Mr. Obama is no Commander in Chief — He is a Weak Man of Character for Exploiting the SEALs

Very few things in life ever make me angry. Messrs. Obama, Biden, and Clinton have crossed the line in their gloating and bragging and have gotten my attention.

The issue of President Obama and Vice President Biden boasting of the decision to kill Bin Laden is unbecoming any leader, gentleman, or certainly a President of the United States. I could not let this one go by. Back in February, I wrote this piece about how the Navy SEALs were upset that Mr. Obama would allow leaking of classified information.

Recent news exposes what I consider to be weakness of character of Mr. Obama as he continues to brag about this event while at the same time criticizing Gov. Romney by stating he would not have taken the same action. While Mr. Obama deserves credit for making the decision certainly, he and Governor Romney are miles apart in one very important way. I wish I could shout this from the rooftops! Once a President Romney were to make such a decision, he would NEVER boast about it and he would NEVER create a political television commercial about it. NEVER!

Anybody who has been around or known any person that has served in the armed forces, in any leadership position, knows that they never brag about combat missions (in part because human beings die as a result). And yet our Commander in Chief is doing exactly that! In my opinion, his language and actions this week are absolutely deplorable!

UPDATE: Outstanding WSJ article: Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging RightsIt’s hard to imagine Lincoln or Eisenhower claiming such credit for the heroic actions of others.

Consider this opinion from Breitbart. The article refers to a memo by Panetta and many have referred to Obama’s decision as a “gutsy” call — certainly that is the case in the Clinton narrated ad. The Breitbart article is worth reading in its entirety. Here is an excerpt:

Only the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.

The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.

The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the “risk profile presented to the President.” If any other risks — no matter how minute — arose, they were “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Obama’s way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he’d say that there were additional risks of which he hadn’t been informed; he’d been kept in the dark by his military leaders.

Finally, the memo is unclear on just what the mission is. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to “get” Bin Laden, whatever that meant.

President Obama made the right call to give the green light to the mission. But he did it in a way that he could shift the blame if things went wrong. Typical Obama. And typical of him to claim full credit for it, when he didn’t do anything but give a vague nod, while putting his top military officials at risk of taking the hit in case of a bad turn.

MailOnline obtained the opinions of Navy SEALs regarding Obama’s using their mission for political gain — consider:

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
[...]
Mr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.
[...]
Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

Even Arianna Huffington ripped Mr. Obama!

Mr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.

She told CBS: ‘We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It’s one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room… all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.’
[...]

The article continues:

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander-in-chief so his secret is safe.’
[...]
A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.

‘In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn’t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier — as would George W. Bush.’
[...]
It was ‘stretching a little much’ for Mr Obama to suggest only he would have made the decision. ‘I personally I don’t think Romney would have any problem making tough decisions. He got a very accomplished record of making decision as a business professional.
[...]
Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years, said: ‘We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.

[emphasis added throughout]

Frankly, I am angry. President Obama is accurately credited for the decision he made. But for him to effectively glory in the mission by exploiting the true heroes who made it happen — and to politicize the mission — is beyond the pale. His extremely poor judgment in constantly seeking political gain, using a military operation, speaks volumes of his utter lack of decency while at the same time revealing his character.

Obama, Biden, and Clinton are weak men for using our service men and women in this way.

Veepstakes Speculation is Complete Entertainment

For about a month, I have been intending to write this piece but didn’t have the courage to write it until today; not until somebody smarter than I wrote what I have been wanting to.

Credit: The Economist

I acknowledge right up front that I will likely anger some people that read this. That is not my intent at all. There is no question that the choice of a vice president by Governor Romney is very important for America as that person could become president in a heartbeat. Absolutely! However, I argue here that there is almost no value whatsoever in publicly speculating and debating who that person will be, many months ahead of when Governor Romney will make the decision. It is a well accepted truth that the selection of a veep has little to no impact in a presidential contest, except in the negative (remember unprepared Palin?).

