My Closing Argument, and This Ain’t Just Rhetoric

Overview: My Main Philosophical Reason I’m Voting For Mitt.

I feel so strongly that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president that I wanted to make one last post, my closing argument as it were, in hopes of convincing that one last undecided voter out there somewhere to vote for Mitt. I wanted to explain why I, and the other authors here at Mitt Romney Central, have devoted such time, effort, emotion, and yes, money, to the cause of electing Mitt. My list of specific reasons why I like Mitt, and my counterarguments to President Obama’s case, are below. But I can sum up why I feel so strongly with this: Barack Obama’s vision for America is inconsistent with that of our founding fathers and our Constitution.

A Limited Government Preserves Freedom

Our government was founded on the principles of self-determination and freedom. Americans were not content to be told by the British government how much they should pay in taxes or what freedoms they were entitled to. So they fought a war to gain their independence. When the founding fathers then set up their own government, at the forefront of their minds was the concern for how to preserve their hard-won freedoms. So they came up with three fundamental ideas about the new federal government: (i) it should be small, split into different branches with checks and balances over each other’s power, (ii) it should share power with, and in fact have less power over citizens’ day-to-day lives than, the states, where the citizens were better represented, and (iii) our most basic freedoms should be enshrined in a Bill of Rights to make absolutely sure the federal government did not violate them. This combination of ideas, they thought, would assure, over time, that the God-given rights they had won back from their government at great cost would be preserved against tyranny.

Obama’s Vision of a Larger Government is Antithetical to Freedom.

In 2008 when Senator Obama talked of “transforming” America and saying “we can do better,” it was clear to me he was talking about fundamentally changing these key principles. He stood for a larger federal government; one that would try and take responsibility for the poor and do more for its citizens. While that may sound nice, having a government undertake that responsibility also means it must become larger, tax more (a government that undertakes to define what’s fair for all its citizens will also try and make everyone pay their “fair share”) and become more involved in our lives, much more involved than the founding fathers intended. A larger government necessarily becomes more difficult to manage, begins to take on a life of its own, and becomes very difficult to control. A larger federal government also means a shift in power from the states, where citizens can more easily control their own destiny. And once people begin to rely on government largesse, cutting the size of that government and its programs, even if the government cannot afford them (witness our overwhelming deficits and the troubles in Europe as it tries to cut back), becomes very, very difficult. People become less willing to give up that security, even if it means a loss of liberty. And they can become accustomed to the idea that the government represents someone else, not them, and that they are owed something by that government (witness appeals from the left that sound like class warfare). As a result, I believe the policies of President Obama reflect a threat to our liberty. Perhaps not immediate. Perhaps only a little. But what he wants to do, at its core, is inconsistent with the intended size and role of our government, which means we will inevitably lose a little, or a lot, of liberty. How much really depends on how much further down Obama’s road we go. And in my view, we’ve already lost too much.

Example: Obamacare.

As an illustration of what I mean, I’ll use Obamacare. It sounds nice to make sure everyone has health insurance. And there are lots of stories of people who can’t afford insurance, and how having it would benefit them greatly. I get that, and I feel for their situation. This is what Obama meant by “we can do better.” He’d like to use government resources to fix these problems. But, just like when you get your first credit card, you need to look beyond the nice things you can buy and decide whether you can really afford it, because that bill will come due at some time. As for the cost in dollars and cents, it’s clear we can’t afford Obamacare. We just can’t. It adds trillions of unfunded government outlays over the next two decades. And once these benefits are offered to citizens it’s very difficult to take them away. In addition, Obamacare has already begun to infringe on our freedoms. At its core it’s the federal government (not the state, which is the principal difference between Obamacare and Romneycare), forcing us to buy a product. Then, because it forces us to buy this product, it must go further and legislate the minimum requirements of this product (or everyone would buy the cheapest version available). That legislation now includes elements some religions find offensive. How’d we get here? By involving the federal government in something it really was never intended by the founding fathers to be involved in: providing health insurance. Further, because the IRS will be in charge of enforcing compliance with the mandate, it will need to know our personal health information. The founders’ vision of limited federal power, with express limits on what the federal government can and can’t do, has been violated by Obamacare. And having the federal government in this position simply poses a threat to our freedom. The founders knew power corrupts, and while we think we can trust the government now, we don’t always know we will be able to. When will it be your religious belief that’s infringed? Or your freedom of speech? This is why the Republicans resist President Obama so much. This is why Obamacare did not get one single Republican vote. This is why Obama’s own budget was rejected by not only Republicans but his own party. And finally this is why Mitch McConnell said it was his goal to make sure Obama only had one term: to try and make sure the damage President Obama does is not long-lasting. Obamacare is a threat to our freedom, and it’s just one example.

This Ain’t Just Rhetoric.

