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

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

In a press conference this morning, President Obama said:

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

 

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

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

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

The Obama campaign has been having a difficult time coming up with a slogan for his 2012 presidential run. 

Here are a few possible slogans that the Obama campaign is considering: 

“No Jobs=No Immigration Problem!” Obama 2012

“Solving American’s Illegal Immigration Problem One Job Loss At a Time” Obama 2012

“President Obama – The only president you can trust to put a fence between the US and Mexico”

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

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

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

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

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

The Romney/Ryan team continued yesterday taking their timely message to Wisconsinites. They were invited to hold a town hall meeting at Moore Oil Company in Milwaukee. Here’s video of The Gov and Congressman Ryan:

Later in the day, at the same venue, Romney and Ryan were interviewed by FOX News’ Greta Van Susteren:

We’re at a halfway point…

Today’s elections in Wisconsin, Maryland, and D.C. mark the halfway point in the race for delegates. Yesterday, Governor Romney picked up three more delegates… Coincidentally, he’s now halfway to clinching the GOP nomination:

The former Massachusetts governor inched up to 572 delegates on Monday _ exactly half the 1,144 needed _ after the Tennessee Republican Party finalized delegate totals from its March 6 primary. Results in several congressional districts were too close to call on election night, leaving three delegates unallocated.

Romney got all three delegates. He also picked up an endorsement from a New Hampshire delegate who had been awarded to former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Huntsman dropped out of the race in January and endorsed Romney.
[...]
According to the Associated Press tally, Romney has more than twice as many delegates as Santorum. Santorum has 272 delegates, followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with 135 and Texas Rep. Ron Paul with 51.

Romney has won 54 percent of the primary and caucus delegates so far, putting him on pace to clinch the nomination in June. Romney could substantially add to his lead Tuesday, when 95 delegates will be at stake in three primaries, in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Current reality:

Santorum, who has won 27 percent of the primary and caucus delegates so far, would need 74 percent of the remaining delegates to clinch the nomination before the national convention. Gingrich would need 86 percent and Paul would have to win nearly all of them, which won’t happen because most states award delegates proportionally.

Anyone but Romney? Martin Sieff (FOX News Opinion) wrote yesterday that he is “sick of Santorum”:

Read more…

Update: Watch the entire debate here.

It has been 27 days since the last GOP presidential debate was held. Tonight’s critical face-off will serve as an important springboard into next week’s elections in Arizona and Michigan.

Here are a few details on tonight’s debate at the wonderful Mesa Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona:

On Wednesday, Feb. 22, Republican presidential hopefuls will face-off for the final debate before a dozen states take to the polls on Super Tuesday. CNN anchor and chief national correspondent John King will moderate the two-hour debate, which will air live from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET from the Mesa Performing Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona.
[…]
All four of the leading Republican presidential contenders will participate in Wednesday’s debate: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. In addition to questions posed to the candidates by King and Arizona Republicans in the audience, the network will solicit questions and comments submitted in real-time from CNN.com, the CNN Politics fan page on Facebook and by using the #CNNDebate hashtag on Twitter.

CNN will air the debate on television; a live feed may be found here. For CNN mobile apps click here.

Don’t forget to use hashtags #CNNdebate and #UnravelTheSweater when tweeting.

AZ Governor Jan Brewer weighs in:

The timing for tonight’s debate couldn’t be any better for Arizona and the Republican governor, Jan Brewer, says that the showdown is very important to her state.

“I think that Arizona will be a pivotal state. There are a lot of undecided voters in Arizona so I think that people will be tuned in and watching, and because of this debate will be making their decision, not only in Arizona but across the country,” Brewer said.

And what do Arizona voters want to hear from the candidates?

“I think that just like everywhere in America, people are concerned about jobs and the economy. Here in Arizona people are also concerned with their border security, they are concerned about new federalism and states’ rights, and are very interested in natural resource issues,” Brewer said.

(emphasis added)

Details on stage arrangements (see photo below):

“This is the first CNN debate where we’ve used a table,” Feist said. “We decided to make this debate more intimate.”

And the table that candidates will be seated around has some history.

“An interesting piece of trivia is that the last time this particular table was used in a GOP debate was at the Reagan Library debate on January 30, 2008,” Feist said. “Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were both at that debate sitting at this very same table.”