My assertion is that all public discussion and debate of who Governor Romney’s choice in a running mate will be is a complete and utter waste of time. Especially when considering the many hours a week devoted to this one topic in radio and television talk shows. That said, I believe there are two exceptions to this assertion, both of which I consider to be of minimal value. The two exceptions are:

  1. Entertainment Value
  2. Potential Candidate Response Value

First — the entertainment value. This is the main reason we see all the public speculation and discussion. We all enjoy speculating about everything. It is fun to think about who might be catapulted from a given strata to number two! I love the speculation myself. Heck, Nate developed our site’s “Veep Madness” awhile back — It is brilliant and fun! I see all the public speculation about the veep choice much like using Instagram (I just got it on my Droid). It is fun, a novelty, and a complete waste of time, except for the entertainment value. It is much like watching Modern Family. There is no value in spending time watching Modern Family except being with those you love and to laugh, right?

Second — the potential candidate response value. Since so many possible veep candidates are asked the question, one of them might say something really stupid like, “Are you kidding me? I would love to be picked as vice president by Mitt…I think I am the best person in all of America for that position!” So, there is a little value in the public discussion on this point — very little and that value is as a negative determinant.

Do you trust Governor Romney’s judgment in this decision? I do. What person alive has better analytic skills than Governor Romney? What about judgment? Exactly. Do you think the person he ultimately chooses will be properly vetted? Okay then. What value is there in all the public debate and speculation? There is none. It is pure entertainment value. That’s it. Am I right? Am I wrong?

Look what Karl Rove wrote in the every first three paragraphs of his latest Wall Street Journal opinion piece:

We’ve entered the silly season when vast numbers of words will be expended on who Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate should be. Since the actual announcement is likely to be made shortly before the Aug. 31 GOP convention, we’ll have to endure three-and-a-half months of pundits handicapping prospects.

This exercise is largely useless. Who thought at this point in 2000 that the vice-presidential nominees would be Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman, or in 2008 Sarah Palin and Joe Biden?

The person who matters most in this decision, Mr. Romney, appears to be approaching it with appropriate seriousness, appointing a longtime trusted aide, Beth Myers, to vet possible running mates.

[emphasis added]

I think Rove is wrong on one point. The exercise is not entirely “useless.” There is entertainment value, right? I mean the sitcom Modern Family makes a lot of money and Instagram is worth $1 billion — so there is value — its not entirely useless! I love to disagree with Karl Rove! Here are two of my favorite lines from Rove’s Op-Ed:

Having played a role in this process, I know that if done well this will be a political proctology exam for each individual considered. [...] This is not an activity for the squeamish or reticent.

Entertaining! And to the point of having almost no influence whether a presidential candidate will win or lose the election?

Running mates haven’t decided an election in more than a half-century. For example, research by Bernard Grofman and Reuben Kline, political scientists at the University of California, Irvine, suggests that the net impact of the vice-presidential picks in 2008 was roughly one-half of one point and is generally less than one percentage point. Presidential elections are rarely that close.

So why do we all spend hours and hours speculating on something of no value? His last sentence wraps the piece well: (more…)

Obama and Axelrod Are Losing It — Romney Driving

Prediction: Mr. Obama or Mr. Axelrod will lose their temper in public before November 6th. Axelrod came this close to blowing a gasket at minute 5:45. And this is Mr. Obama’s best guy! Watch his eyes, body language, stuttering, interrupting Wallace, talking over him, raising his voice (FOX video). Obama’s team is scared (check minute 8:20 — Classic!). Related prediction: Obama will fire Axelrod before November 6th. BTW, Axelrod was interrupting Candy Crowley on her show this morning because he did not like the nature of her questions.

Evidence abounds that Mr. Obama and team are scared. His fear, and that of his surrounding team, was described well a week ago by David Parker in his Op-Ed “Obama’s Rage!” Mr. Obama is getting good marks by voters currently for being a nice guy — “the kind of guy you could see yourself sitting down to have a beer with” as they say. Just what we need — a good ole boy that really understands the average guy!

What about decisive leadership and accomplishment? Are we not yet “over it” when it comes to Mr. Obama’s blaming others and taking credit for the successes of others? I am over it! There are lots of people like Obama in business; they never last. They are the talkers, not the doers. They can talk a good line but can rarely execute.

I strongly believe that David Parker is right; Obama is scared. Since the 2008 election cycle, the Democrat party has lost voters to independents and Republicans. Just yesterday, a U.S. Senator publicly stated he’s not sure he can vote for Mr. Obama for president (many Democrats have shifted their support to Gov. Romney as evidenced in part here). And here.

