UPDATE: More stories about Mitt’s character below the fold!
Lots has been said on our site over the past year or so about Mitt the man. But an article from Deroy Murdock appeared in the National Review today entitled “The Decency of Mitt: The Real Romney is Emerging” that reminds me of one of the reasons I support Mitt: his character.
Mr. Murdock starts by pointing out, as a number of commentators now have, that one of the reasons for Mitt’s rise in the polls was the stark contrast between Team Obama’s version of Mitt and reality. With many not happy with Obama’s job performance, their strategy was to paint Mitt as negatively as possible and make people willing to choose the “devil you know.” That strategy, backed up by ceaseless Democrat pounding during the summer and a hundred million dollars in advertising, seemed to be working well, until, well, voters met the real Mitt in the debates.
Why is Mitt Romney rising? Americans who watched the GOP nominee debate President Obama never met the cold, greedy, sexist, racist, carcinogenic tax cheat that Team Obama promised would appear. The calm, steady, and reasonable gentleman who opposed Obama was no Gordon Gekko.
Americans might like Romney even more if they understood his random acts of kindness and significant feats of bravery. As Mara Gay, Dan Hirschhorn, and M. L. Nestel wrote for TheDaily.com: “A man weighed down by the image of a heartless corporate raider who can’t relate to people actually has a history of doing remarkably kind things for those in need.”
So let me continue to introduce you to the real Mitt. I’ve put out a couple posts on this topic in the past. One was the largely unfiltered account of the person who bought a house from Mitt. By this man’s telling, Mitt stayed behind to personally walk him through the home, which the buyer had purchased lock, stock and barrel. He came away from the experience with such an appreciation for Mitt’s character that he felt compelled to reach out to the media. Here’s a news report of that story:
Another post was my personal account from occasional interactions with the Romney and Davies families. Bottom line: they’re fantastic people. When looking for someone to cut the fat out of Washington DC, I look at Mitt as the ideal candidate. He is more wealthy than I ever imagine I’ll be, just like the Federal government can be by taxing and borrowing, but the frugality and discipline with which he and his children live their lives indicates an appreciation for the resulting responsibility. I want someone in Washington who has a demonstrated ability to rein in his personal finances. And if I may continue, I first got involved with Mitt’s campaign back in 2007, when I told my friend, his son Matt, if his dad decided to run that I wanted to help. What compelled me was what I’d seen his dad accomplish in Massachusetts working with an 85%+ Democrat state legislature. If he could reach across the aisle in Massachusetts, adopt healthcare reform and balance their budget, maybe he could break through the gridlock in Washington? Four years has taught us that President Obama has been unable to do what he promised on this score: work together with Congress. Mitt’s record indicates he can.
If you’re like me you may have missed a story a couple weeks ago that has broader ramifications than you may have originally thought.
You may recall that “sequestration” is the collection of automatic budget cuts proposed by the White House and agreed to under duress by Congress as part of the debt ceiling negotiations. The cuts go into effect on January 2 unless Congress and the President act. Kind of like a spending cut time bomb: the White House extracted this concession in exchange for its agreement to increase the debt ceiling, with the hope it could get Congress to accept other less terrible cuts and tax increases later. That plan has backfired, however, and we’re left with the real possibility of the president’s sequestration time bomb going off. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said these cuts would have a “catastrophic” effect on national security, “like shooting ourselves in the head.”
As a result, businesses, especially defense contractors, are now preparing to lay off up to one million workers. A friend I spoke with yesterday told me at his company no one knows if they’ll have a job come January 2. Usually these workers would not have to wait until the day the layoffs occur to know their fate. Under a Federal law called the “WARN Act,” companies with 100 or more employees must give workers 60 days notice before a layoff of the lesser of 1/3 or 500 people. Failure to provide the notice can result in significant exposure to employee lawsuits. To avoid these costs, companies would need to notify workers of a pending layoff by November 2, 2012.
Well, that’s terribly inconvenient timing for the president. Friday November 2 is the Friday before the election. It’d be a real bummer for a million voters to get pink slips four days before voting. Not wanting to let a good law get in the way of re-election, the Obama administration on July 30, through Jane Oates, assistant secretary in the Labor Department, issued “guidance” advising companies they need not comply with the WARN Act if they’re contemplating sequestration layoffs. Effectively the administration advised defense contractors to not tell employees they’re about to get fired. Never mind the reason behind the Act that employees should be given a fair heads’ up. According to Obama, that law “shouldn’t” apply if the Department of Labor says it doesn’t.
