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

Well, they’re over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most brilliantly manipulative:

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

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

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

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

Read more here and here.

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

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

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

It was a circus of slander.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

A few cheap laughs for a failed president.

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

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



Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

Sununu, Krauthammer, Rendell: Obama Goes Too Far, Romney NO Felon (VIDEOS)

The fallout from the Obama machine’s serious mis-step of implying Governor Mitt Romney is a felon continues…

Obama appeared on CBS today and doubled-down on the Bain/Romney/felony smokescreen. He also released two more ads today on the same topic. (Obama is outspending Romney 3-1 on ads in battleground states. Revealing a bit of stratagem, FOX News’ Carl Cameron today said Team Romney will hit back with targeted ads in a couple of weeks.)

Meanwhile, in response to Stephanie Cutter, Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades issued a blistering statement yesterday and called for an apology:

President Obama’s campaign hit a new low today when one of its senior advisers made a reckless and unsubstantiated charge to reporters about Mitt Romney that was so over the top that it calls into question the integrity of their entire campaign,” Rhoades said. “President Obama ought to apologize for the out-of-control behavior of his staff, which demeans the office he holds. Campaigns are supposed to be hard fought, but statements like those made by Stephanie Cutter belittle the process and the candidate on whose behalf she works.

Bulldog John Sununu appeared on Hannity yesterday and had this to say:

Charles Krauthammer weighed in yesterday, as well:

Even Obama surrogate Ed Rendell disapproves of Obama’s latest over-the-top smear. Here he is on MSNBC’s'Now’program with Alex Wagner:

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams issued this statement: “Earlier today, former Governor Ed Rendell had the courage to do what President Obama would not: admit the Obama campaign’s baseless and unsubstantiated attacks on Mitt Romney went too far. President Obama may talk about a different kind of politics and bringing people together, but it’s just another broken promise from a president who has failed to keep so many.”

Governor Romney today released this fantastic ad using Obama’s OWN WORDS:

CNN’s John King wrote this yesterday regarding Team Obama’s declaring 1999 as the birth year of ‘the big Bain Lie’:

(more…)

Mitt Romney Asked by O’Reilly About the Debate, National Security, Healthcare, & T-Paw on Greta

NOTE: Be sure to tune in to The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News tonight at 8 and 11 p.m. eastern time to see Mitt Romney.

Fresh off his solid, successful performance at the CNN/Tea Party presidential debate last night, Mitt Romney appeared on The O’Reilly Factor (FOX News), O’Reilly asked Romney about the debate, National Security, healthcare, and more.

Before Gov. Romney was interviewed, Bill O’Reilly asked Monica Crowley (republican) and Alan Colmes (democrat) who they thought won the debate and they both chose Gov. Romney. Gov. Romney appeared just after the middle of the program. After Gov. Romney’s appearance, Bill asked Charles Krauthammer about Gov. Romney. As soon as the videos become available, we’ll post them here.

Bill O’Reilly also reported that in the latest Rasmussen Report, Gov. Romney is beating President Obama head-to-head 43-40%. Even better for Mitt — he leads with independents by 13%.



Watch Tim Pawlenty break down the Tea Party debate and explain his support of Mitt Romney below the fold.
(more…)

Obama’s Problem: A Bad Economy and Mitt Romney

Charles Krauthammer points out in his latest article, ‘Stewardship? Or ideology?‘ in the Washington Post, that the landscape has changed since 2010 when it was a referendum on ‘Ideology’ that drove Republicans to victory. He feels that won’t work in 2012, especially when trying to win in a general election and the issue will be the economy. He goes on to say:

Suddenly, the election theme has changed. The Republican line in 2010 was: He’s a leftist. Now it is: He’s a failure. The issue is shifting from ideology to stewardship.

