that’s an easy thing to do. Unfortunately for him, he began to believe his press clippings on how great he and his army were. He became convinced that they were invincible, that they could do anything he asked of them. All he had to do is just say it, and it would be done. That attitude was his undoing at Gettysburg.
Even with that attitude, however, if Lee had faced at Gettysburg McClellan, Hooker, Burnside, or any other Union generals he had previously fought, he probably would have won. But he was facing George Meade, and Meade was fully up to the task at hand.
I see the same sort of thing in the Obama Campaign. For almost his entire political career Obama has faced inept, incompetent, and/or reluctant opponents. And he, with his soaring rhetoric, zero record, and fawning press won campaign after campaign. As a result, his campaigning skills and the talents of his campaign team have become the stuff of legend. The legend declared that defeating Mitt Romney was going to be a cakewalk, and he, his team, and fellow Democrats bought into it.
But the history so far suggests otherwise. Mitt Romney, unlike nearly all Obama’s previous opponents, is not rolling over and playing dead. Instead, they are proving very adept at deflecting Obama’s attacks, and even boomeranging them back on their source. This is exposing unforeseen weaknesses in Obama’s campaign. John Ellis comments:
…
Because we have been told for so long that Team Obama is the very model of the modern campaign operation, we have come to sort of believe it. In reality, they’ve been surprisingly inept since they set up shop last year. They’ve been through three slogans and four over-arching re-election “themes.” They’ve made a big deal out of Romney’s dog. They’ve introduced us to “Julia,” which seemed like a right-wing parody of the perfect constituent of the nanny state. One could on (and on).
…
Ellis makes the point that Team Obama’s incompetence to date is beginning to concern a growing number of Democrats. This election was supposed to be in the bag. This incredible campaign team wasn’t supposed to be making these many mistakes. Democratic alarm bells are starting to sound because of it.
Can Team Obama turn things around? Certainly. Anything is possible, and Romney’s team had best remember that. Unfortunately Obama’s team is handicapped by the first rule of organizations: an organization takes on the basic traits of its leader, and Obama is not much of a turnaround artist. That’s Mitt Romney’s specialty, not his.
So will they turn things around? We shall see. One thing is for certain, however. If Team Obama continue in this slipshod manner, Ann and Mitt Romney will be changing their residence to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC next January.
Romney team to paint Obama as lousy businessman
The Romney campaign wants to introduce a new concept into the debate over President Obama’s economic record. Imagine the president ran an investment firm. He poured billions of dollars into green energy projects that didn’t work. People lost jobs. He poured billions into sometimes implausible stimulus projects that didn’t work, either. And even when he succeeded in keeping companies afloat, as he did with General Motors and Chrysler, he did it by downsizing and laying off thousands of workers.
And now, with that record, the president is attacking Mitt Romney for a successful career as a private equity investor at Bain Capital. Obama launched the first Bain attack ad Monday morning, blaming Romney for the failure of a Kansas City steel company, a failure that resulted in the loss of 750 jobs.
…
“In the general election, I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins of General Motors and Chrysler, closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers,” Mitt Romney said in January. “He did it to try to save the business.”
That’s the same sort of thing private equity investors do, Romney says — they just don’t do it with taxpayer dollars, as Obama has. And Romney supporters will likely emphasize that Obama’s taxpayer-paid investments often went to people and organizations that contributed big money to Obama’s campaign.
“When you’re in the private sector, people make decisions based on profit and loss and what’s going to create jobs and what’s going to work,” Romney adviser Ed Gillespie told conservative reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “When you have this level of government involvement in our economy, you have things like Solyndra and the decisions relative to the auto layoffs, and you don’t have that transparency, you don’t know if there’s political influence — who gets a health care waiver from the mandate and who doesn’t? — and they still don’t say how they make those decisions.”
“This crony capitalism … is rampant in this administration and is a real problem,” Gillespie said, “and yes, we are going to continue to talk about that.”
…
We wondered this morning how Team Romney would fight back against Obama’s dishonest attack ad highlighting Romney’s time at Bain Capital.
Now we know, and we’ve gotten to see just how good Romney’s rapid response team is in the process. Hey Barry, probably not a good idea to mess with these guys.
First, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul sent out this statement to the press as well as on the Romney website and social media outlets:
“We welcome the Obama campaign’s attempt to pivot back to jobs and a discussion of their failed record. President Obama has many questions to answer as to why his Administration used the stimulus to reward wealthy campaign donors with taxpayer money for bad ideas like Solyndra, but 23 million Americans are still struggling to find jobs. If the Obama Administration was less concerned with pleasing its wealthy donors and more concerned with creating jobs, America would be much better off.”
Then, Team Romney followed that up with a press release blast that followed that same line of defend and attack — using Solyndra as their foil of choice:
President Obama’s Idea Of The Free Market Is “Crony Capitalism” That Showers Federal Dollars On His Friends And Allies, While Leaving Taxpayers On The Hook For Losses:
The Washington Post: “You Can Call It Crony Capitalism Or Venture Socialism — But By Whatever Name, The Energy Department’s Loan Guarantee Program Privatizes Profits And Socializes Losses.” (Editorial, “The Energy Department’s Loan Guarantee Program Is The Real Solyndra Scandal,” The Washington Post, 11/17/11)
The Washington Post: “The Problem Is That Bureaucrats Are More Likely To Bet Wrong Because They Are Generally Not Full-Time Investment Experts And Have No Skin In The Game Themselves.” (Editorial, “Solyndra: A Bad Bet Obama Should Regret,” The Washington Post, 10/6/11)
Obama Bundlers Worked In His Department Of Energy “As It Showered Billions In Taxpayer-Backed Stimulus Money On Alternative Energy Firms.” “Several of Barack Obama’s top campaign supporters went from soliciting political contributions to working from within the Energy Department as it showered billions in taxpayer-backed stimulus money on alternative energy firms, iWatch News and ABC News have learned.” (Ronnie Green And Matthew Mosk, “Bundlers On The Inside,” iWatch, 9/29/11)
…
The Energy Department’s Inspector General Found That Contracts Were Steered To “Friends And Family.” “The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of ‘sufficient transparency and accountability.’ He has testified that contracts have been steered to ‘friends and family.’” (Peter Schweizer, “Obama Campaign Backers And Bundlers Rewarded With Green Grants And Loans,” Newsweek, 11/12/11)
“$3.9 Billion In Federal Grants And Financing Flowed To 21 Companies Backed By Firms With Connections To Five Obama Administration Staffers And Advisers.” (Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens, “Venture Capitalists Play Key Role In Obama’s Energy Department,” The Washington Post, 2/14/12)
And The Result Of Those Taxpayer Giveaways To Obama Allies? Lost Jobs And Bankrupt Businesses:
The Obama Administration Loaned Over Half A Billion Dollars To Solyndra – Which Later Went Bankrupt – And Engaged In A “Risky Investment Strategy” With Other Similar Projects. “Solar panel maker Solyndra received a $528 million Energy Department loan in 2009 – and went bankrupt last year. The government’s risky investment strategy didn’t stop there, as a CBS News investigation has uncovered a pattern of cases of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy.” (Sharyl Attkisson, “Tax Dollars Backing Some “Risky” Energy Projects,” CBS, 1/13/12)
Solyndra’s Bankruptcy And 1,100 Layoffs Represented “A Blow To The Obama Administration’s Efforts To Create Green Jobs.” “In a blow to the Obama administration’s efforts to create green jobs, solar-cell maker Solyndra announced Wednesday that it will close its remaining Fremont factory, lay off its 1,100 employees and file for bankruptcy. The news marked an abrupt end for a company once considered among the most innovative in a fast-changing industry. The bankruptcy also represents a high-profile failure for a federal stimulus program that gives loan guarantees to green-tech manufacturers.” (David R. Baker and Carolyn Said, “Solyndra Closes Fremont Plant – Stimulus Hopes Dim,” San Francisco Chronicle, 9/1/11)
…
After that, the Romney campaign organized a conference call for reporters, where Ed Gillespie continued the counter-attack on Obama, continuing to use Solyndra as an example of “crony capitalism”.
Then, Romney press department shot off a shorter memo which counter-punched Obama for mentioning this morning that Bain Capital added debt to GST:
In the short time since this morning when the Obama campaign attacked Mitt Romney’s business record, the President has added more debt to our national debt than he accuses GS Industries of having two years after Mitt Romney left Bain. (Note: $500M is .01% of Obama’s new debt since taking office; Obama has been in office 1210 days; .01% of his time in office is .12 days, or slightly less than 3 hours.)