But it gets worse. Many companies saw the advice from the Department of Labor and said they were going to provide the notices anyway, since ultimately whether they violated the law, and had to pay related penalties, would be determined not by the Department of Labor, but the courts. These companies’ exposure was estimated to be as much as $4 billion, plus inestimable other expenses (see below). So, having not been convincing enough, on September 28, on the letterhead of the “Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget” the Obama administration went even further and agreed to pick up the tab for these companies’ failing to comply with the law. In other words, if these companies rely on the DOL’s advice, fail to timely provide WARN Act notices, and lay off employees with no warning whatsoever on January 2, Obama has volunteered to pay, at taxpayer expense, all resulting costs, including penalties, judgements and legal fees. Did I say this was at taxpayer expense? Click here to continue reading →
Presidential politics is serious. But sometimes we need comic relief from the political world for a few moments. This impersonation of President Obama is outstanding. In this video, President Obama informs us of four important facts:
Concerns he has about Vice President Joe Biden;
The reason President Obama is running for reelection;
How he plans to bring the unemployment rate down further, and
Why the TSA folks at the airports wear the rubber gloves.
Why do Obama’s promises seem so familiar? Because they’re the same “tired old rhetoric” he used back in 2008. Will we learn he doesn’t have the ability to keep his promises? Or are you ready for Obama Part II: weakening image abroad, Obamacare unrepealed, a 5-4 liberal advantage on the Supreme Court and a president unprepared to lead and unaccountable to the people?
Topic: Foreign and domestic policy Date and Time: Thursday, October 11, 9:00-10:30 PM EST Location: Centre College in Danville, Kentucky Elevation: 1022 ft. Moderator:Martha Raddatz ABC News’ Chief Foreign Correspondent
The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.
Today we launched a campaign called “I’m comMITTed” (read the important introductory post here.) As part of this campaign we want to highlight the experiences that many of you are having while you are make phone calls, post signs, volunteer at campaign offices, etc.
We want to hear your story! Each day we will highlight a different Romney supporter and post their story on our blog. Tell us how you’ve been helping, any interesting experiences you’ve had, and of course send us your pictures and videos.
Persons whose story we select to feature will win a free t-shirt and sticker from our store! Send those submissions to email@example.com. Be sure to include your name (we will only publish your first name), your city and state, and put “guest submission” in subject line. Please note: we may edit submissions for grammar, spelling, and length.
A local campaign office in Virginia
Today’s submission comes from the Commonwealth of Virginia! Since we hadn’t requested any submissions yet I asked my in-laws if they would tell a bit of their recent trip to the local campaign office. Here they are:
My husband and I hooked up with a GOTV group in Northern Virginia last weekend. We were a little scared at first as this was our first time being involved in politics and our first time door knocking. But we feel like the future of our country is at stake in this election.
What a great experience! First of all, we felt like we were finally making a difference. Even though we live fairly close to DC in a mostly blue area, the people we met were generally receptive. The best news – of the people we canvassed, Romney had a huge lead over Obama despite what the polls may say.
We are excited to try it again this weekend!
We’re comMITTed! Linda, Fairfax, VA
I went out knocking on doors with a gentleman from Texas who had traveled to Virginia to help recruit the undecided voters. He said, “Texas is in the bag, but you guys in Virginia need some help. So I’m here.” All of the doors we knocked were either pro-Romney or were truly undecided – in which case we left a pamphlet. It was a non-threatening approach, but it told me a lot about the percentage of undecided voters who are really in favor of Romney.
One interesting episode. As we walked down the street, a man was literally running towards us from behind. When he got to us, I noticed that he had an “Our Lady of Sorrows” T-shirt. He was a former FBI agent who said he was disappointed that only his wife got to express her opinions when we knocked on their door. He said he has mailed a letter to EVERY Catholic Bishop in the United States, telling them that every Priest should be telling their parishioners to vote for Romney. I asked him, as a former Justice department employee, to tell me how he feels about Eric Holder. Well, he got red-in-the-face and then explained to me in very clear language that he felt Holder is a disgrace to the Department.
My afternoon was a small sample, but it was very encouraging to me. David, Fairfax, VA
Thanks! Send your experiences and pictures to firstname.lastname@example.org and win a free t-shirt and sticker!
Yesterday’s headlines were all over the map on this, and yet I get the impression this is viewed as a minor story by the main stream media.
Despite claims to the contrary early on, and President Obama’s reticence to use the actual words, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney both admitted yesterday that what happened in Libya was a terrorist attack, not just a protest gone wrong. Meanwhile questions are arising about what the White House knew and when, and whether this was about a hack job of a movie at all.