As in 1992, it’s the economy, with everything else a distant second. The economic numbers explain why Obama’s job approval has fallen, why the bin Laden bump disappeared so quickly, and why Mitt Romney is running even with the president. Romney is the candidate least able to carry the ideological attack against Obama — Exhibit A of Obama’s hyper-liberalism is Obamacare, and Romney cannot rid himself of the similar plan he gave Massachusetts. But when it comes to being solid on economics, competent in business and highly experienced in governance, Romney is the prohibitive front-runner.

The full article is HERE.

Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, and Susan Page discuss President Obama, Mitt Romney, the economy, and the Charles Krauthammer piece in this segment of HARDBALL:

CNBC is noticing how poorly President Obama compares to Mitt Romney in terms of the economy now as well!

President Obama has Thrown Israel Under the Bus

President Obama gave his anticipated Middle East Speech. This speech was particularly important because the President’s foreign policy stances in regards to the Middle East seem so incoherent and devised on a case-by-case basis. As Governor Romney said at CPAC, “I surely hope that at some point in the near future, the President will finally be able to construct a foreign policy, any foreign policy.” However, Gov. Romney and all of us are horrified by what the President revealed today. Despite warnings that President Obama may be the most anti-Israel President in our nation’s history, this situation is something we’ve hoped we would never have to confront. Many Americans are struggling to make sense of what President Obama said today.

The Drudge Report picked up on The Hill reporting that Gov. Romney led republicans in criticizing the speech:

Romney strongly criticized Obama, who, in a speech at the State Department, called for Israel to return to its border lines as drawn before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

‘President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace,’ Romney said in a statement.

‘He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends,’

The timing of this speech by our President is even more despicable. Israel’s Prime Minister is scheduled to address Congress tomorrow and that fact explains why President Obama made this speech when he did. The speech wasn’t scheduled at all until Prime Minister Netanyahu announced he was coming to the U.S. to address Congress. Trying to upstage an American ally like this is unbelievable. President Obama treated Prime Minister Netanyahu horribly on his last visit and this treatment is even worse. Here’s what Netanyahu said when he heard about President Obama’s speech today:

Netanyahu, in keeping with his previous statements, called the proposal militarily ‘indefensible’ in a statement. ‘Israel believes that in order for peace to prevail, the establishment of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the State of Israel’s existence,’ he said. ‘The Palestinians, and not only the United States, must recognize Israel as the Jewish people’s nation-state’.

President Bush signed an agreement with Israel in 2004 that we would never ask Israel to return to pre-1967 borders in return for their concessions. Today, President Obama essentially ripped the agreement up and threw it away. Israel didn’t make this agreement with President Bush. Israel made this agreement with the United States of America.

What makes this even more disappointing to the Jewish community is that President Obama is scheduled to deliver an address at the AIPAC Policy Conference this weekend. The group sent out an e-mail to attendees before the President threw Israel under the bus today urging members to applaud the President and essentially not boo. That is going to be even harder to accomplish now.

OneNewsNow is conducting an online poll asking “How would you rate Barack Obama’s treatment of Israel since he took office?” Feel free to make your opinion known by voting in that poll.

If you’re still confused by this whole ordeal, Dr. Charles Krauthammer explains “What Obama’s MENA Speech Means“.

UPDATE
Democratic senior statesman Ed Koch says Israel is facing its “most dangerous and critical period” and he is ready to break with his party in the next presidential election over President Obama’s policies on the Middle East. the former New York City mayor said, “Mitt Romney correctly summed it up when he said that President Obama has once again thrown Israel under the bus.

Add Ed Koch to the growing list of people who regret voting for President Obama in 2012 and who will likely vote for Gov. Romney in 2012!

Mitt Romney: Ultimate Panderer or Sincere Leader?

I get such pleasure out of watching pundit after pundit attempt to dissect every op-ed or statement that Mitt Romney releases. “Is he being sincere?” they ask. “Is this just a ploy to capture the attention of some obscure voting base?” they wonder.

