***Please note that the following article is solely the opinion of the author and does not speak for or represent Mitt Romney or the Romney campaign.

President Obama’s announcement last week that he “supports gay marriage” helped provide a clear contrast between Obama and Romney and will almost certainly have a major impact on the elections in November.

History has shown that the issue of gay marriage is a powerful vote mover. As Politico reported last week: 

For all the signs of increased tolerance and changing mores, there’s one undeniable fact: A full embrace of gay rights has never been a winner in the political arena.

Fifteen years of ballot measures in more than 30 states from coast-to-coast show an issue that has been rejected nearly every time it’s gone before the voters — often by large margins.

As many political observers have noted, Obama’s announcement moves the electoral map more in the favor of Mitt Romney.  In particular, Obama’s move helps tilt “6 or 7 key swing states” toward the Romney camp. These states are namely North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio.

In North Carolina voters overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state just one week ago. In another crucial swing state, Florida, a similar ban was passed in 2008. Ohio, Michigan and Missouri also passed similar bans in 2004. Virginia, Colorado and Wisconsin passed bans in 2006 and Arizona in 2008.

A lot has been said lately about the shifting support for gay marriage over the last decade. Many point to a recent poll saying that a slim majority of Americans now support gay marriage. However, in regard to polls, keep in mind two key facts. #1) During the upcoming election, the swing states matter a lot more than the national average. And the swing states are showing a strong inclination away from same sex marriage. And #2) Aaron Blake of the Washington Post recently released this analysis about polls on gay marriage:

Does a majority of the country really support gay marriage?

As is often true in polling, it depends on how you ask the question.

A Gallup poll last week showed that 51 percent of Americans support gay marriage, but a CBS News/New York Times poll out today shows that only 38 percent support it.

The difference: Gallup gave voters just two options — support or oppose — while the CBS/NYT poll added a third, civil unions.

When given that third choice, polls show that it draws significantly from both the pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage camps, but in the end, overall support for gay marriage drops well below a majority.

Notably, then, the civil unions choice also appears to be drawing some support from gay marriage opponents — a reflection that there is plenty of support (62 percent) for some kind of legal recognition of gay couples.

For Obama, a candidate who has been angling to the political center, his announcement represents a hard turn to the political left. In my humble opinion, I think it is going to be too far left for most people – an overstep where Obama got in “a little over his skis.”

Take for example, the new shirts for sale on Barack Obama’s website. Some of the slogans on the shirts read, ”My two moms support Obama” or “My two dads support Obama.” 

These are not center-of-the-road phrases. I don’t think these kinds of phrases would be seen in virtually any election in the US, even predominantly democratic ones.

Another shirt says “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repealed 12/22/10.” I am not sure that is a slogan you want to publicize very broadly since most in the military were opposed to repealing DADT. 

While there is little doubt that Obama’s newfound support for gay marriage will energize the LGBT community as never before, it will also energize the even larger group of social and religious conservatives. In the swing states and among America’s silent majority, the results of Obama’s announcement will tip the scales of the election more toward Mitt Romney. 

As a side note, I think it is important to remember that even though gay marriage has emerged as a big issue in the upcoming election, Romney still plans to focus primarily on the economy and jobs as his main message to voters. 

Seeking to capitalize on the high unemployment rates that have plagued Obama throughout his presidency, and in an attempt to spin the low job opportunities into something positive, President Obama is now touting the low jobs numbers as a successful and innovative way of solving America’s immigration problems.

Obama’s supporters are citing a recent study which shows that due to reduced job opportunities in the US for such an long period of time, immigration from Mexico has slowed to near zero. For the first time since the Great Depression, immigrants from Mexico have found it more appealing to go back to Mexico to find a job than to stay in the US.

In a press conference this morning, President Obama said:

“Look, are we going to be a country that sees the glass half empty, or the glass half full? Yes, I know a lot of people are out of a job, but lets look at the other side of the coin. America’s illegal immigration problem has been solved!”

Political analysts are unsure how well this strategy will play out in the upcoming election but it is clear that Democratic strategists believe they are playing with a winning hand.

“Republicans are always talking about how to solve America’s immigration problems,” said David Axelrod, “but only President Obama can say he has done something about it. We are not going to run from the our record on job creation, in fact, we are proud that it has helped solve our immigration problems.”

