Romney For President – New Video: ‘LIBERAL DEMOCRATS For Santorum’

Why did liberal Democrats in Michigan vote for Rick Santorum?

The adept Romney for President Digital Team today released a new web video answering that question. It’s titled “Liberal Democrats for Santorum.” Democrats voted in the Michigan primary because they know Governor Romney will be the stronger candidate in the general election. These voters did not vote for Rick Santorum; they voted for four more years of President Obama.


Voter: “My name is Krista Larsen. I’m a Democrat.”

Voter: “I’m Joe Disanno. I’m a democratic strategist in the state of Michigan.”

CNN’S Dana Bash: “Gary Zulinski.”

Tony Trupiano, progressive radio host: “I’m Tony Trupiano. [unintelligible]”

Bash: “And you voted for Rick Santorum?”

Voter: “I sure did.”

Bash: “…Went in there and you voted for?

Voter: “Santorum.”

Voter: “The last seven days we’ve been organizing and creating a list of Democrats who have committed to vote for Santorum in today’s election.”

Voter: “You know, it’s my way of protecting Obama.”

Trupiano: “I think Rick Santorum would be a weaker candidate. Of course he would be.”

Gary Zulinnski, Democrat: “It’s going to throw the GOP into some turmoil.”

Bash: “It’s not just going to be Michigan. The liberal blogs, they’re saying start in Michigan, but there are several other contests coming up with the same kind of open primary rules.”

Text: “Democrats voted for Rick Santorum because they want four more years of Obama.”

Text: “Defeat the Obama Political Machine.”

Text: “Donate to the One Term Fund today.

This new video also goes hand-in-glove with Paul’s excellent article Let Me Repeat: Vote for Mitt; a Vote for Santorum is a Vote for Obama.

As early election returns began coming in last night, FOX News commentator Rich Lowry (National Review Online editor) commented on the tactic that sickened so many Republicans and Romney supporters – that Santorum himself had issued a rallying cry to Democrats to vote for him in order to stop Romney.

THEN, Lowry went on to say he was put-off by the way Romney “whined” about it.

I don’t know what Lowry was referring to. Romney had a very brief window of time to get the news out about Santorum. He stated the facts on Santorum’s gutter tactics, offered a brief opinion on said tactics, and moved on. NO whining.

As evidenced today, Romney’s new video focuses on Democrats’ correct perception that – should Santorum become the GOP nominee – Obama would clean his clock. The video does not mention Santorum’s own despicable doings in Michigan’s primary.

Lowry is flat-out wrong.

If any candidate should be entitled to a bit of whining, as Ross pointed out, it’s Mitt Romney.

The Gov isn’t a whiner. He’s a winner.

► Jayde Wyatt

Rich Lowry: NO to Gingrich, Perry, Paul – Bill Bennett: NO to Gingrich, Romney Best

The day before editors at National Review Online concluded that Newt Gingrich should absolutely NOT be the Republican nominee to run against Obama, (along with Rick Perry and Ron Paul – Vic shared highlights here), Rich Lowry also published a NRO piece. In it, he illustrates the oxymoron of the New Newt:

If Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee, he promises to hound Pres. Barack Obama until he agrees to appear with him at a series of Lincoln-Douglas-style three-hour debates. This is a cutting-edge Gingrich proposal — that he has been making since at least 1992.

Back then, he was challenging Boston mayor Ray Flynn to Lincoln-Douglas debates on urban issues. Gingrich’s obsession with the clash between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in the 1858 Illinois Senate race isn’t new and interesting; it is a trope of his going back decades.

I especially enjoyed this statement:

The “New Newt” surging in the Republican polls overlaps so significantly with the former version that the “Old Newt” should be suing for copyright infringement.

Newt’s “I’m a grandfather now” mantra is a shrewd tactic meant to convince voters that he is now a stable, wisdom-filled, older man (say-something-often-enough-and-it-becomes-truth implication). Lowry continues to point out recent Gingrich erraticism and flip-flops:

The New Newt says he’s 68 years old and therefore has mellowed and matured. He was 65 years and a few months old when he opposed TARP and then supported it. He was still just 67 years old when he criticized President Obama for not instituting a no-fly zone over Libya and then criticized him for doing it. He was on the cusp of 68 when he denounced Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering,” before contorting himself to explain it away.

We should all envy Newt Gingrich’s vitality that he has been capable of such youthful indiscretions in his mid to late 60s. The Gingrich story is less the tale of a slow evolution toward steadiness and wisdom than the fable of the scorpion and the frog. The scorpion stung the frog as it hitched a ride across the river because it couldn’t help itself. Newt is intellectually frenetic by nature. He’ll be 105 and wildly contradicting himself from one day to the next as he indulges his latest enthusiasms.

