Unless you’ve been under a rock for a week, you’ve heard about Hilary Rosen’s comments Ann Romney didn’t “work a day in her life,” and the firestorm that started.

Ms. Rosen certainly stepped in it. But this post is not about the words she chose. Others have written plenty on that topic. My problem is with what she was really trying to say, which was just as bad, or worse.

Ms. Rosen was unartfully trying to say that because Ann has not held a paid job, or in other words because Ann is wealthy, Ann has no credibility to speak on economic issues. This is wrong. It’s anti-American and undemocratic.

Mitt has been attacked with comments he is “out of touch,” or that he (and now Ann) can’t understand people because of their wealth, or the insupportable statement that he somehow “isn’t connecting.” I could trot out numerous examples of how Mitt’s words have been taken out of context to try and make the point he’s one of “them,” not one of “us,” or, in OWS lingo, part of the one percent.

All of these attacks are meant to create and perpetuate a culture of blame, an us vs. them mentality and to divide us based on our economic circumstances. As pointed out by our own David Parker in another post tonight, they are certainly not in the spirit of Barack Obama’s promise to go above partisan politics as usual and the politics of division. The American dream to me, and I believe to the entire GOP, is that all people should have an opportunity to make of themselves what they will. To point at someone like Ann Romney and tear her down because she is fortunate enough to have had success is clearly what Ms. Rosen was trying to do, and it is just plain wrong. I’m offended because Ms. Rosen’s words try to solidify that economic divide solely to keep a Democrat in the White House. Her comments were mean spirited and misguided. There is no hope in them, only, I believe, a knowing mis-representation intended to solicit the support of the poor, who, ironically, are in the situation they’re in due to President Obama’s failed economic policies.

Mitt has said it very well: if you vilify success, you’ll have less of it. The left has been vilifying Mitt’s success since he started in order to shift the blame from their own failed policies and solidify their hold on power. This just cannot stand.

With those thoughts in mind, here are my top ten reasons why what Ms. Rosen meant was just as bad as what she said: Read more…

UPDATE:

On my way home from work tonight I heard the following exchange between Hannity and Ann Coulter, with Ms. Coulter arguing in part what I state below: judicial activism is not a court finding a law unconstitutional, but finding new rights or failing to enforce existing constitutional rights. Often she’s a bit extreme to be taken completely at face value, but I think she’s right to point out the judicial activism that concerns the right is not what apparently concerns the left:

ORIGINAL POST:

If you thought the open mic comment to new Russian President Medvedev was pretty bad, President Obama has created some competition for himself in the gaffe department. Or was it another window to his soul?

You may have heard that Monday President Obama appeared to warn the Supreme Court regarding its pending decision on Obamacare. His comments were as follows:

I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

Yahoo called the remark a “challenge” to the Court. Others weren’t so kind. Among other problems with the President’s statement, you may recall that whether Obamacare was passed by a “strong majority” can be called into question. It was a purely party-line vote. But I digress.

I’m willing to assume President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, understands the concept of judicial review, and that courts overturning unconstitutional laws is not “unprecedented.” As a liberal, he may even be among the first to re-affirm that Marbury v. Madison is still good law. But the tone and chosen wording of the President’s comments caused the White House to have to defend itself from some of those “unkind” remarks yesterday. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (the guy distributing the Obama Kool-Aid) tried to make the case the President was “clearly” referring only to commerce clause cases, and with respect to those only those of the past 80 years. Neither qualification, of course, was actually included in the President’s initial comments. When pushed as to whether the president was clarifying his remarks, Carney said “Only because a handful of people didn’t understand what he was referring to.”

Here’s a link to the video should you care to watch. Today he added that the President had been speaking in “short-hand.” I hope that flexibility is accorded both sides in campaign season. We’ll see.

The president’s statement caused Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post to write:

Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”

And she makes clear she’s on his side otherwise. Read more…

The Romance of Delegate Math

If you’re like me you find yourself looking at polling data and calculating delegate counts in your head. If Mitt takes so many delegates in DC, Maryland and Wisconsin, that puts him at a new total of X, extending his lead over Santorum by Y, and making Rick need Z percent of the future delegates to win…. Okay, maybe you’re not like me.