Let me say that this is not just rhetoric. I’m not just making an argument because I want you to vote for Mitt for some other hidden reason. This is why I’m voting for Mitt, and why I honestly believe everyone should. This is what worries me about the prospect of Obama serving another term. He has already made some strides toward “transforming” America into something I believe it was never intended to be. Obamacare was one very large step in that direction. As Vice President Biden said, it was a “[blanking] big deal.” I know the further we go down this road the more difficult it is to go back. I also know the GOP will fight Obama to preserve that liberty, which is likely to result in more gridlock at a time when our government needs to work together. Unfortunately, though, cooperating with the president can mean, and has meant, the loss of some of these liberties, which makes compromise difficult.
(more…)

Obama Wants Secty of BUSINESS? USA Needs BUSINESSMAN Mitt Romney!

President Obama recently stated, if reelected, he might rustle up a Secretary of Business.

Why?

Because, when it comes to business, Obama is LOST.

Plus, tossing out that new position to the masses is a two-fer for Obama. He thinks it makes him sound smart and hopes it assuages the electorate’s fear about him right now – that he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Obama’s out-to-lunch-on-business evidence: His colossal mountain of national debt is proof. America’s pitiful downgraded credit rating is proof. His ‘shovel-ready‘ projects, er, lack thereof, is proof. His weak economy is proof. The number of desperate Americans standing in unemployment lines is proof. Americans working part-time when they fiercely need a full-time job is proof. Those who have given up – just stopped looking for a job is proof. Declining, downward middle class incomes is proof. The sad number of Americans descended into poverty is proof. The woeful number of Americans on welfare is proof. The atrocious number of U.S. citizens surviving on food stamps is proof. Swelling disability rolls are proof. His take-over socialization of health care is proof. His trade policies are proof. Onerous job-impeding federal regulations are proof. His auto bailout is proof. His squandered “stimulus” of $787 billion which America’s children and grandchildren will be forced to pay back is proof. His nix-on-anything beneath-the-ground energy policy is proof. (Federal oil drilling permits down 36%! War on coal! No Keystone pipeline! High gasoline prices! And, with the October bankruptcy of Satcon Technology Corp as many as 50 Obama-backed green energy companies have gone belly up or are wobbling!) His hoped-for tax policy is proof. His aversion to numbers, e.g., a federal budget, is proof.

Obama’s badgering, big government beliefs are bad for America. When it comes to business, our outsourcer President is agonizingly, hair-pullingly, head-bangingly daft. That’s why he’s dangling the idea of adding another bureaucrat and bureaucracy if he finagles another four.

Team Romney has released a fantastic new ad. We’ve only got five days, people. Let’s SHARE it!


Barack Obama recently said he might appoint a Secretary of Business.

His solution to everything is to add another bureaucrat.

Mitt Romney understands business and knows what it will take to create jobs and get our economy moving again.

He’s done it before.

He’ll do it again.

At this crucial, decisive time, America must have a president who UNDERSTANDS business.

America needs Mitt Romney.

UPDATE – Paul Ryan’s remarks on Obama at Greeley, Colorado today (November 1, 2012):

“He can’t run on the broken promises. He can’t run on the trillion-dollar deficits each and every year. But he did come up with a new idea the other day. He’s got a new idea for the second term, and here’s what it is. In addition to all the borrowing and all the spending and all the money printing and all the regulating, he wants a new Cabinet position. He wants to create a new secretary of business. You know, we already have a secretary of business. It’s actually called the Secretary of Commerce. That’s what this agency does. Let me ask you a question. Can anybody name our current Secretary of Commerce? You know why? We don’t have one. It’s been vacant for over four months, and the president hasn’t even proposed or put somebody in the job. We don’t need another bureaucrat or another bureaucracy.”



Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

Romney: More to Gain Than to Lose in Last Debate

Well, the final Presidential debate will be over in less than 24 hours.

I’m sensing a certain level of stress among some Romney supporters in the lead up to this debate. Sure, it’s human nature to feel anxious just before a big event … especially when we are so invested in Mitt’s success. But I’m not nervous one bit, and here’s why ….

Governor (soon to be “President Elect”) Romney has much more to gain than to lose in this debate. It’s Obama that has the tough job tonight. The non-incumbent challenger generally has a low-bar to clear in these debates. They only have to 1) show that they can credibly be Commander-in-Chief and 2) avoid major gaffes. Mitt has shown that he is more than capable of achieving this based on his first two debate showings.

Much of the “who won the debate?” game is about expectations. Obama was widely expected to be a superior debater/communicator, and it was a race-changing event when he lost the first debate so dramatically. This set up debate number two, where Obama had reset his bar down to the floor. As such, many observers felt that he “won” the second debate (by a much narrower margin than the 1st debate, and more on style than on actual issues according to polls). But the President’s “win” was really more of a “most improved” award … we’ve seen no bounce in the polls for him at all.