We’re gung-ho for another outstanding debate for Governor Romney!

GO MITT!!



► Jayde Wyatt

NOTE: The guest editorial that accompanies the table below is absolutely outstanding. Due to the length of this “Experience Comparative,” in order to read the whole editorial, you will need to click the “CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING…” link at the bottom.

In 2006, a close friend of mine introduced me to David Parker, a personal friend of Governor Mitt Romney. I was contemplating doing some grassroots work to promote his run for President and wanted to know more about the man. Candidly, I was skeptical. How could a governor of such a liberal state be a Republican, let alone a conservative? David met me for lunch at Strawberry Farms and laid out the high points of Governor Romney’s strong conservative action, from his record of protecting life to his hundreds of vetoes. I was sold!

David organized this amazing matrix, comparing the leadership experience and skills of the four remaining Republican presidential candidates. In my opinion, this table — along with the accompanying Op-Ed piece by David — should be published in every major newspaper in the nation, including the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal! I honestly believe that if every literate voter were to carefully study this table and Op-Ed, the nomination would be over now.

As you compare each candidate below, add Obama to the list and subject his experience to these points — the results of his trial and error leadership are dismal indeed. Most impressive to me is the comparison below of leadership experience in the private, public, and philanthropic sectors — Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul simply don’t measure up to Governor Romney’s extensive background of executive leadership. Why any person would consider voting for a candidate without proven executive experience — after voting for Obama the community organizer — I will never understand. (there is good reason it is extremely rare that a congressman or senator is ever elected as POTUS)

You can make a big difference in this elections season. Please pass this Op-Ed piece by David Parker to as many people you know as possible.

“No Apology, the Case for Mitt Romney” — by David Parker

Are we so blind in our pursuit of our conservative ideology that we fail to recognize needed pragmatism? Our nation, a center-right nation, is not conservative, nor liberal, but an amalgamation of many people, each with individual agency, thought and perspective that leans center-right in the majority.

[ editorial continues below the table ]

Yes, we are clumped together at times in ideological conclaves, but to impose or dictate our conservative ideology in absolute myopia is a failed and fractured model, just as it is with those on the other side of the aisle. We cannot win and they lose, nor visa versa. We are one Nation under God, and thus we need to be sufficiently pragmatic and persuasive to win the majority, and lead those who believe in contrary principles of liberal thought to the more conservative Promised Land — America, an exceptional nation!

Accordingly, leadership and governance, and ideological advocacy demands pragmatism over some perceived capacity of force majeure.

Read more…

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.

Turnout Issue:

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!!

Last night’s debate highlighted Mitt’s debate strengths and Newt’s weakness.

Mitt’s Strengths

Preparation: No one on the stage is ever more prepared than Mitt for a debate. In 19 debates, topics have covered issues as varied as contraception to moon colonies. Last night Mitt was fully prepared not only to make his points, but to anticipate the counterpoint and to respond with strength. Case in point: the Fannie Mae lobby question. As Mitt made his point that Newt was for all practical purposes a lobbyist, I watched Gingrich, who could barely hold in his glee as he anticipated his response. He thought he had Mitt where he wanted him. Newt then leveled his accusation that Mitt had investments in both entities, thinking he’d just scored the zinger of the night. Mitt coolly explained that the stock he owned was through a blind trust over which Mitt does not have investment control, through mutual funds. Mitt then countered with the point that Newt, too, has investments in these entities. OUCH! Newt’s only counter was that his investments were much smaller than Mitt’s. Not terribly satisfying.

Discipline: When Mitt is asked a question he knows how he wants to respond. Often he has 3-4 points he wants to make, and methodically goes through that list. Newt does not show this discipline. In the NBC debate this week it was clear that Newt thrives on emotion, not mental discipline, in his performances. He relies on the audience’s response to pump him up, and when he’s on defense he glowers and fumes. When Mitt’s on defense you can see him take notes and prepare his counter. And Mitt gets energized when needed: last night’s response to Newt’s negative immigration ad was widely praised as a glowing moment for Mitt. See more on that point below.

Strength of Ideas: It’s been widely noted now after the NBC debate that Newt was very flat without the crowd. Meanwhile, second to perhaps last night, Mitt’s performance at the NBC debate was his best. It was idea vs. idea. Newt’s “grandiose” ideas vs. Mitt’s disciplined ideas, and Mitt won. And that’s the format that the debates against President Obama will be: reduced, if any, audience participation, one on one, idea vs. idea. In that context Newt floundered, Mitt prospered. The last two debates have indisputably made clear Mitt’s the man to debate Obama.