His volatility makes it impossible to make any statement about him as a general-election candidate with assurance. Will he enthuse the Republican base? Yes, right up to the moment he stops enthusing it with some jarring provocation. Will he beat President Obama in the debates? Yes, right up until he makes an ill-tempered comment that washes away all his impressive knowledge and brilliant formulations. Will he be the bipartisan healer, the partisan bomb-thrower, or the post-partisan big thinker? Yes, yes, and yes.

Lowry’s conclusion:

More than a decade after he was cashiered as speaker, he’s back on the basis of his superlative handling of the debates. He is better informed and has more philosophical depth than any of his rivals. Despite all his meanderings through the years, he knows how to win over a conservative audience as well as anyone. The debates have held out the alluring promise of a New Newt. But beware: The Old Newt lurks.

(emphasis added) Read full article here.

Bill Bennett, conservative radio talk show host/political strategist, was a guest on Hannity last night. Bennett also says no to Gingrich and, although not an endorsement, he believes Romney is the one to defeat Obama (discussion begins @4:15):

Bennett: My worry about Newt is that we don’t have an election which we talk about issues. We’re going to endlessly be talking about Newt.

UPDATE: Iowa GOP governor unsure of Gingrich’s discipline

SIOUX CITY, Iowa (AP) — Republican Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad says he’s unsure presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has the discipline and focus to be president. …

Click here to continue reading

Illegal Immigration: Rick Perry Punches Himself, New Website

After Rick Perry’s sophomoric attack on Mitt Romney’s credibility on illegal immigration at last night’s presidential debate, which was a ploy to draw attention away from his own liberal stance on illegals, I’m sharing some of today’s commentary on Perry.

And, it all leads up to an attention-getting new website from Romney for President

Romney’s Still the Man to Beat

Romney’s patience and endurance was tested to the limit as he was subjected to a series of vicious attacks on immigration, health care and jobs policy. But Romney, who has emerged this year as one of the most polished and able political debaters in recent memory, ended the evening still on his feet without any of the others able to say they had floored him.

The nastiest attack came from Rick Perry, who seemed to be a different man than the sleepy and unfocused performer in four previous debates. Perry was much improved over his previous tries, but that is not the same thing as saying he helped himself all that much. Perry’s aggression was certainly what his team wanted to see, but he overreached when he repeated a smear about Romney personally hiring illegal aliens. That charge fell flat in the face of Romney’s explanation, and it didn’t help that Perry kept repeating it. It was an obvious attempt on Perry’s part to distract conservatives from his more liberal stands on illegal immigration. It’s doubtful many bought it.

Later in the debate, we were reminded of Perry’s previous debate problems when he attempted to make a point about the United Nations and its role in facilitating Palestinian efforts to evade the peace process. Perry knew what he wanted to say but couldn’t quite spit it out and wound up sputtering when he could have made a strong argument. Even at his best, and this was the best we’ve seen of him, Perry still doesn’t sound presidential or that focused. He may get a bump in the polls, but it’s unlikely he’ll ever retrieve the lead he lost last month.
This evening was feistier than the previous debates and rougher sledding in many ways for Romney. But it merely confirmed the same conclusion: despite the fireworks, this race is still Romney’s to lose.

National Review Online – Kathryn Jean Lopez:

Governor Romney showed some of the passion Tuesday night I think people have been hoping to see. And smart to even get a little legitimately testy with a smile. He took command of the stage on more than one occasion.

He also had to further defend his health-care plan and made some headway.

And he may have benefitted from some low blows and pettiness along the way. (Perry on the lawn issue was low. Gingrich mandate issue was petty.)

Pat Gray, radio commentator (filling in for Glenn Beck, begins @1:14):

Romney gives Perry a debate beatdown

… Whoever is advising Rick Perry should be fired for encouraging Perry to take on Romney over illegal immigration. Perry dug up the same claim from the 2008 campaign – the one that was thoroughly examined and dismissed. Perry doubled down on his mistake by trying to interrupt Romney as he explained it (again) — and looked terrible in the process. Check out the clip and reaction on radio today.