When Mitt Romney came out recently against the tax compromise, all sorts of critics pointed the finger at him with accusations of triangulation and pandering. Call me crazy, but shouldn’t a guy that has been dubbed “the best business man in North America” be more than qualified to speak his mind on any impending tax deal (especially one with such a direct effect on future business growth) with out being labeled as a panderer? Is he not merely speaking for business as somebody who has been in business his whole life? Obama and congress should receive his advice with open ear.

Allow me to echo the tweet of this young man:

Tweet from Todd Gunter, Dec. 13th 2010










When Mitt Romney talks, listen. When Mitt Romney writes, read.

The guys at Frum Forum have been passing the hot potato around the circle of contributors there, taking turns at mocking Romney’s sincerity and his managerial approach to policy (using all sorts of weird fettuccine analogies), even going as far as elaborating on “Why Romney’s CEO Presidency Won’t Fly“. Here’s Frum on Romney:

“Sincerity is everything – once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” There’s Mitt Romney’s problem in 1 sentence. He cannot fake sincerity. His insincerity is blatant, inescapable, clumsy and off-putting.

Now, I understand that the guys at FrumForum have worked for a million years under several former presidential administrations in the past and are respected in their sphere, but are they so far entrenched in their own over-analysis that they can no longer see it as the rest of do? The remnant of us saw Mitt Romney’s Op-ed as regular, every day Mitt Romney smartness — not pandering. Charles Krauthammer praised Romney’s opposition to the tax deal, saying “Smart… Romney is reflecting the spirit of November in opposing this.”

Ross Douthat, an opinion writer for the NY times, also felt the need to comment on Romney’s sincerity:

I believe that Mitt Romney is a more serious person, and would probably be a better president, than his campaign style suggests. But issue by issue, policy by policy, that same campaign style makes it awfully hard to figure out where he would actually stand when the pandering stops and the governing begins.

But because everything he does feels like a pander, I don’t know where he really stands on any of them. And freak show or no freak show, base or no base, that’s no way to run for president.

With all due respect to Mr. Douthat, he is utterly wrong on his assessment. Those of us who know Governor Romney, and follow him with much interest, are very conscious of where Mitt Romney stands — we stand there with him! To us, his words are a breath of fresh air amidst the smog of Washington politics; indeed, they are a clear indication that the man is knowledgeable and serious about his vision for America’s future. Because of his extensive, hands-on experience in the business world, we trust and value his opinion with regards to business. It makes sense doesn’t it? Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is on record saying, “Frankly, Governor Romney in his career has created more jobs than the entire Obama cabinet combined, so he could actually talk about [the economy]. I gotta agree with Newt, the guy (Romney) is entitled to speak his mind on this subject.

A friend at MRC, Crystal F., sums up my point by posing questions worth answering:

[Why are these guys] bending over backwards to come up with some ulterior motive for Mitt’s opinions? Did anyone seriously consider that his opinions might just be that …his honest opinions?


Mitt Romney: A Proven Leader

Our nation is in need of a leader that has, in fact, lead. I know it’s a bit much to ask for these days, considering our current POTUS, but America is ready for somebody that has successfully managed financial overhauls in business, volunteer work, and government; somebody that has weeded out inefficiencies and added to the integrity of every position he’s held.

Say it with me, slowly: M-i-t-t R-o-m-n-e-y. Some may question his sincerity, but once you look at his background, you cannot refute that Romney knows what he is talking about and speaks honestly from past experience.

John Gardner at Frum Forum, asked this about Mitt Romney: “Is this really what America needs at a time of economic stagnation, political gridlock, and serious crises abroad?” To him, we answer “HELL YES!”

America needs jobs. Mitt means business!