Presence: Debate success requires presence. CNN’s Todd Graham, national championship and award-winning debate coach, wrote today in an article entitled “Romney beats Gingrich at his own game”:

No matter how good your argument is, your delivery must be convincing. Romney made his stand in Florida. He changed his demeanor. And that one change was more important than all the other improvements combined. I believe Republicans in the South Carolina primary rejected Romney because he didn’t look or act like a winner in the debate there. He does now. He bested Gingrich on attitude in front of a raucous crowd — Gingrich’s usual “comfort zone.” In other words, he beat Gingrich at his own game.

The first example was when he told Gingrich to stop calling him “anti-immigrant.” Romney stared down the former House speaker and said, “The idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. Don’t use a term like that.” What followed next was telling. Gingrich looked away and actually mumbled (almost inaudibly) “I’ll tell you what … ” And trailed off. The lecturer (Gingrich) got lectured! It wasn’t the slick Mitt with the professional style anymore. It was a man-to-man stare-down. And Newt blinked. Romney was indignant and believable. That one debate moment might have shifted the balance permanently in his favor.

Newt’s Weaknesses

Riding the crowd: Even in the debate last night, in which the crowd was not hushed but was just plainly pro-Mitt, Newt was, again, flat. Said Politico:

Gingrich was never totally able to find his groove with this crowd, which was sitting in Jacksonville, a Romney stronghold. He seemed to try to tailor some of his statements at different points to the crowd, but it was never a perfect fit.
Read more…

Think Newt Gingrich is conservative?

Voters can’t ignore the flashing liberal daggers coming from his mouth.

Gingrich gleefully bashes private-equity investment/capitalism.

Get him in front of a crowd and he coughs up class warfare “Mitt Romney is trying to buy the presidency… people power beats money power every time.” Yes, he’s criticizing Romney for being organized, planning ahead, and convincing Americans that he’s the best candidate to lead America… enough so that they’ve given him their money. (Newt is all about DEFLECTION; remember that leisurely Greek Isle cruise he took right after announcing his candidacy when he could have been working/organizing/seeking financial backing for his presidential run?)

Don’t forget Gingrich’s “right-wing social engineering” en garde against Paul Ryan’s medicare reform plan (see video below).

Now, Gingrich is sticking the SEIU sword into Romney’s conservative solution for illegal immigration. And, Newt doesn’t care that in his flip-flop about-face flailing, he’s stabbing himself:

“Newt Gingrich borrowed talking points from Barack Obama and the SEIU on illegal immigration and used them to attack Mitt Romney’s conservative approach. He was rebuked by Marco Rubio for doing it, and had to retreat. Then he attacked his own position on immigration. This is who Newt Gingrich is: an unreliable leader who undermines conservatives, hurts our party, and emboldens President Obama and his liberal allies.” –Albert Martinez, Romney for President spokesman

Gingrich opposes an immigration position he supported:

This morning in Miami, Newt Gingrich came out against self-deportation. “‘How close were to breaking out and laughing out loud about this fantasy?’ Newt said mockingly while discussing Mitt Romney’s idea of ‘self deportation’ during his interview with Univision this morning.” (Charlie Spiering, “Gingrich Mocks Romney’s Wealth; Self-Deportation,” The Washington Examiner, 12/25/12)

But, just two months ago, Gingrich’s spokesman, speaking about Newt’s immigration plan, said this: “It’s likely the vast majority of them would self-deport.” “On the Gingrich campaign website, the top item in the ‘solutions’ section presents a 10-step plan for addressing illegal immigration. … A spokesman for Gingrich said only a small percentage of current illegal immigrants would likely be allowed to stay. ‘It’s likely the vast majority of them would self-deport,’ said spokesman R. C. Hammond.” (The Concord Monitor, 11/29/11)

In December 2010, Gingrich agreed with radio host Laura Ingraham that self-deportation was the right choice. LAURA INGRAHAM: “We have to enforce this law. We have to do that first. No work, self deportation. Come back. We can figure out our immigration system after we enforce this border. You’re not going to get the support of the people unless we really see that border enforced.” GINGRICH: “I agree with you. I’m against comprehensive reform.” (“The Laura Ingraham Show,” 12/3/10)

