The Romney Campaign has put out a great ad today that seems to sum up the attitudes of today’s Millennial generation.
We have only 42 days left before America votes – Now is the time for advocacy; now is the time to elevate our message of freedom. As a reader of this blog, we encourage and invite you to dig a little deeper and reach out to others – share the message of freedom. Develop an email list, use social media, engage in daily conversations – share the message of freedom and liberty.
Knowledge is power. The more we know and the better informed we are, the more effective we can be. The media is filled with bias and, at times, it is difficult to discern truth. We have witnessed a mainstream media that knows no bounds – they suppress or distort truth and they filter what they report so as to promote and protect the President. The cable news shows, MSNBC, CNN, and others are so far in the tank for the President, it is difficult at best to tolerate their reporting. Further, the current polls are so skewed, they offer little relief in knowing where things really stand. Amidst it all, FoxNews tries its best at fair and balanced. The internet can also provide a plethora of information, some of which is true and some not. So, where can we go for critical and accurate information?
The Drudge Report is a tremendous aggregator of information. Matt Drudge is the bane of the mainstream media and accused by them of bias, which is a testament of Drudge’s integrity! Real Clear Politics is another aggregator without a perceived bias. Mitt Romney Central – biased as we may be, we strive for accuracy and integrity in our information. Hugh Hewitt – Hugh does a tremendous job at providing information with integrity and substance. He has his bias, but clearly delineates what is opinion. On The Brink FB page – I try to link to substantive information regularly in support of the tenets of On The Brink, America’s Choice 2012 Mitt Romney Central FB – Again, we strive for accuracy and integrity in our posts. Dennis Prager – an intelligent and cogent source for information. National Review – Rich Lowry has done an admiral job in trying to distill truth amid the cacophony of news.
There are several others, some of which can be inflammatory in their reporting in an attempt to elevate the debate, such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Even so, they provide fodder for provocative thought and further study. There are others, but I have found those above to be informative.
The need to be informed has never been greater as we fight for our freedoms and liberties.
As to polls, below is a report card of accuracy and consistency from the 2008 election cycle.
Before a Hispanic audience at the Univision presidential forum in Florida, our president — the one who campaigned on “hope” and “change” — admitted to his inability to bring change to Washington, citing his belief that it is impossible to “change Washington from the inside.” And in saying so, he effectively made the case for a Romney presidency.
Team Romney was quick to respond to the comment as the video below shows. The question now is, will the media report on this obvious gaffe? We’ll wait and see.
It’s not the campaign. This is Rick Santorum. I think everybody knows, nobody puts words into my mouth. The words out of my mouth were that if you want a conservative as the nominee of this party, you must vote for Mitt Romney. ~ Rick Santorum
Well, the final results aren’t final yet . . . but it’s clear that Romney won this important swing state’s caucus, and won it big. (Update . . . Romney did get just over 50%, but the entrance poll results have just been revised this morning, so much of what you see quoted below is somewhat off from what the linked poll says NOW. Sorry, I’m not going back and re-calculating things at this point).
He’s got 43% of the vote with 43% of precincts reporting, but the results of Clark County (Las Vegas) as not coming in as fast as expected. Don’t fret though Romney fans, Mitt will win a majority of the votes and I’m guessing he’ll be somewhere between 52-55% of the total vote when all is said and done. If things track as closely as they are in the entrance polls, Clark County should go for Mitt by over 60% (and they’ve nailed the non-Clark County…rest of NV…percentage at 43%, exactly how the real results have turned out)
Debunking the “Romney won Nevada because of the Mormon factor” myth:
Yes, Mitt dominated among LDS voters with 90% choosing Romney, BUT (and it’s a very big “but”), EVEN IF NOT A SINGLE MORMON WENT TO VOTE, ROMNEY WOULD HAVE WON THE STATE WITH A 42%-26% margin over Gingrich. Romney won Catholics 52%-19% over Newt and “White Evangelical/Born Again” by a solid margin of 46%-26% over the former Speaker.