Numerous sources are reporting “anemic” fundraising by the Obama camp. To be certain, they are in a better position financially than the Romney campaign, primarily due to the fact that Mr. Obama had no primary challengers against whom to defend. However, Obama’s fundraising efforts are far behind projections of both the Democrat and Republican political leaders. The Obama campaign is now asking Pres. Clinton to help out (WSJ):

Mr. Clinton is likely to assist the super PAC, called Priorities USA Action, whose anemic fundraising total thus far has unnerved the Obama campaign and senior Democrats.
[...]
“They’re asking for him to do anything,” the Clinton friend said. “Whatever he’s willing to do—to the extent they can get people in a room with him.”

The New York Times is also reporting that the Obama campaign is scrambling to raise more money.

From Wall Street to Hollywood, from doctors and lawyers, the traditional big sources of campaign cash are not delivering for the Obama campaign as they did four years ago. The falloff has left his fund-raising totals running behind where they were at the same point in 2008 — though well ahead of Mr. Romney’s — and has induced growing concern among aides and supporters as they confront the prospect that Republicans and their “super PAC” allies will hold a substantial advantage this fall.
[...]
“They clearly are feeling the pressure,” said one major Obama fund-raiser, who asked for anonymity to characterize his conversations with campaign officials.

Two days ago, Toby Harden wrote a compelling piece titled, “Barack Obama’s re-election bid is already in deep trouble”

Obama will keep trying to talk about something, anything other than the economy — contraception and dogs being the most recent examples — but Romney has the relatively straightforward task of being disciplined enough to talk relentlessly about jobs and the economy.

Certainly, Romney will never win the “guy you’d like to have a beer with” test, as Bush did in 2000. But 2012 will not be about that — there’s more at stake than in 2000. And as Nate Silver argues, Romney has room to grow and favourability ratings at this stage are unreliable indicators for November.
[...]
Even without factoring in the likely negative political impact of, say, Obamacare being struck down by the Supreme Court in June, Obama’s re-election bid is already in deep trouble.

Only a fool would underestimate Obama’s campaign machine, his ability to raise money and the fact that he remains personally likeable to a majority of Americans despite the state of the country. Anyone who argues at this stage that Obama is doomed to defeat is deluding themselves.

But the reality of this campaign is that it is likely to be brutal, very close — and could well result in Mitt Romney becoming the 45th President of the United States next January 20th.

[emphasis added in several places above]

Obama is looking in all corners for votes. He has decided to pick up the frequency of appearance on comedy shows in the hopes of appealing to young voters. See article in the Daily News here.

One simple method to measure the progress or success of a major political campaign is to simply observe which campaign is on the defensive most often. The candidate and his team that is on defense most is failing, no matter what the polls say at the moment. Governor Romney knows this well and it is one reason he has been all over Obama’s record.

Some pundits have criticized Governor Romney lately for not communicating his plans more specifically and how he would govern as president. There is plenty of time for that. Right now, each side is in the process of defining the contest and defining the other guy. In my opinion, Governor Romney is doing a far better job of defining Mr. Obama. Governor Romney is in the process of backing Mr. Obama into a corner. He is very effective at this.

As Mr. Obama becomes more and more cornered, he becomes more and more dangerous and he will lash out. When he does, we will see the real man.

One big reason we need President Romney to take over in January 2013:

Artwork by Michael Ramirez

Mitt Romney to Address 48,000 Evangelicals at Liberty University in May

Among friends and family members, discussions will often turn to the presidential campaigns. It is well known that Governor Romney has a strong, optimistic vision and message for America, contrasted with Mr. Obama’s aversion to any discussion of his own record as president (for example, when was the last time he touted his signature legislative “victory” — ObamaSnare?). His rhetoric is mostly negative and serious.

It seems the question always arises, “What do you think the Democrats are going to do to attack Romney?” One answer I hear almost every time goes something like, “Oh, there is no question the Democrats are going to make this one of the nastiest presidential elections of all time! They are going to look for every angle they can to attack Governor Romney’s Christian faith.” Anybody who follows the writings of our friends at Evangelicals for Mitt (“EFM”) and Article VI Blog know these attacks began in earnest about five years ago and really never abated (see John Schroeder’s excellent piece yesterday).