In 2008, Gingrich’s American Solutions website declared: “Anything Less Than Requiring Those Who Are Here Illegally To Return Home To Apply For Legal Status Is Amnesty, Plain And Simple.” “Everyone currently working in the United States illegally must return to their home country to apply for the worker visa program. Anything less than requiring those who are here illegally to return home to apply for legal status is amnesty, plain and simple.” (American Solutions Website, www.americansolutions.com, Archived 10/22/08)

Gingrich was forced to pull down his false anti-Romney attack ad:

Senator Marco Rubio Demanded That Gingrich Pull Down His “Inaccurate, Inflammatory” Anti-Romney Ad. “‘Sen. Marco Rubio scolded Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign over a Spanish-language radio ad that accuses rival Mitt Romney of being ‘anti-immigrant’ ‘This kind of language is more than just unfortunate. It’s inaccurate, inflammatory, and doesn’t belong in this campaign,’ Rubio told The Miami Herald when asked about the ad.” (“Rubio Scolds Gingrich Camp, Says Ad Bashing ‘Anti-Immigrant’ Romney Is ‘Inaccurate, Inflammatory’,” The Miami Herald, 1/25/12)

“In the wake of Sen. Marco Rubio’s denunciation of Newt Gingrich’s ad calling Mitt Romney ‘anti-immigrant,’ the Romney campaign’s Hispanic leadership team – headlined by former Sen. Mel Martinez – is demanding that Gingrich pull down the radio spot. But Gingrich already plans to do it. ‘We respect the senator’s wishes,’ said Gingrich’s campaign chairman.” (“Romney’s Hispanic Leadership Team: Newt, Pull Down Your Ad. Gingrich: I Will,” The Miami Herald, 1/25/12)-equity

Today, Hispanic leaders united to write an open letter to Newt Gingrich asking him to pull down the offensive Spanish language radio advertisement running in the Miami market:

Read more…

Thanks to John Schroeder of Article VI Blog for connecting Mitt Romney Central with Timothy Dalrymple. The following open letter is another outstanding endorsement of Governor Romney as the candidate best suited to represent conservative values as our President of the United States. Tim’s three main arguments below are compelling, especially regarding Governor Romney’s moral leadership.

Timothy Dalrymple is the Director of Content for Patheos.com, the largest religion website in the country, and the managing editor of its Evangelical Portal. He earned his Ph.D. in modern western religious thought at Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and contributes to Evangelicals for Mitt. Raised in non-denominational evangelical churches in California, Dalrymple has ministry experience in youth ministry, college ministry, prison chaplaincy, teaching apologetics, and leading overseas missions. Formerly of Boston, he is now a member of Perimeter Church in Johns Creek, Georgia. You can follow him at Philosophical Fragments or Facebook.

See the just-released ebook from Evangelicals for Mitt for a comprehensive explanation of why Romney is the best positioned to represent evangelicals’ values in the White House.

By Timothy Dalrymple

Dear Mitt Romney skeptics, and especially my fellow evangelicals,

Do you remember how it felt when the economy began to implode in those anxious, waning months of 2008? We were coming down to the wire in the election contest, and the candidates we had to choose between were Barack Obama and John McCain. Given the choices, of course, I supported McCain. I still think he would have made a far better President than Obama has proven to be.

But as the very foundations of the American economy were shaking and falling away beneath our feet, and we faced the very real possibility of a Second Great Depression, how desperately I wished that Mitt Romney had emerged from the primary as the champion of the GOP. The presiding President and his party took the heat for the financial crisis, and McCain worsened the situation when his actions and statements inspired no confidence in his stability and expertise on economic matters. The election turned in Obama’s favor when he gave the impression of solidity and strength in the economic crisis.

Romney, however, had something Obama couldn’t even begin to claim: a brilliantly successful career in the private sector, and a world of experience specifically in the financial sector, where our most intractable problems lay. Between McCain and Romney, Romney was touted by the conservative commentariat as the conservative option, and I remember feeling as though the liberal media, independents and even some Democrats who were able to vote in primaries had shoehorned John McCain onto the GOP ticket. If Romney had been at the top of the ticket instead, I still believe we would have avoided the lamentable Obama Presidency; compared to a business titan, Obama would have looked like the inexperienced pretender that he was, and he could not have stood up to Romney’s economic expertise in the debates.