Debunking the “See, the poor won’t vote for Romney” myth:
On CNN’s coverage tonight, the anchors/pundits seemed to be getting as much mileage as possible out of the fact that the only economic demographic that Romney did NOT win was those that make $30,000 or less (which were only 10% of the voters in NV last night). They were trying to tie this to Romney’s “I’m not concerned about the very poor” comment and even went on to conclude that this “underscores the fact that blue-collar workers, who you can’t win without their support, do not see that this is a guy that will fight for them.” SERIOUSLY?!?!? I realize that these pundits aren’t statisticians, but it’s pretty straightforward to figure out why he didn’t win this demographic. First off, he hardly “lost” this demographic. Paul and Newt both got 31%, and Mitt got 30%, a virtual 3 way tie for first. Secondly, the age of the voter is VERY determinative of income when looking at your youngest age group especially. Voters aged 18-29 were only 8% of the vote (quite similar to the 10% in that income of $30K or less), and Paul won that group 40% to 39% over Romney. Paul has been wining the young college-aged voters in almost every state . . . it’s his base and he’s definitely turning out this group of folks that do not typically vote in a GOP primary. Good for Paul. But these college kids are a HUGE portion of the “makes less than $30,000 year” group, and I don’t think anyone would consider college kids “the very poor,” they are just in a temporary low-income stage of their lives.
“Strong Moral Character;” Mitt good, Newt Very Very Bad:
In perhaps the most revealing entrance poll finding, those that felt a candidate having “Strong Moral Character” was their number one trait they sought in a President, Mitt got 54% of the vote … Newt got 1% of those voters. No, that is not a typo, ONE PERCENT (Paul got 32% and Santorum got 13%). Looks like Nevada voters are pretty good judges of character, eh? THIS IS WHY YOU’RE LOSING NEWT!! YOU BLAME MITT FOR YOUR LAGGING VOTE TALLIES, BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR BUDDY!
Debunking the “Strong Conservatives and Tea Party voters don’t like Romney” myth:
Like New Hampshire and Florida, Romney, once again, won self-identified conservatives and supporters of the Tea Party in Nevada. This time though, he won A MAJORITY of these groups. Romney beat Newt 54%-21% among conservative voters and 50%-23% among Tea Party supporters. Yet I still see pundit after pundit say that Romney still has a lot of work to do to appeal to conservatives (while they “obviously” love Newt). CAN THEY NOT READ A POLL?!? Among “very conservative” voters he Mitt still won 49%-24% over Newt, and even beat him 39%-30% among those “strongly supportive of Tea Party.” Some narratives are hard to kill, but when a state in the Northeast (NH), Southeast (FL), and West (NV) all show Romney winning conservatives and Tea Party supporters I think it’s proof positive against that media meme. The real take-away/new-media-narrative should be that Newt has work to do to appeal to as many conservatives as Romney has been.
Odds and Ends:
The Economy was the number one (even by a majority) issue on voters minds, and Romney carried these voters by 62%. By an even larger margin, the candidate quality of “Can Defeat Obama” was number one, and Romney absolutely dominated here with 73% of the vote. WOW! ”Right Experience” was the top quality to only 15% of voters, but Romney cleaned up here too with 55% (Rick Santorum pulled in a whopping 1% here). Romney also continues to dominate the Suburbs winning with 69% there; historically this is a key demographic for winning a general election.
Newt and some liberals keeps saying that Mitt’s trying to suppress turnout in order to win. When we look at the field compared to 2008, however, I don’t think it’s any surprise that turnout is lower. Last time around there was much more diversity, and much more famous personalities in the field. You had a Pro-Choice candidate with strong personal appeal/popularity in Rudy Giuliani, War Hero John McCain, popular actor Fred Thompson, and folksy former pastor Mike Huckabee in addition to Mitt and Paul all in the race this far into the process. Substituting character-challenged Gingrich and personality/experience-challenged Rick Santorum in place of Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee is beyond even comparing apples and oranges. They all had more money and organization that either Newt or Rick too and that is how turnout is driven. Like all of Newt’s complaints/excuses, this one rings hollow as well.
CONGRATS MITT AND NEVADA!! ANOTHER GREAT WIN FOR ROMNEY!!
Today, two writers who work for the Boston Globe released a biography of Gov. Romney titled “The Real Romney”. I’ve known about this book in the work for quite some time, and I’ve worried that it will paint Gov. Romney in an unfair light since the Boston Globe has notoriously treated Gov. Romney quite toughly. However, other than the authors’ tired attempts to portray Gov. Romney as someone who will change/hide his opinions to suit whatever political position he aims to hold, the authors couldn’t seem to find anyone with intimate knowledge of Gov. Romney who had much of anything negative to say about him. At worst, people who know Mitt best have a neutral view of him, while the overwhelming majority of people quoted in this book speak glowingly about the man who may become the next President of the United States.
Here are what I found most memorable in the book “The Real Romney”:
Rick Santorum has been on the offensive lately after his surprise second place finish in Iowa. He’s now claiming Mitt Romney isn’t conservative enough to be the Republican nominee. In 2008, Santorum was singing a much different tune: “Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear. Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party.”
