President Obama’s Super PAC “Priorities USA” Launches Another Round of Attacks on Mitt Romney

After seeing the reaction to my piece on the anti-Romney bias emanating from many influential places from a few days ago, it’s even more obvious that we have a lot of work to do. Far too many people don’t realize what seems so obvious to us… that President Obama and the Democrats fear Mitt Romney more than any other candidate the GOP has in this election as the case was also in 2008.

Anyone who doesn’t believe me should just follow the money. The Democratic National Committee spent more money trying to dig up dirt on Mitt Romney during the 2008 primaries than they did on any other republican candidate. This time around it’s almost comical how much democrats are going out of their way to not attack other GOP candidates and instead focusing their smear efforts exclusively on Mitt Romney.

Today’s actions by President Obama’s Super PAC provided even more proof that Mitt Romney is the republican that scares democrats most. This anti-Romney ad buy is $100,000 and it’s far from the first anti-Romney attack ad President Obama’s Super PAC has produced. The continued paid attacks this early in the election illustrate a level of desperation from the Obama administration that makes sense considering President Obama’s record of accomplishment is so weak.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul responds with: “More middle-class Americans have lost their jobs under President Obama than any president in modern history. While Mitt Romney is focused on his jobs and economic plan, which will provide relief for the middle-income taxpayers, President Obama and his cronies are worried about their own jobs. It is no surprise since President Obama cannot run on his failed record that his political allies resort to false and negative attacks on Mitt Romney.”

While Gov. Romney and President Obama both know who the strongest GOP contender is, too many radio hosts, bloggers, and media members are creating false narratives and chasing fake stories. Rush Limbaugh went so far today as to read an entire letter on air designed to make people think Gov. Romney’s campaign was behind the leak of the current Herman Cain controversy. Fortunately, Hot Air saw through this ploy and presents a more likely source for the leak. Even Herman Cain’s own campaign is blaming an adviser to Rick Perry for leaking the story. Furthermore, a pollster for one of Rick Perry’s Super PACs is pouring fuel on the fire in an effort to end Cain’s campaign. Rush’s listeners should be outraged that Mr. Limbaugh would stoop so low as to pick up on an obvious smear like this and present it the way he did. Just like with my Red State/Free Republic piece, the point of this piece is to increase awareness of some misinformation and to hopefully start to discover the motivations of the various parties attacking Gov. Romney.

I’m starting to see a lot of caparisons between what happened in 2008 and what is happening this time around. The groups and individuals filling each role have changed in some instances, but the spirit of the final installments of Article VI’s blog about the 2008 election seem even more poignant now.

Clowns to the Left of Mitt

Jokers to the Right

Stuck in the Middle With You

UPDATE: Gov. Tim Pawlenty refutes the bias against Gov. Romney presented this time by Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. I’m just glad someone as competent as Tim Pawlenty was present to rebut these assertions because these types of claims often go unchecked. Warning: Megyn calls Mitt stagnant, not the most conservative, accuses Mitt of having an inability to connect with voters, and pretty much uses all of the talking points coming out of the DNC.

Finally, I want to thank Emily Schultheis and Tim Mak from the Politico as well as Ben Smith, Fox Nation, David French from, our friends from Why Romney, and also Mike Sage for helping this story gain more traction outside of our normal circles of influence. If we can keep this up, we will start to tear down the walls of bias built by the malicious or ignorant hands referenced in these posts.

Red State and Free Republic Declare War on Mitt Romney Supporters for Some Reason

Any grassroots site has the right to moderate itself any way it chooses. The main purpose of this piece is to present a few examples of Free Republic and Red State’s apparent disdain for Gov. Romney and spur discussion that will hopefully lead to discovery of what motivates those feelings because it seems very illogical considering our shared goals of nominating a conservative (which both sites seemed to think Mitt was in 2008) and making President Obama a 1-term President.

Embarassed of Free Republic and Red StateThe editors at Red State and Free Republic (among others) have had the wool pulled over their eyes. They seem to actually believe the lies originally propagated by supporters of President Obama and, in some cases, even by President Obama himself. Now, for some reason, these editors/moderators are so insecure in their prejudice against Gov. Romney that they ban people who openly support Gov. Romney. Free Republic (mostly because of it’s owner Jim Robinson) has purged all of the Romney supporters they could from the site in two waves of purges over the last few years. The anti-Romney and anti-Mormon bigotry evident at Free Republic now is absolutely sickening.