Republicans’ Top Ten Pundits, FOX News’ Coverage of Potential GOP 2012 Candidates

Although not a GOP affiliate, ConservativeHome, a new website that launched on November 15, 2010, hopes to spur the ongoing debate about the future of the Republican Party and conservatism. They also believe the GOP should function as a broad-based coalition to ensure long-term success. CH recently polled 1,152 Republican activists (identified by YouGov America) on who they consider to be the top three political commentators. Results were released yesterday; here are the top ten:

The Top Ten Pundits Among Republican Activists

The total percentages for each of the top ten were*:

•Rush Limbaugh: 41%
•Glenn Beck: 33%
•Charles Krauthammer: 29%
•Bill O’Reilly: 24%
•Sean Hannity: 21%
•Newt Gingrich: 16%
•Michelle Malkin: 16%
•Mike Huckabee: 13%
•Ann Coulter: 13%
•George Will: 13%

* There were two phases to the voting process. Last week Panel members were asked to nominate favorite commentators. This week Panel members were presented with a list, derived from their nominations, and asked to vote for their three favorite.

•The list reveals the massive gap between broadcast pundits and newspaper commentators.

•Limbaugh, for example, was named as a favorite by 41% of ConservativeHome’s Republican Panel.

•Worryingly, columnists often regarded as among the most thoughtful conservatives did not fare well. David Brooks of the New York Times only mustered a mention from 1.3% of the panel (14 people). Ross Douthat, also at the NYT, won just four votes and Mike Gerson, Washington Post writer and former speechwriter to President Bush, gets just three mentions.

•Another former Bush speechwriter and Rush Limbaugh’s leading critic, David Frum, only gets three mentions. Peggy Noonan, however, gets favorited 35 times.

The ticket to high status is clearly Fox News. One of only two upmarket newspaper columnist to appear in the top ten being Charles Krauthammer, who combines his syndicated Washington Post column with his Fox punditry. He was named by 29% of grassroots Republicans. The other broadsheet columnist, at number ten, is George Will, syndicated Washington Post Op-Ed writer and ABC News veteran.

(my emphasis)
To join YouGov’s Republican Panel click here.

Regarding FOX News’ high status…

Liberal advocacy group, Media Matters, has been keeping tabs on FOX News airtime featuring John Bolton, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee. Although Media Matters receives funding from George Soros, their conclusions are worth considering: Because of his weekend television show, Huckabee registers more time than the others. Estimates are that these five potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates were on the air nearly 66 hours in the first 10 months of the year. With current advertising rates, the five of them – thus far – have received at least $40 million worth of free advertising.

DAVID BAUDER -AP News
Nov 18, 2010

[...] For Fox, locking up these prominent Republicans for roles on the network is a good way to appeal to a viewing audience dominated by conservatives, Graham said. The payoff comes on nights like the midterm elections, a good-news night for Republicans where Fox outdrew every broadcast and cable network covering the races in prime time.

“They see it as trying to even out the bias,” he said. “There is just a remarkable amount of promotion of Obama and it continues.”
[...]

Fox’s stable of potential candidates raises questions for the network and political process moving forward. Pat Buchanan, who worked at CNN in the 1990s, took periodic breaks from “Crossfire” when he announced candidacies.

The questions are similar for Fox: Will these politicians leave Fox’s employ if they run for president? Will they delay announcing candidacies in order to get more time on the air? Will Fox feel comfortable keeping these politicians as employees if a candidacy is announced?

The exposure could be a real advantage for these politicians, and the lack of it a detriment for potential candidates such as Mitt Romney who are not in Fox’s employ. As it is, candidates will be going out of their way to appeal to Fox personalities like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity, Rabin-Havt said.

“There never has been a network that has so dominated a political process,” he said.

There’s also the possibility that GOP candidates in the upcoming political season may avoid other news organizations to conduct much of their campaigning before a Fox News audience, he said.

Huckabee appeared onscreen on Fox for more than 38 hours through Oct. 31, according to Media Matters. Palin and Gingrich each had nine hours, Santorum had five hours and Bolton, four.

(my emphasis)

Fox News contributors sign contracts forbidding them from appearing on any network other than Fox. Their television coverage serves as a platform for their messages. Politico quoted Jim Dyke (GOP strategist) making a germane point: “As it becomes clear somebody is looking at running, Fox gets into a bit of a box because doesn’t it become an in-kind contribution if they’re being paid?”