Conventional wisdom is that Obama is supposed to trounce Governor Romney tonight, since the topic is Foreign Policy. The problem for Obama, is that his supposed foreign policy superiority is already “baked into the cake” of his poll numbers/support. Obama’s problem arises from the fact that his foreign policy successes begin and end with “Bin Laden is dead.” Sure, that’s a HUGE point, but it’s sort of hard to talk about THAT for 90 minutes straight. And no voter is going to change his mind to vote for Obama on this issue. “Hey yeah, Obama got Bin Laden … I had forgotten that. I guess I’ll vote for him now.”

Even those formerly on Obama’s foreign policy team decidedly do NOT see this as a strength for him (be sure to read that scathing rebuke!).

The debate will give Mitt an opportunity to, once again, unexpectedly impress voters on the depth and breadth of his international experience and knowledge. The media have painted him as a lightweight on foreign policy, someone out of his depth. Mitt can and will highlight his substantial foreign exposure through his public, private, and religious experiences.

The wildcard issue for tonight is Banghazi … and not in a good way for Obama.


Despite the President’s higher foreign policy numbers in general, this recent Ohio poll (that was even a +8% Dem sample) showed Mitt UP 49%-47% on the question: “Do you trust Barack Obama or Mitt Romney more on the issue of Libya?” Mitt did miss an opportunity to fully expose Obama on Libya in debate #2. Don’t expect a replay of that tonight …

Michigan, are you listening? Debunking Obama’s Bankruptcy Spin on Auto Bailouts

Obama’s auto bailout ‘success’ is a disaster for taxpayers.

Like a toddler who likes to continually jabber a new phrase, Obama keeps blabbering “Romney said let Detroit go bankrupt! Romney said let Detroit go bankrupt!”

Here’s what our prattling President doesn’t want Americans to know:

Deceitful, smoke-’n-mirrors Obama ADOPTED Mitt Romney’s idea of a managed bankruptcy for American car makers. BUT, Obama’s mishandling of the process has proven very costly.

Romney Press – Oct 16, 2012:

Mitt Romney Will Help Our Auto Industry Become Stronger And More Competitive

As a Michigan native and the son of a car guy, Mitt Romney has always believed that a strong auto industry is an essential component of the nation’s economy. He has a plan that will help the auto industry move forward into a new era of innovation and dominance.

  • Domestic Energy Production That Aids Manufacturing: We are on the cusp of a manufacturing renaissance in the United States, and it will be made possible by an abundant supply of cheap, reliable energy within our borders. Mitt Romney will have a true all-of-the-above strategy that includes coal, natural gas, oil and other resources.

  • Trade That Works For Our Auto Industry: Our workers make the best cars in the world. We must develop markets abroad where our cars can be sold. Mitt Romney will open new markets to American automakers far more aggressively than this President has.
  • Stand Up To China And Level The Playing Field: Mitt Romney will stand up to countries like China that don’t play by the rules. Starting on day one, Mitt Romney will make clear to China that they must respect the intellectual property of American manufacturers and open their markets to American products.
  • Lower Our Corporate Tax Rate To Boost Competitiveness: Mitt Romney will reduce the corporate tax rate, so that our carmakers can compete on a level playing field both at home and around the world, and can afford to invest more in breakthrough products. He will also stop the foolish practice of imposing an extra tax on our automakers when they sell cars overseas so they can reinvest the profits here at home.
  • Get Government Out Of The Car Business: President Obama has told Detroit what kind of cars to build, implemented extraordinarily onerous regulations that will drive up the cost of each car by thousands of dollars, and to this day owns more than one quarter of General Motors. Mitt Romney will get the federal government out of the auto industry and eliminate regulations that distort the market and drive up costs.
  • A Reminder – Mitt Romney supported a managed bankruptcy process for our automakers, which is what President Obama ultimately agreed to support:

    Months After Taking Office, President Obama Finally Arrived At The Conclusion That Managed Bankruptcy Was Preferable To His Initial Strategy. “The Obama’s administration’s leading plan to fix General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC would use bankruptcy filings to purge the ailing companies of their biggest problems, including bondholder debt and retiree health-care costs, according to people familiar with the matter. … President Barack Obama’s task force has told both companies that the administration prefers this route … rather than the prolonged out-of-court process that has thus far frustrated administration officials.” (The Wall Street Journal, 3/30/09)

    The Obama Administration Ultimately Found Bankruptcy To Be The Only Way Forward. “The administration says a ‘surgical’ structured bankruptcy may be the only way forward for GM and Chrysler, and President Obama held out that prospect Monday. ‘I know that when people even hear the word ‘bankruptcy,’ it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean,’ he said.” (The Wall Street Journal, 3/30/09)