Liberty University

Though the DNC has said, “Attacking a candidate’s religion is out of bounds,” they know such a statement is like an open invitation to the liberal mainstream media and Democrats of all stripes do exactly the opposite. The latest example is the Democrat governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer’s reference two days ago to Governor Romney’s LDS family background, generations ago. And to what end? Division: a weak attempt to divide Americans of faith. Oh, and deflection from Mr. Obama’s record of course — as always.

I was excited Thursday to read the announcement that Governor Romney would give the commencement address at Liberty University next month — the audience is expected at 48,000 (Liberty University is to Evangelicals what BYU is to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Minutes after receiving the news alert, I sent an email to Nancy French at EFM asking if she might like to write a brief guest post for MRC (little did I know that she had just brought her husband David home from the hospital with a concussion — she reports that David is recovering well). Charles Mitchell at EFM wrote this piece about the announcement.

David French is relentless in his support of Governor Romney for president; even with a concussion he was somehow lucid enough to provide these excellent thoughts for National Review Online yesterday regarding Governor Romney’s speech May 12th. In my opinion, should Governor Romney be elected POTUS, the national attention he receives at the Liberty University commencement address will be exceeded only by his Tampa and inaugural speeches.

Interesting Factoid: Mark DeMoss, a trustee of Liberty University and a nationally prominent Evangelical gave an outstanding speech at BYU January 24, 2012. Referring to the invitation to speak at BYU, he said it was, “one of the highest honors I have received.” His BYU speech is truly outstanding and worth watching in its entirety.

Unfortunately, in the next six months, there will be many enemies of religious freedom that will do everything in their power to divide people of faith in the battle tested tactics of “divide and conquer.” We saw it this week. Jayde referred to it in her “Bigot Hall of Shame” post of April 6th referring to O’Donnell’s MSNBC lies that he later admitted were wrong.

Never forget Mr. Obama’s central campaign strategy: DIVIDE — DISTORT — DISTRACT — DEFLECT… Mr. Obama will use any person, entity, and message to take voters’ minds away from his record as POTUS.

Once before, I mentioned Dennis Prager, one of my favorite radio talk show hosts; one who is nationally syndicated. He refers often to his faith — he is an orthodox Jew. In light of the Obama strategy to relentlessly divide Americans on class, gender, faith, ethnicity, etc. and with this week’s announcement of the Liberty University address, I decided to include a segment from Dennis Prager’s radio program. Prager provides excellent reasoning to illustrate that he perfectly understands what he calls “the Evangelical argument” — also included are his thoughts on Romney and the presidential election. ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT (crescendo to the end):

“Bigotry and intolerance, silenced by argument, endeavors to silence by persecution, in old days by fire and sword, in modern days by the tongue.” ~ Charles Simmons

“Bigotry and judgment are the height of insecurity.” ~ Jasmine Guy

“Bigotry or prejudice in any form is more than a problem; it is a deep-seated evil within our society.” ~ Judith Light

Mr. Obama’s Commitment to North Carolina

These next 6+ months are going to be fascinating to watch. There are dozens of video clips of very specific promises and commitments Mr. Obama made on a variety of very important national issues. This short video is a good example of promises made.

“I’ve been looking at some video clips on YouTube of President Obama – then candidate Obama – going through Iowa making promises. The gap between his promises and his performance is the largest I’ve seen, well, since the Kardashian wedding and the promise of ’til death do we part.” ~ Mitt Romney

“I think it is an immutable law in business that words are words, explanations are explanations, promises are promises – but only performance is reality.” ~ Harold S. Geneen

McGurn: Romney’s Leadership Trumps Obama’s Likability

William McGurn is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal — he writes the “Main Street” column for the Journal. Two days ago, he wrote “The ‘Likable’ Barack Obama”

Mr. Obama on Cloud 9 / Photo: AP


Subtext:

In 1980, Ronald Reagan zeroed in on the incompetence of Jimmy Carter, a good and decent man. That should be Mitt Romney’s strategy in 2012.

Between now and November 6th, I expect to see many comparisons to the Carter/Reagan contest of 1980; there are just too many similarities to ignore. However, I think Obama will eventually be critiqued by historians as a greater failure by comparison. That said, we can never allow ourselves to become complacent in our work to elect Mitt Romney as our next president.

There are tens of millions of voters out there that will vote on a smile, charisma, a good speech, and “likability.” Barack Obama can never be underestimated.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

How likable is Barack Obama?

Very likable, it seems, at least in contrast to his GOP rival. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released a few days ago, Americans by a more than 2-to-1 ratio say the president is more “friendly and likable” than Mitt Romney.

Look at the photo above — what’s not to like? In this American Idol age in which image is everything, it is no wonder that the casual voter will feel perfectly fine voting for the one they think they know rather than for the new guy. Especially if the new guy likes the Red Sox.

Many Republicans, and especially conservatives, can find these numbers hard to credit. Some note that the poll sampling favors Democrats and thus artificially inflates the president’s numbers. Still others have come to dislike President Obama so much that it makes them suspicious when they read numbers indicating they are in the minority.

The focus on likability is a mistake. It’s a mistake, first, for Democrats if they believe likability will be enough for Mr. Obama to win re-election come November. It’s even more of a mistake for those Republicans who believe that the only way to defeat the president is to get fellow Americans to dislike him as much as they do.

McGurn referred to “the unwitting arrogance” of Hilary Rosen and how the Obama administration trashed her in order not to appear connected to her.

Republicans ought not make this mistake with Mr. Obama. When Americans look at the president, many see a loving father with personal values they admire and an attractive wife and children. The administration understands this, which is why a recent Internet campaign ad asking voters to “help the Obamas stand up for working Americans” did so over a photo of the president, his wife and his two daughters.

I have seen this ad all over the Internet. It is most appealing. Mr. Obama is a nice guy!

Resurgent Republic, a conservative-leaning public research firm, found the same likability at work in recent focus groups of independents who had voted for Mr. Obama in 2008. The good news for Mr. Obama is that “these Obama Independents still like the president.”

The bad news for him is that “[w]hen asked what they like most about the president, participants refer almost solely to personal traits like his character and speaking skills. At best, they credit President Obama for trying.”

That helps explain why the same poll that showed the president more likable than Mr. Romney went on to report that a majority nonetheless thought the former Massachusetts governor would do a better job with the economy.

I would like to speak to one person who thinks that Mr. Obama would do a better job with the economy over Governor Romney — I have not met one yet.

Mr. Obama ought to be worried. Sixty-four percent also say the country is on the wrong track; [...] a number of Americans who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 are open to the idea that someone else could do a better job.

Now, the president’s likability doesn’t mean Mr. Romney shouldn’t go on the offensive. It does mean he ought to attack hardest where Mr. Obama is at his weakest: his failed policies. [...]

He also suggests conservatives drive home Obama’s incompetence.

Mr. Romney is hardly the first Republican presidential aspirant to take that tack against a Democratic incumbent. In 1980, Ronald Reagan zeroed in on Jimmy Carter’s competence. Plenty of Americans thought President Carter was a good and decent man too—but by election day Mr. Reagan had persuaded them that his rival just wasn’t up to the job.

The day after that election, Mr. Reagan’s pollster, Richard Wirthlin, explained the campaign this way: “We saw the opportunity for a role reversal—that is, by the end of the campaign, I think we came very close to having people look upon Ronald Reagan as more presidential than Jimmy Carter.”

Mr. Romney now has a similar opportunity. Certainly he can point out that Mr. Obama has no excuses. If ever the stars were in alignment for liberal Democratic policies to shine, it was during the first two years of Mr. Obama’s presidency, after he had handily defeated John McCain and been sent to Washington with huge, veto-proof majorities in Congress.

Mr. Romney already has the votes of those who dislike Mr. Obama. The votes he needs are there for the asking: folks who like Mr. Obama but have serious doubts about his leadership as president.

[emphasis added]

“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.” ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

Humor? (hat tip to Steve Miller from Wisconsin for this image below the fold) (more…)

Democrats Uniting Behind Romney — Please Comment

The Gipper with Tip

During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan attracted a large number of Democrats that eventually voted for him. They became known as the “Reagan Democrats.” There is no simple description for a Reagan Democrat. However, it is generally accepted that Reagan’s message of a strong national defense, combined with a very positive vision for America, were key to his success. I remember those days well.

