Mitt Talking Points

For those of us talking to friends about why Mitt over Obama, I thought I’d compile a few talking points:


1. National Debt.

national debt

–Obama has significantly added to our now $16 trillion in national debt and has had over $1 trillion in deficits in each of his four years, after promises to cut deficit in half. Obama still has no plan, unless you count the glossy photo brochure with re-tread unfulfilled promises from 2008. Romney / Ryan do have a plan.


2. Bipartisanship.

–Mitt has been a model of bi-partisanship, which will be needed to reduce the deficit. Obama has blamed a GOP Congress for his failures.

3. Mitt’s a Model of Success.

–Mitt’s business, personal and government life are models of success. He’s actually done what Obama has promised: balanced budgets, turned broken enterprises around. Obama can’t seem to get past his own pride.

4. Four More Years?

–We have experienced 4 years of Obama. To expect better the 2d term is, by definition, insane. He knows he can’t change Washington from the outside.

5. Historically Low Employment.

–3.5 years of unemployment over 8%. If people hadn’t left workforce unemployment today would be over 10%.


6. Obama’s Work Ethic.

–Obama seems to show up about half the time (famously missing security briefings, unbelievable number of golf games). Mitt is already preparing just in case he wins the election, so he’ll be ready to hit the ground running.

7. Obamacare.

–This is our last chance to unwind Obamacare. Otherwise all the taxes, future healthcare rationing, lack of doctors and other problems will be permanent.

8. Supreme Court.

–Between 2 and 3 Supreme Court justices are likely to retire during the next 4 years, a liberal, a conservative and a swing justice. The next president will likely stack the court for a generation, either right or left.

9. Mitt Has a Plan.

–Mitt has a 5 point plan for economic success, Obama only attacks Mitt; does not have a real plan. Mitt’s plan: expand energy, build workers’ skills, cut deficit, focus on small business, promote fair trade. Obama’s: raise taxes, keep spending.

10. Stuff Obama Says (Odd Priorities; Egotism).

–Stuff Obama says: 4 deaths in Libya were a “bump in the road.” “If you have a small business, you didn’t build that.” Conservatives cling to guns and religion. He tells the Des Moines Register he has a plan to deal with immigration but wants to keep it off the record. Telling the Russian president he’ll have more flexibility when he doesn’t face re-election. I could go on.

11. Newspaper Endorsements.

–Reno Gazette Journal and a slew of other papers just endorsed Mitt.

12. Weak Foreign Policy.

–Obama’s foreign policy isn’t working; projecting an image of weakness has invited attack. First US ambassador to be killed in 30 years after security assistance was requested; the White House was alerted but did nothing while a drone watched. Stories out of the administration were inconsistent for weeks.

13. Twelve Million Jobs.

–Mitt has promised to create 12 million jobs in his first term.

14. President Biden?

–If anything happens to Obama, Joe Biden would be president.

I know there are others. My imagination tends to wane in the wee hours of the night. Add to comments what your talking points are…

Newspaper Endorsements Pour In for Romney/Ryan: NH, MA, WV, TX, MI, VA, NY, D.C.

Photo – Al Behrman / AP

Like a waterfall, newspaper editorial board endorsements for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan continue to pour in…

Foster’s Daily Democrat (NH)
Editorial
October 24, 2012

http://goo.gl/9AhMb

It’s Now Time To Decide

If you had already made up your mind going into Monday night’s presidential debate, nothing said probably changed your mind. But for those who were undecided, there certainly was some food for thought.

But what was lacking on the part of the president was a vision for the future and credibility based on the past. The current commander in chief repeatedly accused Romney of reaching back into history for failed policies of the past both home and abroad. The president summoned images of President Herbert Hoover and others which history has deemed failures. In doing so, Obama tried to gloss over his own history of failed promises — on unemployment, on balancing the budget, cutting the deficit and — as we believe — earning the respect of our overseas allies.

Admittedly, Obama’s failures center mostly around domestic policy — Romney’s strength. But as Romney pointed out Monday night, in order to be strong and respected on the international stage, the United States must be strong economically.

As readers know, there is no doubt on the part of the editorial board here at Foster’s Daily Democrat new leadership is needed from the White House. We believe all three debates — but especially the first — support that notion. We believe that, on balance, the debates have shown Mitt Romney to be the more capable and with a vision for the future — a vision President Obama has failed to offer.