Nothing’s changed, Rick!
Here is the press release from 2008:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 1, 2008
FORMER U.S. SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA)
ENDORSES GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY
Boston, MA – Today, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced his endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney. Senator Santorum served two terms in the United States Senate where he was also Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the third-ranking member of the Republican leadership.
“In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party’s nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear,” said Senator Santorum. “Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party.”
Get your daily dose of Chris Christie below the fold: It does the body good. (more…)
Lot’s of good news tonight for Romney and his supporters. First off, Ken Starr (most notably known for the Clinton/Lewinsky case, but a man who is a true legal scholar and current President of Baylor University) has penned an Op-ed entitled “Can I Vote for a Mormon?” While it’s not an endorsement, and doesn’t even mention Romney by name, it is a great historical and constitutional argument why he/we could definitely vote for a Mormon.
I strongly encourage Americans who would ask this question ["Can I vote for a Mormon?] of themselves to consider and weigh thoughtfully our nation’s constitutional traditions. At their best, those are traditions of welcoming religious forbearance.
To support this proposition, I return to the founding of our constitutional republic — boasting as we rightly do the oldest Constitution in the history of the planet. Only 27 amendments have been ratified to that basic document over our 222 years as a representative democracy. In fashioning this remarkably enduring document, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia made it absolutely clear that no religious test should ever be imposed to hold office. The Founders also made clear that religious dissenters (such as the Quakers) should not be compelled to take an oath if doing so would be a violation of conscience. Building on those twin pillars of tolerance, the Supreme Court at its finest moments has likewise vigorously defended the right of all persons to participate in the democratic process, including holding office, without the burden of religious tests or qualifications.
According to the American political tradition, there are essential questions by which all office seekers are qualified, regardless of their faith journey or history. The first is: Does the candidate subscribe completely to our constitutional structure, including freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths — or no faith? A second question for the thoughtful voter is related to and flows from the first: Will the candidate subscribe, without any “mental hesitation or purpose of evasion,” to the oath to protect and defend America’s Constitution? If the answers to those closely connected questions are yes, then voters should proceed to cast their ballot on the basis of the candidate’s qualifications, platform and policy positions — not the candidate’s membership (or lack thereof) in a particular faith community. …
In my own life, I have drawn great strength from my religious practices and, according to the teachings of my faith tradition, I intend to continue to keep in prayer those who are chosen to lead our nation. That said, the litmus for our elected leaders must not be the church they attend but the Constitution they defend. …
America should stand — in an intolerant world characterized all too frequently by religious persecution — as a stirring example of welcoming hospitality for highly qualified men and women of good will seeking the nation’s highest office. Life experience, personal qualities and policy views are the pivotal points to guide Americans as they go to the polls in 2012.
I realize that most American’s already agree with Mr. Starr on this point, but for those that may feel that voting for Romney is an endorsement of Mormonism, the strong case that is presented above may open some hearts and minds to supporting the best choice and best chance to replace President Obama … Mitt Romney!
Money quote: ”Romney is the one they don’t want. They know they can beat anybody else. Romney, they think they can beat, but it’s a harder road.” Watching the whole 6 minute video shows this to be a candid and honest exchange, not a liberal plant or talking point (We saw that in the immediate post-debate analysis on ABC last night when Democratic Strategist Donna Brazelle stated to the panel and audience that they want to run against Romney because he’s the weakest candidate … she was met with laughs and jeers from the rest of the panel and the audience for that obvious lie)
Some other interesting tidbits from the video: O’Donnell’s perplexed by Newt’s attack on Romney’s career at Bain saying it should have no effect in a GOP primary, but that those attacks may have some effect with some voters in a general election. He also doesn’t think the GOP VP choice will matter much, though the interviewer mentioned my favorite choice, Marco Rubio, being able to take Florida off the map for Obama.
Hi again, all. You may remember me from the 2008 cycle, or maybe not! I hope to add some insights and convince a few people if I can that we need Mitt Romney as President in 2012.
Who I am.
First a bit of background about me, then why it’s relevant: I’m from San Diego. I’m married with three sons of high school / junior high age. I happen to live in a neighborhood near a few members of Mitt’s family, so from time to time have had some personal interactions with them and, on a few occasions, with Mitt. I’m a practicing corporate lawyer for a large local firm. I help companies do deals. Usually it’s helping them take investment from venture capitalists, “angel” investors or other private equity investors (like Mitt used to be). I spend about half my time representing these growing companies or their investors, and the other half helping sell these companies once they’re successful. Most of my clients have some sort of technology focus, whether it’s internet-related, mobile phone related, medical devices or other life sciences. I’m a believer in innovation and its role in the economy.