Well, we’re still in the midst of an incredible mess as a country. Our financial house is in shambles. Tax reform, regulatory reform, streamlining government, changes to our energy and immigration policies, will all help. But the character of the American people, the moral substructure that provides the necessary, nurturing environment for our democratic free market, has also disintegrated. Our problem is not merely political; it is also cultural. I am convinced of this with every bone in my body: We need to rediscover the virtues of the free market, and we also need to rediscover the economic virtues. On the one hand, we need a President who understands how companies grow and flourish, who understands how the economy works and what provides the predictability and clarity and the space for innovation that the market demands; Romney’s experience in venture capital, properly understood, is one of his truest strengths, because the venture capitalist learns a great deal about what kinds of ventures succeed and what kinds of capital they need. On the other hand, we need someone whose personal integrity and whose socio-political principles will strengthen the family, enrich the workforce, and restore our collective commitment to responsibility and initiative, stewardship and thrift, diligence and creativity.

I’ve written responses to some common misconceptions about Romney and his candidacy – and a long, specifically evangelical case for Mitt can be found in this ebook. The purpose of this letter is simply to set forth, in broad outlines, why I think Romney’s the right guy at the right time for this country. The Presidency is a position of enormously important economic, global and moral leadership. In all three of those areas, I firmly believe that Mitt Romney is the leader we need. He also, not coincidentally, stands the best chance of defeating Barack Obama — and if there’s one thing conservatives agree upon right now, it’s the profound importance of installing new leadership. As the country staggers toward decline, we need someone who can pick us up, rally the American people behind a positive and hopeful vision, and deploy all of his intelligence and experience and skill to move us toward a better future. That’s Mitt.

Economic and Global Leadership

Those who know him personally attest, without exception, that Romney is an extraordinarily intelligent, boundlessly competent, and thoroughly hard-working man. He built a towering reputation in the business world, accomplished a near-miraculous turnaround of the Salt Lake City Olympics (which was mired in scandal and red ink and on the verge of collapsing), and took an extremely liberal state (Massachusetts) that was deeply in debt and restored it to fiscal health and a budget surplus in the course of four years.

In the business world, Romney specialized in turning around failing companies, and he did so with great success. Sometimes, yes, that means eliminating jobs — but in most cases you’re eliminating jobs in order to avoid eliminating a company in its entirety. You make companies more profitable, more competitive, and thus more sustainable. You eliminate jobs now so that you can keep paying the salaries of those who remain, and ideally add more jobs again later. In other words, sometimes the most pro-jobs thing you can do is cut one job and save the company that employs ninety-nine more.

Read more…

There is a lot of talk these days about how Mitt Romney is a so-called “Massachusetts moderate” and how other candidates are trying to be the “conservative alternative” to Gov. Romney. Some even compare Mitt Romney to John McCain’s candidacy of 2008.

One very conservative and influential magazine called ‘The Weekly Standard,’ whose editor (Bill Krystol) is a regular panelist on Fox News Sunday, looked into the issue. The conclusion that they found is that Romney is “no moderate,” in fact:

“Romney is at least as conservative as his GOP rivals on jettisoning Obamacare and more conservative than some on entitlements, national security, and immigration. He’s no match for Gingrich on taxes, but that’s about it. Overall, he’s to the right of Gingrich.”

The article goes on to say that in regard to the top four most pressing issues of the day (namely Immigration, Tax Reform, Health Care, and Military Defense spending), Romney is “anything but moderate.”

“On four of the biggest issues in 2012, Romney is anything but moderate—or timid. He gets no special credit for advocating repeal of Obamacare. That’s Republican dogma. But he’s been the most specific among the GOP presidential candidates in backing the Ryan budget in all its parts, including its remake of Medicare. It was House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s plan that Gingrich zinged as “right wing social engineering” before reversing himself under duress.

When Romney announced in November his own proposal for cutting spending and reforming Medicare and Social Security, Paul Ryan was thrilled. “Look at what he put out!” he told Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. “This is a great development.” Ryan said Romney’s package of spending cuts “tracks perfectly with the House budget,” which Ryan had drafted.”

