Tag Archives: Romney

Was Romney Wrong?


Was Romney Wrong?

By: Ben Sailors

DALLAS – Mitt Romney, the 2012 presidential candidate, recently has come under fire for sharing his opinion with donors that he believes President Obama won the election by offering “gifts” to certain voting blocs such as women, minorities, and younger voters. He attributed specific things to each group, such as free contraception to college aged women, loan forgiveness for college students, and subsidized healthcare for blacks and Hispanic voters.

Governor Piyush “Bobby” Jindal, of Louisiana, has asserted the he believes Romney’s claims are “absolutely wrong.” He asserted “Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.”

Jindal then pivots to saying “And, secondly, we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education…So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”

In a remarkably astute observation, Jindal concludes that, “Governor Romney’s an honorable person that needs to be thanked for his many years of public service, but his campaign was largely about his biography and his experience. And it’s a very impressive biography and set of experiences. But time and time again, biography and experience is not enough to win an election. You have to have a vision. You have to connect your policies to the aspirations of the American people. I don’t think the campaign did that, and as a result this became a contest between personalities.”

It is difficult to argue that President Obama would not win a contest of personalities between himself and Mitt Romney. While Mitt Romney is an extraordinary man, extraordinary does not connect well with ordinary. Interestingly, Mitt Romney’s assertion that voters connected with the President’s message better than his own, resonates exactly with what Governor Jindal is suggesting as a solution. The President’s policies did connect with the aspirations of the American people, which is why they voted for him. Is Mitt Romney wrong in pointing out that connection?

The real question isn’t whether or not Mitt Romney’s campaign won or lost for the reasons Romney cited, but rather, if Jindal’s description of the American Dream still accurate. Has the American Dream morphed into the American Demand, where entitlement society reigns supreme? Is the real issue that Romney’s policies didn’t connect with aspirations? Or have the American people lowered their aspirations and thus meet more consistently with the President’s policies?

The most important questions may still be: Can anyone inspire a nation to work, that doesn’t need to? Does the Republican message of self sufficiency and work still matter to a nation who increasingly is out of work and subsisting on government welfare?

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , ,

Doth This Offend Thee?: Romney’s 47% Remarks Explained


I want to address this issue clearly and up front.
Let’s start with what Mr. Romney said:

There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement … And they will vote for this president no matter what … These are people who pay no income tax … My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
Okay, now let’s look at this rationally and honestly.
Romney is talking about the bloc of voters who will vote for Obama no matter what. In terms of winning an election, those are individuals that he’ll never be able to win over. He cites them as a group of 47% of Americans. Then he goes on to list their traits of some of their number: those who are dependent, those who feel entitled, those who pay no income tax, etc. These are characteristics of people within those 47%. Not ALL in that 47% exhibit those same characteristics, but those types of people ARE present somewhere inside of that 47%. I believe Romney was expressing his frustration with what I like to call “the leeches of society”.

But let’s get something clear. Romney is NOT in favor of destroying Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. He’s not trying to destroy those programs for those who are in need them now, and wants to make it solvent for people in the future. Social Security is only solvent until 2038. That’s just around the corner for many middle aged workers. What about for people in my generation? The point I’m trying to make is that Romney understands those programs have a place and a use. But his problem is with those that ABUSE that system. Who live off government, leeching unemployment, early retirement, food stamps, etc with NO intention of getting off the programs. They have no goals or ambition to get off the program. We all know people like this exist. I think that’s the disgust Romney was expressing and frankly, I agree with him. I have the same disgust for those who leech off the generosity of others and use tax payers money in selfish ways that provide nothing back to the welfare of the group.

Romney has shown in his life his capacity to serve. He’s helped San Diego fire victims, he’s provided milk to the needy, he’s assisted the Olympic games, served as Governor for a dollar a year. He closed down his business to help an employee find his daughter. He’s raised 5 sons, had the same wife his entire life, and has served in positions in his church that requires enormous amounts of time to be invested for no pay.

Romney does care about the poor and the needy. He wants to help people rise above the situation they are in. He can’t stand those that are willingly bottom feeders who have no drive, ambition, or desire to improve and become less of a burden on society. I agree with him. But that’s not what he was talking about when he said the 47%. The 47% was in regards to the bloc of Americans voting for Obama, and those were some of those voters characteristics. He wasn’t going to stop and break it down into 23% of them are dependent, 12% won’t take accountability, etc. He was making a broad statement, listing some qualities and moving on.

My argument comes down to this: If you think Romney’s comments don’t describe your situation don’t take offense.

Romney knows there are proper uses for government safety net programs. He wants them there. He wants people to get the help they deserve. His disdain was focused on the bottom feeders of society and those who willingly leech off of those who are working hard so they don’t have to. I feel those Americans are immoral and unethical. I think Democrats should feel the same.

Romney didn’t say anything wrong. Fact checks on “Do 47% really not pay taxes” are missing Romney’s argument entirely and it’s a waste of time. Listening comprehension is important and I find it depressing how easily and readily Americans are to take offense.

The only reasons I can believe someone would take offense to Romney’s comments are if they hit home, and people know it’s true, or if they have an axe to grind. If you take offense where non is meant, who’s fault is that?

Tagged , , ,

Romney’s Nuance – A Rebuttal to Boston Catholic Insider


I have to make a short little blog post today as today I saw something very humorous.

At the Arizona debate two days ago, Mitt Romney was asked the question (paraphrased): Did you force Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims in Massachusetts.

Romney said:

“No, absolutely not. Of course not.

There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their part. There was no such requirement.”

Allow me to remind you what Romney also said that night, again paraphrased: “You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want.”

Allow me now to point out a nuance.

Romney never spoke about requiring Catholic hospitals to provide the morning after pill to rape victims. What he spoke about was not requiring the Catholic CHURCH to provide the morning after pill, that was voluntary. Never in the question did Romney actually answer the question. This would be a DODGE, and an extremely nuanced one at that.

But Romney’s too good to just stop there. That doesn’t quite coat the side step enough. No, then he went on to say that Romneycare provides a religious exception (which it does), and that made it sound as if he were saying not only did he not force the Catholic hospitals to give out the morning after pill, he also made is sound as if the hospitals had a choice in the matter.

The trouble with that conclusion is how he made it sound and what he said, aren’t the same thing.  The only thing that could be a “lie” is if “No, absolutely not. Of course not,” was in reference to John King’s question or if it was a preface to the line following it. I think it’s pretty clear that if Romney is going to sidestep the question enough so he can give truthful answer, he wouldn’t start with a blatant lie. So I’ll go with the conclusion it was an attachment to the beginning of the statement, not an answer. I think Romney just answered the question how he “wanted to”.

All that said, let’s point out that the bill in question, Romney was opposed to. He vetoed it. When the Democrats overrode his veto, the law took precedence over the law that existed before, eliminating a religious waiver. As the law stood, Romney had to enforce Massachusetts law, and uphold the Democratic bill. So did he force the Catholic hospitals to provide the pill, personally? No, Democratic law did.

One last thing:

Romney said that in his “heart of hearts” he believed that rape victims should have access to the morning after pill. That is consistent with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the church to which he belongs.

Tagged , , , , ,

Why Romneycare is a Red Herring.


One of Mitt Romney’s challenges in this election is the false idea that Romneycare is something that needs to be explained.

I can’t say this strongly enough: Romneycare is a red herring issue. 

Why?

Several points:

1.) It’s a MA law. It always has been. While Mitt has said it could be a model for the nation, he never said we should do it on a national scale.

2.) Video citing Mitt saying that he’s for Obama making Obamacare and for spreading it into the nation are inevitably taken out of context and not accurate.

3.) Changing his book did NOT change the meaning of what he was saying, in the context he was saying it. It was clarifying and simplifying his position that it could be used nation wide, but that it’s up to the states individually to see if they wanted to use it. Two news outlets (One conservative, one liberal both say that Perry is misleading the public on the issue.)