It may sound boring to the uninitiated, but it’s the math behind propelling the most qualified candidate in the race to his party’s nomination, step one in replacing Barack Obama.

What’s at Stake Tuesday: Long View

What Obamacare teaches us. In case you don’t think replacing Barack Obama is a big deal, reflect back on the biggest political story of this week. Okay, not the open mic incident. I’m referring to our hearing our president’s Solicitor General argue to the Supreme Court why Obamacare’s Federal mandate is constitutional. The traditionally conservative justices asked for a rationale that could possibly limit Congress’ power under the commerce clause should they accept his argument. Meanwhile, the traditionally liberal justices tried their best to supply that rationale. Based on the impressions of those reporting, the decision appears headed for a familiar 5-4 vote against the law, with the four traditional conservatives on one side, the four traditional liberals on the other, and middle-of-the-road Justice Kennedy likely voting with the conservatives. But time will tell.

Shape of the Court to come. As someone concerned about finding real limits to Congress’ power (history proving we need limits to preserve our freedom), and knowing the general police power was intended to be reserved to the states (making the difference between Federal Obamacare and state Romneycare night and day), I thank my lucky stars we had presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush to appoint the four conservative justices currently on the court. The liberal justices? Two from Clinton, two from Obama. By way of preview, the next president may have a chance to replace not only the lead conservative on the court in Scalia (currently 76 years old) and a staunch liberal on the court in Ginsburg (79), but iconic swing justice Kennedy, who has made the difference in many 5-4 decisions (currently 75 years old). In other words, who the president is matters, a lot, not just in signing and vetoing laws, but in appointing justices to the court who can protect the Constitution for a generation to come (a combined half-century now for Scalia and Kennedy).

MORE REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT AND AN ESTIMATE OF DELEGATES AWARDED TUESDAY BELOW! Read more…

An interesting op ed piece appeared on Politico today from Paul Goldman and Mark J. Rozell, posing the question whether “Romneycare” is an asset or liability for Mitt. They conclude the former.

The traditional analysis, which has become the sole remaining justification for a Rick Santorum candidacy, is that Mitt Romney’s being the author of Romneycare somehow disqualifies him from pointing out the flaws in Obamacare in the general election. But the op ed authors take exception to the traditional analysis:

This conservative faith is wrong, however. To the extent that attacks on President Barack Obama’s health care reform are good politics, the candidate best able to make them is Mitt Romney.

Since he orchestrated and then signed the Massachusetts health care law, Romney is uniquely qualified to lead the GOP attacks against the federal health care reform bill.

Why would Mitt be uniquely qualified?

He would be the first GOP nominee in nearly 50 years with a proven track record on health care who has been praised by Democrats — including the president — as fair and compassionate. He can’t be demonized as an out-of-touch, uncompassionate, hard-right ideologue on this issue.

Americans have been telling pollsters since 1965 that they favor Democrats over Republicans when asked whom they trust on health care issues. That was when President Lyndon B. Johnson and congressional Democrats passed the historic Medicare program — over the objections of many high-profile Republican opponents, including future President Ronald Reagan.

This political landscape meant GOP presidential nominees have regularly been put on the defensive, sometimes even demonized, on health care issues. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are typical in this regard.

Romney is the exception.

Read more…

Evidence mounts that the GOP electorate is rallying around Mitt. Rasmussen today published a poll showing Mitt with a 13 point lead in the State of Wisconsin, 46% to 33% over Santorum. Wisconsin is among the next states to hold primaries, and follows Louisiana, which holds its primary tomorrow, March 24. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich were in distant third and fourth places, respectively, in the Wisconsin polling. Prior polls, taken nearly a month ago, had Santorum with a similar lead over Romney, indicating a nearly 30 point possible swing toward Mitt over that time. Of course polling is not always reliable, but the large swing is noteworthy, and may indicate the coalescing is beginning in earnest behind Mitt. Rasmussen overstated Mitt’s support in Mississippi, but understated his support in Illinois. Rasmussen’s latest Wisconsin poll has a 3% margin of error and 95% confidence rate. For more analysis, see this Washington Post article.