    What did Governor Romney NOT support? Labor Union handouts, giving American companies to foreign owners, ill-considered dealership closings, and keeping government in the car business:

    President Obama’s Handling Of The Bailout Gave The United Auto Workers Union A Majority Ownership Stake In Chrysler. “The Obama administration’s decision to bail out Chrysler gave the union trust what was initially a majority ownership position of 55 percent of its shares.” (Reuters, 6/3/11)

    The Obama Administration Handed Over Control Of Chrysler To Fiat, An Italian Automaker. “Chrysler LLC, for years America’s third-biggest automaker, survived perhaps the most dire of its periodic near-death experiences in 2008 and 2009, when the federal government forced it into bankruptcy, pumped in $10 billion in taxpayer funds and put it under the control of the Italian automaker Fiat, with the auto workers union as the company’s biggest shareholder.” ((The New York Times, 7/30/12)

    President Obama’s Auto Task Force Pressed GM And Chrysler To “Close Scores Of Dealerships Without Adequately Considering The Jobs That Would Be Lost.” “President Obama’s auto task force pressed General Motors and Chrysler to close scores of dealerships without adequately considering the jobs that would be lost or having a firm idea of the cost savings that would be achieved, an audit of the process has concluded.” The New York Times, 7/18/10)

    The Obama Administration “Contributed To The Accelerated Shuttering Of Thousands Of Small Businesses” And Potentially Added “Tens Of Thousands Of Workers” To The Unemployment Lines. (CNN Money, 7/19/10)

    General Motors Now Wants The Government To Sell Its Stake In The Company, But The Obama Administration Is Resisting. “The Treasury Department is resisting a push by General Motors Co. to sell the government’s entire stake in the auto maker – the latest source of tension between two unlikely partners thrust together at the depths of the financial crisis. U.S. taxpayers kept the nation’s largest auto maker by sales afloat with a $50 billion bailout in 2009 and now own 26.5% of the Detroit company. But GM executives have grown increasingly frustrated with that ownership and the stigma of being known as ‘Government Motors.’” (The Wall Street Journal, 9/17/12)

    Taxpayers Are Taxpayers Are Currently Projected To Lose More Than $25 Billion On The Bailouts Of Auto Industry. (U.S. Treasury Department, 8/12)

    Now, you have the truth.

    Michiganders, help Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan obtain your 16 electoral votes. CAll NOW to get started. Readers, you, too, can help.

    By Lisa Benson



    Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

    HUGE Endorsement! Frm. John Kerry Supporter and Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca Endorses Mitt Romney

    I can’t overstate the magnitude of this endorsement! Not only did Lee Iacocca endorse John Kerry in 2004 when Sen. Kerry was running against George W. Bush, but no one has first hand experience with auto bailouts like Mr. Iacocca. When Chrysler teetered on the brink of bankruptcy in 1979, the Government stepped up to help them in a much more responsible way than the Government did when GM and Chrysler needed help in 2008. Chrysler paid back every penny of the bailout and grew in an example of possibly the most successful bailout in U.S. history.

    The fact that Lee Iacocca is endorsing Mitt Romney tells us that the democrats have lied for years about what Mitt prescribed in his 2008 op-ed. Mitt only wants the best for the auto industry, and the democrats plan to use this issue against Mitt to protect their small lead in Michigan is unraveling.

    This endorsement comes on the heels of Mitt setting the record straight in Tuesday’s debate with President Obama as well as Mitt’s campaign releasing a forward-looking plan on what a Mitt administration will mean for the auto industry.

    UPDATE: Full op-ed of the endorsement below:

    Iacocca: America needs a turnaround, which is why I’m voting Romney

    I’ve seen a lot of situations that needed a turnaround in my time, and I know one when I see one. Trust me, America needs a turnaround.

    America is in deep trouble. After four years, economic growth is still anemic, our annual deficits were not cut in half as promised, and our staggering $16 trillion federal debt hangs over us and our kids like the plague. Our people are hurting, they can’t find jobs, they have lost a major part of their net worth, the number of Americans living in poverty is at unacceptable levels, and we just aren’t doing the things that would get our country back on the right track.

    Like any turnaround it must begin by honestly facing our problems; hope and speeches won’t get our people back to work. It will require experienced leadership that can create and lead policy change that will enable a more robust and competitive America. We need leadership that understands that government, just like American families, can’t continue to spend beyond its means. We must find leadership that won’t pander to the people, but rather will speak honestly to them about our situation, explaining in simple terms what we have to do to get back on the right track. And we need leadership that can bring us together in a sense of shared responsibility so that we can move forward as a team. All of us. As Americans.
    America needs new leadership

    Mitt Romney has successfully led both public and private sector turnarounds. He is a bright and successful man; he is a good man, a caring man, a man of integrity, family and faith. Importantly, he recognizes we are in a tough situation. With dozens of years of real world experience in the public and private sectors, he knows what he’s talking about. His policies will enable a stronger America, one in which all Americans can share. He was groomed and trained for this moment.
    The future of our country is at stake

    If you are out of work or worried about your job, having trouble making ends meet, are worried about your kids’ future or your own, or if you just have a nagging sense that as Americans we can do better than this, it’s time to wake up and stop just hoping it will all work out in a few more years. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it won’t!