On Nov. 6, we urge voters to give Mitt Romney a chance to offer the nation real hope and change.



Boston Herald
Editorial Staff
October 23, 2012

http://www.bostonherald.com

Romney’s The One

Four years ago the voters put their faith in a man who offered vague promises of hope and change at a time when any change looked like a good idea and hope was in short supply.

What this nation got in Barack Obama was a president who used an economic crisis to further his redistributionist agenda — and, not surprisingly, failed miserably at restoring American prosperity. Oh, he brought change all right — to a government-knows-best philosophy that has given us four years of high unemployment, higher gas prices, a $16 trillion deficit, and a job-killing regulatory environment.
..
Enough! This isn’t the kind of change anyone can believe in.

The other simple fact is that in Mitt Romney voters have not merely a safe and steady alternative but a proven leader and an extraordinarily skilled expert in the art of the economic turnaround.

He did that all over again for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

What Romney knows at the core of his being is that sometimes government must step aside and sometimes it must lead.

Last night the nation saw a man who in the area of foreign policy is prepared to lead, who knows that for the United States to remain safe it must reclaim its place on the world stage.

During the last four years the world has become a more dangerous place. We can’t afford four more years of a leadership vacuum.

Not when in Mitt Romney voters have the choice of a strong, smart hand on the helm, a decent, caring man, who lives his faith, who loves his country and would serve it well. For all of those reasons, the Boston Herald is pleased to endorse Mitt Romney for president.

So much more! Click here.

Third and Final Debate… Who won?

The last debate is over. Let us know your thoughts. Who won? What were your favorite lines? How will it affect the polls?

[poll id="6"]

Reminder: Check out our “ComMITTed” page to find out the 5 best things you can do to help promote Romney to victory in November.

committed to Romney

Obama Foreign Policy: Seriously Sub-Optimal

Pictures of Barack Obama bowing courtesy of today’s Drudge Report.

Overview.

I’m not going to hammer on the president for his choice of words on Jon Stewart. I’m not a fan of the Dems’ insulting attempts at faux outrage over things like “binders” so I’ll not do anything but quote our president. But we can safely say, as President Obama did, when Americans die our president’s foreign policy is obviously “not optimal.” And when you look back at the past four years, really, we can’t say what’s happened are mere “bumps in the road,” either, but the result of having chosen the wrong road altogether. Today in the New York Post Amir Taheri put it more succinctly: the president’s foreign policy has “failed.”

So before tonight’s debate about foreign policy, let’s remind ourselves just how sub-optimal this president’s foreign policy has been, and how bumpy the road was. People may criticize Mitt for not having foreign policy experience, but Obama only has four more years than Mitt has, having had none when he started on the job training. The question is whether Barack Obama learned anything during that time, and perhaps the biggest indictment contained in the mess in Libya is that his record indicates he hasn’t learned what he needs to, and is willing to close his eyes to the obvious in favor of a narrative that supports, if tenuously, his world view. Meanwhile I’m sure someone else with a different philosophy, like peace through American strength, would do a lot better.

His One Argument: bin Laden

Let’s start by giving the president partial credit for his one “achievement.” In a true team effort, American intelligence, after years of searching that culminated during the Obama administration, was able to find Osama bin Laden. The president then sent a team of experts into Pakistan to kill him. Still, a number of things still trouble me about this “success.”

First, the president’s beaming over the mission and “spiking the football.” While it’s a comforting thought bin Laden is no longer a threat, call me old fashioned but it does not seem appropriate to throw a party when anyone is killed, even if a confessed terrorist and murderer. The appropriate attitude seems to be one of quiet gratitude, and confidence we were able to accomplish what we needed to protect American citizens from harm. But not elation.