Charlie Sykes on Board. In other Wisconsin news, according to Politico, Charlie Sykes, a Wisconsin conservative radio personality, also posted via Twitter he’s voting for Mitt.

Louisiana. Polls in Louisiana still show Santorum with a 12-14% lead, with the latest Rasmussen poll showing 43% to 31% in favor of the Senator. Louisiana’s delegates are awarded proportionately, however, so the number of delegates out of the 46 [CORRECTION: 20] being allocated tomorrow will not be significantly in Santorum’s favor. [NOTE: an astute reader pointed out that only 20 of the 46 Louisiana delegates are actually allocated tomorrow, and, in fact, only candidates receiving over 25% of the vote will receive a proportional share of those, with the remainder of even that 20 being unbound, making Louisiana's impact even smaller]. Now the math may not be linear, as every state is different, but a 12% higher vote would yield relatively few additional delegates granted to Santorum at the end of the contest, particularly if Mitt clears 25%, which appears likely. And 43% is certainly not enough to match the nearly 70% target Santorum must reach in every remaining primary to capture the nomination, making even Louisiana likely just another step towards Mitt’s ultimate victory. Nearly 60% of voters in Louisiana identify as evangelical or having similar values, which would suggest a home state advantage for Santorum, but exit polling in recent primaries has shown Mitt doing well in all groups, so Santorum’s historical advantage among evangelicals may be slipping as well. Polling has indicated that while evangelical voters may initially lean toward a different choice, Mitt is an acceptable alternative. As it becomes clearer Mitt is the only candidate that can win the nomination, look for growing support among this group. And who knows? With polls being wrong, and dynamics changing daily (including Santorum’s goof seeming to suggest support for Obama over Mitt), perhaps Mitt will win Louisiana outright.

BONUS: JUST ADDED MITT’S NEW WISCONSIN AD AFTER THE FOLD!

Read more…

Illinois, you know the future of the country is in your hands.

The GOP All Agree: It’s Time to Replace Barack Obama

The GOP nearly unanimously agrees that our four year experiment with an inexperienced Senator at the helm has been a disaster. I read yesterday an article at Politico whose headline was “CBO: Exploding debt under Obama policies.” That article says public debt is expected (under CBO rules of prognostication) to increase from $10.1 trillion in 2011 to $18.8 trillion in 2022. For the current fiscal year:

…CBO is now projecting a shortfall of $1.3 trillion. In fiscal 2013, the deficit will still hover near the $1 trillion mark — about $977 billion. And while it will fall to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2017, it then begins to grow again to 3 percent of GDP by 2022.

With 5 more years of Barack Obama, without threat of losing a re-election bid, one can imagine how bad it could get. How long has it been since the Senate proposed a budget? How much time do we have to repeal Obamacare before the contraception controversy becomes par for the course, and the Federal government begins telling religious institutions what it must buy for its employees?

And this doesn’t even consider foreign policy.

Picking the Replacement

So our choices to replace Barack Obama are now clear. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul.

While there’s much of Ron Paul’s philosophy on the appropriate constitutional size of government I find appealing, he won’t win an election against Barack Obama. The last two elections in which the GOP nominee was elected were decided by the slimmest of margins. I don’t believe that American citizens are ready to make the radical changes Ron Paul would advocate. And I’m not ready for his approach to foreign policy.

Newt Gingrich.

I’ve written before that while Newt Gingrich seems to be an idea machine, he doesn’t know the difference between a good one and a bad one, which is not a good trait for a president. As an attorney for executives, I have observed that some people actually get things done, and others like to pontificate and tell others what to do. I see Newt in the latter role: wanting to be the professor and tell everyone else what they should do rather than actually getting it done. That is not what I’m looking for in an commander-in-chief.