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/perrys-phony-attack-ad-on-changes-to-romneys-book/2011/09/26/gIQAR4JA0K_blog.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/rick-perry-attacks-on-mitt-romney-book-no-apology_n_982093.html

4.) Romney actually vetoed fees on businesses affected by Romneycare that the Democratic Legislature then overrode him on.

See: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2006/04/26/67613.htm)

5.) He has said repeatedly that he would offer vouchers to allow all states to opt out of Obamacare from day one. This is an important issue. He’s offering a way around Congress to get instant relief to states who don’t want it. Then he’ll go to work repealing it. Anyone who thinks that repealing Obamacare, unless Republicans control the House and Senate, will be easy, is kidding themselves. Romney offers the best way to get Americans relief instantly. Think about that. No other candidate is offering such a quick route to relief than Romney.

6.) Romneycare has not blown a hole in MA’s budget. It is inline with the predictions that MA’s budget committee expected.

See: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

7.) Romneycare is favored three to one as favored in MA. That’s that state’s choice. The job of government is to give the democratic majority what they want. MA got it. Sounds to me like Mitt delivered. PolitiFact ranked Romney’s statement of 3 to 1 as true, and that he has strong support for the claim.

See: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-massachusetts-residents-favor-sta/

There are many, many more reasons to vote for Mitt. I’m not going to bash the other candidates (right now, anyway) but Romneycare should be a non issue. He doesn’t want it on a national level. He gave the people of MA what they wanted, and as a governor, that’s his job. He is not pushing it on the nation, it’s a non issue in this election. Anyone trying to make Romneycare an issue is more interested in hurting Romney and starting a fight then they are in finding a qualified candidate.

Romney gave the people of MA what they wanted. Don’t you wish Washington was doing that for you?

Tagged , , , , , ,

Why Not To Vote For Herman Cain


Let me say this as clearly as possible: Voting for Herman Cain is horrible for America.

Let me explain.

Herman Cain proposes (after his latest amendments) that there be:

1.) 9% Federal Sales Tax

2.) 9% Federal Income Tax (With cuts for the poor)

3.) 9% Value Added Tax or (VAT).

I’m only going to talk about the first two, because that’s what’s relevant to most people reading this.

Let’s start with the 9% Federal Sales tax.

What do you pay for sales tax in your state? Here in Texas it’s 8%.

States impose sales taxes so they can generate revenue to fund the state’s budget. Herman Cain’s plan doesn’t touch this.

So now, he wants a 9% Federal Sales Tax. A 9% sales tax is extremely high to begin with, but then, keep in mind this is on top of your preexisting state sales tax.

In Texas, that would mean an effective 17% sales tax. (8% + 9%)

So for example:

Say you wanted to buy a cheese pizza for $10.00. That’s .80 cents for your state sales tax. Then add another .90 cents for your national sales tax. Your 10.00 pizza is now $11.70.

You say, $1.70, so what? Let’s try it on a 20,000 dollar car. That’s $1600 more dollars for the state, then $1800 more for the federal sales tax. That’s another $3400 dollars!

If that doesn’t convince you, look at your federal tax refund that you got this year. Under Cain’s plan, there are no refunds. So if you got one, your taxes are effectively 0%. If you didn’t get a refund, take how much you paid out of your income (as a percentage) and it’s probably less than 9% of your gross income.

The rich currently pay much more than 9%. People who make 200,000 or more will see an effective cut in taxes while the middle class and low income will see a 9% increase.

Now, Cain said today that he would not throw the poor under the bus.

His taxes would increase the number of homes that are below the poverty line. So he’s making a safety net for the poor, giving cuts for the rich, and adding a 9% increase on the middle class.

Less than 20% of America’s population is self employed, but the self-employed make up 2/3rds of the millionaires in this country. That means the millionaires and business owners will pay less taxes. The idea is that this stimulates growth and creates jobs. But let me ask you something:

Do you think increasing taxes on sold products such as gas, phones, groceries, school supplies, clothes, and toiletries by 9% will increase  consumer spending? Probably not, the more you buy, the more money get’s taken from you.

Do you think putting more money in the pockets of the rich is guaranteed to solve our issues? Probably not.

