Today, Romney for Presidentreleased a new television advertisement titled “Give Me A Break”. As President Bill Clinton took center stage at the Democratic National Convention last night, let’s take a stroll down memory lane and remember what he said just four years ago about President Obama.
“Give Me a Break”:
AD FACTS for “Give Me A Break”:
Voiceover: “As the economy gets worse, Barack Obama calls on Bill Clinton to help his failing campaign.
Text: “Obama Economy Even Worse”
· “The Obama Economy Is Weaker Than Previously Forecast And Darker Days Lie Ahead.” (Donald Lambro, Op-Ed, “Obama Economy Even Worse Than Anticipated,” The Washington Times, 8/23/12)
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: “It’s about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment.”
· Pres Bill Clinton: “It’s about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment.” (Obama For America’s, “Clear Choice”, 8/23/12)
Text: “Obama TV Ad”
Voiceover: “He’s a good soldier—helping his party’s president. But what did Bill Clinton say about Barack Obama in 2008?”
Text: “What Did Clinton Say About Obama In 2008?”
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
· Pres Bill Clinton: “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” (Bill Clinton, Remarks, Hanover, NH, 1/7/08)
Text: “23 Million Americans Struggling For Work”
· More Than Twenty-Three Million Americans Are Unemployed, Underemployed, Or Have Stopped Looking For Work. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, 8/26/12)
Voiceover: “23 million Americans struggling for work.”
Text: “‘The Middle Class Falls Further Behind’”
· CNN Money: “The Middle Class Falls Further Behind” (Aaron Smith, “The Middle Class Falls Further Behind,” CNN Money, 8/22/12)
Voiceover: “A middle class falling further behind.”
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: “Give me a break.”
· Pres Bill Clinton: “Give me a break.” (Bill Clinton, Remarks, Hanover, NH, 1/7/08)
MITT ROMNEY: “I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message.”
Hypocrisy, falsehoods, and someone who knows how to spin a good yarn…
Another well-known Democrat has joined the ranks of others who say the mechanics of Obama’s campaign aren’t working.
Lanny Davis, former Special Counsel to President Bill Clinton and liberal commentator for FOX News, has a big gripe with the Obama campaign. Not happy with the way Mayor Cory Booker (D- Newark, NJ) has been treated by the Obama campaign, Davis is disgusted with their method of operation. He says “vicious people are working for the President.”
The following statement about Booker elicited Davis’ ire:
“He’s dead to us,” one ranking administration official said of the prevailing feelings at the White House and Obama headquarters in Chicago. – New York Post
Video recording June 8, 2012
Davis @ :48: ”We’re both concerned [referring to himself and Clinton] about the tactics that his campaign is employing and we’re both urging him [Obama] to do what Tom Friedman has urged him to do [seize the high ground, not attack Bain Capital], what Cory Booker has urged him to do, which is to talk about his record rather than blaming the previous administration or going negative on Mitt Romney.”
Davis @ 1:50: “And you have vicious people who are working for the President – it’s not the President – who are saying that Cory Booker – one of the great supporters of President Obama’s policies is quote “dead” because he’s giving the President good advice – disagreeing with the Kool-Aid drinking people in the campaign who think the way to win the presidency is to trash the other guy, rather than to defend your own guy’s record.”
Interviewer @ 2:35: “Lanny, you’ve been in a lot of campaigns, as I have. This looks to me like meltdown to me.
Davis: Well, there is a very serious problem within the Obama campaign and you’ve just described it. It may be meltdown unless they come to their senses.”
Davis @3:08: “Can you imagine anyone in Chicago, on background, whispering in reporters’ ears – and I know the the reporters ‘cuz they’re telling me – describing anyone who disagrees with their tactics of trashing Mitt Romney – when you had John Heilemann in New York Magazine actually dropping ‘F’ bombs by people in the Obama campaign about Mitt Romney. The ten percent of the people in this country that are undecided don’t want to hear ‘F’ bombs. They want to know where does Barack Obama stand.”
Lanny Davis’ verbal tongue-lashing on Team Obama is further evidence of the klutzy, clunky gear-grinding going on in the President’s campaign. I agree.
Davis implies that Obama isn’t responsible for the contemptible clatter – that he is simply rattling along in obedience to anonymous advice-givers. I disagree.
Obama cut his teeth on radical clap-trap. In my opinion, he not only consents to the blame game, but helps conjure up the the next move. He thinks America just misunderstands his bumbling.
Here are the remarks as I was reading them via the teleprompter control screen during Mitt’s speech.
It was very interesting to see how many times Mitt added parts to the speech that were not on the prompter and also how many times he simply changed the wording on the fly. I’d love to get a chance sometime to see if President Obama does the same thing or if he stays 100% true to the prompter.