I haven’t been to Free Republic quite as much as I used to partly because I have been banned from posting. During the 2008 election, Mitt was accepted and lauded by many at Free Republic like he was by most conservatives. One of the best summaries of Gov. Romney’s accomplishments was actually from Free Republic. However, Jim Robinson seemingly fell in love with Sarah Palin and initiated purges of anyone who wouldn’t pledge allegiance to her. A few months back, I tried to make a new account and see if I could post about Gov. Romney’s jobs plan and I was promptly banned and called a few derogatory names implying that I was a Mormon. Besides the fact that I am not Mormon, I can’t for the life of me figure out how a site like that, filled with such hate, can find enough donors to keep it going. When I think of Free Republic, I’m reminded of the scene from Star Wars Episode IV where Luke is warned that he is entering “A Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany”.

Red State has been fairly hostile to Gov. Romney for awhile, but they have crossed into new lows now as well. The guys from have been working very hard and diligently to refute some of the many misconceptions about Gov. Romney, and I hope this unfortunate episode won’t dissuade them or anyone else from trying to correct the people endlessly smearing Gov. Romney. What so many of these people who don’t like Gov. Romney don’t seem to realize is that they have been fed reasons to not like Gov. Romney by highly-funded democratic think tanks. It’s abundantly clear now, no matter what Rush Limbaugh says, that President Obama is scared to death of facing Mitt Romney in the general election.

If you want to check out the three open letters posted to Red State, you can read the one on mandates and health care here, the one about abortion here, and the final one on miscellaneous issues here unless Red State removes the posts now that they have cowardly banned the authors of the letters. Also, I’ve saved a screen shot of the admin belittling the efforts of our friends from WhyRomney and giving his/her bogus reason for banning them which you can read here just in case the admin tries to cover his/her tracks in shame. If you want to see how rude Free Republic is without actually subjecting yourself to the hate, just click here for a screen shot of the reason they banned the author of a similar open letter.

I know there are bastions of bigotry against Mormons on other sites besides Free Republic and that Free Republic and Red State aren’t the only sites that have ever banned people they disagreed with, but I’ve concluded that they are the grandparents of this anti-Romney crusade that fortunately seems destined to fail. Some other sites seem predisposed against supporting Mitt, but not at the dangerous level of these two.

The motives of people like Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh to not want Gov. Mitt Romney to be the GOP nominee are easier to understand (hint: they make more money with President Obama in the White House). However, some have suggested they have just been fed a lot of misinformation like George Will has, but the fact that they all were much more supportive of Mitt in 2008 makes me skeptical of that explanation. I believe many other sites and conservatives are simply following the lead of Limbaugh, Levin, and Will which is reinforced by the disingenuous moderators at Red State, the sheltered leader of Free Republic, and the lack of journalistic integrity at Fox News when it comes to telling both sides of the stories involving Mitt. It’s hard to blame the average voter for believing a lot of the lies about Gov. Romney when they have to dig around all of these voices they used to respect and rely on.

Most other conservative sites that support candidates other than Mitt at least vow to support Mitt if he is the nominee, but I worry about what is festering at Free Republic and now, Red State. Once our nominee is selected, we will need all hands on deck to defeat President Obama. The members of these two sites should realize how detrimental the actions of their leaders may end up being to the ultimate cause of making President Obama a one-term President. I hope they will ask for their leaders to act in a more responsible fashion.

What can Romney supporters do about this other than expose and confront the lies and hope the people we are talking about become ashamed of what they’ve done? At the very least, some of their followers might stop listening to them and give Gov. Romney a fair shake. Telling the truth and persisting in spreading that knowledge like the folks at WhyRomney did and so many of us already do is great. A new tool has just launched to help us as well. has launched promising to provide us with numerous cartoons we can use to supplement our pro-Romney facts and arguments. You can learn more about the new site here, but before you do, check out their inaugural cartoon. This cartoon could very easily be used to point out the prejudice of someone like Free Republic’s Jim Robinson as well. I look forward to next week’s cartoon(s) now as well. Welcome to cause MittFitts!

UPDATE by Jayde Nov 10,2011

I was surprised to see this letter on Erickson’s site today. Maybe he is paying attention…

Click on letter to enlarge

UPDATE 2: Politico has discovered that George Will’s wife work for the Perry campaign, so that’s one less person we need to try to discover the motivations of their flip-flopping on Mitt.

