Romney Compares His Work at Bain to Obama's GM Bailout!

In a this 2012 general election there are certain comparisons that should not be made, not even in jest, especially by "establishment" GOP Candidate - Mitt Romney, and that is to compare himself to the President. Not only is Romney known as a progressive (who would lose the 60 plus vote in Massachsuetts in a heartbeat - that's another story), but he's gone on the record (CBS not Fox) as running Bain just like Obama ran the Auto Bailout. This is why it is sensible not to crown a frontrunner after only one mediocre win in the first caucus, and one fair win in one of the man's home state's.

Complete video and more from http://thehill.com/video/campign/203497-romney-likens-work-at-bain-to-obamas-auto-industry-bailout

Romney Wins New Hampshire, Paul Strong Second, Romney's PAC Heads South - Analysis and Commentary

Romney Takes 86,000 of 186,000 votes in New Hampshire Primary – Romney Super PAC Moves to FL – Ron Paul Strong Showing, Gingrich & Perry Move to Friendly Territory



Romney, Gingrich and Paul at a debate, the Debate will be the national Ad that makes or breaks the General Election Race - image: Huffington Post

The full New GOP Hampshire Primary Results are in at the New Hampshire Union Leader, placing first was Mitt Romney taking over one in two votes casts in the Granite State, where he has campaign since 2006. Romney was expected to win New Hampshire, along with Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman who had strong campaigns on the ground for extended periods of time. Ron Paul came in a decisive second with 48,000 plus votes, followed by Jon Huntsman at 35,000 (approximate) and Newt Gingrich 4th, besting Rick Santorum by fewer than 100 votes, Rick Perry, who had not set foot in the state, with the exception of the debates, came in 6th.

The big story was Ron Paul’s strong showing – although Paul was not physically present in the state for the same amount of time that Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney (by virtue of having one of his homes there), were, it was his massive organization that brought the strong second place finish to the Paul Campaign. CNN (who had the best comprehensive and unbiased coverage of this debate), offered several bells and whistles for political junkies, including a focus group from South Carolina that judged each candidates speech, allowing viewers to watch a “line” of approval or disapproval, separated by gender, as the candidates each gave their post primary results speech, along with demographics as to how well each candidate did among specific voter groups. Paul, who did not gender great enthusiasm, but respectable enthusiasm from the focus group, also attracts the highest percentage of independent voters, which would be a large plus in a general election. Romney’s speech was spot on, more meat than policy; however, he cannot garner the enthusiasm that projects any charisma whatsoever, coming off more as flat and more boring that Rick Santorum’s sweater vest. The Focus Groups dial moved erratically up and down as he was speaking. It was anticipated that Romney would win New Hampshire, he had placed second in 2008, against John McCain, and therefore, it was the 2nd, 3rd and 4th placements that were most interesting.

Jon Huntsman, while giving his speech, basically “flat-lined” with the focus group – garnering almost zero enthusiasm with those South Carolinians who were watching the post debate speakers, while the greatest enthusiasm came for Newt Gingrich, who spoke after Santorum (who also did not do well with the focus group) - Gingrich knows where his territory lay, and it was never in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Of note, in Romney’s speech he not only attacked the President (as he has all along) but also those rivals who he characterized as “desperate Republican’s”, specifically targeting Gingrich for running ads against Romney. To set the record straight from a Massachusetts point of view: (Read Romney’s Super PAC goes in for the Kill) Romney’s Super Pac is a large part of his campaign, and under the PAC a destroy Newt Gingrich approach was taken in Iowa and it worked. The ads were not overly factual however, very effective as Gingrich took a higher road, and responded only after the Caucus was over.

Once the group of candidates were headed to New Hampshire, the gloves came off, and Gingrich began to take a different tactic – as well as having a Super Pac of his own that began to target Romney – As Romney was the favorite in New Hampshire and with the beltway pundits, which now include, of all people, Rush Limbaugh, (A startling revelation to understand that Rush Limbaugh is not an independent right ring conservative, rather a cheerleader for the party dogma - thus giving Hilary Clinton points for being right in part- it was not a vast right wing conspiracy, it was just the GOP learning that the airwaves were very effective.) Gingrich hit a populist tone going into New Hampshire, critical of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, and how these types of leverage buyout groups work. This may “sound like a Democrat” to Romany fan, but it is a simple fact that in some instances, corporations raid other corporations for the money, and leave human capital in shambles. This is not an issue for Democrats alone, and one can bet the house that the Obama campaign will focus on Bain and the personal disasters the group caused – they merely need to pull out the old Ted Kennedy 1994 Senate Campaign ads, to do just that.

That is Romney’s baggage, that and his record on taxes, along with his record of no job creation in MA, and no one knows what was released when the Attorney General of Massachusetts, gave full access to Romney’s sealed gubernatorial papers. Romney tried hard to block that action but failed. One has to understand that Galvin would give that information gladly to the first Democrat operative that came calling. The problem with Romney in taking the fight to Obama is that he does have baggage, just like Gingrich, but his baggage spans from 1990 to 2008, while Gingrich’s record is up for review from the 1990’s. This battle will continue in South Carolina, where it should get interesting. The fact that some pundits are noting that Gingrich’s sole purpose in the camping is to stop Romney have been drinking the GOP Kool-Aid, Gingrich is in the campaign, like Santorum, Like Perry, like Paul and like Huntsman because it is clearly evident those candidates feel they were called to run. In the case of Romney, one wonders if he is there to serve his ego or the nation.