Rick Santorum.

As for Rick Santorum, there’s a lot about his conservative social stands that I like. But I disagree that Rick draws a sharper conservative contrast with Obama than Mitt Romney, that Rick is the “true conservative” in the race, or that Mitt’s having endorsed health care reform in Massachusetts is a handicap. David Axelrod, Obama’s Communications Director, doesn’t hesitate to point out the many differences between Mitt and Obama. Saying Mitt is in any way like Obama is clearly misleading. Santorum calling himself the “true conservative” is also misleading. There are serious arguments to be made that Santorum is not a fiscal conservative at all. And while he attacks Mitt on social issues (principally abortion and Romneycare), Santorum is just as much a convert to the pro-life movement as Mitt is, and Mitt has made it very, very clear that he is both pro-life and intends to repeal Obamacare. When Santorum claims he “never supported the individual mandate,” that’s not true. He supported Mitt Romney as the “true conservative” candidate in 2008, after Romneycare was adopted. Rick’s conversion on health care reform came very recently, and very opportunistically. And we should not forget that Santorum’s endorsement of liberal Arlen Specter is what allowed Obamacare to pass in the first place, since Specter cast the deciding vote. Rick’s habit of compromising his principles has already harmed our country enough.

Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, in my mind, Mitt has a number of strengths that make him the compelling choice.

Turnaround experience.

Mitt has decades of true executive experience, something unmatched in any other candidate. Mitt has been a governor. He has been a CEO. He led the Olympic games. Mitt’s executive experience has also often been leading organizations needing a turnaround. He’s credited with saving the 2002 Olympics. He’s credited with saving Bain Consulting. He’s credited with balancing the budget in Massachusetts without raising tax rates.

Read more…

The Chicago Tribune Endorsement: We need to fix our debt, and only Mitt is qualified or able

The Chicago Tribune has recognized what we all knew: Mitt Romney is the most qualified GOP candidate in this race, and has endorsed him as the GOP nominee. The entire op ed is at this link.

One of the principal reasons they cite for supporting Mitt is the danger that our deficit and accumulating national debt represent. They recognize that at our current rate of spending, if unchecked by what they call “useless” politicians, our children will become the equivalent of indentured servants paying the bills for our generation’s excesses. And they don’t even mention how, recently, the true cost of Obamacare has been recognized as being much greater than originally thought. They conclude that Mitt, not Rick Santorum, is the right choice to address this pivotal issue:

Who might engineer a fix? Only one of the four Republicans still in this primary race has the personal skill set, the painfully won experience, to appreciate this peril and to guide Americans through their own financial rescue. For many of those Americans, the nation’s debt debacle still seems drab, dense, something to think about tomorrow. Yet it risks shrinking and marginalizing our country’s future and global influence, just as debt debacles are shrinking and marginalizing much of Europe.

While three of the Republican candidates were giving speeches and casting votes in Congress, one of these four was managing, and sometimes salvaging, large enterprises in the public and private sectors. One of these four was forced to make costly organizations live, however unpleasantly, within their means. One of these four was learning what it is to live with the often good, sometimes bad, consequences of his executive decisions.

For his demonstrated abilities and the economic pragmatism at his core, the Tribune endorses former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts as the Republicans’ best, most responsible choice in Tuesday’s Illinois primary. The other three contestants, for lack of Romney’s credibility on this threat to the American way, can only try to talk a good game. We’re far more confident that Romney is the candidate best equipped to keep the U.S. from devolving into New Europe.

The article concludes with these statements:

Come November, partisans in both parties will be tempted to ignore their nominee’s failure to deal with this debt bomb. The nation can’t do that. Voters have to demand more discipline from Obama and from the Republican candidate.