The Debt That Barack Obama Attributes To GS Industries, At A Time When Romney Was No Longer At Bain, Would Pay For Less Than 3 Hours Of The New Debt Of Obama’s Presidency.
And now to end the day, Team Romney has cut their own one minute ad, highlighting the story of another steel company Bain Capital invested in — one that became highly successful and went on to create more than 6,000 jobs:
If Obama expected Romney to roll over and play nice like John McCain did in 2008, he’s going to continue to be surprised like he was today. We will see how many times the Obama campaign can try and fire the Bain bullet throughout the remainder of the campaign, but I have a feeling their failure to keep their powder dry until later in the game is going to come back to haunt them.
Mitt Romney delivered the commencement address at Liberty University yesterday; a school that bills itself as “the largest Christian university in the world”. The Christian Science Monitor reports on the reaction from a number of evangelical leaders (emphasis added):
There was a time in the Republican presidential nominating contest when evangelical Christians and other social conservatives loved anybody but Mitt Romney.
He was a suspect character, the former governor of liberal Massachusetts, wobbly on such key issues as abortion and gay rights. Then there was his religion – Mormonism – which many saw as downright unchristian.
In the early days, many of these key base voters turned to one after another of the other GOP hopefuls – Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, even an admittedly fallen but redeemed Newt Gingrich – settling in the end for Rick Santorum.
But they’re all gone now, and Mitt Romney remains the presumptive nominee.
Saturday at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. – “the largest Christian university in the world,” as it calls itself, founded by televangelist Jerry Falwell – Romney gave a speech that could turn out to be one of the most important in his campaign. And by all accounts he said just the right things needed to nail down this critical segment of his conservative base.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a graduate of Liberty University, immediately issued a strong statement of praise and support for Romney.
“Today’s address was a tremendous opportunity for Governor Mitt Romney to communicate to social conservatives through one of the largest conservative evangelical venues in the country and Mr. Romney seized it by emphasizing the shared values he holds with evangelicals even while acknowledging theological differences,” Mr. Perkins said.
“In his well-delivered speech, he accentuated the core values issues that are essential to a strong nation and of great importance to evangelicals,” Perkins said. “Mitt Romney picked up on the message that energized Rick Santorum’s campaign: America’s financial greatness is directly tied to moral and cultural wholeness.”
…
As Romney moved toward his likely nomination, the question was not whether evangelicals and other social conservatives would vote for him – they were unlikely to vote for Obama in any case – but whether they would work for his election enthusiastically, as they might have for Santorum.
With his speech in Lynchburg Saturday, Romney went a long way in assuring that’s the case.
Of course, Obama coming out in favor of same-sex marriage didn’t exactly hurt Mitt’s cause with the evangelicals, either. If anything, it strengthens the relationship since it drives home what unites us more than what divides us.
Mitt didn’t harp on it. He made one simple statement, “Marriage is between one man and one woman”. No fudging. No sophistry. No nuance. Just a simple declaration of the truth. That one simple statement earned him a lasting standing ovation.
Between this issue and that swipe at stay-at-home moms, one would almost think that Obama and the Democrats were working their hardest to unite the Republican party behind Romney.
Mitt Romney gave the commencement address today at Liberty University.
Mitt makes a strong argument for Christian values in America and declares that marriage is between “one man and one woman”.
The full text of the speech that he held in his hands can be found here. There are a few minor changes, embellishments for the most part that he added as he went along, but the written text is very close to the address he gave to the graduates.
For your entertainment:
The President’s Horrible, Terrible, Very Bad Week
Rarely, in fact, has a candidate had as bad a week as President Obama did over the past Friday to Friday.
An awful jobs report was followed by election results in Europe that foreshadow the fall’s rejection of the president, and then it got worse.
The hilariously overdone Julia made the president and his vaunted Chicago Team an object of scorn, and the president’s imaginary friend won’t be forgotten by Team Romney –well, forever. “Julia, Julia, Julia” will be the chant in Tampa Bay. Can we get a remix of Bobby Sherman’s “Julie” please? Close enough as it is, but just a tweak will make it perfect as a reminder of the president’s vision of dependency for all, power for a few.
