Mitt Romney doesn’t care about poor people? WRONG!

In the 24 hour news cycle, the story of the day has been Mitt’s comments to CNN in the early morning after his Florida win. While I think even the most ardent Romney fan would admit that this could and should have (and will be) phrased more adeptly, the liberals have taken and run with the partial quote that he’s “not concerned with the very poor” … It looks worse in print that in the context of the interview:

Mitt cares deeply about the poor, and his actions speak louder than words. How many “journalists” have bothered to mention that Mitt has given over $7,000,000 (SEVEN FREAKING MILLION!) to charitable organizations in just the last two years? Records from before then show the Romney’s consistent giving millions upon millions to organizations that care for the poor. By contrast, Joe Biden gave only $3690 to charity in an entire decade … that’s PROOF of someone that doesn’t care about the poor. From 2001-4, the Obamas made nearly a million dollars, but donated LESS THAN 1% of that income to charity.

Or what about when Mitt gave cash out of his pocket to the lady in South Carolina who said God guided her to follow Romney’s campaign bus to find help to keep her lights on? The EXACT SAME CNN REPORTER (Soledad) even reported about that a couple of weeks ago … does she have no memory?

Mitt doesn’t care about poor people? Demonstrably false and easy to debunk (and this is without even delving into fact that Mitt, as a Mormon Bishop for several years, dedicated much of his time to caring for the poor in a very “hands on” fashion). If Obama and team push this theme it will come back to bite them. Mitt’s done more to care for the poor than any snarky reporter or any of his political rivals.

Recall Vic’s post from a couple days back that highlighted Romney’s life of service and included the following YouTube:

Additionally, Brit Hume on Fox News today adroitly argued that anyone who wants to “make hay” or be offended by this out-of-context quote wouldn’t be voting for a GOP candidate anyways. I’d have to agree.

Newt, Ya Listening? Conservative Leaders Praise Romney on Life, Marriage, Religious Freedom

While Southern Baptist leader Richard Land and other social conservatives are huddling in Texas next weekend to figure out how to stop Mitt Romney, nine conservative leaders from Massachusetts think so highly of Governor Mitt Romney that they’ve penned a letter on his behalf. They write about his record in the uber-liberal Bay State and praise him for protecting life, defending traditional marriage, and standing for religious freedom.

Uh… Newt, are you paying attention?

An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney
December 30, 2021

Dear conservative friends:
We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney served as the governor of our state from January 2, 2022 to January 3, 2007. During that time, we worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.

Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts. The following is not an endorsement of Governor Romney but our account of the facts to set the record straight.

Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the November 18, 2021 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”

We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney had bogus Party A and Party B marriage licenses printed and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same-sex “marriages” when asked or be fired. As May 17, 2022 (the SJC’s declaratory judgment date) approached, the Governor’s Office of Legal Counsel issued provisional advisory instructions to the justices of the peace and prepared revised license applications. These executive actions did not result in the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples before May 17. The new policies were carried out only after and as a direct result of the judiciary’s final action in Goodridge on May 17. They did not generate same-sex marriages; that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The governor does not issue marriage licenses in Massachusetts. Only the town clerks can do that. But the governor can issue one-day justice of the peace authorizations to an individual who wants to perform a marriage ceremony but is not a licensed minister, town clerk or justice of the peace. The governor’s office issues thousands of those in a four year term with the only criteria being that the individual doing the ceremony is in good standing and the parties getting married have a valid marriage license.

Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with substantial results. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.

Provided strong, active support for a record-setting citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The petition drive collected the largest number of signatures in Massachusetts history.

Rallied thousands of citizens around the state to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment. In November of 2006, Gov. Romney held the largest State House rally in Massachusetts history with over 7000 supporters of traditional marriage.

Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court asking the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing the ultimate pressure on the legislators to vote. The SJC unanimously ruled that the Legislature must vote and the historic vote was taken on January 2, 2022 winning legislative support. This cleared a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.

Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”

Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”

We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney is responsible for tax payer funded abortion under the Massachusetts health care system. That blame lies solely on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in 1981 that the Massachusetts Constitution required payment for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. In 1997, the Court reaffirmed its position that a state-subsidized plan must offer “medically necessary abortions.”

Stood for religious freedom. Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.

Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.

All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, wrote that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”

We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.

Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.

Mitt and Ann Romney are pictured with their grandchildren (16 of them!). Dec 2011
Click on image to enlarge.

For four years, Governor Romney was right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.

It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.

For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.


Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts

Gerald D. D’Avolio
Former Executive Director, Massachusetts Catholic Conference

Raymond L. Flynn
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See

Professor Mary Ann Glendon
Harvard Law School
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See

Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute

Dr. Roberto Miranda
COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England

James F. Morgan
Chairman, Institute for Family Development

Joseph Reilly
Former Chairman of the Board, Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Marriage and Family

(emphasis added)

Note: The signatories are all acting as individual citizens, and not as representatives of their respective organizations. Organizational affiliations appear for identification purposes only.

Hoping to slow/stop Romney in South Carolina, Gingrich is trumpeting false claims about Governor Romney’s record in MA. It’s up to each of us to spread this far and wide.

► Jayde Wyatt

Gingrich: Romney ‘Buying the Election’ Class Warfare, A Closer Look

Newt Gingrich is petulant that his poll numbers are plummeting due to his record being vetted via political ads in Iowa. He admitted today that it took him two weeks to “get his legs” under him to respond… (Turtle appendages?)

It’s becoming a habit for Gingrich to lash out by swinging a weapon most conservatives loathe - the class warfare axe. The former ethics-sanctioned Speaker of the House is repeating the line that Mitt Romney would “buy the election if he could.”

Yesterday, while stumping in Atlantic, Iowa, Governor Romney responded:

Mitt Romney Denies Gingrich Claim That He’d ‘Buy the Election’
Jan 1, 2022 5:50pm

ATLANTIC, Iowa — Mitt Romney today pushed back on claims launched by Newt Gingrich accusing him of wanting to “buy the election” if he could, saying that this election is being driven not by money, but by message.

“Let’s see, Speaker Gingrich I think announced that he raised 10 million this quarter and he ought to be proud of that. We’re working hard to raise funds as well. This is an election, however, that’s not being driven by money raised — it’s being driven by message, connection with the voters, debate and experience,” Romney said during a press conference at the Family Table diner in western Iowa.

“I think that those are the features that are driving the campaign so far and I think they probably will be through the entire process,” he said.

(emphasis added)

A reminder…

Mitt Romney and wife, Ann, donated $1 million to the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games and Romney donated to charity his salary for three years of headaches and labor as President and CEO.

Romney generously did not take a salary for four years of work serving as Governor of Massachusetts.

What was Gingrich doing during that time?

Taking $1.6 million lobbying for Freddie Mac.

During the months leading up to the 2010 mid-term elections, Romney fervently worked to end the Obama domination in Congress. It’s hard to put a price on the hours Romney was gone from home and the miles he traveled criss-crossing the nation (flying coach) to stump for GOP candidates. His Free and Strong America PAC also gave generous donations to many conservative hopefuls.

Romney is a doer.

What was Gingrich doing leading up to that time?

Sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.


Gingrich pontificated from time to time as a FOX News contributor and hawked his wares/ideas. Even though he wasn’t tied to a 9-5 job, I guess we should give him a pass for not putting forth much effort to help candidates during mid-terms. After all, he did have the arduous responsibility of scouring the jewelry cases at Tiffany’s.

There is also the little matter of Newt relaxing on a two-week cruise in the Greek Isles shortly after announcing his presidential candidacy - a development that prompted his campaign manager and half a dozen senior advisers to throw in the towel.

Gingrich is now crying “Pearl Harbor!” because he didn’t put in the planning and hard work to get his name on the Virginia ballot.

