TANTORUM: Full Video of Rick Santorum's Profane [and Unpresidential] Tantrum

Adding to David Parker’s earlier coverage of Rick Santorum’s meltdown, here is the full video. I think my favorite part might be watching the embarrassment of Rick’s daughter — biting her fingernails [at 1:09 mark] as daddy throws his political future down the drain.

“Profanity is the sign of a weak mind trying to forcefully express itself.”

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!

NYT Vindicates Mitt Romney: McCain-Feingold Doesn’t Reduce Money In Political Campaigns

The New York Times has written an article about Mitt Romney’s aggressive style of campaign fund raising by utilizing state PACs along with a federal PAC to prepare for 2012. Of course, Mitt Romney isn’t the only politician who is exploiting the loopholes of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which is the formal name for the “McCain-Feingold” law:

“It also illustrates how potential candidates willing to be creative with the nation’s Rube Goldberg-like campaign finance system can manipulate it to their greatest benefit — and Mr. Romney has been by far the most assertive in this approach among those believed to be weighing bids for the Republican nomination.

“Mr. Romney is testing these limitations, as are other potential 2012 contenders, like Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, who has set up state PACs in Iowa and New Hampshire, along with a federal PAC. But Mr. Romney has gone further in squeezing maximum legal advantage in other areas.”

While Mitt Romney might be the most aggressive among the potential 2012 presidential contenders in maximizing his financial advantages, none of his actions raises any concerns with the Federal Election Commission (FEC):

“As a practical matter, they’re not going to question it,” said Lawrence Noble, a former general counsel for the election commission and a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

And Ben Ginsberg, the lawyer for Mr. Romney’s PAC, said that Mr. Romney had been doing this for several election cycles and that the election commission had never challenged the way the committee allocated its expenses.

“It’s what the law allows us to do,” Mr. Ginsberg said.

The use of leadership PACs by potential presidential candidates is not new, but the elaborate architecture of state and federal PACs Mr. Romney has set up is unusual, campaign finance lawyers said. Mr. Romney leaned on a similar setup before his last presidential run as well.

Despite Romney’s method of raising campaign funds in the 2008 and the 2012 election, he’s simply complying with the state and federal laws.

The New York Times article actually supports Mitt Romney’s long standing criticism of the McCain-Feingold law in which it is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation that does not reduce the role of money and special interests in our political system as it claimed it was going to do. Not only can politicians exploit the law, but so can outside special interest groups. Fortunately, the McCain-Feingold law was significantly weakened in the Supreme Court case Wisconsin Right to Life v. The Federal Election Commission.

Thanks to the New York Times article, Mitt Romney has been proven right. The McCain-Feingold law is a bad piece of legislation that needs to be repealed. One of Mitt Romney’s campaign promises during the 2008 Presidential election was to seek to eliminate a law that reduces people’s first Amendment right to political speech.  We hope that he makes that same pledge in 2012.

~ Jared A.

The NYT Isn’t Even Pretending Anymore

A few weeks ago the New York Times managed to completely miss the Van Jones story until he resigned in disgrace.  This week, tapes were released of ACORN employees conspiring to aid a faux-pimp in his desire to import underage girls as sex slaves.  Within 2 days the Census Bureau announced that it was ending its association with such scum.  What is the New York Times’ reaction?  Well it’s to ignore the story completely of course.

Here’s the AP story in The New York Times (via the web briefing) on the Census Bureau’s decision to drop its association with ACORN. The story doesn’t mention the prostitution videos from last week (and more are coming). How does a reporter and/or editor do that? Read the whole thing, the silences are staggering. It’s Pravdaesque.

Even by New York Times/AP standards, this is just jaw-droppingly bad journalism.


McCain and the NYT

There’s been some back and forth through email among several Mitt bloggers about the NYT article on McCain’s connections to lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Both McCain and Iseman have denied the story. I am no McCain apologist, but in this battle of credibility McCain wins. The NYT has proven sufficiently unreliable in reporting about issues with a partisan element. McCain has also proven unreliable in telling the truth, but less so than the NYT. Obviously, I don’t feel overly confident in either source, so both sides need to submit further evidence to bolster their claims.

As for McCain, you live by the MSM you die by the MSM. McCain tried to carry that snake down the mountain and then wonders why he got bit. You should have known better, Johnny. Should have known better.

NYT: Hating Romney…everyone else is doing it

I hate playing the victim card. I think it does little to advance one’s case and demeans whatever merit you already have. However, the lack of substantive thought at many major newspapers is astounding. Matthew Sheffield over at Newsbusters does a good job exposing the latest example of poor journalism over at the New York Times:

Everyone hates Mitt Romney. You should too. Why? Because, among the Republican presidential candidates, he’s the most disliked.

This extremely sound bit of reasoning comes in today’s edition of the New York Times courtesy of reporter Michael Luo whose evidence that the other candidates think this is based on some good old-fashioned arm-chair psychology.

Read the rest. Gotta love the reasoning of the NYT. Of course you would think the NYT’s mother would retort “If everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you?” But that would require some good old common sense, something that has been lacking at the NYT for many years.