“Another win; I mean, another Romney win. He just beat him [Perry] senseless. Rick – just a piece of advice: Shut up about immigration, ‘k?” – Pat Gray

Hugh Hewitt:

There’s a lot of focus online and in the post-debate shows on the immigration exchanges, but Governor Perry’s decision to throw the old and discredited lawn care company charge against Governor Romney seems at best an odd choice, and one that simply will not go down well with GOP voters used to seeing such attacks peddled by the MSM. What that specific attack did do is create enough heat to leave the definite impression that there are really only two choices on the stage. It was the most fiery exchange of the evening, and the one that has already replayed and replayed across the screen. A Romney-Perry moment like that makes it a Romney-Perry debate which in turns defines it as a Romney-Perry campaign.

The second tier of candidates made a huge miscalculation in turning their fire on Romney before dispatching Perry completely from the field. Rick Santorum, especially, seemed to believe that his long-shot path went straight through Romney when there are in fact two obstacles before him in the persons of Herman Cain and Rick Perry. The former Pennsylvania senator chose to turn his fire on Romney and not Perry and ended up with Perry walking off the stage with a second lease on a campaign.

Forbes – E.D. Kain:
In Vegas Debate Perry Take the Gloves Off but Romney is Still King

Last night’s CNN GOP debate in Las Vegas has been widely described as the most heated of the debates so far, and the gloves really came off when Texas governor Rick Perry accused Mitt Romney of hiring undocumented workers – illegals, as he put it – in the past and then interrupted Romney several times instead of allowing him to finish.

Romney … easily deflected Perry’s aggression, turning it back on him and chuckling the whole time. Romney is practically dancing on the grave of Rick Perry’s presidential ambitions[.] …

(emphasis added )

I was pleased to see Romney for President release a new website,, in an effort to provide voters with the facts about Rick Perry’s record as a career politician. Voters can access this website to find Governor Perry’s support for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, his proposal that would dismantle Social Security, his real record on job creation, and his history of distorting facts during the short time he has been in the Republican Primary.

The ad that illustrated Rick Perry’s inability to string a couple complete sentences together without a teleprompter was pulled due to a copyright claim by CNN, but you can still see much of it in the following Morning Joe clip:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Click here to continue reading

NRO Editors Join Mitt Romney in Condemning the New START Treaty

NRO logo

The editors at National Review Online are the latest to back-up Mitt Romney on his op-ed about the failures of the New START treaty. They join former Senator Jim Talent in putting up a very strong defense for Mitt. In fact the wording of the editorial is so focused on Governor Romney’s criticisms of New START it shows it is meant more to prove that Romney is right rather than proving that New Start is wrong, but it accomplishes both at the same time. Romney’s name is mentioned in 8 of the 10 paragraphs in the editorial. Their back-up evidence points are the clearest yet that I’ve read.

Mitt Romney NRO endorsementIt is a great thing to have such a largely read website like NRO coming to bat for Mitt. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says, “The website receives about one million hits per day—more than all other conservative-magazine websites combined.” (The “dead tree” version has a bi-weekly of 190,000. It is also well known that the website’s editor Kathryn Jean Lopez (affectionately know as K-Lo) is a big fan of Mitt Romney and she was highly vocal proponent of his 2008 presidential bid. You can see from this magazine cover image that the National Review Magazine also endorsed Mitt in 2008. Should Governor Romney run in 2012 I think it’s almost certain that highly valuable endorsement will be coming his way again.

Some sneak peaks from the NRO editorial :

New Start: Romney Is Right

Mitt Romney caused a furor last week when he wrote a Washington Post op-ed opposing the New Start treaty. Democrats and liberal commentators rushed to accuse Romney of bad-faith politics, of ignorance, and of a dangerous extremism. He’ll never get into the Council on Foreign Relations now.

The squealing is a sign that Romney hit his target: New Start is a bad deal for the United States, and the Senate should send the administration back to the negotiating table.

Romney pointed out that the linkage in the preamble of the treaty between strategic offensive weapons and missile defenses could limit our defenses. His critics scoff, It’s just a meaningless preamble. They should tell that to the Russians. The Russians believe that if we increase our strategic defenses, we are in violation of the treaty and that they will be justified in withdrawing from it. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said, “Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding.” Members of the Duma have said the same thing.


This gets to the crux of the matter: The treaty imposes a mutually agreed upon ceiling (in theory) on both sides, but it forces new reductions only from us. For those in thrall to arms-control theology, this is the product of brilliant negotiation. For anyone who can truly calculate our interests, it’s a travesty. All honor to Mitt Romney for setting out the case against the treaty so cogently. We hope Senate Republicans are listening.

Read the whole editorial at NRO.

