Have you ever thought to yourself in today’s world, what would President Reagan have done? I have thought that many times over the last 44 months. I’m certain some will disagree with me, but I view Ronald Reagan as the “patriarch” of modern conservatism, though I state this knowing there are those who do not think he was conservative enough. I will tell you what — Looking back to the leadership of President Reagan through the fog of Mr. Barack Obama’s control of the executive branch, President Reagan’s conservative principles standout as the steadfast truth of a giant lighthouse sending its steady beam of light and piercing fog horn.
Do you recall Mr. Obama adamantly demanding that ObamaCare was not socialist and that his policies were not redistribution of wealth? I remember at the time his sounding like the driver pleading with the police officer, “I was only going 35 miles per hour officer!”
What do you think? With the events of this week, do you think we need a course correction in order to avoid slamming into that giant land mass of socialism? Take a listen to Ronald Reagan back in 1961, 51 years ago. Does this sound like truth today? Do you see the beam of light and hear the piercing fog horn? Or are we all just being lulled to sleep through the fog about to hit the reef somewhere in a Greek island?
Ronald Reagan tells us exactly where we are right now. Yes, this clip is 10 minutes long, but the first two minutes drive home the message that we are headed right to that craggy point of socialism while President Obama and all of his lemmings will be telling us all for the next four months how we should like it and be glad for it. Listen carefully to Reagan’s words like “liberalism,” “statism,” “personal liberty,” “socialism,” “encroachment,” etc. I think the entire 10 minute audio is absolutely powerful and essential listening for every American who cares about their future and the health of our nation.
Values, distinctly American: “Liberty” — “In God We Trust” — “E Pluribus Unum”
Republicans forced the vote by offering the president’s plan on the Senate floor.
Democrats disputed that it was actually the president’s plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn’t actually match Mr. Obama’s budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president’s numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.
“A stunning development for the president of the United States in his fourth year in office,” Mr. Sessions said of the unanimous opposition.
Amazingly, not one Senate Democrat has voted in favor of any budget for three years and they have not offered a plan of their own. Imagine that. For three years in a row, the federal government has operated WITHOUT A BUDGET.
On Hugh Hewitt’s national radio program last night, guest-hosts Guy Benson (Townhall) and Mary Katharine Ham (Townhall alum ) interviewed Governor Mitt Romney. Romney responded to Obama’s budget being bounced to the curb:
Guy Benson: Okay, Governor, last night, something extraordinary happened in the United States Senate. President Obama’s budget for the second consecutive year was defeated unanimously. This time around, it was 99-0. I’m curious what you think the implications of that vote are, and whether you see it as an indictment of this president’s leadership?
Mitt Romney: There’s no question in my view, Guy, but this is a underscoring of the president’s failure to lead. This is, after all, a body which is held by Democrats. If he wanted to see a budget passed, he should have worked with them. If they wanted to make adjustments, to make it more palatable, he should have found ways to make those adjustments. We’ve now gone on for three years without a federal budget? This is absolutely extraordinary. There’s not a business in this country that could operate the way the federal government is operating. And the fact that we have a president who is so inexperienced as a leader that he doesn’t know how to lead his own party, let alone reach across the aisle and work with Republicans, is a very unfortunate and potentially damaging element to our nation and to our economy. It’s something which I really think may well be unprecedented to have the president’s budget defeated in both the House and the Senate by unanimous votes. It’s very amazing.
GB: Right, right. It was 513-0 this year in those two bodies combined. You mentioned this failure over the last three years to have a federal budget, and this in an era of $16 trillion dollars of the national debt and growing. I know your campaign’s been spending a lot of time focusing on deficits and debt. So I really have to know, as you watch Europe, because the Euro Zone again is experiencing significant tremors this week. Greece appears to be teetering on the brink. I know the easy conservative talking point is to frame all of that, and the implosion of the European welfare state, as a cautionary tale for us here. But setting that aside, if you were president today, what would you be doing, what would you be watching over there, and how is it possible, if at all, for a president to help shield the U.S. economy from a potential damaging series of shock waves coming across the Atlantic Ocean?
MR: Well, when there is turbulence in industrial and financial markets, the best thing you can do is make America the place that people want to come both with their capital, with their innovations, with their business expansions. And so this is an opportunity for America to show that we have taken action that Europe did not take, that we have reformed our entitlements to make them solvent long term, that we are dealing with our budget crises, that we’re taking action to make America an attractive place for businesses and for job creators. This means that people will be looking to make investments elsewhere, and we want them to look towards us, not looking towards Asia, as in some cases they will be concerned about Europe. So the best thing we can do to help ourselves is to make America a more attractive place for enterprise. And unfortunately, what the president has done is make us less attractive as a place for enterprise, and he’s also failed to be willing to even address seriously either our entitlement crisis or our budget crisis. And so we will, if Europe goes through pains here, we’re going to suffer pains as well, in part because of the failure of this president to improve the attractiveness of America as a place for growth and investment and job creators.