And, don’t forget - it was just a couple of weeks ago that Gingrich slammed Romney for his private-sector work at Bain Capital creating tens of thousands of jobs for Americans.

Class warfare? A cheap, leftist swipe.

Buy an election? No, Newt.

Romney is earning it.

Voters in Le Mars, Iowa, flock to meet Mitt Romney on his final campaign ahead of the caucuses. Dec 31, 2021 (Photo by Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images)
Voters in Le Mars, Iowa flock to meet Mitt Romney on his final campaign ahead of caucuses. Dec 31, 2021 (Photo/Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Here’s video of Mitt and Ann speaking in Atlantic, Iowa yesterday:

UPDATE on VA Atty Gen Ken Cuccinelli’s ballot legislation: NO GO

Click here to continue reading Guest Post: Mitt Romney – A Consistent Conservative?

Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy Debate for MA Senate Seat in 1994

So, exactly how much has Mitt changed over the years? As it turns out, not a whole lot (aside from his hair). After tiring from the incessant droning by the media over Romney’s supposed liberal past and flip-flopping core-lacking philosophy, I decided I was going to get to the bottom of the issue. It must be bad when even Fox News reports as if this narrative were a given, right? Well, not so fast. Though most have seen a couple of short edited clips from the historic first Senatorial debate between Teddy Kennedy and Mitt Romney, apparently very few have ever seen the entire debate. October 25, 2021 is Mitt’s debate debut in the political arena. I am here to testify to those not sold on Mitt that it is well worth watching. In watching it, I ended up spending a few hours replaying, reviewing, and noting each of Mitt’s positions. Surprisingly, what this revealed was abundance of supposed nonexistent conservative positions from the youthful candidate Romney. I was expecting the worst, half wincing when the all too familiar abortion and Reagan blasting portions began, but even those, in context, were not quite on the order of “conservative blasphemy”.

After all was said and done, I was shocked not only by Mitt’s undeniable consistency over the years, but by his aggression and strength as a debater against a known liberal stalwart. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he handily won that debate. Mitt had Teddy on his heels darned near the whole time. Teddy, whose only recourse was to resort to the dirtiest of demagoguery, even pulled the JFK sympathy card! Mitt went after that old money liberal icon and dynasty heir like a champ. I would submit that, given the opportunity to debate Obama, Mitt Romney would effectively spank him and send him to time out. The fact is Obama’s history, record, stature, and gravitas are nowhere near that of Senator Kennedy’s, yet Kennedy, himself, was bloodied by the ability and substance of a young wealthy republican businessman. Mind you, Mitt was running for the US Senate on a conservative platform in arguably the most liberal state in the country. Well done, Mr. Romney.

With all this in mind, I am certain he would not treat Obama nearly as nice as he has his fellow Republicans, thus far. If this is hard to believe, see for yourself:

Time marker - Mitt’s positions

9:33 - Abortion issue mixed with the religion issue Kennedy injected

15:34 - Supports allowing boy scouts to determine whom to allow into the organization

22:40 - Very tough on crime, for death penalty

24:11 - Still for tough immigration laws, but provide basic services to illegal aliens (i.e. emergency care and vaccinations)

32:55 - Explains what health care reforms he supports. Same as he describes today.

36:22 - Emphatically states NO government takeover of healthcare.

37:30 - Family (including fathers) is the foundation of our country.