~Nate Gunderson

Unrelated side-note: Bill Maher (shudder) would “bet the house” that Romney will win the GOP nomination in 2012 and has even odds of beating Obama. (source)

UPDATE by Jayde: From Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC blog today:

New START is a non-starter
President Obama’s New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New-START) with Russia could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet.

The treaty would give Russia an even greater advantage in its total number of nuclear weapons. It calls for restraints and reductions on us that would not have to be matched by the Russians. And inexplicably, it limits our ability to deploy an effective missile defense system. As such, it fails to address the looming threats posed by Iranian and North Korean nuclear proliferation.

By all indications, the Obama administration has been badly out-negotiated, as noted yesterday by the National Review. Perhaps the President’s eagerness for global disarmament led his team to accede to Russia’s demands, or perhaps it led to a document that was less than carefully drafted.

Whatever the reason for the treaty’s failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake.

(emphasis mine)
Read more here.

From The Atlantic (Chris Good):

Romney has built his foreign-policy ideology on the notion of American greatness and exceptionalism, interwoven with a hawkish national-security approach; that’s the foreign-policy niche he carved for himself while running for president in 2008 with business and management credentials as his main selling point. The treaty with Russia, and the notion that it proves Obama’s foreign-policy weakness, seems to be the chosen point of entry into foreign policy debate for Romney this year.

UPDATE 2 from Jayde: Baker Spring from the Heritage Foundation spoke with Josh Rogin from FP(Foreign Policy) today (714/10):

[…]On START, Romney is clear in what he wants to happen. “Whatever the reason for the treaty’s failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake,” he said.

That position is shared by his ideological cohorts at the Heritage Foundation, who are starting a nationwide anti-ratification grassroots effort via their new 501c4 group, Heritage Action for America. Romney has been working with this group.
[Spring] …think[s] the article signals a theme that many Republicans will now use to oppose not only START, but other arms-control initiatives the Obama team has plans to push forward.

“There’s now, in play, two fundamentally different views regarding arms controls in the post-Cold War world,” Spring said. “The question, simply and straight forwardly, is: Is the U.S. going to fashion an arms control policy based on at least the possibility if not the likelihood of a proliferated environment? Or is it going to go back to essentially the tried and true verities of Cold War-style, retaliation-based deterrence as a defining mechanism for what arms controls should obtain, as a fundamental goal?”

Spring acknowledges that his and Romney’s views differ from those of most leading Senate Republicans, including Jon Kyl, R-AZ, and John McCain, R-AZ, two key GOP voices on START. Both Kyl and McCain are keeping their powder dry, bargaining for concessions on missile defense and nuclear modernization before they will say which way they intend to vote.

According to The Hill, Kyl and Vice President Joseph Biden are in negotiations over the treaty now.

Spring says that the basic positions of the two camps of Republicans are the same, but that senators are holding their fire as part of their strategy to get the most concessions possible.

“When you look at the Kyls and McCains of the world, I don’t think there’s at this point in time much difference between their position and where [South Carolina Sen. Jim] DeMint and Romney will be. I think that’s a simple matter of legislative tactics,” said Spring.

Senate sources said that various senators are preparing two types of measures that could impact the START debate, whenever it does get to the Senate floor. One type, an amendment to the resolution ratifying the treaty, would, if passed, force the document to go back to the Russians for another round of negotiations. That could be a ratification killer in a practical sense, by overcomplicating the process until it loses steam.

Another, less controversial way to express concerns would be a statement of reservation that a senator could try to tack on to the treaty. This could allow the GOP to air its complaints while still allowing ratification to go forward.

What’s clear is that the Obama administration is working the GOP caucus hard to try to firm up the eight to 10 votes they will need to reach the 67-vote threshold. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Sen. Bob Corker, R-TN, Tuesday and Defense Secretary Robert Gates went to talk with GOP senators about START as well.

Read more here.

Mitt Romney: The Campaign to Repeal the Health-Care Bill Begins Today

The National Review Online published an op-ed by Mitt Romney this morning. Romney’s bold statement entitled “Obama’s ‘Unconscionable Abuse of Power’” concisely depicts a number of problems with the bill and the manner in which it was passed. It ends with this promise of action: “For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.”

Read the whole op-ed on its permanent page here on our blog:

This, and other op-eds, videos and speeches, can be found on our menu bar at the top of this page.

UPDATE: Below is an image that we’ve supplied for people to use as their profile picture on Facebook if they wish. In the near future and leading up to the 2010 elections we’ll see what we can do to best help the repeal effort.

Mitt Romney Central Repeal the Bill
This story in the news