Further Evidence

Further evidence of Romney’s conservative credentials is the fact that Romney made history in New Hampshire’s vote last week. Not only was he the first non-incumbent Republican to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, but in New Hamphire Romney got more votes from self-identified Republican voters than any other Republican candidate in history. Here is a brief summary on how New Hampshire Republicans voted:

“Mitt picked up 49% of GOP voters. Romney’s 49 percent is the highest mark among self-identified Republicans for any presidential candidate since New Hampshire moved its primary forward in the calendar.

Contrast that with John McCain, with whom he’s often compared as a squishy moderate with problems with Republicans.

McCain is the only candidate since 1980 to win New Hampshire even as he lost among self-identified Republicans.

That means McCain was essentially the worst winner with Republicans in New Hampshire over the past 30 years, while Romney was the best.”

As the Weekly Standard and polls from New Hampshire show, Romney is no moderate. He is a solid conservative. Strikingly, Romney is getting equal support from both conservatives and moderates among the voters and also from among congressmen and Governors who have endorsed Romney. Part of Romney’s strength is that he is a conservative that also appeals strongly to independents. That sounds like the kind of candidate we need running for the White House. 

Read more…

Recently, I extended the invitation to a fellow Californian who will again vote for President Obama. Her name is Pauline Kejmar and she lives in Redlands — she is a Democrat. Her grandson Drew is my son-in-law.

There are still ardent supporters of President Obama and Pauline is one. Through Drew, I asked her if she would give me a TOP 10 list of reasons she believes President Obama is superior to Governor Romney as POTUS and why she plans to support Obama again.

You may ask why I would post subject matter of this type in a grassroots forum such as MittRomneyCentral. My reasoning is that it provides a simple glimpse into the mind of one Democrat and if we are successful here at MRC, we should be able to appeal to the Blue Dog Democrat as well as to the Independent voter (Americans all). To do so, we need to understand their motivations and expectations. I presume that Pauline is far from being a disaffected Democrat as her views below seem to align well with the more liberal wing of the Democrat party.

Governor Huntsman’s likely endorsement of Governor Romney today is the first of four hopefully, which will shift the focus of the campaign away from the Republican competitors to President Obama. WELCOME to any and all supporters of Governor Huntsman and to any of the supporters of Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry who are hoping to join a winning, organized, strong movement to restore America’s standing! Welcome to you!

It is too early to predict of course, but Romney could be on course to beat Reagan’s 1980 win over Carter — impressive indeed. In that race, Reagan won 44 states and 489 electoral votes to Carter’s six states (plus DC) and 49 electoral votes, and America is in far worse shape today. I remember those days. Reagan entered office with a mandate, in part because of Democrats that crossed over to vote for him. By the way, are any of you as sick and tired as I am of hearing Mr. Gingrich invoke the name of Ronald Reagan at every turn? I wish I could ask President Reagan his candid opinion of Gingrich!

REQUEST: For any of our readers that voted for Obama who became disillusioned with the direction his lack of leadership has taken America, and who is seriously considering a vote for Governor Romney this time (should he be the Republican nominee), please leave a comment as to why. I may contact you later to invite you to elaborate in a guest post — if you would like.

Following is one Democrat’s opinion as to why President Obama is the superior candidate for POTUS.

By Pauline Kejmar

Ten Reasons why I would vote for Obama over Romney

I. He is better able to bridge the increasing gap between the rich and the poor in this country.

2. He has been very successful in fighting terrorism with the killing of Bin Laden and many other top Al Qaeda leaders and operatives.

3. He fights for consumer financial protection such as regulating credit card fees.

4. He would be less likely to lead us into a armed conflict with Iran using sanctions and cooperation with other allies.

5. He was able to help get Gaddafi out of Libya without using U.S. ground troops.

6. He would be tougher on environmental protection because he believes in global warming.

7. Has a sensible approach to immigration. Illegal immigration numbers have decreased under Obama and deportation of illegal criminals has increased. He has a concern for those young people brought here at an early age to receive a path to legalization.

8. He has brought an end to the nine years of war in Iraq and sent our troops home. He is drawing down in Afghanistan after ten years.

2ND REQUEST: Please leave a comment to this post if you voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but are seriously considering a completely opposite approach by voting for Governor Romney, should he win the nomination. Also, let me know if you would be interested in expounding upon your views and opinions in a guest post to help other readers that have similar concerns. If so, I will contact you via email.