42:39 - The dreaded clip in context – Reagan/Bush ERA policies were being blamed for increased unemployment and poverty during the 80’s, which in turn was being blamed for family breakdown. Kennedy offered this after Romney first discusses, and then asks him about, strengthening the family. Kennedy broke his own rules and brought a “political hit” to an issue that they both had agreed was too important to play politics with. As it turns out, Teddy just could not help himself. Romney rebuts as he did, not to throw Reagan under the bus, but to explain that none of what Mitt said in his argument about strengthening the family contained political rhetoric, much less Reagan/Bush policies, yet he was being attacked as if it did. What really got Mitt testy was the idea that what he had just offered on the topic was being politically spun as returning to policies that would increase poverty and unemployment. He knew he was being railroaded. It was a very nasty political hit, indeed. Of course, Kennedy’s assumption was that, under Reagan/Bush, family supports were cut, which led to said unemployment and poverty. Mitt also mentioned he was an independent during the Reagan/Bush era; HOWEVER, his position had been even more conservative than Reagan’s in this instance. Mitt was concerned that tax cuts without any spending cuts would increase the deficit and hurt the economy. He admits he was wrong and stated, “The proof is in the pudding”. (

44:40 - Washington needs reform, to many people more interested in taking credit than getting things done.

50:29 - **** Supported the Balanced Budget Amendment since 1994 and wants to cut spending and size of government

54:10 - Conservative closing statement

If anything, one can describe his philosophy, both past and present, as nuanced, but still conservative. No doubt, his views have been tested, developed, and refined over the years. That is a good thing, yet I think he still wisely sees running as an ideologue a barrier to productive negotiation and, thereby a barrier to succeeding with any real reform. The changes necessary to fix our economy are not likely to be popular with many already, but if he relied on rhetorical chest beating to the complete exclusion of pragmatism, he would never even have a shot at making his case for proposals that will affect every American. Furthermore, if what he proposes are truly the best, most viable solutions, and are effectively conservative, why add insult to injury by using it to poke liberals in the eye and divide Americans further? Do we really need to define motives, cast judgments, and make a rhetorical case for every conservative principle or idea? Instead, we can focus on how and why they will work. When they do, I believe more Americans would be inclined to muster the necessary political will to stay the course. Incidentally, I believe this is where America needs the most change.

In closing, I’d like to share a profound (and painful) truth I learned while earning a degree in management. That is, when dealing with people, being right can be the barrier to being successful. It is no coincidence, then, that Mitt has been so successful in just about everything he has done. He applies correct principles the best he can to the hand he’s been dealt, but he understands we don’t often get to choose that hand. Now is the time to rally behind the best, most viable candidate for President of The United States. That candidate is Mitt Romney.


A Reconciliation - How One Romney Supporter Justifies RomneyCare while Denouncing ObamaCare - part 1

As a Romney supporter, I am sometimes asked how I can support RomneyCare but desire to repeal ObamaCare. “Aren’t the two plans basically the same thing?” they ask. 

Governor Chris Christie said recently that it is “intellectually dishonest” to equate RomneyCare with ObamaCare. I agree with Gov. Christie and while I can’t speak for Mr. Christie, I would like to give you one of my own reasons for supporting RomneyCare but denouncing ObamaCare. 

#1) Costs - A Simple But Powerful Distinction

From simply a costs perspective, the two plans are quite different. RomneyCare was a “balanced bill” which means it required virtually no new spending or taxes. On the other hand, ObamaCare increases taxes by over a half a trillion dollars and requires a dramatic increase in government spending. The vastly different costs of each program represent a significant and major distinction.

Some ask “If they are similar plans, why is ObamaCare so much more expensive than RomneyCare?” ObamaCare is much more expensive than RomneyCare because it requires other states to fund their health care programs the same way Massachusetts did. But there is a major problem with that method of funding, namely, Massachusetts had a lot more money to pay for its health care program than any other state. Due to a special Medicaid grant that Massachusetts had been receiving for over a decade and a large pool of money set aside to pay for the costs incurred by the uninsured for hospital/medical care, Massachusetts had over one billion dollars in additional health care funding that no other state had. Because other states do not have such a large pool of funds to use for their health care programs, other states have to get the money for the program by raising taxes or cutting spending from other areas such as educational institutions to help pay for the new health care plan. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida summarizes it well by saying, “Even if ObamaCare was good policy, which it is not, we simply can’t afford more federal spending.”