Second, the president’s taking personal credit for the achievement. What happened was a success due to years of work starting in the Bush administration and involving hundreds if not thousands of people from intelligence gatherers to planners of the raid to those who actually executed it. Let’s not forget the president watched it on TV, and was not on the ground personally in Pakistan. He deserves credit as the person at the head of the team, but to the extent he deserves that credit, he deserves as much blame for what went wrong in Libya. And gracious leaders give credit where due. I agree he should be congratulated for making the decision to move forward. He took a risk and it paid off. But I disagree with President Clinton’s assessment that this decision took any special fortitude. I believe Mitt’s right that any president would have made the same decision. So Obama’s credit is for being in the seat at the head of table when the team succeeded, and for calling for the two-point conversion to win the game. He succeeded, and gets the credit for that strategic decision. But it was the team on the field, not him that deserves any glory, and an end-zone dance seems particularly inappropriate.

Third, in his desire to take personal credit, the president shared sensitive intelligence information. He volunteered the identity of the team that carried it out, putting them and their families in danger. And this was one of many leaks, coming per Dianne Feinstein directly out of the White House, of sensitive US information. The president seems willing to compromise security when it suits his political purposes, which I find difficult to condone.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of this one mission does not mean Al Qaeda is really “on the run,” as has been claimed by the Dems. They’re still in Afghanistan and now are in Libya. And whatever the president’s policy in this regard, despite bin Laden’s removal, the date of Al Qaeda’s last successful terrorist attack is no longer 9/11/01. It’s 9/11/12.

Now, to more problematic issues: world hot spots

1. Libya. Four Americans are killed in Libya despite pleas for additional security. Reports out of the State Department, the intelligence community and the White House contradict who knew what when. Immediately after the attack the president made a generically deniable statement about not letting terrorism deter us, but spent the next two weeks allowing the American people to believe it’s somehow the fault of our freedom of speech and an obscure YouTube video, using rhetoric that could suggest we somehow deserve what happened. Why? Again President Obama and the Democrats insisted on “spiking the football” over Osama bin Laden’s death at their convention, such that it’s an inconvenient truth that Al Qaeda is not really “on the run,” especially in Libya where the president is trying to take credit for “leading from behind.” Contrary to his assertions, Libya is not a model for American foreign policy success as it is now the site of the first assassination of an ambassador in 30 years.

Judge Jeanine of Fox lets it out here:

(more…)

Romney: More to Gain Than to Lose in Last Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

President Obama — “HORRIBLE FOR HIM”

We all contemplate Monday night’s debate on foreign policy. In the last three weeks, Barack Obama and Joe Biden blamed the intelligence community for “the movie trailer” narrative for a “spontaneous” attack on the Benghazi consulate. How long did you think it would take the CIA and other intelligence sources to correct the record on such a blatant lie? Did Mr. Obama really think we Americans are all so dumb as to believe such nonsense?

In one word, “yes.”

But why? An absolutely crucial element of Mr. Obama’s campaign theme is that al-Qaeda has been largely decimated and rendered ineffective. Why? Because Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden. Following the flawed logic, Americans are to conclude the threat of radical Islamic terrorism is no more. We will therefore give all the credit to Mr. Obama by granting him four more years in The White House.

Mr. Obama: We know your game. We have seen this act before. You can go hide out at Camp David this weekend to spin another web of tales for Monday. We will never forget those who have sacrificed their lives for America.

As we all contemplate Monday’s debate and the authority granted each one of us on November 6, 2012, please watch this short video, especially at second 0.35 when Bill Clinton speaks for Mr. Obama. Bill Clinton’s shameless and disgusting revelation perfectly defines this president and his character:


“Horrible for him”? How reprehensible! But it is all the more “in character” after Mr. Obama’s unemotional and insensitive comments regarding the deaths of four great Americans on 9/11/12 as not “optimal.”

Mr. Obama’s “optimal” reality will be stark the evening of November 6th.


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

America: Obama’s Reality vs Romney’s Reality


With sufficient frustrations born of the media’s failing of America by not disseminating truth and facts, and with bewilderment over the media’s blindness to truth and substance, I have compared below the realities of America under Obama and Romney. To be fair, Mitt Romney hasn’t led America, yet, but his history and record is clearly indicative of what we might see under a Romney Presidency. Further and notwithstanding my bias towards Mitt Romney, I have tried to be dispassionate in this comparative.

Romney’s America seems to be more robust and more hopeful, in fact, more Free.