Because Mitt Romney gets so little positive coverage on FOX News, I decided to post videos of a rare discussion of The Gov that aired on The O’Reilly Factor on July 6, 2011. (How could fair and balanced FOX miss Romney’s foray into London Town to meet with British government officials, including Prime Minister David Cameron?)
A couple of weeks ago, Bill Clinton decided to issue measured praise for a couple of GOP presidential candidates (a suspect move) – Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann. Along with other topics – including mention of Obama’s failing Jewish support – Bill O’ Reilly and FOX News contributor Dick Morris discussed Clinton’s ‘poison kisses’ for Romney and Bachmann:
Morris: “There is, though, a grand Democratic strategy to try to stop Romney from getting the Republican nomination… because I think he’s the candidate they fear the most.”
“…Because he’s [Romney] the candidate most likely to beat Obama.”
Morris’s opinion that Clinton’s approbation for Bachmann was real (and Morris inserted as much praise for her as time allowed) was received by a skeptical O’Reilly. Next, O’Reilly brought FOX News Senior Political Analyst Brit Hume to the desk (ignore the Media Matters logo that pops up):
O’Reilly @1:04: “That’s why I think Mitt Romney has a, you know, a good chance. I agree with Morris, because he’s a guy – it’s gonna be harder to demonize Romney, particularly for Independent voters, than the other candidates.
Hume @1:42: “…For a crafty political operator like Bill Clinton, it’s a little hard for me to imagine that he really thinks that Michele Bachmann is a truly impressive person, I mean, in many ways she is a truly impressive person, but I suspect that what he thinks is what I know a lot of Democrats think – is that she would be – in the end – she would prove much as Sarah Palin did in the end – toxic to Independents who would think she was, just too much.”
O’Reilly: “Too far right, you mean too far right?”
Hume: “Too far right and too prone to saying peculiar things that are, you know, off base and so on – that she would be a much easier target for attack ads and the kind of ridicule that Sarah Palin got.”
O’Reilly: “You think that in the Machiavellian world of politics, presidential politics, that Bill Clinton put this out there because the Democrats WANT Michele Bachmann to be the nominee because she’s much easier to beat than, say, Romney would be.”
Hume: “Well, I think that’s a more likely – to the extent the he was being political about it at all – I think that’s a more plausible explanation than Dick Morris offered…”
These interviews were conducted before we learned this and this about Bachmann.
Note: Relating to the Morris interview – another reminder – Mitt Romney is pro-life and has written his own extensive pro-life pledge.
Feeling a little nervous-excitement-jittery on this election eve? Need a good read to pass the interminable hours before the sun rises tomorrow? Well, have I got a story to tell you!
It begins 46 years ago when a baby boy was was born in Saigon, Vietnam. Little did his parents know that a few short years later, they would be caught up in the trauma of a brutal war that would forever change their homeland. When their young son was just 10 years old, the Tran family experienced the adventure of their lives when the United States Army evacuated them from war-ravaged Saigon – one week before it fell to the Communists.
U.S. military evacuates Vietnamese before the fall of Saigon, Vietnam. (1975)
Refugee Van Tran and his family were welcomed to America and made a home for themselves in Michigan. Life was hard and the adjustments were many, but the Tran family rejoiced because they were in a land of freedom – The United States of America. When they arrived stateside, Tran could speak only two words of English: “Okay” and “Salem,” a brand of cigarettes used by American GIs stationed in his homeland. A few years later, when Tran was a teenager, they moved to Orange County, CA, where many Vietnamese refugees were welcomed and a community known as Little Saigon was formed.
Life wasn’t easy for the Tran family, but Tran worked hard to master English and get an education. His diligent efforts resulted in a Bachelors Degree in Political Science at the University of California, Irvine, a Master’s Degree in Public Administration, and a Juris Doctorate from Hamline University School of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He was a managing partner in his own law firm. Tran became very active in his community – serving on a planning commission, serving as Vice-Mayor of Garden Grove – earning the highest number of votes in the history in the city’s council election and became only the second Vietnamese American man to be elected to office in the United States. He was Vice Chairman of the Orange County based ‘El Capitan’ District of the Boy Scouts of America and became a member of the prestigious American Council of Young Political Leaders.
Van Thai Tran
While attending college, Tran became politically active in the Republican party and worked as an intern for then State Senator (now Congressman) Republican Ed Royce and Congressman Robert Dornan (known as B-1 Bob, for his outspoken support of strengthening national defense in supporting the B1 bomber). Congressman Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez in a controversial election in 1992 by only a few hundred votes. Sanchez actively courted illegal aliens and even changed her name – taking her mother’s name of Sanchez to influence voters in the highly Hispanic district. Later, a Congressional investigation found evidence that 624 votes were indeed cast by illegal aliens.
In August 2002, Sanchez caused quite a flap when she booked a fundraiser at the Playboy Mansion. Keeping up with her constituent outreach, on August 31st of this year, Rep. Sanchez had lunch – at the Playboy Mansion. Playboy founder Hugh Hefner tweeted that day: “Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is having lunch at the Mansion,” the tweet said. “I’m a long time supporter.”