Slow Joe Biden got out over his skies and tripped the president for the 50th time, and president fell hard, declaring for same sex marriage the day after North Carolina –a key swing state– rejected the idea by an overwhelming margin. Even the president’s cheering section at Politico had to admit the move hurt the president in pretty much every swing state.
Then the president jetted off to be with George, Babs and the Hollywood set, which Manhattan-Beltway media elites think is grand but which doesn’t sit well with the 11% who are unemployed or so discouraged they have dropped out of the hunt. He did arrange to raffle off two tickets for the masses, which is pretty much how his economic policies have worked for the past four years. His close friends do well. The people he promised to help get a glimpse in the window.
…
The president’s in a political free fall, but his pals in MSM don’t/won’t see it. Instead they write about Mitt Romney’s problems even as the former Massachusetts governor has brought the GOP together behind him –what, no “brokered convention”– and even as he moves from Obama-indicting backdrop to backdrop, this week with the Colorado oil fields that haven’t been explored and tapped messaging to the country that gas need not be as high as it is, or unemployement as high as it is.
…
There is more where that came from. Have a click here to read it all.
Long time readers of this blog have heard me say over and over and over again that I have a statute of limitations on stupidity of ten years. If somebody did something stupid more than ten years ago and hasn’t repeated it, then as far as I’m concerned it’s water under the bridge; it never happened. I apply this to all, whether I support them or not, whether I agree with them or not, or whether I even like them or not.
Why do I do this? It’s simple. I would truly hate to be judged by something stupid I did ten years ago. I have grown and changed over the years. I would expect others to do the same. So when I hear that Sarah Palin went to five different schools to finish her bachelor degree, or that Rudy Giuliani dressed in drag way back when, or that Obama used coke when he was a youth, I reply “Who cares?” Unless it can be shown that they’ve been that stupid recently, then it is irrelevant to the person today. If anything, it means they are a better person today for recognizing their mistakes and learning from them.
And so it is with the recent story in the Washington Post from fifty years ago concerning Mitt Romney’s high school days. Oh brother, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel! I don’t even care what the story is, or if it is true or not. That is ancient history. Is there anybody who has ever lived past the age of twenty who has not regretted something stupid they did in high school?
—
According to Robert Costa over at NRO, Gov. Mike Huckabee is being considered for the #2 spot by Team Romney:
The conventional wisdom about Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential short list, according to a handful of Romney insiders, may be wrong. Instead of picking a straitlaced Midwestern senator such as Ohio’s Rob Portman, or an outspoken northeastern Republican governor such as Chris Christie, there is a chance Romney will tap an evangelical from the South.
And the name on the lips of Romney friends and supporters isn’t a rising southern senator or a current Dixie governor. He has been out of office for five years, resides on a beach in the Florida panhandle, and hosts a television show.
In other words, Mike Huckabee, the bass-guitar-playing former governor.
Yes, according to several sources close to the Romney campaign, who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the vice-presidential search, the 56-year-old Arkansan may be included in the veep mix.
With Huckabee being 1B to Marco Rubio’s 1A for me, I am keeping my fingers crossed that there is some truth to this report.
For all of the reasons why a Romney/Huckabee pairing makes sense, be sure to read all of Costa’s article here.
“What does it say about a president’s policies when he has to use a cartoon character rather than real people to justify his record?”
In an email to supporters, Sen. Santorum has announced his endorsement of Gov. Romney:
On Friday, Governor Romney came to Pittsburgh for an over-hour long one-on-one meeting. The conversation was candid, collegial and focused on the issues that you helped me give voice to during our campaign; because I believe they are essential ingredients to not only winning this fall, but turning our country around.
While the issue of my endorsement did not come up, I certainly have heard from many of you who have weighed in on whether or not I should issue a formal endorsement. Thank you for your counsel, it has been most helpful. However, I felt that it was completely impossible for me to even consider an endorsement until after a meeting to discuss issues critical to those of us who often feel our voices are not heard by the establishment: social conservatives, tea-party supporters, lower and middle income working families.