Here’s a link to the video of an interview the House Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, and the text of the related article:
Larry Kudlow is hearing from his beltway sources that the President may have put politics ahead of national security in the wake of the Libya attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Kudlow, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and other skeptics charge the administration deceived the nation when it said the attacks had not been planned in advance.
Those same skeptics say the administration via UN Ambassador Susan Rice deliberately downplayed events in Libya to preserve Obama’s image as the President who had won the war on terror by killing Osama Bin Laden.
“They sent (Susan Rice) out for political reasons,” said King on The Kudlow Report. “The Obama administration wants people to believe that the war against terror is over.”
In other words, if the White House admitted Libya was a terror attack – it would have called the campaign message into question – something Democratic strategists didn’t want to do.
Instead, the GOP says the administration shifted attention to a movie that depicted Islam’s prophet Muhammad in an unflattering light – a movie that sparked protests in Egypt – knowing that was not the catalyst.
“They wanted people to believe the violence was caused by a few malcontents,” King explained, but it was actually something much more sinister.
“They don’t want the appearance that Al Qaeda has come back but the truth is Al Qaeda has never gone away,” said King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
“I see this as nothing short of a cover up,” added Larry Kudlow.
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton shares the sentiment.
“The administration could have said from the beginning, ‘We don’t know all the facts, and therefore, we’re not ruling out any potential explanation,'” said Bolton in a published interview.
“But that’s not what they did. They came down in the midst of great uncertainty and said it was spontaneous. It was not terrorism.”
Now, however, as reported in the Examiner, the White House is quietly admitting that yes, it’s “self-evident” this was a terrorist attack. And they expect this change in tone to go unnoticed. As reported in the Examiner:
“You know what else is self-evident? That the Obama administration is full of liars,” Twitchy said Thursday.
“For a week, they lied to the American people and blamed a movie, condemning free speech time and time again, for the murder of four Americans in Libya and for embassy attacks across the globe,” Twitchy added.
CBS reported Thursday morning that witnesses said “there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account of the incident.”
The CBS report also said “that the public won’t get a detailed account of what happened until after the election.”
Here’s that CBS report:
A major question is whether the film had anything whatsoever to do with the attack, or if it was a White House distraction from the beginning.
In a Boston Herald op ed entitled “How the Truth Hurts Hence White House Avoids it,” Michael Graham says Jay Carney’s explanation of events doesn’t pass his “teenage son” test. Click here to continue reading →
As we’ve all heard by now President Obama has finally admitted that while hope died out quite a while ago, change has now died along with it.
The clip of Obama’s actual statement is the first video clip at this link below.
Now I try to give people a little slack when they make comments that I feel are being misconstrued. For example, do I think Mitt really believes 47% of the country are freeloaders? No, I really don’t. My Mitt translator tells me Mitt was describing the size of the 47% Democratic base, the fact that lowering taxes is less likely to appeal to many of the 47% of the people who are non-taxpayers, and that some voters are honestly not convincible because they’re unlikely to vote against their pocketbooks. Are those people all Democrats? No. Does that group make up 47% of the populace? I don’t think Mitt really thinks that. In the setting of a fundraiser, where the comments are less precise (remember Obama’s “god and guns”?) Mitt just ran those concepts together. I can cut him some slack on that, knowing I could easily do the same, and I know President Obama and Joe Biden have said much worse. And Mitt made clear he thinks there’s a legitimate debate to be had about creating dependency rather than jobs, and that true success will be in growing the entire economy so that all succeed rather than focusing on redistribution of wealth (which has never worked). But do I think he believes half of the country are freeloaders? Absolutely not. Is there a large percent of Dems who won’t vote for a Republican no matter what? Yes. Those are the people he was saying he can’t worry about trying to please in an election. Of course once you’re president, it’s different: Mitt’s said as much before. If elected he’d be the president of everyone, not a subgroup.
So now, since I’m in a generous mood, I think it’s appropriate to analyze President Obama’s latest misstatement.
Now admittedly as a Mitt fan I’m happy to zing President Obama a bit on the face value of his words, just as Obama fans like to do to Mitt. And lest anyone misunderstand, let no one say Mitt’s any more prone to misstatement than President “you didn’t build that” Obama or Joe “put y’all back in chains” Biden.
Part of Obama’s statement is honestly shocking: the candidate who entered office on a wave of “hope and change” and “change you can believe in” has now come to the conclusion, even calling it the “most important lesson” he learned in the last four years (seriously?), that he can’t change Washington from the inside. Ouch. Click here to continue reading →