(more…)

What the Media Doesn’t Want You to Know: Obama’s Follies


Below is an historical perspective that the media will diminish and distort, or not even disclose or discuss with America as they strive to protect and promote Barack Obama. Why? Whether in ideological alignment with Obama or striving for relevance and power in our society, the media is wont to attack or undermine Mitt Romney and the conservative movement, at any price without boundary, integrity or principle. What Obama and the media fail to realize in their blindness and pandering for relevance and power, is that they only become relevant and important unto themselves. By and through their misguided actions to become relevant, they become irrelevant. Never before in our history has the media, or our President for that matter, been so irresponsible and caught up in their own self-importance; never before have they been so blatant in their wants and posturing to America’s discredit; never before have they revealed who they really are and abandoned all ethical boundaries; never before have they exposed themselves with reckless and irresponsible abandon. The battle lines have been drawn and the media has joined the opposition. Their insidious lack of integrity and public profile is undermining the very fabric of our society, and all in the name of their principal advocate, Barack Obama. The same could be said for the liberal thinkers in our center-right society. The liberal thinkers and the media have aligned with one another and through their protestations convinced themselves that they are a reflection of American society; again, at the behest of their leading advocate, Barack Obama. They are not a reflection of the majority of American’s, yet – and hopefully they never will! Surely, they and Obama represent some in America, but clearly, truth and ideology be told, it is the minority. By and through their public pulpit each are convinced if they shout loud enough we will be equally convinced. What is tragic is the blatant lies and manipulations in play; with stories suppressed, polls manipulated, and lies promulgated – the media and Obama are trying to sell what is good as bad and what is bad as good. This deception has to stop! History has proven when the majority in society remain silent to the protestations of the extremes, lives and freedoms are lost – Not here, and not in America!

Intentional as the media may be to try and diminish and suppress conservative voter turnout by skewed and distorted polls, deceitful attacks on conservative values and Mitt Romney, or collusion to suppress information and deviate from substance – they will not succeed. I believe the efforts of deception will diminish Democratic turnout and elevate the Conservative turnout!

Noted in the recent post by Vic Lundquist, voices are being raised in opposition and standing on principles, gratefully!

The historical aggregation of some of Obama’s follies without sufficient media disclosure and publication is distressing for many reasons, not the least of which are the lives and freedoms lost.

1) Barack Obama’s failure to act on advance intel to protect our Libyan Ambassador and his colleagues; and his subsequent cover up of known intelligence reports conjunctive with his recent dismissiveness and failure to address and acknowledge terrorism on US territory in Libya and 20 embassies around the world.

2) Lives were lost because of Obama’s failed leadership and inattentions in the Middle East. Today our military is under severe threat because of the undermining attitudes and policies of Barack Obama. Each day we are losing men and women because of political posturing by Obama in Afghanistan – our enemy has infiltrated our ‘allies’ and are killing our soldiers, and nothing is said or done to stop it.

3) Barack Obama’s compromising leaks of national security matters to bolster his foreign policy bona fides, and put our nation at further risk.

4) Barack Obama’s foreign policy priorities to appease and accommodate our enemies; his foreign policy priorities to advocate the LGBT agenda as a condition of American aid, ‘cultural imperialism.’

5) Obama’s abandonment of world leadership; abandonment of Israel; accommodation to a soon-to-be nuclear Iran; accommodation to an Arab Winter and radical Islamic leadership that has put in play a conflagration in the Middle East.

6) Barack Obama’s willful taxes on the poor and middle class when he stated the contrary. (a) Obama stated he wouldn’t raise a dollar of tax on the middle class; and yet, he clearly stated he would wage a war on energy and bankrupt certain industries, including the coal industry. Consequentially, we have seen gasoline prices and home fuel costs more than double in 3 years. American’s are paying at least $1,200-$4,000 more per year in fuel costs because of Obama’s stated policies which is an egregious tax on all. (b) Obama’s debt agenda has imposed a principal borrowing of nearly $6 trillion, plus interest, on all Americans! His spending is one of the most significant taxes he can impose on this and future generations. What isn’t discussed is the cost of interest on this debt when interest rates go up, and they will go up. (c) Obamacare will further impose a minimum tax on all American’s of at least $4,000 per year and in the years to come, and so much more. Additionally, under Obamacare our seniors have to pay an added Obamacare tax on the sale of their homes.