Now, Republican Van Thai Tran is in a neck-and-neck political battle with Democrat incumbent Loretta Sanchez for the 47th congressional district in CA – the woman who many say stole the race from his mentor, Bob Dornan.
Unusual factors are at play in California’s 47th district. It’s a socially conservative district that strongly backed Prop 8—the state’s anti-same sex marriage Constitutional amendment—on the exact day it voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by a whopping 22 points. Whites are a minority in the district, comprising roughly 35 percent of the electorate; 50 percent of CA-47’s voters are Hispanic, and the remaining 15 percent are Vietnamese.
Sanchez recently came under fire for injecting ‘race’ into the contest against Tran. From an interview on Univision, the Spanish-language tv channel she said: “The Vietnamese and the Republicans are, with an intensity, trying to take this seat from which we have done so much for our community — to take this seat and give it to this Van Tran, who is very anti-immigrant and very anti-Hispanic.”
Maybe this is why Congresswoman Sanchez played the race card:
It’s a battle! The Big Guns are involved. Bill Clinton, who supported Sanchez 14 years ago, has stepped in again to support to Sanchez and smooth her “Vietnamese’ issue. Romney endorsed Van Tran as part of his 10 for ’10 initiative. Tran has caught the attention of conservative radio and was interviewed by Mark Levin last week and he gave Tran a glowing endorsement.
Tran hasn’t had the resources that Sanchez has and acknowledges the path to victory has been steep. But, the fact that the race is close is striking.
Dana Perino reports on the diversity of midterm GOP candidates – Van Tran is featured:
Tran has focused on creating jobs and the greatness of America: “My candidacy is an affirmation of how great this country is. I came here as a little boy with literally the clothes on my back, and without any knowledge of the language, and now I’m the first Vietnamese-American member of the legislature of the largest state in the union, and a candidate for the United States Congress. Where else on this earth is that possible?”
Let’s keep the American Dream alive tomorrow. Electing Van Tran will help.
There has been a lot of jive-talk in the blogosphere (can I say jive-talk?) about Mitt Romney having a bad week. I indicated to a few people last week that he has the endorsement edge and probably the money edge as well; he organized a robust South Carolina team and a very solid Georgia team.
“Oh,” I say in realization, “you mean he had a bad week in the blogosphere?!” Here are the facts of where we stand and why I’m not worried (and I’m not worried for different reasons than those that help Dean Barnett sleep well.
2) The early polls reflect name recognition not voting decisions – For example, in late February 2003 Joe Liberman was leading the Democratic contendors.
3) Romney is better positioned than past candidates at this point in the race. Let me draw you a picture:
For the dark horse candidates at this point in the race (especially pointing out Governors from small states) Carter was at 1% in 1975; DUkakis 1%; Clinton 2% in 1992. Even McCain stood at just 3% in 1999. Once again, name recognition does not a primary make.
4) Romney has STRONG favorability ratings among voters who have heard about him. A recent Quinnipiac poll clocked this number at 83%.
5) How about what really matters – the KEY primary states? – Let’s take Iowa and New Hampshire:
Romney’s polling at this point is even more impressive when you consider that his December 2006 numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire were 6% and 9%.
In short, this is a historically excellent start for a no-name small-state governor running for President.
There’s been a good deal of controversy around Mitt’s appearance on This Week this weekend and his explanation for voting for Tsongas in 1992. This is really a pithy issue.
Let’s detail a few things here. (Many thanks for our man at MittBase for his detailed research on the issue)
First, there is nothing contradictory here. We have a report from two Boston Globe employees as to why Romney voted for someone 15 years ago. There is no direct quote.
Second, I bet if you asked Scott Lehigh, Frank Phillips, or Mitt Romney that those weren’t the only reasons why Romney voted for Tsongas (the fact that Tsongas was from Massachusetts, and that he was better than Bill Clinton). Do you vote for someone because of only two issues? You might only give two issues, when you have limited time, but no one votes for a candidate because of only two issues.
Third, why don’t we take Romney at his word. He voted for Paul Tsongas because he liked him better than Clinton, and that he didn’t think that he would win the general election against Bush? Are these somehow mutually exclusive.
Fourth, the democrats and MSM is going to take everything Romney ever said 10 years ago, tell us it, and then say “however today he says…” blank. They are going to use this tactic weather it contradicted the previous statement or not. They will use this tactic every time Mitt Romney does not repeat his previous statement verbatim.
Lastly, there was NO GOP PRIMARY in 1992. There was only one place to vote. As one political guru told me “he does it all the time”. One more thing. This also means Romney voted against Clinton twice!
Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton with his pants up. And he’ll very likely be cast in 2008 (“nominated,” if you prefer the political science verb) against Clinton’s wife, who has all the seductive qualities of John Kerry in a pants suit.