So why is any of that relevant to Mitt Romney and the 2012 campaign?
My seat on the sidelines representing companies receiving investment and representing their investors has taught me a few things:
1. The cost of government regulation is real. I see many start up and growing businesses deciding to move out of my state and the United States altogether due to higher costs of doing business driven directly by regulation. Many of my clients have employees outside the United States. These business people don’t hate America and are not evil. Most aren’t even part of the “1%.” These companies and their investors often make their decisions based on a sense of loyalty to those that entrusted them with investment dollars and a sense of obligation to protect that money. Too often due to high taxes or over-regulation their best path to success takes them away from my home state and the United States, taking jobs with them.
2. Corporations are, in fact (made up of) people. Everyone who has a 401-K knows this. Employees also receive their wages from businesses and lose jobs if companies don’t do well. While corporations may seem faceless, taxing them means taxing real people (which was Mitt’s point when he said corporations are [made up of] people). Those are dollars workers won’t see because they can’t be reinvested, and that will reduce dividends to shareholders. That’s Mitt’s point: businesses aren’t evil, they’re good. They’re you, and they’re me. They create wealth, they don’t take it. While some regulation is appropriate, we need to promote business. Mitt knows this. Apparently the left doesn’t, or is more willing to use a soundbite for political gain than to engage in a real discussion about how to create jobs. We need to stimulate, and not vilify, businesses. As Mitt says, the Obama administration doesn’t seem to love business very much. (more…)
Aerial view of downtown Boston, Massachusetts ● Mitt Romney has received a slate of endorsements from legislators in The Bay State. Sept 14, 2011
Yesterday, Mitt Romney announced that he has been endorsed by 33 of the 36 Republicans in the Massachusetts legislature:
“I am pleased to announce my endorsements from the Massachusetts legislature,” said Mitt Romney. “For years, I have worked hard with many of these leaders to fight for reform, jobs, and lower spending in Massachusetts. Now, I look forward to working with them during my campaign to get our country on the right track and lead the country out of this economic downturn.”
Announcing his support, House Minority Leader Brad Jones said, “After working closely with Mitt Romney during his time as governor, I know he is the right person to lead our country. Unlike our current president, Mitt Romney had a record of results as governor.”
Massachusetts Legislative Endorsements:
• Bradley Jones, House Minority Leader
• George Peterson, House Assistant Minority Leader
• Bradford Hill, House Minority Whip
• Elizabeth Poirier, House Assistant Minority Whip
• Robert Hedlund, Senate Assistant Minority Leader
• Richard Ross, Senate Minority Whip
• Paul Adams, State Representative
• Jay Barrows, State Representative
• Richard Bastien, State Representative
• Matthew Beaton, State Representative
• Nicholas Boldyga, State Representative
• Vinny deMacedo, State Representative
• Angelo D’Emilia, State Representative
• Geoff Diehl, State Representative
• Peter Durant, State Representative
• Ryan Fattman, State Representative
• Kimberly Ferguson, State Representative
• Paul Frost, State Representative
• Susan Gifford, State Representative
• Sheila Harrington, State Representative
• Steven Howitt, State Representative
• Donald Humason, State Representative
• Randy Hunt, State Representative
• Kevin Kuros, State Representative
• Steven Levy, State Representative
• Marc Lombardo, State Representative
• Shaunna O’Connell, State Representative
• George Ross, State Representative
• Todd Smola, State Representative
• David Vieira, State Representative
• Daniel Webster, State Representative
• Daniel Winslow, State Representative
• Donald Wong, State Representative
I found this video today of Mitt Romney speaking at the NRA convention in Louisville, Kentucky back in May of 2008. He spoke in behalf of John McCain, a few months after bowing out of the 2008 GOP Presidential primary race in support of McCain.
I can remember at the time how disappointed I was and that how I was not a fan of McCain who I felt ran a dirty campaign. I can still remember how hard it was for me to vote for him in the general election.
This post isn’t about that, this is about the character of Mitt Romney who could have just as easily walked away after the primaries and left McCain to fend for himself. I know I would have. Romney didn’t.
He knew what was in store for America as he points out in the following video of that speech he made at the NRA. He was doing everything in his power to keep Obama from winning the Presidency. I still share the vision of America he spoke of here: