Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Friday, 10 August 2012

Time for Romney to Go Bold

Stephen F Hayes and William Kristol have an article in "The Weekly Standard" that has been causing a fair bit of discussion.  If you haven't read it already, go take a look because I think it sums up the choice that Mitt Romney faces before him.

I've made it clear before that I would pick Condoleezza Rice in a heartbeat, but it seems that that is not the case, mainly because she has been listed to speak formally at the convention in a different capacity.  Bah!

So Kristol and Hayes propose that the four candidates left are:

1. Paul Ryan
2. Marco Rubio
3. Rob Portman
4. Tim Pawlenty

Other sources, such as this morning's Wall Street Journal, having pointed to a possible option of Chris Christie, but let's keep it to these four because I think Christie is just a bit of wishful thinking - I can't foresee a situation where Romney picks Christie.

The first two are identified as "bold" picks, while the latter two are "safe" picks.  While I agree with the separation, I'd be more likely to label Portman and Pawlenty as disastrous picks, while the only two viable options out of these four are Ryan and Rubio.

My reasoning is thus: basic poll analysis tells us that it's tight, with Obama probably having an ever-so-slight edge based on the various swing-states he can win.  There are a few possible factors that can boost Romney into victory, and he needs them.  They include the unemployment numbers (which won't be going down significantly anytime soon), issues to do with money (O is already spent up), the debates (maybe, maybe not) and the convention, where the challenger will always attract more attention than the incumbent.

One of the ways he could take advantage of the prospect for a boost from the convention is by picking someone interesting as a VP, the same way in which Palin attracted interest initially in 08.  Romney's biggest weakness at the moment is that he is dull, and so what he doesn't need is more dullness from a Portman or Pawlenty who, frankly, bring nothing to the table.

If Romney had a 10 point lead, I'd say go for the safe choice, don't rock the boat, and let's coast to victory.  But Romney can't afford to coast to victory, this race is tight, tight, tight.  He needs to spice it up, and take advantage of the possible boost.

He has given a great case for why Obama shouldn't be president.  Now he needs to bring attention to why Romney should be President.  One of the great ways to do this is to fire a bolt of interest into the campaign by picking a Rubio or a Ryan (preferably Ryan, but that's for another blog post), and take advantage of the opportunity to tell America why the Romney ticket is something that people should really be excited to vote for.



Thursday, 2 August 2012

Let America Be America Again

Great new ad by Scott Brown.  If I were Romney, I'd ask to replace the last set of clips from Brown to Romney at the end and I'd run it nationally!  It shows not only how far Obama is disconnected from the ideas that made America great, but also how far he is from other Democrats including Clinton and even Carter!  Great ad!


Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Dirty Harry's Slur Shows Democrat's Desperation

Remember when the Democrats were all about civility and "tone"?  Remember all the finger-wagging and head-shaking we were subjected to by Obama and friends after Rep. Giffords was shot?  Yeh?  Well, apparently that's well and truly out of the window now.

This week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has come out in an interview with HuffPo and claimed that Romney's father (who is deceased) would be ashamed of his son.  Classy, Dirty Harry!

Now, obviously this is shameful behaviour.  Saying to anyone in any situation that their deceased parent would be ashamed of them is reprehensible.  I'm not one to bang on about tone, but this shot is just low, and well out of order for anyone with even an iota of self respect.

But the more interesting question is why.  Why did Dirty Harry fire this one out? It clearly isn't going to benefit him in any way, even  he can realize that it will more likely disgust people than give them a reason to vote O in November.  So why do it?

The answer to this is simple - the American left are panicking right now, and they should be.  With just over 3 months to go until the election polls are tight, but this doesn't tell the whole story.

At time of writing Rasmussen has Romney leading Obama by 47-44.  Gallup basically has a dead heat, and other polls have round about the same numbers, either a close race, or Obama or Romney leading by a point or two.  I gesture towards Rasmussen as they go off "likely voters" so produce a more accurate picture. We also know from electoral history that undecided voters are more likely to break against a sitting President, so that makes things even worse for Barry O.

However, the Obama campaign has a significant number of things to worry about just with their campaign.  The first is that they are already resorting to negative ads in July.  Negative ads are not unusual, but they usually come in greater quantity later in the campaign, and are usually a hallmark of a challenger not an incumbent -- who should have a record to brag about.

For them to be resorting to negative attacks this early suggests that Obama's gang know they have no achievements on which to rest a campaign, and so can only smear Romney.  What's worse is that it isn't working - the Bain attacks have made nothing more than a minor dent in the numbers, and they were a pretty weak attack to begin with.  Did they really think that with 8%+ unemployment and $15 trillion debt, that anyone cares what Mitt was up to in 1999?

In addition, reports are coming out that the Obama campaign is not only being significantly out-raised by Romney, but that the Democrats have already spent a large amount of their dwindling war chest, so much so that they are already running a deficit..  Simply put, they have played their best card, used a huge chunk of cash to do so, and Romney is still ahead.

It appears that Obama's campaign is running out of money, has played what it feels is its best attack, and have no achievements to spout.  Meanwhile Romney still has the VP pick, the Convention and a huge war chest to be spent on tv ads, all that can be relied on to give the Republican a significant shot in the arm in the polls.  With a possible European meltdown coming up in the next few months to top it all off, things look very bad for Obama.  An October with rising unemployment, stale arguments from the Dems, and new aggressive, well-funded attacks from the Republicans look likely.  The Democrats are understandably cracking up.

It is with this in mind that we must look at Reid's hideous attacks.  Yes they are tasteless, but they must be seen what they are - attacks from politicians who know that their goose is cooked. They are desperate, out of money, and out of ideas.  Expect more frenzied, hysterical attacks as America's left begin to act more and more like cornered rats and aim for the throat.

Romney should keep his cool and keep doing what he is doing - we are winning...


Sunday, 29 July 2012

Condoleezza Rice Should be the Next VP.

The following is a blog post I wrote for "The American Thinker" a few weeks ago.  I am fully aware that the odds favor Rubio being the pick, and I don't doubt that he would be a good choice, but I think Condi definitely has to be seen as a good prospect.  Anyway, here are my four reasons for why Rice would make the perfect VP pick for Romney.  The article in its entirety can be found here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To focus on Condoleezza Rice's skin color or her gender is to miss why she would be the perfect VP pick for Mitt Romney.
On Thursday evening, "The Drudge Report" reported the rumor that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was being considered by the Romney campaign as a potential pick for Vice President.  Predictably, talk has focused on the fact that Rice is African-American and a woman, with a Washington Post op-ed framing her as the "anti-Palin."
While these are certainly factors to consider -- anything that could make a dent in Obama's unfathomable domination of the black community would be welcome -- it is folly to focus on these as Rice's strengths.  I propose that she has four characteristics that make her the perfect choice for Romney's running mate.
Foreign Policy Background
Rice's biggest strength by a mile is also Romney's biggest weakness -- knowledge and experience of foreign policy.  Romney's two pillars of experience are his work in the private sector and his time as the governor of Massachusetts.  While perfectly serviceable credentials, and certainly much stronger than the man currently occupying the White House, they contain no foreign policy background. 
This is exemplified in Romney's book "No Apology."  The chapters on domestic policy are written with large helpings of personal experience, while the foreign policy sections rely almost exclusively on secondary sources.  His international arguments are sound, but reek of speculation.
Possibly for this reason, the Romney campaign has shied away from sinking its teeth into Obama's dismal record abroad, for it knows that the Democrat's attack will be "Obama knows what it's like to make these decisions - Romney doesn't."
Rice is a game changer here.  First as National Security Advisor from 2001-2005 and then as Secretary of State from 2005-2009, Rice played a fundamental role in forming foreign policy during the Bush Administration.  Although these roles contained failures as well as successes, it means the Republicans would have a VP pick who (in terms of time served) has more foreign policy experience than the current President.
It would form a devastating tag team whereby Romney could savage the President for his dismal domestic record, and then step back while Rice takes apart his foreign policy "achievements."
Executive Branch Experience at the National Level
Linked closely to Ms. Rice's background in foreign policy is the fact that she held the office of Secretary of State between 2005 and 2009 and therefore has national experience in the executive branch.  This again fills in for one of Romney's imperfections - that he has no experience at the national level. 
While this is by no means a weakness (many presidential candidates do not), Rice's time as the third-highest official in the executive branch not only rule out questions of whether the VP pick is "ready" for the job, it also intensifies the spotlight on the current President's complete lack of previous qualifications. 
When the Republican's Vice Presidential nominee could argue that she has more experience under her belt than a sitting President, it would be an uncomfortable situation for the Democrats to say the least.
Likeability
Although the Palin experience tells us how quickly popular poll numbers can change, it is undeniable that Rice's numbers are astonishingly high among both Republicans and the public at large for a nationally well-known political figure. 
In a CNN poll of Republicans in April, she held an 80% approval rating - which seems to dismiss concerns that her soft tendencies on issues like abortion could upset grassroots conservatives.  This, with the fact that the Obamacare Supreme Court decision has fired up conservatives on an unprecedented level, should quell the fears of anyone worried that a Romney-Rice ticket wouldn't mobilize the base.  They are mobilized to the teeth, and a Rice pick won't change that.
Yet it is her likeability with the public at large that should raise eyebrows.  Among likely US voters, Rasmussen reports that Condi has a 66% favorability rating, with 32% viewing her Very Favorably.  Only 24% have a somewhat or Very Unfavorable view of her. 
It is for this reason I disagree with Erick Erickson who dismisses her for her connection to Bush.  Yes, Ms. Rice is connected to the Bush administration, but she has managed not to be tainted by it.  It's the best of both worlds for conservatives.
Argument/Rhetoric
This last point is probably the point in which she is the least unique, as there are a whole host of candidates who have solid rhetorical skills and who are good in a debate.  Yet the fact that it is just another feather in her cap as opposed to a defining characteristic -- as is the case with someone like Chris Christie -- proves what a strong candidate Condi is.
As an academic, Rice knows how to make her point clearly, in a concise and professional manner, and with passion.  Although judgments on these matters are largely subjective, rumors that her recent speech in Park City led to two standing ovations amongst Republican elites, and immediately put her at the top of Romney's list, give weight to this claim.
Condi also brings an unflappable calmness in the face of intense criticism that allows her to stop an attack in its track and deconstruct the opposition argument in a way that can be truly breathtaking.  I saw her at a book signing a few years ago at which she was heckled by a number of screaming liberals throughout.  Each time she'd let them speak before annihilating their talking points with a polite smile, in the same way she has been filmed doing time and time again.  A debate between Rice and Joe Biden would be a bloodbath.

Therefore, Condoleezza Rice has a wealth of experience that would both compensate for Romney's weaknesses and open up new avenues of attack against Obama, she is hugely popular with both Republicans and the public at large, and we know that she is going to be a fierce foe in any debate in which she participates.
There is no need to discuss her skin color or her gender to know that Condoleezza Rice would be an incredibly effective pick for VP.  Yes, it's a bold move, but should Romney stick his neck out on this one, Ms. Rice could prove to be a game changer who could deliver a landslide for the Republicans in November.

Saturday, 9 July 2011

The Conservative's Guide to the Republican Primaries: Part 1

Although the Republican nomination for the next Presidential election will not be chosen until early 2012, those who intend to run for the position are beginning to make themselves known, with two notable debates taking place over the last month. Over the next two article, I’m going to give a brief rundown of some of the main candidates.

Mitt Romney

If you were a betting man or woman, the wise money would be on Romney. The former businessman and governor of Massachusetts was a strong candidate for the 2008 nomination, but just missed out to John McCain, and therefore has been named “the establishment choice.” Strong in debates, good with the media, generally solid on conservative issues and with a somewhat presidential look about him, he has the potential to be a strong candidate for 2012. He has three big problems facing him; the first is the Massachusetts’ healthcare law he passed, dubbed “Romneycare”. With one of Obama’s weaknesses being his unpopular healthcare reforms, Romney will find it difficult to take advantage of that particular weakness due to the similarities between the two laws. His second problem is linked to the first – many conservatives are sceptical about whether he is a “true” conservative; with commentators pointing both to Romneycare, and to his flip-flopping on the subject of abortion. Finally, his Mormon faith – although more common in the USA than the UK – is still perceived by many Americans as weird, and will also make the evangelical segment of the conservative grassroots uncomfortable. Romney is still the bookies favourite, but he is by no means perfect, nor is he a shoe-in.