President Obama has resisted building a physical fence between the U.S. and Mexico saying that there are other ways to solve our immigration problems. It appears that in just three short years of his presidency, Obama has found his method and built the most effective “virtual” fence yet seen to solve America’s immigration problems. 

****In case you’re not sure, most of the above story is a joke. While it is in fact very true that immigrants are suffering from unemployment in the US and are returning to their home countries in massive numbers to find jobs, Obama has not decided to use the bad economy as a campaign slogan for solving America’s immigration problems. 

● However, we believe that Obama should be held accountable for the results of his policies.  It must be said that Obama’s policies in the last three years have led to the worst opportunities for immigrants in modern American history. Americans should be alarmed that immigrants are leaving America because there are better job opportunities for them elsewhere. This is not the America we know and take pride in.

● In fact, most Americans come from relatives who were immigrants themselves. We are a nation of immigrants. Many can remember the stories their parents told them about how their family came to America seeking a better life. These stories have been a point of pride and accomplishment told by immigrants since America’s founding. It is a sad day for America when Obama’s economy has damaged the ability for the new generation of immigrants to create their own story of coming to America and living the American Dream. 

● Unbiased economists agree that if you look at history, three years is normally plenty of time to recover from a recession. Obama has been president for the last three years and still the US economy has not even come close to a full recovery. America should be creating jobs at more than twice the rate it is creating them now. Obama has had his chance. It’s time for a change.

Here is Florida’s Senator Marco Rubio, himself a Hispanic, talking about Hispanics and the economy:

Now that the Republican nomination is all but secured, I think it’s interesting to look back and see how Romney did it. 

An article published recently at The Hill caught my eye. The title was “Maybe Mitt Romney is Stronger Than We Think” and it then listed some of the enormous obstacles Romney had to overcome to get the nomination.

Some of Romney’s obstacles to the nomination included: 

1) Romneycare versus Obamacare debate
2) Romney’s a member of a religious minority – Mormon.
3) Not a Tea Party favorite
4) He is a Northeasterner in a party dominated by the South
5) Fox News was consistently harsh to Romney
6) The Wall Street Journal editorial board was often critical
7) Some conservative pundits (who endorsed him last time) did not endorse him this time
8. Effectively pro-choice during his early political years

Romney has to be feeling pretty good these days when he analyzes all the obstacles he has overcome. All of these groups are often the loudest voices in the conservative movement today. It is a real testament to the strength of Romney’s appeal that he was able to secure his party’s nomination. 

So just how did Romney do it? I believe that Romney won the nomination not by appealing to the loudest voices within his party, but by winning over the “silent majority.” The phrase “silent majority” has been used in the political campaigns of Ronald Reagan during the 1970s and 1980s, the Republican Revolution in the 1994 elections and during the Nixon era. Romney tapped into that same group during this election.

The silent majority is not easy to define because, by definition, they don’t express their views publicly, but they are the dominant force in American politics. The silent majority are a very diverse group whose views don’t align completely to one side’s point of view. Their views can be complex and nuanced, or they may simply want to live a life with as few restrictions from outside sources as possible. I believe they are a very pragmatic group who is more concerned with finding solutions to America’s problems than winning a political fight between Republicans and Democrats.

By focusing on the economy and leadership competency, Romney was able to capture the silent majority. Romney’s strengths far outweighed the obstacles placed in his path.

Attributes that helped Romney capture the silent majority:

1) Proven leadership success in many areas (Olympics, Business, Government)
2) Business expertise during a time of economic upheaval
3) A personal history that shows he knows how to create jobs
4) A person who has shown skill in solving tough problems 
5) A caring father and family man
6) Intelligence
7) Methodical, hard working and disciplined preparation
8. Calm, presidential demeanor under pressure

The silent majority understand that with Mitt Romney, we have a candidate who is uniquely qualified to address America’s dire economic problems. Who better to lead the country toward a turnaround than a guy who made his living as a turnaround artist working with struggling businesses? While there are still obstacles in Romney’s way, and there will undoubtedly be ups and downs in the months ahead, the silent majority will, as always, have the final say.

Mort Zuckerman, the current editor-in-chief at U.S. News and World Report, wrote a powerful editorial slamming Obama’s ability to turn around the U.S. economy. 

Lets vote for change. 