Furthermore, lets not forget than Massachusetts had a balanced budget at the time RomneyCare was passed. The same definitely can’t be said of ObamaCare which was implemented during a time of record national debt levels. Romney showed fiscal responsibility by balancing the state’s budget first before passing any new laws that may affect government spending. Obama did no such thing.

In conclusion, from simply a costs perspective the two plans are polar opposites. RomneyCare was a “balanced bill” that required virtually no additional spending or taxes, while ObamaCare requires a dramatic increase in gov. spending and increases taxes by more than half a trillion dollars. The vastly different costs of each program represent a significant and major distinction. Our national debt is already at record levels. We don’t need to add any more to it.

Watch for part 2 of my continuing series on Romneycare versus Obamacare where I discuss the individual mandate.

Remember to visit our new “RomneyCare FAQ” page for more info here.

Mitt Romney’s Health Care Consistency

It may come as no surprise to you but the press has gotten a bit lazy. All too often, the press spews out stories about how Romney has “flip-flopped” on an issue without doing their due diligence and actually finding out if the charges against Mitt are true.

Let’s talk about health care. Despite what Romney’s detractors and rivals would have you think, Romney’s health care policies remain the same today as they always have. Romney’s health care plan for America can be stated simply and succinctly: Romney wants each state to have the same freedom that he had in Massachusetts to innovate and design their own unique health care policies.

Byron York, chief political correspondent of the Washington Examiner, summarized it best when he said this:

On many, many occasions, Romney said he believes Romneycare is a model for some states to follow but would not be a model for all states and certainly not for a federal plan.

“I think it’s a great plan, but I’m a federalist,” Romney said on “Meet the Press” in December 2007. “I don’t believe in applying what works in one state to all states if different states have different circumstances.”

In that 2007 interview, Romney pointed out that a relatively small number, 7 percent, of the Massachusetts population was uninsured. “Texas has 25 percent,” he said. “Given the kind of differences between states, I’m not somebody who is going to say, ‘What I did in Massachusetts I’m going to now tell every state they have to do it the same way.'”

But as much as he stressed federalism, Romney also stressed that he would be happy to see many states adopt his plan. “I think it’s a good model for other states,” he continued. “Maybe not every state but most.” At the federal level, Romney said he would “give every state the same kind of flexibility we got from the federal government.” That’s the Romney position, then and now.

Romney wants the same kind of flexibility for other states that “he had” because Romney received special approval from the federal government (the Bush Administration at the time), to bring about the Massachusetts health care reform plan now known as “RomneyCare.” The federal government allowed for Massachusetts to spend federal dollars in a totally different way than any other state was allowed to do at the time. Romney got approval to use Medicaid money to not just pay for health care services, but to help the poor buy a health insurance policy from a private insurance company. In order to give each state the same flexibility and freedom that he had, Romney wants to “block grant” all Medicaid funding to the states so that states don’t have the excessive rules and regulations that typically come with accepting money from the federal government.

Since the passage of RomneyCare in 2006, Romney has been consistent regarding his plan for other states: States are free to adopt some, all, or none of the MA health care plan.

Here is an interview with Gov. Romney on NPR on April 8, 2022 shortly after RomneyCare was passed where he said this:

Q: Stepping back, what impact do you think this will have outside Massachusetts?
A: Around the country, people are watching because they know this is big. Some on the far left don’t like it because it’s not a single-payer universal coverage program. Some on the far right don’t like it because they don’t like government telling people that they need to get insurance. But the great majority of people, both on the left and the right, believe that this is a step forward.

Q: Can this model be used in other states?
A: My guess is a lot of states will choose to adopt one or another of the measures we’ve put in place here. But most will give it a little time and watch to see what our experience is. That’s the great thing about having 50 states and the principle of federalism. Let us experiment ourselves. Let us learn from one another.