    It’s time for straight talk.

    I’m asking you to vote for change that will get us moving in the right direction, and to be ready to be part of the solution. Everything depends on it. We don’t have time to waste. It’s time to make America great again.

    Vote for Mitt Romney for president.

    Presidential Debate #2: Crowley Butts In, Backs Off, Luntz Focus Group Liked Romney

    Taking a cue from the Biden playbook, Barack Obama pulls a face and acts like he’s going to spring from his chair as Mitt Romney makes a point at the presidential debate held at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY on Oct 16, 2012. (photographer unknown)

    The presidential debate action at Hempstead, New York, is in the can…

    There were tense moments.

    Pundits and politicians will be talking for days about the ‘terrorism’ Libya moment – the one where Obama water carrier moderator Candy CNN Crowley interrupted Mitt Romney to side with Obama by injecting her jaw-dropping version of fact-checker. Cutting off the Governor, she sided with the President on remarks he claimed he made in the Rose Garden the day after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Obama said he labeled the attacks as “terror” right away. After the Crowley butt-in, Obama then called from way back on his stool for Crowley to repeat her “fact” louder. Turns out, Obama and Crowley have nothing to crow about:

    Democratic strategist Joe Trippi later said on FOX News that it looked like “the ref just threw the flag.”

    After the debate, Crowley, who repeatedly cut Romney off, and when all was said and done, bequeathed Obama with 3 minutes and 14 seconds more speaking time than the Governor, tried to back off. She conceded that Romney was “right in the main.”

    There’s so much I want to say about Ms. Crowley’s moderating, but I’ll constrain myself and just say she made a disgusting hash of it.

    Someone else agrees with me:


    After the debate, Frank Luntz (FOX News) conducted a focus group in Nevada of mostly former Obama voters. Romney impressed them. Here is Part 1:


    Luntz began the discussion by asking participants for a word or phrase to describe Romney’s performance:

    Forceful, presidential.”

    Confident and realistic.”

    Presidential.”

    Presidential and enthusiastic.”

    Our next president.”

    Dynamo! Winner.”

    Knowledgeable and sincere.”

    Steady and articulate.”

    Part 2 may be viewed here.

    The 82 voters in the town hall setting were chosen by Gallup and Candy Crowley selected the questions. Romney walked into a stacked game but didn’t back down. Voters saw him as someone with strength, leadership, and a common-sense plan to move America forward. Obama was aggressive, pulled a few Biden-style faces, did a lot of bluffing, and threw in some blaming. He offered NO plan.

    No wonder Independent swing-voters like Mitt Romney.

    If you missed the fireworks, click here to watch the entire debate.

    More Voices Join: Romney Right on Best Way to Save Auto Industry

    I said in my prior post that Mitt often comes to the right answer a couple beats before others do. Today’s Detroit News features an op ed from Hal Sperlich, a former president of Chrysler from 1984-88 and a member of the Automotive Hall of Fame, entitled “Romney was Right on Detroit Bankruptcy.” This article illustrates the point.

    The entirety of Mr. Sperlich’s piece is below, but highlighted below are a few critical points we have made here on this site previously:

    1. Obama’s assertion he saved the US auto industry while Governor Romney would have let it go under is simply not true.

    2. Obama’s plan mirrored Mitt’s plan, with a couple key differences:

    * Obama used $80 billion in taxpayer cash, about $25 billion is still at risk.

    * Mitt’s “far superior” plan would have only guaranteed automaker obligations, not offered cash.

    * Mitt’s plan would have built competitiveness, the key to long term success.

    3. Mitt was not proposing abandoning the auto industry, that’s only an Obama soundbite. Mitt’s plan would have been less expensive and more successful.

    Here’s the entire piece.

    No, Mitt didn’t want to abandon the US auto industry. He wanted to save it, and his plan was better and cheaper:

    Romney was right on Detroit bankruptcy
    By Hal Sperlich

    President Barack Obama alleges that he saved the U.S. auto industry, whereas Gov. Mitt Romney would have let the U.S. automakers go under.

    Not true.

    In an op-ed piece in the New York Times dated Nov. 18, 2008, Romney proposed a plan to enable GM and Chrysler to survive as strong competitors through a managed bankruptcy.

    Four months later, the Obama administration proposed a similar managed bankruptcy, but with two very important differences.