Clearly without the overwhelming support from you all, I never would have won 11 states and over 3 million votes, and we would not have won more counties than all the other candidates combined. I can assure you that even though I am no longer a candidate for president, I will still continue to fight every day for our shared values – the values that made America the greatest country in the history of the world.
During our meeting I felt a deep responsibility to assess Governor Romney’s commitment to addressing the issues most important to conservatives, as well his commitment to ensuring our appropriate representation in a Romney administration.
The family and its foundational role in America’s economic success, a central point of our campaign, was discussed at length. I was impressed with the Governor’s deep understanding of this connection and his commitment to economic policies that preserve and strengthen families. He clearly understands that having pro-family initiatives are not only the morally and economically right thing to do, but that the family is the basic building block of our society and must be preserved.
I also shared with Governor Romney my belief that we cannot restore America as the greatest economic engine the world has ever seen until we return America to being a manufacturing superpower. He listened very carefully to my advice on this matter, and while our policy prescriptions differed, he clearly expressed his desire to create more opportunities for those that are feeling left behind in this economy.
As it is often said, “personnel is policy.” I strongly encouraged Governor Romney as he builds out his campaign staff and advisors that he add more conservative leaders as an integral part of his team. And you can be sure that I will work with the Governor to help him in this task to ensure he has a strong team that will support him in his conservative policy initiatives.
Of course we talked about what it would take to win this election. As you know I started almost every speech with the phrase that this was the most important election since the election of 1860 and four more years of President Obama is simply not an option. As I contemplated what further steps I will take, that reality weighed heavy on me. The America we know is being fundamentally changed to look more like a European socialist state than the land of opportunity our founding fathers established.
Freedom and personal responsibility are being replaced with big government dependency. The greatest and most productive workers in the world are being hamstrung by excessive regulations making it impossible to compete. Our healthcare system had been socialized, and the worth of each life dictated by some government bureaucrat. Our allies are insulted while our enemies are appeased. And our religious beliefs and freedom have come under attack.
What is even more troubling is what a second term of an Obama administration could bring. President Obama’s admission to the Russians that he will have more flexibility in a second term can only be translated to “if you thought I was liberal in the first four years you haven’t seen anything yet!”
The primary campaign certainly made it clear that Governor Romney and I have some differences. But there are many significant areas in which we agree: the need for lower taxes, smaller government, and a reduction in out-of-control spending. We certainly agree that abortion is wrong and marriage should be between one man and one woman. I am also comfortable with Governor Romney on foreign policy matters, and we share the belief that we can never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. And while I had concerns about Governor Romney making a case as a candidate about fighting against Obamacare, I have no doubt if elected he will work with a Republican Congress to repeal it and replace it with a bottom up, patient, not government, driven system.
Above all else, we both agree that President Obama must be defeated. The task will not be easy. It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious. Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win this the most critical election of our lifetime.
My conversation with Governor Romney was very productive, but I intend to keep lines of communication open with him and his campaign. I hope to ensure that the values that made America that shining city on the hill are illuminated brightly by our party and our candidates thus ensuring not just a victory, but a mandate for conservative governance.
Karen and I know firsthand how difficult the campaign trail can be particularly as governor Romney faces relentless attacks from the democrats. We have been praying for him and his family and will continue to do so in the weeks and months ahead.
Thank you again for all you have done for us, and I look forward to working together to defeat President Obama this fall and to protect faith, family, freedom and opportunity in America.
With Gratitude,
Rick Santorum
As most everyone who is closely following the Race 4 2012 knows, Virginia could very well be decisive. Virginia has become a very purple state that currently experiences small perturbations between reddish purple and blueish purple. While this only became apparent to some as a result of the 2006 and 2008 elections, it has been in the making for ten years and has accelerated over the last five. It is now fair to say, I believe, that Virginia has become a reasonable microcosm of the nation when you consider its rural Southern demographics combined with its bastions of younger, upscale educated professionals in its northern D.C. suburbs, it’s six-figure income families in the exurbs and outer-suburbs, the large middle class region of the Tidewater area, and a healthy portion of ethnic and racial minorities. The demographic trends are, and have been for some time, in favor of all but the rural Southern component. This has turned the state very purple and threatens to turn it blueish purple to light blue unless the GOP conducts itself in a manner acceptable to the growing demographic sectors and thus focuses on core issues of upward mobility, fiscal responsibility, and competent, prudent management of the government.