One more advantage for Romney: He is the candidate most likely to steer the Republican Party toward its traditional values: financial responsibility, economic (and thus job) growth, social tolerance, and a limited role for government in the lives of the governed. That does not necessitate alienating tea partiers and social conservatives, many of them motivated by the irresponsible expansion of our national debt; for nearly three years they have been the most energetic force in American politics. It does, though, mean hewing to a strategy perfected by Ronald Reagan: Recruit to your big tent everyone who agrees with you on something, not just those who agree with you on everything.

Presidential primaries are not for electing. They’re for nominating candidates who, by talent and temperament, are qualified to lead and inspire all Americans. Romney is the least polarizing candidate in today’s Republican field. He projects maturity and calm. He’s fit to apply conservative ideals to the messy business of governing.

Illinois voters: we here at MittRomneyCentral have known for a long time that Mitt is the only candidate equipped to deal with our nation’s most important issues. Top of that list are the economy and the related issue of our national debt. Our nation’s economic and even military security depend on tackling these issues, and only Mitt Romney has any experience at tackling such issues. If you’re considering who to vote for, these issues are too important to leave in the hands of an inexperienced politician. We’ve tried that before, with horrible results. It’s time for an experienced leader. Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney today received another:

(Thanks to the campaign’s official site, from which I borrowed the above graphic. I highly encourage you to go there and donate.)

The Cincinnati Enquirer today “wholeheartedly” endorsed Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee.

In an op ed piece the newspaper said of Governor Romney:

Republican voters can no longer ignore the obvious: There is only one GOP candidate for president who has the temperament, character and discipline to lead the nation. One candidate with the business experience and management skills befitting a chief executive. One candidate who can appeal to a broad enough spectrum of voters to win in November. That candidate is Mitt Romney.

We endorse him wholeheartedly in Tuesday’s Ohio primary. Romney is best suited to represent the GOP mainstream, advance a thoughtful conservative agenda, offer a strong alternative to President Obama and lead the nation into a new era of progress if elected this fall.

The article goes on to list Mitt’s conservative credentials, listing private sector experience, turning around the first post-9/11 Olympic games, his success working in deep blue state Massachusetts for conservative principles (cutting taxes and wiping out a deficit), his focus on problem-solving, his managerial skills, his cool temper and lack of debilitating ego.

And, of course, this election is going to be all about the national debt, the economy, and jobs:

Read more…

Mitt Romney is uniquely qualified to lead our nation.

As I’ve said before, he has turned around many an enterprise, and that’s what we need now. A US government turnaround.

Economic problems will come over the next four years. We already have one junior Senator with no executive experience occupying the Oval Office. Electing a second just seems silly. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney was a successful Massachusetts governor and leader of the Olympics. He led businesses in trouble and got them on the right path. He makes organizations more efficient, and he knows how the economy works. He’s criticized by Santorum as not being conservative enough. Ironically he was plenty conservative for Santorum four years ago when Santorum whole-heartedly endorsed Mitt (post-Romneycare). Romney is plenty conservative, and Ann Coulter, who is very conservative, says Romney is the only true conservative in the race.

We need someone who’s fiscally responsible. Mitt balanced budgets. Santorum busted budgets, voting to raise the debt ceiling without accompanying cuts. He voted for more earmarks than you can shake a stick at, including the bridge to nowhere. While Mitt was working in the private sector, Santorum was taking more money from lobbyists than his Senate cohorts and doling out favors in the K Street Project. He’s no Washington outsider, unless you count the fact his own state rejected his re-election bid by 18 points and made him leave. And I’ve come to the conclusion you just can’t trust him. Witness his latest calls to democrats to come and vote for him in the GOP primary, his special treatment while in the Senate, his seeking reimbursement from Pennsylvania for his kids’ education while they lived in Virginia. It’s all about putting Rick first.