Presidential Debate in Iowa: Glowing Reviews for Romney

Mitt Romney and Senator Chuck Grassley don aprons and man the grills at the infamous 'pork tent' at the Iowa State Fair. August 11, 2011

After eight GOP hopefuls spent two hours of their evening debating in Iowa last night, doing their best to impress voters, the day after reviews are bringing high praise for Mitt Romney.

In a post-debate interview last night, political pollster Frank Luntz said Newt Gingrich “won the battle’ but “Mitt Romney won the war.” Stating that Romney was ‘presidential’, Luntz also pointed out that Governor Romney’s specific ideas on the economy are exactly what voters want to hear.

John Gibson (former FOX News TV host, now FOX News radio host) proclaimed today “Admit it’s Mitt!”

Dick Morris tweeted last night that Gov Romney has a Reaganesque communciation style.

When asked about the debate this afternoon, moderator Chris Wallace (FOX News) replied that Mitt Romney entered the debate as the frontrunner and left the debate as the frontrunner.

Rush Limbaugh weighed in as evidenced in this re-tweet from Byron York (FOX News contributor/debate panelist):

Limbaugh: “There’s no doubt Romney won.”less than a minute ago via HootSuite Favorite Retweet Reply


Mitt was honored to share the stage with his fellow Republicans to debate the issues that are important to the people of Iowa and all Americans.

Mitt clearly won the debate by remaining focused on his message of creating jobs and getting the economy back on track by reversing President Obama’s failed economic policies. His strong record of creating jobs in the private sector, and when he was Governor, makes him the best candidate to defeat President Obama and lead the country toward an economic recovery.

Iowa State Representative Renee Schulte offers her opinion on the Iowa GOP debate:

Tweet from Mitt this morning:

Thanks @ReneeSchulte for the video sharing your thoughts from last night’s debate than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply

Note: Unsurprisingly, prior to the debate last night, Democrats were poised to let the poison arrows fly. The GOP called them out and made an inferred reference to the Obama Scheme Team’s plan:

RNC Spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski tells Fox, “While the headlines scream about Obama’s failed economy, it’s no wonder Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democrats are desperately trying to change the conversation. The same president and party that prided themselves on changing the tone in politics are now resorting to negative attacks against Republicans because they don’t have any accomplishments of their own to tout. Just ask Team Obama – they laid out their negative attack strategy just this week.”

(italics added)

Schultz (D-FL), National Democrat Party Chair, rushed to the Iowa State Fair today (first time attending) to promote Obama’s liberal agenda. While stumping, she specifically mentioned Mitt and called on Iowans to reject the notion that Mitt Romney mentioned on ‘this very same stage’ – that corporations are people.

Schultz should spend a few moments watching this.

Glenn Beck cheered The Gov on his radio program this morning for the way he handled the liberal hecklers at the fair yesterday. Neil Cavuto gave kudos to Romney yesterday. They both voiced high praise for Romney’s remarks on social security tax caps, the manner in which successful Americans are vilified, and corporations.

UPDATE – More from Rush Limbaugh (H/t Frank)

► Jayde Wyatt

A Healthcare Analogy About Romneycare and Obamacare

Supporters of Mitt Romney are no strangers to the attacks made on our candidate by President Obama’s surrogates and even fellow conservatives on the subject of “RomneyCare”. The accusations are all too familiar to us;

“There’s no difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare”
“RomneyCare is socialism!”
“Romney is the architect/father of ObamaCare”
“It’s Mitt Romney’s fault that we have ObamaCare”

MRC’s very own Dr. Jeff Fuller has written an excellent series explaining the major policy differences between MassCare (the actual “RomneyCare”) and ObamaCare, and why Governor Romney’s health care reforms in Massachusetts were anything but socialist. So with the more difficult and technical aspects of MassCare already covered, I’d like to tackle the broader claims that Mitt Romney is to blame for the idea of ObamaCare and that Mitt is the father and architect of ObamaCare.

These attacks can be exposed as inaccurate and completely false. Let’s first address those who say that Mitt Romney is to blame for ObamaCare. I feel this can best be explained away through a simple story:

Let’s say that you, the reader, live in a town. This town has fifty families or households residing in it. Out of the blue, your kids start ignoring their homework and doing other activities instead: texting, playing video games, chatting on their favorite political website (, or whatever it might be. As a responsible parent, you see the need to create a plan to get them to do their homework. You know what ultimately motivates your children, so the plan you institute begins to work and your kids start completing their homework again. It’s not perfect, but it works 98% of the time.