Typically, those of the Jewish faith vote Democratic. Recent polls show that 65% voted Democratic in the last election. 

However, I believe that Romney could do quite well with the Jewish vote not only because both are religious minorities and may feel connected as such, but also because of Romney’s personal friendship with Israel’s prime-minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. 

The New York Times released a groundbreaking article about the nearly 40 year friendship between Romney and Netanyahu. According to the article,  the two met in 1976 at Bain and Company and now understand each other so well that they can practically “speak in code.” 

The article goes on to say that it is very rare to have two high profile leaders of different countries with such a long history. This friendship could be very consequential in upcoming years as Israel considers war with Iran for its nuclear weapons program. 

Netanyahu has said that he remains neutral in America’s presidential election, but I think if he had to choose between President Obama and his friend Mitt Romney, he would choose his friend over Obama.  I am sure that Netanyahu is not very favorably inclined to Obama these days due to many reasons, but most recently because of Obama’s “hot mic gaffe” where Obama bemoaned that he had to “work with Netanyahu everyday” to President Sarkozy of France. 

A new CBS/New York Times poll of registered voters came out today. Here are the results:

Romney – 46 percent

Obama – 46 percent

A tie at this stage in the process, after a very tough and bruising primary fight, is a good sign for Romney. This is going to be a very close race. If I were President Obama or any of his advisors, I would be nervous.

The economy will be front and center throughout the rest of this year as gas prices continue to rise, unemployment remains persistently high, and as our national debt continues to soar.

Last week was rough for President Obama.

First: Obama’s biggest domestic achievement, “Obamacare,” took a beating from the Supreme Court Justices and for the first time, Obama and the Democrats had to face the very real possibility that the law could be struck down. While it is difficult to gauge what kind of public reaction would result if Obamacare is overturned, President Obama will almost certainly take a beating in the polls. Not only would Obama’s greatest achievement be overturned, but also, didn’t Obama teach constitutional law? And if it is found that he has passed a law that is unconstitutional, that is not the kind of thing that inspires confidence in one’s leadership abilities or in the direction he is planning to take the country. The phrase “Hope and Change” should begin to ring hollow to many independent voters.

Second: Obama’s 2012 budget proposal flopped in the House of Representatives by a vote of 0-414. Not a single Democrat voted for it. The Washington post makes the point that Obama’s budget proposals have had little success in congress. Just last year, Obama’s budget was rejected by the Senate, which is controlled by the Democrats.

Third: Obama’s most prominent solution to high gas prices sounds as hollow and ineffective as his Solyndra investment. In order to combat high gas prices, Obama is going across the country stating “We need to take away the oil industry’s subsidies.” While the act of taking away the oil industry’s subsidies would perhaps provide some emotional satisfaction – aka “stickin’ it to the man,” what intelligent person actually believes that taking away a company’s subsidies will actually lower prices? Most likely, it will raise prices. And it certainly won’t solve America’s energy problems. Removing the oil industry’s subsidies is a political game, nothing more.

Romney’s week, on the other hand, was very good.

#1) Romney blew past the halfway point in the number of delegates he needs to secure the Republican nomination. In fact, Romney passed the halfway point even before Tuesday’s primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland, and D.C.

#2) Romney swept all three contests on Tuesday. In Wisconsin, Romney won by 7% over his nearest competitor. In Maryland, Romney won by 20%. And in D.C., Romney won by a whopping 58%.

#3) The Supreme Court hearings on health care provided some valuable support for Romney in defending Romneycare while denouncing Obamacare.  The main lawyer who is suing the Federal government to overturn Obamacare said that while it is unconstitutional for the federal government to implement a nationwide mandate, individual states do in fact have that authority. So from a strictly constitutional perspective, Romney is correct in arguing that what he implemented in Massachusetts is OK, but what Obama instituted is wrong for the country.  

#4) Huge Endorsements: Last week some of the biggest names in the Republican Party endorsed Mitt Romney. Endorsements came from people like former President George H.W. Bush, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and House Budge Chairman Paul Ryan. All of these endorsements show that the Republican Party is coalescing around Mitt Romney.

This issue has been hashed over time and again. Yet Rick Santorum and the Democrats continue to state that Romney supported a health care mandate for the whole country. Rick Santorum has even gone so far as to say that “there is no difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney,” and that “if the choice was between Mitt Romney or President Obama, we might as well stay with President Obama.”

