MSNBC likens Romney to the KKK & More Media Appearances for Mitt Romney

First, MSNBC goes off the rails again by likening Mitt to the KKK. Watch the video clips here.

Watch Mitt’s New York Times interview here, and then check out some of Mitt’s CBS interview below.

Listen to Mitt on the Hannity radio program here.

Ann Coulter calls Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann the most conservative candidates in the race.


Finally, watch the latest ad from the Super PAC, Restore Our Future, below the fold. (more…)

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!

Why David Brooks is wrong

David Brooks says that a Mitt Romney nomination would ensure a Democratic win in the general election. Besides the speculative nature of such a prediction (or the inherent unreliability), Brooks tries to justify his conclusion by painting a picture of Mitt Romney that doesn’t fit. He starts with a straw man “any true conservative” argument in reference to Mitt Romney’s excellence of organization and planning:

And yet as any true conservative can tell you, the sort of rational planning Mitt Romney embodies never works. The world is too complicated and human reason too limited. The PowerPoint mentality always fails to anticipate something. It always yields unintended consequences.

It is true that Mitt Romney is a meticulous planner. He loves data and argument. He is known for taking apart a problem, analyzing it, and putting it back together with a solution. Such rationality, creativity, and clarity are certainly desirable traits in any walk of life, but certainly in a potential president. But somehow Brooks tries to make this virtue into a vice equating rationality with inflexibility or a lack of creativity. He argues that the unpredictability of a campaign (or life more generally) makes Romney’s planning useless. Yet experience tells us otherwise. Planning is not mutually exclusive with either flexibility or creativity. Indeed, if one looks at the successes of Mitt Romney’s life in either the private or public sector, it is clear that Romney’s planning has fostered rather than stifled creativity and flexibility. Even in this election, it has not been Romney’s campaign that has been unable to adapt to the evolving campaign, but his opponents’ operations. Romney has been the constant as other candidates have risen and fallen. I don’t see how Brooks can turn this pattern of success into a fault other than through convoluted logic.

Brooks also tries to make the argument that Huckabee’s camp has made, that the Reagan coalition is dead:

But his biggest problem is a failure of imagination. Market research is a snapshot of the past. With his data-set mentality, Romney has chosen to model himself on a version of Republicanism that is receding into memory. As Walter Mondale was the last gasp of the fading New Deal coalition, Romney has turned himself into the last gasp of the Reagan coalition.

This argument is fallacious because it fails to see the distinction between the New Deal and Reaganism: success. This seems to be a classic mistake made if one only sees Reaganism as a political movement. But Reaganism was more than just a means for political success. It was a set of principles that made the country prosperous. The New Deal had been discredited as a system for national prosperity by the time Walter Mondale ran in 1984. To equate the two movements is to miss they key component.

Moreover, Brooks’ argument that conservatism needs to evolve somehow glosses over the current example of what he seeks: George W. Bush. Bush’s compassionate conservatism was not an adherence to Reagan’s principles. Bush’s policies broke with key tenets of Reaganism. His evolution of conservatism has left the country worse off than had he followed the principles of Reaganism. Romney seeks a return to those principles. Romney wants to see a more limited government and fiscal discipline. He wants to enforce the border and inject a healthy dose of competence into government. This is an evolution of the current conservatism. Other candidates would continue Bush’s policies. Thus, Romney has not failed for imagination (otherwise he would look to build on the current brand of conservatism), but has sought historical examples of excellence in guiding his policies. Apparently such a distinction is lost on Brooks.