    The Obama administration proposed a very costly bailout of the two companies with $80 billion of taxpayer cash, a process started by President George W. Bush with $17 billion of TARP money. Close to $25 billion of those taxpayer funds remain uncollected, still tarnishing the GM brand with the label “Government Motors.”

    The Romney plan was far superior.

    First, it proposed using government guaranteed private financing, similar to what we did with Chrysler back in 1980, not massive quantities of precious taxpayer cash, as was done by the Obama administration. Second, as a man who has led many business and public sector turnarounds, Romney recognized that the auto companies not only had to survive the crisis, but they had to build the strength to allow them to be stronger competitors in the years to follow.

    Let me digress for a moment to make a point. I was privileged to be in a leadership role during the Lee Iacocca led Chrysler turnaround that began in 1980. In fairly short order, we converted the world’s least competitive auto company into one of the most competitive. America’s first fuel-efficient front wheel drive cars, along with innovations like the first mini-vans, replaced the obsolete. Market share increased 50 percent by 1988 and, with dramatically improved costs, great labor management cooperation, major quality improvements and shared sacrifice from everyone, Chrysler became competitive and highly profitable. We baked a bigger pie so that all could share, including customers, shareholders and the folks who built the products.

    That’s what competiveness does.

    Just about every businessman will tell you it begins with competitiveness. If you do it better than the guy down the street, you will generate growth and jobs. If we do it better than the people in the next country, we will have more jobs here in America. It’s that simple. Competitiveness is the foundation for the prosperity we seek.

    Romney understands this. He would not have abandoned GM, Chrysler and all their employees. In the end, either the Obama or the Romney approach would have provided the companies the support necessary to move forward.

    But the Romney plan would have spared the taxpayer the billions invested by the Obama administration in the bailouts. Further, the more aggressive approach to new levels of efficiency proposed by Romney would have left the companies significantly more competitive.

    As a result, the companies would have been better positioned to provide the long-term job security for their employees that only true competitiveness can guarantee, and to grow, adding thousands of new high paying American jobs.

    In his November 2008 op-ed, Romney said, “Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.”

    In a way, I believe the same can be said of America at this point.

    We don’t need to continue borrowing money we may never be able to repay.

    America needs a turnaround.

    America needs to become more competitive.

    Romney understands this at a deep level and his policies are designed to enable a more robust and competitive America.

    That’s what experienced leadership is all about.

    UPDATE: An astute reader also caught the following post, also in the Detroit News’ op ed section: Delphi debacle spoils Obama bailout boast. One key quote:

    When President Barack Obama uses the first of three debates Wednesday to tout his bailout of Detroit’s auto industry, as he surely will, Republican challenger Mitt Romney should be ready with a single number:

    22,000.

    That’s how many salaried retirees of the old Delphi Corp. saw their pension fund seized by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. at the behest, documents suggest, of an Obama Treasury Department that ensured no such thing happened to the Troy-based auto supplier’s unionized workers and retirees.

    Even worse, as the president and his proxies hail the auto bailouts as a cornerstone of an otherwise dismal economic record, they’re slow-walking congressional demands to explain fully why taxpayer dollars were used to favor the pensions of Delphi’s union employees over their salaried counterparts — many of them located in the politically critical battleground state of Ohio.

    A Frightening Moment For Our Nation …

    Let’s review things for a moment . . .

    A fresh-faced optimistic Democratic nominee (and future winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) is swept into office after a surprise win in the lead-off Iowa caucuses …

    As this new President takes office, the economic crisis and national recession intensifies …

    An iconic American automobile giant, on the verge of bankruptcy, receives a federal bailout and is “saved” …

    Energy costs and inflation soar to historic levels …

    Middle East relationships become tense and the US Ambassador to an Islamic agitator nation is murdered by Jihadist Muslim terrorists

    The Islamic world isn’t frightened by obvious US military superiority, for they know this President wants to be loved and leave a legacy as a peace-maker …

    The Republican Nominee is accused of a “shoot from the hip”/”shoot first; aim later” approach to foreign policy …

    Russia is on the rise and emboldened by America’s decreased standing and respect in the world …

    Against all reason (but with the help of a complicit media), this incumbent President leads his Republican challenger, a former Governor of a liberal state, in post-convention/pre-debate Gallup polls by close to double digits …

    Many strong Republicans are disheartened by their prospects of winning the White House, thereby seeing their great country sink further into decline and disrepute …

    The year? The President?

    … none other than 1980 and Jimmy Carter my friends (or the present with Obama if you prefer …).


    (more…)

    Which Convention was “strange, full of insults”? Romney Weighs In (Baier Interview – VIDEO)

    Well, they’re over.

    In an attempt to woo voters, Republicans and Democrats have put their best convention feet forward.