Meanwhile, the mayor of your town had actually desired to pass a law on how families enforce homework completion for quite some time. Without talking to you or asking you about what worked and what didn’t in your plan, the mayor passes an ordinance requiring all families to use methods similar to the ones you developed for your kids. He also throws in a bunch of other invasive requirements as well. Next, the mayor starts publicly praising the plan you created for your home and says that it was the inspiration for his law. Naturally, many of the people in the town are angry about being forced to adopt the new methods and are looking for someone to blame. Who should they rightfully be upset with about this new law, you or the mayor?

It seems obvious that the mayor is the one to blame here. You, as the parent who initiated the original plan for your own household, never advocated that your plan be used for the entire town, nor were you consulted by the mayor before he brought about the new law. Why should your fellow townsfolk blame you, regardless of if the plans had similarities or not? It would be unjustified for them to do so. Yet this is precisely what some of our fellow conservative friends are doing when they blame Mitt Romney for ObamaCare.

In case you hadn’t yet noticed the correlation, the mayor in the story represents President Obama and the new town ordinance is ObamaCare. Mitt Romney is represented by you, the parent, and your plan to get your kids to do their homework is MassCare.

Just as it would be unfair to blame the parent in our story for the new town ordinance, it is equally unfair and illogical to blame Mitt Romney for ObamaCare. Regardless of any similarities that exist between the two laws, Governor Romney strongly opposes a Federal takeover of health care and was never consulted by President Obama or Democrats while ObamaCare was being crafted.

Another line of attack that some like to take is to label Romney as the father and/or architect of ObamaCare. Let’s quickly follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion: if Mitt Romney hadn’t signed MassCare into law, we would not have ended up with ObamaCare. Do any conservatives honestly believe that if it weren’t for MassCare we wouldn’t have ObamaCare today? That idea is absurd and has a very shortsighted view of our political past. A full 13 years before MassCare was signed into law, the Democrats on Capital Hill contemplated a complete reform of the American health care system. Many of you remember HillaryCare, the attempted Federal government takeover of health care in 1993, concocted by Hillary Clinton.

That attempt was ultimately defeated, but it’s clear that the goal was never far out of mind. The proof is that the very next time the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the White House they tried again and were successful. They did not need inspiration from MassCare to create ObamaCare. The desire to reform health care on the Federal level had already existed for nearly 20 years and Democrats were anxious for the opportunity to try again.

The blame for ObamaCare lies squarely on the shoulders of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and the Democrat majority that passed it. Mitt Romney did not inspire, design, or support this monstrosity, and a logical and reasonable look at the subject should allow people to come to the same conclusion. Let’s set our sights on the ones who are truly responsible, not a convenient political target.

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.

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.


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

Transcript of Huckabee on the Rush Limbaugh Show

Click here to view the whole transcript.

Topics discusses: The ‘Are Jesus and Satan Brothers?’ issue, the WV primary convention, the RNC convention, acceptability of Veep candidates, and a possible hurricane in New Orleans during the RNCC. The transcript also has a caller afterwards who says Huck is flat out lying about what happened in WV.

I was only able to skim the transcript. Does anyone who listened to it have some thoughts on it?

~Nate Gunderson

Recap by Lizzie (thank you for doing this):

I heard it. Rush pretty much asserted that McCain and Huckabee combined against Romney in WV. Huckabee said, not so, it was Ron Paul’s group that did it. I wasn’t sure if Rush was doubtful when Huckabee explained how the WV thing went, or if he was “set straight”. But, I do recall one thing of note. Rush said, I had no idea that is how the thing came down. Then Mike said, well that’s how it was, I know because I was there. Then Rush seemed to have a “knowing” sound to his voice, like, “oh, you were there, and you want me to really believe you had nothing to do with it.”

Of course, I’m just remembering this, I didn’t read the transcript. And it could be that I wanted to believe that that is what Rush was insinuating. It was a very veiled comment, but I thought that was the underlying thought.

I was happy that Rush defended Mitt when Huck was saying Mitt went all negative in his campaign. Rush said, yeah, so what, that’s just politics and you and McCain gained up on Romney yourselves. That’s what started the whole WV topic I believe.

Just read the article about Romney helping McCain so much in Florida. It seems like Romney would help signigficantly in several states. So what is all this talk about Kay Bailey Hutchison? Is that a decoy, or is McCain foolish enough to pass on the guy most people want for VP?