Perhaps this is why Governor Romney joked with Jay Leno: “If you ever see me sign up for a gig on Fox News, it’ll be a clear indication that I’ve decided to run for president. That’s not in the cards anytime soon – thanks.

Questions…

1. We clearly don’t want to alienate FOX News, but has their approach to the 2012 potential presidential GOP candidates been fair and balanced thus far?

2. If not, do you see their coverage on the 2012 GOP possibilities becoming more/less fair and balanced in the future?

3. Do you agree with Conservative Home’s Top 10 Pundits poll results?

4. If not, which pundit(s) would you add/remove?

► Jayde Wyatt

Krauthammer Says Romney Top Candidate 2012, Warm Words from Senator-Elect Scott Brown, Free and Strong America PAC Raises $3 Million

Praise for Mitt Romney came a couple of days ago from FOX News’ Kirsten Powers and Charles Krauthammer in regard to being the strongest Republican candidate for 2012. Senator-elect Scott Brown’s warm words for Mitt, combined with a solid $3 million dollar 2009 fundraising report for Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC deserves a shout-out to a great man. Romney’s relentless efforts for conservatism are being noticed and affirm his reliability, likeability, and magnanimity.

Kirsten Powers:

“I think the strongest candidate in a general election would probably be Romney… He understands the economy. He’s a good candidate… People like him so I think he’d be strong.”

 Charles Krauthammer:

“The best candidate, I think, as of today would be Mitt Romney…
You’d want a Romney- who is solid, economically savvy, reliable, rooted, experienced. I think he’d be very strong.”

Boston Globe reporters Eric Moskowitz and Matt Viser interviewed Senator-elect Scott Brown in his MA State House office January 28, 2010:

Romney gave you early financial and public support. What’s your relationship like with him?

Brown: “He’s changed, he’s changed. You know, he’s actually — before he was an outsider coming in and he was, you know, kind of, you know, stiff. But he’s actually, like, funny, he’s like — when he was at my events he was cracking jokes, when we were on the bus — I was like, who is this guy? He’s really kind of, I think, settled into his role kind of being the elder statesman of the party and everything he went through [running for] as president. It’s kind of, and once again it’s my opinion but he’s really a different guy than I knew when he was here, and I certainly appreciate everything he did for me.

Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC fundraising efforts paid off last year. He raised just under $3 million dollars in 2009. As the mid-term elections heat up, our continued support for the FSAP will be key in helping conservative candidates across the nation. From Chris Good – The Atlantic  Jan 29, 2010:

Mitt Romney had a pretty good year in 2010, when it comes to political money: his political organization, the Free and Strong America PAC, raised just over $2.9 million in 2009, the PAC announced today. Along with that haul, it doled out a total of over $120,000 to candidates and causes. (That total looks miniscule compared to the money taken in, but keep in mind that 2009 was an off year, and it’s just now time to start thinking about serious 2010 spending.)

It’s unclear how this will compare to the political action committees of the other Big Three Republican 2012 contenders–Sarah Palin’s SarahPAC and Mike Huckabee’s HuckPAC–but, at the midway point of 2009, Romney’s PAC had led them substantially.
In their last Federal Election Commission disclosure reports, counting donations through June 30, 2009, Romney’s PAC led with $1.9 million raised in the first half of the year. Palin’s PAC had raised over $730,000, while Huckabee’s PAC had raised over $300,000.

The year-end filing deadline is this Sunday, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern, so we should know soon how much Palin and Huckabee’s organizations raked in.

If those three want to use their PAC money to support their own presidential campaigns in 2012, they’ll only be able to contribute $5,000 from the PACs to their campaigns for the primary, and another $5,000 for the general election (if one of them wins the nomination). But the PACs can spend unlimited amounts on their own to support a candidate–so, theoretically, that money could be just as good as a campaign war chest, though it would have to be used via independent expenditures.

For a complete list of FSAP donations, go here.

Romney’s generosity, trustworthiness, and comportment make us proud to support him!