    After just the first day of the Republican National Convention (a full day of activity was cancelled due to developing storm Isaac), Obama’s top adviser Robert Gibbs characterized the GOP gathering as “angry” and “strange” and “full of insults. His remarks must have been festering in a folded paper in his hip pocket for weeks; he was pretty pleased to grab a few headlines. What Gibbs wrote turned out to be a prognostication of his own party’s convention goings-on a few days later in Charlotte, NC…

    In spite of the sensitive and well-handled Republican convention storm adaptations, some rabble-rousing Democrats called for a cancellation of the entire convention. But, once the Democratic National Convention got underway a few days later, there was no reference from speakers of Hurricane Isaac or helping the victims.

    Our President’s re-election insecurity prompted a ‘save-me’ call to former president Bill Clinton. Team O thought he was needed to take center-stage to plaster some pizazz over Obama’s putrid economy. Yes, that Bill Clinton who once called Obama “the chief executor of good intentions” and formerly said of Obama “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Yikes. Clinton jumped at the chance to appear be a team player while visions of Hillary in the White House (and himself) danced in his head.

    Obama, in spite of doing his best to rattle the rafters, delivered a flat, warmed-over class-warfare speech we’ve numbingly heard before. Maybe knowing the jobs report numbers that were to be released today messed with his head.

    ADDENDUM - A comment on Michelle Obama’s speech: One got the feeling Mrs. O spent a month of Sundays at studied speech practice in front of her ‘make-up’ mirror getting those inserted smiles and practiced pauses just right. The drama… Her “Obama hunched over his desk” (hunched – mind you!) poring over letters from people having a hard go in this hardship economy (no mention of Obama’s part in it) was that which made listening to her barely tolerable. But, the cake-taker for me was her affected stammers – meant to pepper following prose with dramatic sincerity but only highlighting insincerity – that relegated her to the category of ‘First Lady Duping-The-Folks Academy Award’. She laid it on too, too thick. Charles Krauthammer thought so, too:

    Most brilliantly manipulative:

    Michelle Obama, by three touchdowns. Beautifully structured, delivered with studied emotion — the feigned stammer to render natural a finely written telepromptered text was a touch of genius — she made the case for why her husband governed as he has.

    Because he cares. He loves his wife, loves his children, loves his family — therefore he loves you. The syllogism, a total non sequitur, was laid on with panache.

    It worked. She managed to drain her husband’s entire first term of any hint of ideological or personal motivation. He is driven by his caring, giving soul — not by a deeply felt ideology developed in youth: redistributionist, government-centered, disdainful of success, committed to his social-democratic view of social justice.

    Only a wife can turn a ruthlessly ambitious pol, who undid the Clintons four years ago and today relentlessly demonizes Romney, into a care bear. She pulled it off.

    Read more here and here.

    How about that floor flight spectacle over including “Jerusalem” and “God” in their platform?! They actually BOOED God. Plus, those numerous, hissing references to Republicans as Nazis were a turn-off and deeply insulting to those who have actually endured Nazism.

    Don’t forget the featured steel worker who claimed he worked for Bain Capitol. He embellished his story against Bain by stating he lost his job when the Bain-controlled company GST steel filed for bankruptcy in the early 1990s. A big LIE.

    In the end, Democrats tried to razzle-dazzle with actresses and musicians James Taylor, Mary J. Blige, and the Foo Fighters. An array of liberal speakers brought forth a parade of theatrical over-the-top rhetoric, misrepresentations, and outright lies about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. (Did you know Republicans are plotting to take the vote away from women? And, will do all within their power to stop women from using contraceptives? NOT.) Did you happen to catch former MI Governor Jennifer Granholm’s meltdown?

    It was a circus of slander.

    Mr. Gibbs, YOUR convention was angry, full of insults, and very strange.

    FOX New’s Bret Baier caught up with Mitt Romney today in Sioux City, Iowa to ask him about Obama’s acceptance speech last night, today’s jobs report, repeated false claims he didn’t care about the American auto industry, doesn’t care about the U.S. military, and more:


    UPDATE – Another Romney interview with FOX News’ Carl Cameron:

    ► With only 96,000 jobs created in August (down from 141,000 jobs in July), Obama’s hoped-for convention re-gilding isn’t going to happen:

    The economy created only 96,000 jobs in August, the unemployment rate remains above 8 percent, and more than 350,000 Americans have dropped out of the work force. While some may focus on the jobs that were created last month, this jobs report is nothing but horrendous. I welcome any jobs, but American workers giving up on employment in the weakest recovery since the Great Depression is cause for alarm, not celebration.

    The unemployment rate has not fallen below 8 percent for the past 43 months. The labor force participation rate is at the lowest level in 31 years. If the labor force participation rate were at the same level it was before the recession started, the unemployment rate would be 11.6 percent today. And the rate of “underemployment” or “real unemployment,” including the unemployed, those who want work but have stopped searching in this economy, and those who are forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment is actually at 14.7 percent. We’re still experiencing a significant jobs crisis, whether President Obama recognizes it or not.