President Carter was mired in the Iranian hostage crisis — Having studied this event, I am convinced he was doing everything he could to free the hostages, but his demeanor and outlook reflected the weight of the world — he seemed serious, even downtrodden all the time. The oil crisis forced us all to wait in hour-long gas lines — interest rates were at historic highs.

Ronald Reagan’s message was uplifting and forward looking. He articulated a strong vision for all Americans. Today’s pre-election season reminds me of that time — every day. Our ship of state is in a debt crisis in which the captain is without a compass, sextant, or a clue as to how best to navigate. Unemployed people have given up looking for a job and resigned themselves to the pittance of the handout. Unlike Carter who had some prior executive experience, Mr. Obama not only lacks the prior experience, he is devoid of leadership skills. Worse, he is incompetent which is why he seems so desperate right now. The insecurity is easily perceived in his countenance.

A person in a leadership position that is the product of the Peter Principle stops attempting to be proactive in strategy and tactical execution; they become reactive in every decision. Mr. Obama is in complete reactive decision-making mode now. Contrast Mr. Obama’s overall message/vision with that of Governor Romney’s. Mr. Obama is downtrodden as was Carter in April, 32 years ago.

Friday I was driving around LAX to meet my wife after a trip and was listening to satellite radio (TV: FOX News) to hear Governor Romney’s speech at the NRA annual convention. Though I could not see him as he spoke, his message and delivery were reminiscent of those 1980 Reagan days. Without being dramatic, I was stunned by how it struck me viscerally. Few leaders will ever match the charisma and wit of the great communicator — but what do you expect? — Governor Romney did not have decades of training as an actor! And yet, that positive message and vision broke through in that speech.

DEMOCRATS UNITE!

In the last 60 days, I have had several discussions with three Democrats regarding their political leanings in November. One of these told me he is 98% certain he will vote for Governor Romney. The other two told me they have not made up their minds but they really like Romney. Both said they would certainly consider voting for Governor Romney if the nation stays on its current economic trajectory. All three told me they are very disappointed with Mr. Obama’s job performance. (One or more of them may eventually write a guest post for MRC.)

We need to hear from you. If you are a registered Democrat and you are seriously considering a vote for Governor Romney in November, please leave a comment on this post and be frank with us. We’re looking for candor. Why are you considering Governor Romney over Mr. Obama?

If you are a Democrat and have already decided to support Governor Romney and vote for him in November, what caused you to decide not to vote for President Obama this time around? Please take a moment and leave a comment on this post.

We are very interested to hear from any American that is a Democrat and considering Romney.

NOTE: This website is a grassroots site — we have no affiliation whatsoever with the official campaign of Governor Mitt Romney.

Obama’s “Fairness” Always Restricts Your Freedom

Yesterday, I introduced an expression I will use often regarding Barack Obama — it is the Obama Obfuscation referring to his deliberate intent to deceive and mislead Americans generally. His methods are both simple and cunning.

One example of this is his use of the words “fair” and “fairness” in his speeches with the hope of motivating voters to support his socialist policies; policies, which if implemented, necessarily reduce personal freedom in the form of increased regulation, greater taxation, etc.

After all, who among us is against fairness?

Make no mistake though. He who decides what is fair, usually decides how to make it fair, which results in restricted personal freedom. Is it fair that Derek Jeter or Kobi Bryant were born with talents and skills that allow them to make a fortune every year in their chosen line of work? Is it fair that one Lasik eye surgeon can make $10 million a year in Newport Beach when another of the same age and background goes bankrupt in Boise?

Every time you hear Obama or his surrogates use the word “fair” it is a signal to run and to run as fast as you can. If you choose to ascribe to that doctrine, by default and definition, you are willing to subject yourself to Obama’s control to reduce your freedom in some way (increased taxes, additional regulation…) — without exception.

Watch what Obama said back in to 2008 about his desire for fairness (don’t be distracted by his “pay as you go” nonsense) — notice how he skillfully changes the subject too!

Who gets to decide what is fair? Barack Obama wants to! Remember Milton Friedman? Watch what he says here about fairness and freedom (below the fold): (more…)

Obama’s Problem with Women

Obama has a problem with women. And now, his surrogates are attacking Ann Romney. Stay tuned for Jayde’s comments on this topic very soon here on MRC!