In the 15 minute plum interview with Romney, the wide-ranging conversation not only included Obama’s failed budget, but included Jeremiah Wright, the Euro debt crisis, Biden’s hits on Bain Capitol, Obama’s personal assassination campaign strategy, and how Romney is approaching the task of selecting a vice president:
Excellent interview! Read the entire transcript here.
Speaking to soon-to-be-booted-out Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a hot mic caught Obama revealing a secret agenda for Russia (after claiming he’ll be re-elected this fall):
Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space.” Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…” Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”
(Did you catch the body language between the two presidents…?)
Obviously, Obama and Medvedev didn’t know the world would hear their exchange. By the way, Putin (recently elected under dubious procedures) is expected to appoint Medvedev as Russia’s Prime Minister.
› Governor Romney addressed Obama’s telling revelation yesterday while speaking to an audience in San Diego, CA and talking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Hugh Hewitt also got The Gov’s take on it. LISTEN TO AUDIO of Hewitt’s interview here.
HH: So the President says, Governor Romney, this is my last election, after my election I have more flexibility. And President Medvedev says I understand, I will transmit this information to Vladimir. Your reaction, Governor Romney?
MR:Well, it is revealing, it is alarming, it’s troubling, it suggests that the President has a very different agenda with the Russians than he’s willing to tell the American people. And for that reason alone, we ought to vote him out of office. This is a very disconcerting development.
HH: What do you think he has in mind, Governor, when he says I will be flexible? Is it missile defense? It is the number of our warheads? Is it Iran? What is he talking about?
MR: Well, he says missile defense, but we’re talking about one of those two issues, either missile defense or warheads. What he’s done on warheads, of course, with the new START Treaty, he took warheads down to 1,500 on strategic nuclear weapons. Of course, the Russians were already at 1,500. They didn’t have to have any reductions. We were at 2,200. So the only reduction in his missile defense treaty was a reduction at the U.S. level. And of course, he ignored the tactical nuclear weapons, which are of course the same nukes. They’re just on smaller rockets. He ignored that, where Russia has an advantage of five or ten to one over us. So this is a president who continues to try and appease and accommodate, and believes that the best interests of America are to bow to the interests of Russia. And it’s very, very troubling, and I mean, I’m very disturbed by this. I hope the American people understand that what we heard from the President is revealing about his character in terms of what he tells the American people, and revealing about his direction and sentiment with regards to Russian, which is after all our number one geopolitical foe. They don’t represent a military threat to us at the present, but they oppose us at every turn in the United Nations, and oppose us in every one of our efforts, whether in Iraq or Iran, North Korea. They’re on the other side. And for him to be cozying up with them with regards to missile defense is simply unacceptable.
HH: How do you expect this aside from the President will be understood in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Ukraine, and Georgia, and other front line states facing a newly-expansive Russia?
MR: Well, I think our friends around the world have been reevaluating their relationship with the United States, in part because of this president’s treatment of friends relative to the treatment of enemies. I’ve heard from more than one foreign leader that it seems to be preferable to be an American foe than an American friend to this president.
HH: Now Governor Romney, the press will of course attempt to dismiss this as not a big issue. Will this remain a front line issue? And do you think that the President has got to spell out with great detail what he has in mind here?
MR: You know, I don’t think he can recover from it, to tell you the truth. I mean, I think he will try and spin something. But I don’t know how you spin from an open mic, where you’re talking about having more flexibility after the election, which means quite clearly that you don’t want the American people to hear what you’re really planning on doing, and that you’re going to be able to do more when you no longer are accountable to the American people. You know, the mainstream media may try and put this to bed, but we’re going to keep it alive and awake. And we’re going to keep hammering him with it all the way through November.
BIG REQUEST: Please forward this post to everyone you know in Michigan and Arizona. Thank you!
PHRASES USED BY SANTORUM IN 2008 to describe Governor Romney:
He is speaking with clarity and conviction…with the heart and mind together!
There is only one place to go right now and that’s Mitt Romney!
He knows what it means to be commander in chief!
He has a depth of knowledge about [national security]
He was not only curious, but he had some very interesting insights!
…….. And many more ebullient utterances!
Seriously. Mr. Santorum has not been this passionate, even one time in the 2012 race! When you listen to the following interview — given by Santorum on the Laura Ingraham radio show in February 2008 — you will hear that he was so excited about Romney as President of the United States, Laura Ingraham literally had to interrupt him! And why? So she could publicly announce her own endorsement of Governor Romney, right then and there! This is classic. Every Santorum supporter needs to hear how effusive he was in this amazing testimonial of Governor Romney. This entire audio piece is a crescendo, from beginning to the very end! You get the sense that Santorum would have kept raving about Romney for another 20 minutes if allowed.