We’re starting to hear about the possibility of $10 a gallon gas. What will that do to the economy? Does Rick Santorum know how to fix it? Mitt does. What would happen if Greece defaulted on its loans? Does Rick know? Mitt does. Can we trust Rick to cut into a $15 trillion national debt? Not if past is prologue. And we know it is. This may be the biggest security issue to face our country in the next few years, and Rick has shown a special propensity to spend, not cut, even when in violation of his principles. Yes, he “takes one for the team,” but right now we need true courage, not people who will go along with the crowd. Meanwhile I know Mitt’s family. I’ve spent plenty of time with them and have had a chance to hang out with him on occasion. They’re very good people. Mitt cares about people. He pays 16% of his sizable income to charity, 60% more than a traditional tithe. He’s honest. He’s funny. He wants to help. He doesn’t need to be president, but he’s willing to serve. He’s the kind of leader we need, not someone who needs the job to maintain their position of being able to suck off the government.

Obama is at serious risk of losing in his re-election bid. But not to Santorum. There have been many articles just on this site listing the many reasons Santorum will not win independents in the general election. Meanwhile, if Michigan votes for him because it doesn’t know or chooses to ignore Rick’s faults, it will extend the GOP race and cost our nominee millions in unnecessary dollars that could have been used to fight Obama, whose war chest will be full. Debating also matters. He proved in the many debates he can’t play defense and he can’t beat Obama in a debate one on one.

Our nation is mostly center-right. The far left will vote for the democrat. The far right will vote for the republican. The people in the middle will select our next president, and they’ll lean to the right, but not if Santorum is the nominee. He keeps attacking separation of church and state and saying things like pre-natal testing of babies is immoral (because it might lead to an abortion) and wanting people to attend college is snobbery. These are not middle-right positions. These are positions most Americans don’t support. That’s why the politicians who really want to defeat Obama support Mitt, and nearly none support Rick.

We’re getting to where this race is critical. The polls give me confidence Arizona will do the right thing Tuesday. Michigan must as well. Make the calls. Tell your friends in Arizona and Michigan: get out and vote for Mitt Romney, the only qualified candidate in the race. Put Rick Santorum away for good, so we can put Obama away for good. We need to get this done, now. If you don’t know if Mitt’s the right choice, trust me. I can tell you from first-hand experience he is.

UPDATE from Ross:

Part 1 – Santorum’s Poor Record of Charitable Giving:

You’d think a conservative candidate for president would be fairly generous with their charitable giving. The conservative approach to helping the poor, after all, is to rely on private charities so we can keep the size of government small and not create welfare dependency. So why is it that Rick Santorum gave so little of his income to charity over the last couple years?

The statistics are startling: in 2008 Santorum donated just under $22,000 to charity, but purchased an Audi A6 for $42,950. Looking back further, CNN reported:

Santorum gave $81,500 to charity over the past four years, or 2.2% of the more than $3.6 million in total income he earned since leaving the Senate, the documents showed.

…

From 2007 to 2009, Santorum’s rate of charitable giving fluctuated between 2.03% and 2.67% of his earnings.

In 2010, the rate dropped to 1.76% of his $923,411 in income. That same year, President Obama gave 14.2% of his income to charity, while Mitt Romney donated 13.8% and Newt Gingrich gave 2.6%.

Let’s be clear: while it’s true Senator Santorum has more children than the average person, he’s also made nearly a million dollars a year for four years, and gave just over 2% to charity during this period (well short of the 1/10th associated with a traditional tithe). CNN notes as well that people of Senator Santorum’s wealth usually give approximately 3.4% of their income to charity, putting Santorum at approximately 50% below the average.

“His donation level is on the low side,” said Ken Berger, the president and CEO of Charity Navigator, who also noted that research suggests religious individuals donate more than the non-religious.

“When you put it in the context of people of faith, then it really is on the low side,” Berger said.

What’s worse is that Santorum’s actions differ substantially from what he advocates publicly:

The relatively low contribution level is also a bit puzzling for a senator who championed non-profits and charitable organizations while in office.

“We should be proactive in finding ways to more fully engage the American public in charitable giving,” Santorum said in a 2005 statement on the CARE Act, a bill he sponsored that sought to promote the interests of charities and provide incentives for Americans to donate.

Part 2 – Rick Santorum’s Poorly Managed Charity:

Read more…