These claims about Romney’s stance on health care by Rick Santorum and the Democrats are demonstrably false. Many independent and non-partisan groups called “fact-checkers” have recently researched the truthfulness of these claims and found that Rick Santorum and the Democrats are knowingly repeating falsehoods.

Lets first talk about what the FactCheckers at the Washington Post have written recently about Santorum’s claim that “Romney supported a health care mandate for the whole country.”

The Washington Post’s main fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, concludes: 

In other words, it is ridiculous to claim that Romney ever supported a national mandate when he ran for president in 2008.

Mr. Kessler gave the statement “four pinocchios” which the worst rating a statement can get, a true “whopper” of a lie.

Josh Hicks of the Washington Post comes to the same conclusion when analyzing Rick Santorum’s frequent statements that Romney “supported a mandate for the whole country” saying:

There does not appear to be a single example of Romney saying “we need to force the nation to buy insurance” or anything along that line. In fact, he has said as far back as 2007 that states should decide for themselves what types of health-care policies to implement.

In addition, a 2007 New York Times article explaining Romney’s health-care plan used the headline “Romney to Pitch a State-by-State Health Insurance Plan,” noting that his approach “departs significantly from the universal health care measure that he helped forge as governor of Massachusetts.” And his campaign literature from 2008 made clear that he wanted a “federalist” approach to universal health care.

Rick Santorum needs to recognize the truth that is so obviously before him and stop repeating what is known to be untrue. Even though Santorum is in a tough spot these days by being so far behind in the delegate count, he needs to exemplify some of that “strong moral character” that he talks about so frequently and admit when he’s wrong.

[Editor's Note: Here would be a good place to plug our RomneyCare info page. Ben (author of this post) poured many weeks of research, writing and editing into the extremely informative page. Since Santorum and others continue to (incorrectly) fault Romney for various aspects of RomneyCare we urge you to review the facts and become informed on the details.
Find it ---> HERE]

Karl Rove said earlier today that the “magic number” for Romney in Illinois was 29; Romney had to get 29 delegates in order to maintain his lead and to show that his momentum hadn’t stalled.

Now that voting is finished, Romney actually got 43 delegates, well ahead of what Rove predicted Romney would need.

It’s an impressive victory that shows Romney is not just maintaining his lead, but actually widening his lead and, more importantly, broadening his appeal among Republican voters.

The New York Times said:

Surveys of Illinois Republicans leaving polling places showed that Mr. Romney not only won among the groups that usually support him — moderates, college graduates and wealthier voters — but also was competitive among Mr. Santorum’s generally more loyal coalition of Tea Party supporters and married women.

The Washington Post goes on to say that Romney’s argument that the “right experience or background” is essential to beating Barack Obama and being a good president appears to be working.

Santorum has not won “experience” voters in a single state. Not one. (Read that again. It’s important.)

That is significant and could well be the key to Romney’s messaging as he moved forward in the race. Arguing the delegate math or even electability hasn’t closed the sale for Romney. Focusing on his experience and contrasting it with that of Santorum is working.

Thanks to Illinois, Romney is one step closer to the nomination and, as many political pundits are saying, this is most likely the beginning of the end for Rick Santorum.

The Mitt Romney campaign released its playlist called “On the Road” on Facebook on Friday. Here are the 19 tracks:

I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow – The Soggy Bottom Boys

Read My Mind – The Killers

December, 1963 [Oh What A Night!] – Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons

Ring Of Fire (no artist provided)

Somebody Told Me – The Killers

The M T A (The Boston Subway Song) – The Kingston Trio

Good Vibrations – The Beach Boys

Desperado – (Live) – Clint Black

Crying – Roy Orbison

Only You – Long Version – Commodores

Runaway – Del Shannon

It’s Your Love – Tim McGraw

As Good As I Once Was – Toby Keith

Born Free – Kid Rock

Over The Rainbow (no artist provided)

Stardust (no artist provided)

In Dreams – Roy Orbison

Somebody Like You (Album Version) – Keith Urban

All-American Girl – Carrie Underwood

I am not sure if this is the “official” Romney campaign soundtrack, or just a list of songs they are liking these days, but I think it is interesting anyway.