Gov. Romney has garnered a few other endorsements that are having a greater impact than the media realizes. This about this: In 2010, Michigan had a heated primary for Governor which consisted of 4 major candidates. ALL 4 candidates are supporting Gov. Romney. Pete Hoekstra is running for Senate, so he and Mitt have decided to stay away from public endorsements, but behind-the-scenes, they couldn’t be closer. They even go so far as to allow each other’s campaigns to pass items out at each other’s events. Gov. Rick Snyder has endorsed Mitt, Lt. Governor Brian Calley, AG Bill Schuette, Mike Cox, and Mike Bouchard who were the other two main competitors in the Michigan GOP Governor Primary. I’ve never seen such a strong consolidation of support here in Michigan before. It’s basically unanimous among all the top republicans in Michigan that Mitt Romney is the only choice for Michigan voters.
Chris Christie did a great job on Piers Morgan last night, and you can watch several of the clips here.
One campaign strategy that has served the campaign amazingly well are the tele-townhalls he and Ann have participated in. Here is the audio of one of those calls. The campaign has run one or two of these calls all week and last week, and people are loving them so much more than the robo-calls.
If you want to see Mitt’s Event in Ohio from the 20th, click here.
Governor Mitt Romney has turned the tables on Newt Gingrich:
TAMPA – A combative Mitt Romney on Monday broadened his call for Newt Gingrich to release records from his work as a consultant, speculating that those documents and records from the ethics investigation that led Gingrich to resign from the House of Representatives could show “potentially wrongful activity of some kind.”
“We could see an October surprise a day from Newt Gingrich,” Romney told reporters at a media availability here. “And so let’s see the records from the ethics investigation, let’s see what they show. Let’s see who his clients were at the time he was lobbying Republican congressmen for Medicare Part D.
“Was he working or were his entities working with any health-care companies that could’ve benefited from that? That could represent not just evidence of lobbying but potentially wrongful activity of some kind.”
“He said in a debate, actually, that people who profited from the failed model of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ought to give back their money,” Romney said. “Well, the speaker made $1.7 million in his enterprises from providing services to Freddie Mac. He ought to give it back.”
Here’s what Gingrich claims:
Gingrich repeatedly has said that he never lobbied lawmakers on behalf of Freddie Mac and health-care companies, saying he was paid for his services as a consultant and historian.
“I was not a lobbyist, I was never a lobbyist, I never did any lobbying. Don’t try to mix these things up. That fact is I was an adviser strategically,” he said Sunday on “Meet the Press.”
Earlier today Governor Tim Pawlenty and Florida House of Reps Speaker Designate Will Weatherford held a press conference call on Gingrich’s work as a “historian” for Freddie Mac. Pawlenty sums it up: “The notion that he was paid $1.7 million as a historian for Freddie Mac is just B.S. Newt Gingrich has represented hundreds of clients and interest groups in Washington, D.C., since he left the speakership. To say that he wasn’t a lobbyist is incredible hair-splitting.”
Romney hit Gingrich on his “highly eratic” style of leading:
He noted that Gingrich voted in favor of establishing the Department of Education, yet now says the department should be eliminated and its authority sent to the states. And Romney said Gingrich is “opposed vehemently” to the Massachusetts health-care system “and yet just a couple of years ago wrote about what a superb system it was.”
“He’s gone from pillar to post almost like a pinball machine, from item to item in a way which is highly erratic and does not suggest a stable, thoughtful course which is normally associated with leadership,” Romney said.
Pinball Policy Newt…
Romney speaking to the press in FL:
“By the way, saying that Newt Gingrich is a lobbyist is just a matter of fact. He indicates that he doesn’t fall within the narrow definition of lobbyists that he might have in mind. But if you’re working for a company, getting paid for a company through one of your many entities and then you’re speaking with Congressmen in a way that would help that company, that’s lobbying. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.” ~ Mitt Romney
Romney’s new Florida radio ad features FL Atty Gen Pam Bondi:
Mitt Romney was interviewed on Sean Hannity’s radio program today. Here’s a segment of the interview:
Sean Hannity: “What do you make of his comments that Americans have become lazy, we’ve become soft, we’ve lost our ambition, our imagination, our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge? We’ve become a bit lazy. What do you think of this … there’s been a number of these comments he’s made.”
Mitt Romney: “I think the President fails to understand America. I don’t think he understands what makes America work. I think he honestly believes that a government in Washington with well-intentioned bureaucrats can do a better job guiding the country than can free individuals and free enterprises. And as a result government gets larger and free enterprise decides to pull back. And that is one reason why it’s been so hard for our economy to create the jobs that the people need. If you burden the free economy as much as he’s doing, people don’t want to invest in America, they don’t want to hire people, they’re afraid of the future. This president has put in place the most anti-investment, anti-business, anti-jobs agenda we’ve seen since Jimmy Carter.”