It is evident this blog is not a huge fan of Romney, but one must consider that this blog is generated from Massachusetts, and by a Conservative Moderate, who leans both right and left at times, depending upon the issue. As a resident under Romney, it was evident he balanced the budget on the backs of the taxpayers, instituted social programs that were anathema to anyone who has an ounce of Conservatism in them, and the only thing that one positive that one can remember is the fact that he refused to give state security to an Al Queda sympathizer who was speaking at Harvard.

Therefore, one understands, within the state, the extreme moderate that makes Romney the perfect John McCain. Does the GOP really want John McCain’s doppelganger to head the ticket? Possibly, they are more interested in taking back the senate that actually taking the White House and Romney fits that bill to a tee.

As the candidates head to South Carolina which is truly the gateway to the Presidency, on January 21st (or in 9 days from now) it will become apparent which of the candidates will remain standing through Super Tuesday. Romney, who placed 4th in the Carolina’s in 2008 with 15% of the vote, the big winners were Mike Huckabee and John McCain who placed 2nd and first respectively. The candidate the pulls out of South Carolina in the lead, has predicatively become the Party’s nominee, which is why those who finished in 2nd through 4th in the first two contests out of 50, are not overly concerned at this point. That may or may not change in 9 days, however, it is doubtful that certain candidates will be able to carry forward going into South Carolina, where they may lack organization in the Palmetto State, chief among them is Rick Santorum, who rose swiftly in Iowa, and expected a better showing in New Hampshire.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry will be the two to watch going into that particular state, given the fact that they have invested in the Carolinas, and have southern roots. The Paul campaign will most likely focus on more eastern/western states where they can, in all seriousness, do well enough to take this race to the Convention. It’s still anyone’s game, despite the drumbeat. With all due respect to Mitt Romney, who one can be sure is a very smart guy, and one who is patriotic, offers nothing concrete in a comparative way to the President, and, in addition, appears to take great umbrage at criticism, coupled with lackluster debates performances, he would be the weakest of the candidates, besides Jon Huntsman to put up against the President. In addition, a strong social conservative, might also be in the same boat. This leaves few valid choices, chief among them the former Speaker of the House.

It will be the individual that the voter’s trust in this election, more than any other factor, despite the polls and despite the pundits, that will win the day, as to who that individual may be – no-one knows at this point, with only two small contests, although titled as the “first”, past, it is far too early to crown a front-runner in terms of the entire election. Once the dust settles on Super Tuesday (March 6th), then the front-runner (or front-runners as the case may be) will be glaringly apparent.

Article of note from Politico: ”Newt Gingrich leaves New Hampshire on high note, despite primary loss”

Fear 2012 - 2 in 1 Choose Obama Reelection – US News and World Report – Who Can’t Best Obama – The Import of the GOP Primaries

The primary process will decide who faces President Obama in 2012 Election: pictured Newt Gingrich and the President - image form bet.com


U.S. News and World Reportsare citing multiple polls that suggest 2 in one American’s fear Obama’s reelection more than any other event in 2012. Second in events is a rise in taxes, something that seems inevitable with a second Obama term. However, the poll that they cite is internet based, and one must be extremely cautious when approaching internet polling. It is the Gallup daily tracking poll that suggests reelection is unlikely at this time – other polling institutions, such as those that are campus based, or those that are politically ideological (see Rasmussen as leaning right and Public Policy Polling as leaning left), are sometimes suspected of leaning in favor of the GOP and/or the Democrat Party. In the end, it is the reality of the economy, foreign policy decisions and extremely unpopular legislation that is the crux of the matter - and those factors, regardless of the political party, will signal a change in administrations.

Therefore, the voting public has a decision to make, if not Obama - then which of the Republican field is best suited to lead the nation forward? The pollsters, pundits and Washington Establishment (which includes members of Congress, and the aforementioned) appear to be pushing Mitt Romney as the inevitable nominee, however, the truth of the matter is, at this point in time, any one of those candidates, from the lowest polling to Romney, are capable of winning the White House – it comes down to the voters choice, and the order of states in which voting takes place. Today there will be a vote in New Hampshire, and although Romney is the favorite there, and has been touted in the media as going into New Hampshire with a “win” in Iowa (it was a small amount of votes, but a win non-the-less, not a mandate), the main problem with Mitt Romney, or perhaps Mitt Romney’s main problem is that he does not resonate with the primary voters. The reasons vary, from the very superficial to those who feel his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts left a record behind of increased taxes and a loss of small business, and many broken promises to those who aided him in his campaign for Governor and then President in 2008. He also has a history of extreme changes in policy regarding not only social issues, which drive a percentage of the GOP, but in all policy – he is a moderate to the core – a point that one must carefully examine and challenge prior to casting a vote.

The moderates of the GOP are not unlike the DNC candidates, in both temperament and ideology – some may feel that is necessary for compromise, others find this to be untenable and most believe that the moderate wing of the GOP (the Snows, the McCain’s, the Romney’s) cannot differentiate themselves enough from the status quo and will therefore be ineffective in governing – it is that moderation that crosses the line between being principled and voting against one’s own political party at times in order to work for the American people, rather than doing what one feels will win an election or popularity with the media and or their peers. There are others who will stand steadfast in their beliefs regardless of their party affiliation, and will act independently – a good example is one Senator Scott Brown, who, prior to the election, and although a Republican, noted that he would not always vote with his party, but for what he felt was best for his constituents. He has done just that in his tenure in the Senate, and although facing reelection is favored to win – he is extremely popular in Massachusetts, even though he angers those on the left and the right for voting in the Commonwealth’s interest. That is the type of candidate that the nation is most likely to elect – and that mold does not fit either the President or Mitt Romney – those who will do or say anything to get elected, and then, when in office, to serve the public, appear to serve themselves, and their party.

Understandably, the choice is not always clear, and the notion that an extended and nasty primary with multiple candidates is not in the nation’s best interest, is hogwash. The primary seasons ends in June with the nominating Convention held in August, therefore to push a particular candidate as the eventual nominee, before the first vote was cast, is an insult to the public. This will be true regardless of which political party and philosophy one subscribes – the primary process, in its entirety, gives more time for the public to decide which candidate, from both sides will better serve the nation. It is a job that not many would want to take, and the motivation could not be financial reward , nor the fact that the President is viewed as the most powerful figure in the nation (or should be), a leader that is shapes Foreign policy and the economy, someone with the backbone and the knowledge going into the job, that they are most likely to be challenged and berated at every step – turned on by members of their own party, and the public – it accounts for the overnight aging one sees in each President, as they either enjoy peace time or war, a good economy or bad, it is an inevitable part of the “job” for which the American public hires a President. That is what is lacking – it is the humility, regardless of primary primping and hubris that some candidates may display, that the candidates shows when speaking of the office as one in which they are working for the American people, hired on a temporary basis in order to steer the ship.

As a nation, it is doubtful that choice has been made, and it becomes more evident that many candidates on the GOP side are doing their best to ensure that the most powerful (media, pundits and those in the Washington Establishment) allow a person to make up their own minds – which is most important in this election year. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, are all, to a man, pointing out Mitt Romney’s “faults” as a candidate – and that is not always seen as a positive – but it should be. The two or three or four candidates that go forward, beyond South Carolina and Florida, and stay in the race on Super Tuesday, will do a larger service than the American Public may know, and one of those will be the nominee. It may be Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Jon Huntsman, or Ron Paul or Rick Perry, it will be their showing in this (to borrow a thought from Speaker Gingrich) tortoise race to the finish, that will produce the nominee, and that nominee will be battle hardened and tested, not only by the negatives coming from their own peers, but by the race itself and the peoples in those primary and caucus states that will be voting for one over another.

The focus on money and the billions here and millions there that are necessary to run ads, and keep a campaign in the black to continue, is appropriate to an extent, and one should know that a individual may be polling last, and yet, when one wins or places in this large a field, money does come in from all sources, and that includes the PACS.

Therefore, one must choose their vote based not on the media, nor the polling, but on what that particular candidate offers in the way of similar beliefs, and how well that candidate is prepared to take on the roll of the President. There will be a healthy back and forth, and in the end, there will be those that drop out of the race, perhaps after today’s New Hampshire decision (which is unlikely), perhaps after the South Carolina primary (which is more likely), and those three or four that are still standing on Super Tuesday, will ensure that the public has a fair advantage in choosing the nominee. The notion that one candidate alone can win the White House is a fallacy, especially in this election cycle – it is the one that will be vetted after a protracted primary process that will be the best choice. Again, it may be Mitt Romney, it may not, it may be the Speaker Gingrich, and it may be Ron Paul (regardless of the fact that many pundits and the media as well as well as rank and file Republicans may naysay his chances due to his Libertarian leanings). It may be any one of those that are in New Hampshire today or heading this morning to South Carolina, or already there, campaigning.

It is the candidate that the people choose, not the media, nor the Beltway that will win the day – regardless of the polls, and regardless of the constant rush to nominate – the last candidate in the position of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, at this stage in 1979 was one Ronald Reagan – and he led the nation to years of prosperity and peace – therefore it behooves every one that is casting a vote – to choose with both head and heart. There will never be another Regan, but there may be a Gingrich or Santorum or Perry or Paul, or yes, Romney that will shape the course of history and drive the nation back to prosperity and peace, and in our lifetime. The choice is the public’s to make.

One last note on endorsements: Although the endorsements from the media, movies stars, peers and pundits appear to play a factor in the race, they most often boost a candidate’s moral, and on the flip side, loose votes, depending on how the public views the endorser, as well as the endorsee. It is the endorsement of the voter that counts – and that is best to be kept in mind.