Romney believes that states should have the power to experiment and innovate by giving them Medicaid funds without all the regulations. Additionally, states can be encouraged to innovate by offering “innovation grants” to states that come up with the most promising plans on how to lower costs or increase access to health care in their particular state. These innovation grants would help pay for the cost of implementing the new policy.

Here is what Romney says in his book, No Apology:

“My own preference is to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state ‘laboratories of democracy,’ could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others.”

In summary, Romney’s health care policies remain the same today as they have from the beginnning. Romney’s health care plan for America is simply to give each state the same freedom that he had in Massachusetts to innovate and design their own unique health care policies by block granting Medicaid funds and providing “innovation grants.” From the outset Romney has said that states are free to adopt some, all, or none of the Massachusetts health care law and that the MA health care model would not work in all states. Romney has always emphasized state-level initiatives to improve health care and certainly never advocated a federal plan.

In regard to the press, it’s disappointing that the press continues to mindlessly repeat exaggerations and supposed flip-flop stories without doing the research to confirm whether the stories are true, or if a political opponent is behind the exaggerations. As Romney supporters, we can make a difference. If you read an article that falsely claims Romney has flip-flopped or distorted Romney’s views, send them an email. Having sent many such emails myself, I can tell you that these emails are often read and considered. For example, there used to be a lot of stories in the press stating how RomneyCare was bankrupting the state of Massachusetts. We don’t hear that story being told much anymore because most news organizations now see that it is false. Sending a short email where you back up your claim with links can make a big difference.

To find out more about RomneyCare, including a discussion about individual mandates, be sure to peruse our new “RomneyCare FAQ” page here.

Guest Post: Response To The Beacon Hill Study

This is a guest post from Ryan Larsen of With his permission we’re cross-posting it here.


The first problem with the Beacon Hill study/attack on Romneycare is that it is limited to determining the impact of health care cost increases on the surrounding economy. It is not designed to determine what caused the increase in health care costs to begin with. The study, in other words, had no basis for concluding anything about Romneycare.

But it gets worse. The study makes this assumption because it defers to an earlier study which, in perhaps a Freudian slip, states at one point: “We employed the same mythology.” And, indeed, there is “mythology” in their methodology. Their trend numbers, which they use in comparing health costs under Romneycare with costs before Romneycare, are faulty. For instance, in Table 11 their “trend” numbers claim that costs in 2006 were expected to decline from 2005, but this is clearly a false trend since costs had increased every year since 1998.

They then subtract their false trend numbers from the actual cost increase, creating the impression that costs rose at a faster rate. The bogus numbers compound each year, as the false trend numbers get further off course. We can see this play out in each of their tables. Consider table 12, insurance premiums for an average single plan. From 2000 to 2005, costs increased by $1500; meanwhile, from 2004 to 2009, costs only increased by $1100. That’s a downward trend. Yet the study claims that the premium rate in 2009 was $215 higher than the trend.
Click here to continue reading

Mitt Romney Interviewed by Mike Huckabee

Gov. Huckabee asked Gov. Romney about healthcare, abortion, and more…

Mitt Romney on Obamacare vs. Romneycare

Would Mitt Romney Be a Pro-Life President?

What Separates Romney from the Rest of the Pack?

It sure is nice to see two rivals seemingly on the same page and both committed to the same goal. It was a tough, but very fair interview that probably gave a lot of voters some insight into Gov. Romney that they didn’t have before. What did you think of the interview?

Quick and Easy Fact-Checking of

Via Twitter I stumbled upon an article at and it only took me 2 minutes to find a major flaw in the numbers that blows open Perry’s claim to be the superior job creator. Team Perry responds to a “false, desperate attack” from Mitt’s team that points out while the US added no jobs to the economy in August under Obama (President Zero), Texas actually lost jobs to the tune of minus 1300 under Perry (Governor Sub-Zero).