    President Obama’s policies of more spending, more debt and more taxes haven’t worked. It’s way past time for a course correction. The country needs responsible leadership, not the President’s boasts over anemic growth and unending pleas for patience. Americans are looking for a sustained and real recovery. This weak report is nowhere near enough, and this has gone on long enough. Any real jobs plan must stop the regulatory madness and avert the fiscal cliff of tax increases on January 1. The health care law is yet another drag on the economy. Small businesses need tax relief and regulatory certainty to grow and hire.

    What about the numbers of those Obama has been systematically slipping onto disability rolls after their unemployment benefits run out? Once on disability? Most always ON disability for life. Also, the Dept. of Labor today did what they usually do; they revised down the job numbers for the two previous months, resulting in 41,000 fewer jobs created than originally reported.


    The way Obama opted to defend his record of failure today demeaned himself. Speaking at a rally, this is what he said on Romney, Ryan, and Republicans: “Tax cuts, tax cuts, gut some regulations, oh, and more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad. Tax cuts to help you lose a few extra pounds. Tax cuts to improve your love life. It’ll cure anything, according to them.”

    A few cheap laughs for a failed president.

    Let’s turn that around, Obama: “Tax increases, tax increases, inflict more regulations, oh, and more spending increases. Tax increases when times are good, tax increases when times are bad. Spending increases to help you lose a few extra pounds. Tax increases to improve your love life. It’ll cure anything.”

    Obama’s got nothin’. The middle class, small businesses, and the one in six Americans who have slipped into poverty are especially fed up. That’s why his manipulative oratory in Charlotte did not include a word about the USA’s staggering, almost incomprehensible debt of over $16 TRILLION and the 47 million Americans who, under his watch, now put groceries on the table with food stamps.



    Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

    Under President Obama, GM and Chrysler DID go Bankrupt – Mitt Would’ve Saved US Billions

    There is a lot of talk these days about the auto industry and American manufacturing, and rightly so. These are extremely important industries for our country. Afterall, Romney was the son of the late auto executive, George Romney, who turned around American Motors Corp. and made the company a major player on the world stage of auto manufacturing.

    Mitt Romney has always expressed his great fondness for the auto industry as a direct result of his upbringing with his father. Mitt Romney is a self-described “car nut” and the notion that he wouldn’t have supported the auto industry through bankruptcy is simply preposterous.

    Did Mitt Romney really say “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”?

    First, a quick but important side note. Mitt Romney didn’t actually write the title “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” for his column in the New York Times, the editors at the paper did. Democrats like to pretend that Romney actually said those exact words but he did not.

    Second, and more importantly, Romney knew that bankruptcy was the only way for General Motors to get rid of its excessive costs. In fact, Barack Obama often claims that he “saved the American auto industry” but even Barack Obama required the company to go through bankruptcy. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney knew that GM’s bankruptcy was inevitable and both men required GM to go through bankruptcy.

    Americans are smart enough to realize that Mitt Romney, because of his upbringing, has a great love for the American auto industry and he would have supported it as it went through the bankruptcy process. The people of Michigan and Ohio are smart enough to know that Barack Obama pretends that he did something totally different from Mitt Romney but Obama also required GM to go through bankruptcy. The only difference is that Mitt Romney knew that bankruptcy was inevitable a year or so before Obama did.

    It is interesting to note that George W. Bush actually started the auto bailouts and then Barack Obama expanded them.

    What about manufacturing and how it relates to the auto industry?

    The root of America’s difficulties in manufacturing come from a single source: China. It is widely known by both Democrats and Republicans that China is cheating on trade. China is intentionally suppressing the value of their goods and services so that they can undercut American industries by selling goods at a lower cost than American companies. China’s leaders have publicly admitted as much.

    In 2007, Barack Obama promised that he would stop China’s predatory and unfair policies saying: “China has manipulated its currency for years in order to gain an unfair advantage over the United States on trade. Unfortunately the Administration has failed to effectively challenge or change China’s behavior.”

    Another broken promise by Barack Obama. Obama’s soaring campaign rhetoric so rarely translates into actual deeds done. Unfortunately, Obama’s inability to address China has led to American manufacturing’s continued struggles against an unfair competitor.

    Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has said that on his first day in office, he will label China a “currency manipulator.” His first day. Labeling China a currency manipulator is the strongest step America can take to help level the playing field against China and force them to change. Successfully labeling China as such would require the World Trade Organization to take action against China and its policies.

    Obama has had four years to change China. He has been unable to bring about the change he promised. Mitt Romney has vowed to take the strongest step possible against China in order to help America’s manufacturers, including manufacturers associated with the auto industry.

    Page 1 of 212