You can not  vote for Herman Cain and come out ahead. It’s a win-win for the rich, and a lose-lose for the middle class.

I support Romney, but this plan is so dangerous to Americans I’d rather you vote for anyone else. It’s a dangerous and awful idea. Please don’t vote Herman Cain.

Tagged , , , ,

Why The Concept of Republican In Name Only (RINO) Is Elitist.


Dear Republicans,

It’s time we got off our high horse and started living what we preach. We believe in equal opportunity. We believe that all men were created equally. That they are endowed by their creator with certain rights. The first of three of these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Let’s talk about liberty.

Those who subscribe to the attitude of calling individuals who weren’t always Republican RINO’s do so contrary to so many of the issues that plague us today. It’s an attitude that subscribes to the perspective of, “We’re better than them.” “We’re real Republican’s.” “We’re more pure.” This type of a view is toxic and utterly against the concept of America. The purpose of America is to come together to find solutions that work for everyone, not just us. The attitude that someone is not like us so we’re going to turn a blind eye to their strengths and emphasize their weakness is divisive to the Republican party. It segregates the party further, as if the Tea Party hadn’t done it enough already.

The Republican party has been split into (at least) three distinct groups. First, are the traditional Republicans who hail back to the GOP in the days of Reagan and George Bush the Elder. Second, are the Tea Partiers. Third, are the elitist Republicans who try and lift themselves up and above all the rest. These are the individuals who belief that any change a candidate makes is politics is maneuvering, any change in perspective is flip flopping, and any stance that comes closer to their perspective is like trying to break into the “cool club”. It seems the Republican Party demands a man of perfection, who isn’t adaptable, because he’s already perfect. That’s a problem, because no one has ever been that.

The Democrats have more unity in their party than the Republicans do, and it’s not because they’re more patriotic. It’s because they have held on more dearly to the concept that all men were created equal. Republicans who call others RINOs would be well served to remember this is a nation looking for solutions, not elitist attitudes that stifle conversations, candidates, and even presidency’s with illusions of superiority.

I’ll be honest. I wanted to vote for Obama in 2008. I’ve since become more educated on the issues and I doubt you’ll ever see me vote Democratic, unless the Democrat is just much more qualified and capable than the Republican. We’re looking for competence in government. We’ve had plenty of incompetence. Voting only for those who share our views, regardless of the pressing issues of the day and who is best qualified to handle those immediate issues, is what leads to government corruption. It’s clearly a case of “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine.”  We need to be telling government “Handle the issues!”, not “pander to your party to garner votes!” We need to be the dictating force, not the group that gets convinced. We need to find out for ourselves what the issues are, who is best to handle it, then elect that person. The debates are most often used as a way for candidates to slash at each other rather than showing voters what they’re truly like. Watching them on MSNBC is more telling than watching them in a political death trap like Presidential debates. The desperate get crazy and the smart shut their mouths as much as possible unless they can land a punch or get a cheer.

Further, those who decide to move to the Republican party don’t do it for votes. It’s much easier to get Democratic votes. It’s a snake charmer’s sell. “It’s not your fault you lost your job. It’s not your fault you’re broke. It’s not your fault you’re in debt. It’s all the government! Elect me, we’ll take care of you. We’ll get you Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment checks, and government housing. Don’t worry about it! We got you! Vote for me!”

The concept that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are RINOs subscribes to the attitude, we’re better than they are. It says “We care more about satisfying our personal tastes than the problems facing the nation.” It’s stomping all over the freedom the candidates have as citizens and the ability for them to pursue happiness, as protected by the writing of our founding fathers. Goodness knows that candidate field isn’t always ideal, but there’s more to choosing a president than satisfying bias, elitism, and pride.

We should have more pride in our country, not our party. More pride in the stellar candidates this country has been able to field. We should focus on strengthening our position as a party. Uniting sooner, rather than later, around a candidate so we can get as many votes as possible to beat Obama and get our country on the right track again. But one thing is for sure, worrying about who’s a “real” member of your party and who’s honestly trying to help America with their time, talent, and skills are two entirely different things.

And one is much more noble than the other.

Tagged , , , , , ,