Obama is expert in some very important and even crucial aspects of politics. One positive aspect is image — remember his transformation of 2008 to become America’s savior of sorts? Another is the negative that gives “politics” such as terrible reputation: Obama’s cunning ability to deceive and distract using very subtle and not so subtle methods of obfuscation.

Regarding politics, Barack Obama is never to be underestimated (I know Gov. Romney never does). There is much to discuss and debate about our current president — In future posts, I will be referring to Obama’s rhetoric and decisions as the Obama Obfuscation.”

Out of respect for the Office of President, I will never refer to Obama with the label “liar” but I do believe that he will use any method to deceive to Americans and the world at large. There is no question at all in my mind — none (I realize that what I write here is strong language, but it is true and I will therefore not hide the truth). I could cite several examples of his lies from just the last two weeks. One recent lie was his stating that ObamaCare passed by a “strong majority” in the House when in fact it barely passed by seven votes (219 to 217). These are not mere exaggerations — they are lies — meant to deceive voters that receive their information from TV. More about Obama’s frequent integrity problems in later posts.

The most frequent question I have received these past two weeks or so from friends and family members is, “Why is Romney doing so poorly with women?” and the follow-on question is, “What is Romney going to do to improve his standing with women?”

Governor Romney has done nothing (my opinion) to warrant this drop in the polls of women’s perceptions of him. That said, multiple polls do not lie. I think there are a number of factors involved here. One very important factor is the whole public debate on contraception that was first mentioned by George Stephanopoulos in a debate when he posed a direct question to Gov. Romney. Recall his answer? He forcefully put it back to him as a nonsensical question, in effect. But later on the campaign trail, Senator Santorum took the bait when Obama surrogates argued the merits of ObamaCare forcing all employers to pay for contraception, even faith-based employers. The public was left with the perception that this was a women’s issue, not supported by Republicans when in fact the issue was a freedom issue. Ultimately, Obama acquiesced, stating that churches could receive an exception, but his intent to deceive and distract won the day. Republicans lost the image battle by default, and Governor Romney, the de facto Republican standard bearer, got tagged with the tarnished image.

Any person that studies Gov. Romney’s family life, church service, record as governor, and business career quickly learns that his life is filled with countless instances of supporting, defending, promoting, and rescuing women in society in general. Few male leaders that I know of compare to his record in this regard.

Obama will soon be learning about facts. In 2007 and 2008, Obama didn’t have to worry much about facts since his political slate was blank, for the most part. Right about now, I am certain he longs for those days when he could easily shape his image of “hope and change.” Those days are long gone. Governor Romney and other conservatives will be conducting methodical truth-letting of the Obama record.

What about this factoid in our effort to truth-letting of Obama’s record with women?

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
[...]
But the president has demonstrated a strong preference for all-male foursomes in his frequent golf outings, a bias that extends well beyond the putting green and into the Oval Office.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers told the New York Times.

In fact, Obama’s record nationwide for employed women is not only dismal, it is getting worse:


Prediction: Senator Santorum to Quit Presidential Race in April

This week, a number of news outlets have reported a conspicuous drop in Santorum’s typical strident rhetoric against Gov. Romney. I believe this is a less than subtle way to position himself to exit the race. Yesterday’s New York Times reported,

Rick Santorum has eased up on using phrases like “worst Republican in the country” when tearing into Mitt Romney. And he is no longer saying that a vote for Mr. Romney would be basically the same thing as a vote for President Obama.

Meet subdued Santorum.

After several highly publicized remarks that left many in his party questioning whether he had crossed the line in attacking a fellow Republican, Mr. Santorum has struggled to find the balance between being a tenacious underdog and leaving himself open to criticism that he is just an embittered also-ran.
[...]
The sudden restraint has surprised some of his supporters.

[emphasis added]

Senator Santorum is not stupid; think about it. Just a few days ago, he rips Gov. Romney publicly and that very same day publicly states he would consider a veep position under a President Romney. Yes, I did a double-take as well! But why let up now? The NYT article even quotes his supporters saying that his “passionate” language is one of the things most appealing.