The tables of data that provides yield some unintended consequences when placed under the tiniest bit of scrutiny. First, here is the data taken directly from, though I added a row of data (in red) on the second table for analysis purposes:

While Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts (Jan. 2003 – Jan. 2007):
[table "39" not found /]

[table "40" not found /]

Now this is not too difficult to figure out, just look a the “change” columns. In Massachusetts during Romney’s tenure the state population only grew by 6000, but in the same time MA added 39,500 jobs added to the private sector. In Texas on the other hand (Perry as Governor), the population grew by a whopping 1.6 million but only added less than half that amount of jobs in the private sector, about 750,000.

What is the end result? Obviously in MA that equals a much lower unemployment rate, but oddly enough Texas’ unemployment rate dropped as well. Does that mean the “other” jobs created were actually created in the government? Perhaps that could be why Texas’ government spending has doubled while Perry has been Governor.

The Big Question for Perry: Sure Texas is creating a lot of jobs, but is that rate high enough to match the growth in population? If not, unemployment rates will not go down.

The Cold Hard Facts: #1-Unemployment in Texas hit 8.5% last month, the highest it has been in 24 years! #2-The state of Texas also happens to be 46th out of 50 in poverty rate - 28% higher than the national average!!

If that is a fantastic record of economic prowess, then I have a Texas-sized bridge I want to sell you.

Factcheck #2: Team Perry calls Romney’s campaign “flailing”, but according to Rasmussen (and backed by other polls) in the space of one month Perry’s lead over Romney has shrunk from 11% to 4%. One does not “flail” when they are edging up in the polls. Perhaps this article by Team Perry is “flailing” as they are now edging downward.

~Nate G.

Bonus: On twitter Dave Weigel jokes: So if Perry is Governor Sub Zero, that makes Romney Governor Scorpion. #getoverhere

I was stumped by this for awhile until I recalled my junior-high Mortal Kombat video game days.

Sub-Zero and Scorpion square off in Mortal Kombat, ie, the GOP Primary

Many Endorsements from MA for Mitt Romney

Aerial view of downtown Boston, Massachusetts ● Mitt Romney has received a slate of endorsements from legislators in The Bay State. Sept 14, 2021


Yesterday, Mitt Romney announced that he has been endorsed by 33 of the 36 Republicans in the Massachusetts legislature:

I am pleased to announce my endorsements from the Massachusetts legislature,” said Mitt Romney. “For years, I have worked hard with many of these leaders to fight for reform, jobs, and lower spending in Massachusetts. Now, I look forward to working with them during my campaign to get our country on the right track and lead the country out of this economic downturn.”

Announcing his support, House Minority Leader Brad Jones said, “After working closely with Mitt Romney during his time as governor, I know he is the right person to lead our country. Unlike our current president, Mitt Romney had a record of results as governor.”

(emphasis added)

Massachusetts Legislative Endorsements:

Bradley Jones, House Minority Leader
George Peterson, House Assistant Minority Leader
Bradford Hill, House Minority Whip
Elizabeth Poirier, House Assistant Minority Whip
Robert Hedlund, Senate Assistant Minority Leader
Richard Ross, Senate Minority Whip
Paul Adams, State Representative
Jay Barrows, State Representative
Richard Bastien, State Representative
Matthew Beaton, State Representative
Nicholas Boldyga, State Representative
Vinny deMacedo, State Representative
Angelo D’Emilia, State Representative
Geoff Diehl, State Representative
Peter Durant, State Representative
Ryan Fattman, State Representative
Kimberly Ferguson, State Representative
Paul Frost, State Representative
Susan Gifford, State Representative
Sheila Harrington, State Representative
Steven Howitt, State Representative
Donald Humason, State Representative
Randy Hunt, State Representative
Kevin Kuros, State Representative
Steven Levy, State Representative
Marc Lombardo, State Representative
Shaunna O’Connell, State Representative
George Ross, State Representative
Todd Smola, State Representative
David Vieira, State Representative
Daniel Webster, State Representative
Daniel Winslow, State Representative
Donald Wong, State Representative

► Jayde Wyatt