(more…)

Romney v Obama on 60 Minutes

You be the judge. Bias as I may be, I have more confidence in Mitt Romney’s capacity to lead with a deep well of experience, as opposed to Obama’s continued blame game of excuses. A leader takes responsibility; A leader’s experience nurtures wisdom; A leader recognizes the need to adapt with pragmatism; and a leader is governed by values, constants and principles. The leader of America should be honest, truthful and an advocate for American values of freedom, liberty and empowerment, not entitlement. The leader of the free world should not be an advocate America’s subordination through appeasement and accommodation. The leader of America should adhere to the Constitutional principles and values of a government subordinate only to the people it serves. This is an election of leadership, freedom, peace through strength and a strong, vibrant economy. A strong economy does more to lead people from poverty – under Obama more have entered poverty than at any time since the Great Depression. Again, you be the judge. As a prompt, notice the tenor of each interviewer – a stark contrast between the Romney and Obama interviews.

Those video clips not included in the broadcast. Note Obama’s admission of falsehoods in his ad campaigns and by his campaign.

Mitt Romney as President of 100%, and further insights to ‘distorted context’ by the media:

Barack Obama falls short:

Mitt Romney on Financial Regulation and the oppression of our current President’s agenda:

Mitt Romney on Job training programs and Government overreach and redundancy:

(more…)

White House Losing All Credibility on Foreign Policy

Yesterday’s headlines were all over the map on this, and yet I get the impression this is viewed as a minor story by the main stream media.

Despite claims to the contrary early on, and President Obama’s reticence to use the actual words, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney both admitted yesterday that what happened in Libya was a terrorist attack, not just a protest gone wrong. Meanwhile questions are arising about what the White House knew and when, and whether this was about a hack job of a movie at all.

CNBC asks “Did White House Lie About Libya Attacks?” The answer appears to be yes.

Here’s a link to the video of an interview the House Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, and the text of the related article:

Larry Kudlow is hearing from his beltway sources that the President may have put politics ahead of national security in the wake of the Libya attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Kudlow, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and other skeptics charge the administration deceived the nation when it said the attacks had not been planned in advance.

Those same skeptics say the administration via UN Ambassador Susan Rice deliberately downplayed events in Libya to preserve Obama’s image as the President who had won the war on terror by killing Osama Bin Laden.

“They sent (Susan Rice) out for political reasons,” said King on The Kudlow Report. “The Obama administration wants people to believe that the war against terror is over.”

In other words, if the White House admitted Libya was a terror attack – it would have called the campaign message into question – something Democratic strategists didn’t want to do.

Instead, the GOP says the administration shifted attention to a movie that depicted Islam’s prophet Muhammad in an unflattering light – a movie that sparked protests in Egypt – knowing that was not the catalyst.

“They wanted people to believe the violence was caused by a few malcontents,” King explained, but it was actually something much more sinister.

“They don’t want the appearance that Al Qaeda has come back but the truth is Al Qaeda has never gone away,” said King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

“I see this as nothing short of a cover up,” added Larry Kudlow.

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton shares the sentiment.

“The administration could have said from the beginning, ‘We don’t know all the facts, and therefore, we’re not ruling out any potential explanation,’” said Bolton in a published interview.

“But that’s not what they did. They came down in the midst of great uncertainty and said it was spontaneous. It was not terrorism.”

Now, however, as reported in the Examiner, the White House is quietly admitting that yes, it’s “self-evident” this was a terrorist attack. And they expect this change in tone to go unnoticed. As reported in the Examiner:

“You know what else is self-evident? That the Obama administration is full of liars,” Twitchy said Thursday.

“For a week, they lied to the American people and blamed a movie, condemning free speech time and time again, for the murder of four Americans in Libya and for embassy attacks across the globe,” Twitchy added.

CBS reported Thursday morning that witnesses said “there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account of the incident.”

The CBS report also said “that the public won’t get a detailed account of what happened until after the election.”

[emphasis added]

Here’s that CBS report:

A major question is whether the film had anything whatsoever to do with the attack, or if it was a White House distraction from the beginning.

In a Boston Herald op ed entitled “How the Truth Hurts Hence White House Avoids it,” Michael Graham says Jay Carney’s explanation of events doesn’t pass his “teenage son” test. (more…)