All of this is currently reflected in the standings of the presidential contest and the US Senate race. Most all polling to date shows Allen and Kaine essentially tied in the Senate contest, with Obama maintain a slight to modest lead in the Presidential race (current RCP average for Virginia has Obama +3.2). I’ve been told by some national party folks that the gender gap in Virginia continues to run higher than average as a result of the theatrics in the General Assembly earlier this year that many women, including Republican-leaning women, found highly offensive. Political pundit Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post is out with what I believe to be a pretty solid and accurate assessment of the race in Virginia at present.
President Obama’s current lead over Mitt Romney in a new Washington Post poll in Virginia is due in large part to a belief that the incumbent’s ideology is a better fit for the state than that of the former Massachusetts governor.
A majority of Virginians — 52 percent — say that “Barack Obama’s views on most issues are just about right” as compared to 37 percent who say the same of Romney’s views. Among electorally critical independents, 52 percent say Obama’s views were about right as opposed to just 34 percent who say the same of Romney. Just look at this chart.
(Worth noting: Among all Virginia registered voters, the gap is slightly more narrow; 49 percent of registered voters in Virginia say that Obama’s views on issues are “just about right” while 39 percent of registered voters say the same of Romney.)
Why does this data point matter? Because lots (and lots) of people make up their minds about who they will vote for based on which candidate they think best understands them.
And, at the moment, a majority of Virginians believe that Obama is closer to how they think about issues than is Romney. That matters — big time.
There are two reasons why that’s the case — and why it’s worth taking the Post poll results with a grain of salt.
First, Romney has been hurt across the board by the protracted Republican presidential primary which, in the final few months of the campaign, wound up focusing on contraception and other social issues that played into a preconceived notion among many independents that the GOP was beholden to their social conservative wing. (Nearly four in ten women think Romney’s views are “too conservative” for them.)
Second, the Virginia presidential primary was a non-event as only Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul spent any time in the state. (Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum did not qualify for the ballot.) That means that Romney has not been properly introduced — and by that we mean through a slew of positive television ads — to many voters in the Commonwealth.
Now here is the good news, according to Cillizza, with which I agree:
Luckily for Romney, both of those problems can be solved. He has spent the last two days in the state and on Thursday campaigned with Bob McDonnell, the popular governor of the Commonwealth. (Sidebar: Almost seven in ten Virginia registered voters said putting McDonnell on the ticket wouldn’t make much difference in their vote for president this fall.)
The more time Romney spends in the state and the more money he and his campaign (and various super PACs) spend on TV ads promoting him as a centrist problem solver and the President as a liberal partisan, the more likely it will be that he can close this “thinks like you” gap.
But the gap is real. And to win — in Virginia and elsewhere — Romney has narrow it.
Romney does indeed have a very good shot at Virginia, I believe, but it is going to require a lot more focus with a disciplined message than has been the case with previous GOP presidential campaigns, as this State is no longer “Old Virginie.” Hopefully, some in the State Party and State Legislature will be able to control themselves. Read the Cillizza column here.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune has the scoop:
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann has endorsed one-time Republican rival Mitt Romney for president.
Bachmann says electing Romney will be the country’s last chance to keep from “going forward” over a cliff.
The reference is to Democratic President Barack Obama’s use of the word “forward” as a campaign slogan.
Full story here.
From the official release:
Today I join with people of all faiths to express devotion and gratitude to the Lord, who has so richly blessed us. On this National Day of Prayer, we are reminded of those who have sacrificed so much to give us the freedom to worship freely and to speak openly about our faith. As I travel across this country every day, I see God’s grace and faithfulness in the lives of so many Americans who share their stories. And it is my prayer that as we strive to better America and to protect her from those who would do her harm, the Lord will keep us strong and free and we will remain one nation under God.
From the official release:
“Newt Gingrich has brought creativity and intellectual vitality to American political life. During the course of this campaign, Newt demonstrated both eloquence and fearlessness in advancing conservative ideas. Although he long ago created an enduring place for himself in American history, I am confident that he will continue to make important contributions to our party and to the life of the nation. Ann and I are proud to call Newt and Callista friends and we look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead as we fight to restore America’s promise.”