Michelle Bachmann

Unfairly, Congresswoman Bachmann was, until a few months ago, seen by many as a poor man’s Sarah Palin. A darling of the Tea Party, the ex tax attorney and mother of 5 (as well as foster carer of 23) was known for her strong conservatism, combatative stances on issues, and fiercely polemic rhetoric against the Democrats and the current President, and was seen as much more of a fringe candidate – possibly second in line to Palin. Yet her performances in the Republican presidential debates have been outstanding, and she was considered by many (including this writer) to have easily won the most recent debate. A lot more straight-laced and less folksy than Palin, and with a fiercer, clearer speaking style as well as a successful record of leading and getting things done in Congress, Bachmann has the potential to be a powerful candidate. She is still an outsider, but as is a rising star within the GOP who is even beginning to eclipse the once mighty Sarah Palin, it is by no means impossible that she could gain the nomination.

Tim Pawlenty

In any set of candidates, there is always one about whom there is little to say. Tim Pawlenty fits that role perfectly. The governor of Minnesota is running on a strongly conservative campaign, but it is sometimes difficult to tell due to his flat language and often poor delivery. His emphasis has been on social issues, specifically on opposing gay marriage and on limiting abortion for all but the most extreme cases. This could easily be a misstep, as the conservative mood at the moment tends to be less concerned with social issues and more concerned with the economy. Also, however socially conservative he may be, Bachmann will always match him, and do it convincingly. Some conservatives have also questioned his conservative credentials, pointing to some large tax-hikes as governor, a state-wide smoking ban and mandatory ethanol mixtures with gasoline. Ultimately, Pawlenty is supported by those who believe that all that is needed to win 2012 is to elect a standard candidate who won’t rock the boat and who will point to Obama’s failings. Those of us who believe that it will need more than that to beat Obama will want someone other than this uninspiring governor.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is the true radical of the Republican Party; he is best described as an out and out libertarian as opposed to a conservative. Famously given the motto by The Onion – “Fiscally I’m a right-wing nutjob, but on social issues I’m f**king insanely liberal”, this sums up Paul’s strengths and weaknesses at the same time. He has shown himself to have a broad base of support that reaches out well beyond traditional areas of Republican support. His fierce dedication to the free market and his small government, low tax economics makes him attractive to conservatives, while his isolationist foreign policy stance and social liberalism on issues such as gay marriage and drugs (but not abortion – he is pro-life) opens his appeal up to many on the left as well. Yet, while he has been winning straw poll after straw poll, leading many to believe he can win the nomination, his broad base is also his potential weakness. A Ron Paul presidential run risks falling between two stools by failing to appeal to conservatives due to his socially liberal policies and pacifist foreign policy, while failing to appeal to the left due to his economic policies. Simply put, a Ron Paul run would be an enormous gamble, and could result in a landslide for the Republicans, or an easy second term for Obama – there is no middle ground with Ron Paul.

Herman Cain

The Baptist minister and former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza is easily the character of the bunch so far. Sounding strangely like Samuel L Jackson (one is waiting for him to yell “They speak English in What?” at any moment), Cain has won many people over with his straight-talking yet jocular debating style. The unique appeal of the only black candidate currently running lies in his success in the private sector: he boasts that he is not a know-it-all politician, but instead a business man who knows how to get the right people in to get things done. In a straw poll as to who won the first Republican presidential debate, Cain won easily and has support from both the Republican mainstream and from the Tea Party. His strength is certainly his private sector experience, as well as his excellent debating style which leads many conservatives to believe he could destroy Obama in the debates. His biggest weakness is that his jocular style means people don’t take him seriously as a candidate. Additionally, his unusual claim that he would be uncomfortable appointing Muslims in his Cabinet as they may support Sharia Law is one that has drawn criticism from all sides of the political spectrum, and leaves many wondering whether Cain is a lunatic disguised as a legitimate candidate. Cain is still an outsider, but not be dismissed outright.