Here is the reason I believe. There are eight primaries between now and April 24th. Romney is expected to win six of them and probably by a wide margin. The other two are Wisconsin (4/3) and Pennsylvania (4/24). As of 7:30 p.m. PST tonight, Intrade shows the probability of a Santorum win in Wisconsin at 11.8% and a win in his home state of Pennsylvania at 31.1%. The other six states are below 5% except Connecticut (6.8%). Above, I said Santorum is not stupid. He is looking at these same probabilities and he is thinking now.

Here is where the dew of reality is descending upon Santorum’s thoughts.

Rick Santorum’s private thoughts (my conjecture):

“Wow! I could lose this thing fast in the next few weeks. I have to win. I put too much into this thing with my wife, my children, and Bella — And dang it, I worked harder than the other guys and I deserve to win! I have to win Wisconsin to build the momentum into my home state but Mitt is so much more prepared and his machine is killing me in Wisconsin. I have to win Pennsylvania! If I lose Wisconsin, that will not be good going into Pennsylvania! Mitt is picking up steam in Pennsylvania this week. I have to win Pennsylvania! Having to answer to that dang 18 point loss in my senate race in 2006 has been shear [pain] in this race — embarrassing! There is no way I will lose Pennsylvania — No way!”

Do you see where Rick’s mind is right now? Can he win Wisconsin next Tuesday? Absolutely he can if we let up at all. I strongly believe Governor Romney has Santorum in a strangle hold with Wisconsin, especially if he trounces him Tuesday. Romney will likely smash Santorum in DC and Maryland and if he has a really strong win in Wisconsin, Santorum will be all but dead going into Pennsylvania.

Bloomberg Businessweek reported in February:

Yet six years ago, as he sought a third Senate term in Pennsylvania, Santorum proved he can also lose in such a politically competitive state — and lose big.

Santorum’s last race — an 18-percentage-point defeat in 2006 bid — raises questions about his appeal to independent voters who could help decide the national election in November, as well as to Republicans who will determine who gets the party’s nomination.

Santorum’s loss was “the largest defeat by a Republican United States senator seeking election or re-election in modern Pennsylvania history,” said G. Terry Madonna, a polling expert and public affairs professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster.

So think about it. If I am Santorum and I know I now have two choices (after losing Wisconsin): 1) I could do what I have said I would do and stay in the race all the way to the convention (remember: “principle”) and lose Pennsylvania and be thoroughly embarrassed again, or 2) I could exit stage right and declare my loyal support to Romney and hear everybody cheer me to glory.

How does Santorum avoid losing Pennsylvania again?

If Santorum were to lose Wisconsin to Romney, which do you think he will choose? 1? or 2? I predict Wisconsin will be another close race but that Romney will win it. If this happens, Santorum will “evaluate” the race at that point and decide to exit entirely. What seems hard to predict is when he would make that announcement. I think it would likely be the weekend following the Wisconsin primary and not a lot later so that it does not appear to be correlated with a fear of embarrassment — which a loss in his home state certainly would be.

The most compelling argument for Santorum to attempt a graceful exit from the race, upon losing Wisconsin, is this (he is not stupid — Santorum is the epitome of the political animal): He wants a future in politics — and presidential politics at that. If he were to lose Pennsylvania bad (very good possibility), he would be almost for sure pushed out of the race with people laughing, and his political reputation would be all but destroyed.

If he were then to attempt to run for POTUS in future years, it will always be remembered of him that he could not win reelection (2006) to the Senate in his home state (historically huge loss) and that he bad-mouthed Romney for months before being trounced again in his home state of Pennsylvania (2012). And why? Because of a) a huge ego, b) stubbornness, and c) strident social positions. He would be washed up and would forever be overlooked as a serious national candidate. He will not allow that to happen — not when he can control the outcome now.

As we say in business, the risk-reward consideration is making this untenable for Mr. Santorum. I think the probability that Santorum will compete in Pennsylvania is less than five percent.

He will not allow himself to be embarrassed. Not by Governor Romney!

GO MITT! Let’s all work as hard as we can to bring a HUGE win to Mitt in Wisconsin — We do not want the Wisconsin results to even be close! We can finish off Santorum next Tuesday.

“As the world’s finest democracy, we do not do guillotines. But there are other less bloody rituals of humiliation, designed to reassure the populace that order is restored, the Republic cleansed.” ~ William Greider

Exit Question: What is a One Term Obama Presidency Worth to You?