Mitt Romney on Steroids?

Last night, former President Bill Clinton appeared at a rare fundraiser with President Obama in Virginia.  It was one of three scheduled powerhouse fundraisers targeting the wealthiest Democratic donors. Tickets started at $1,000 and eighty people paid $20,000 each to have dinner with the two party elites.

(Wait...What?  Do the Occupiers know that Democrats are part of the 1%??)

Clinton wasted no time to endorse the sitting president--(I guess enough time has passed since the 2008 heated campaign when Bill Clinton openly criticized Obama's candidacy.   The two sides have now joined forces which only tells me that Hillary wants the 2016 ticket.  The Clintons are no fools.  They know she'll need the support of this president).

Last night, Clinton tried to make the case that Obama "deserves" our support.  He said, "Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected president of the United States."  He argued that Obama has "clear objectives" and is "meeting them."

First of all, what exactly is President Clinton talking about? "Deserves?"

Deserves implies accomplishments and credibility.  I cannot imagine how anyone could look at the last 3 1/2 years and say that any one politician--especially this president--"deserves" anything.  Here are a few reasons why:

• Our government is more inept than any time in recent memory.  
• Congress is so bitterly divided along party lines that it is virtually impossible for them to find compromises---much of the divisive tone has come directly from this president.  
• Our national debt has skyrocketed.  The US is more dependent on Chinese money than any other time in history. Our national debt is at an unthinkable $15 trillion.
• For the first time ever, under this president's watch, the US experienced a credit rating downgrade.
• The constitutionality of President Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare is being reviewed by the Supreme Court.  Many believe that the entire bill will be tossed out.
• Unemployment remains above the 8% bar that President Obama set for himself.
• The Housing Market continues to crumble.
• The economy remains fragile and unpredictable.  

Michael Norris, Amarillo Globe-News/AP Photo

"Deserves?"

Excuse me Mr. Clinton, I can assure you that there is nothing to celebrate.  It has been a dismal first term for this sitting president and to portray it any other way is misleading and quite frankly, manipulating those who are not paying attention.

The only people who "deserve" anything are the American people, we "deserve" an apology from our government for taking our tax money and spending it on failed policies and broken programs.

***

President Clinton also made reference to Mitt Romney.  Although he never mentioned him by name, he said Romney "basically wants to do what they did before, on steroids, which will get you the same consequences you got before...on steroids."

This is a surprisingly juvenile statement from someone as smart as Bill Clinton.

I have no doubt that Mitt Romney's policies will be no one but Mitt Romney's policies.  That is what a leader coming to DC as an outsider can offer.  As Romney has said before, he is coming to Washington "without old scores to settle or decades of cloakroom deals to defend."

Steve Marcus

When Governor Mitt Romney showed up to the Massachusetts state house, he faced a state government with a $3 billion budget deficit.  He fixed the broken system, effectively cut taxes 19 times, balanced the budget all four years of his term, cast over 800 vetoes and cut countless inefficient government programs.

The day Romney left office, he had eliminated the $3 billion deficit and left the state with a $2 billion rainy day fund.  He accomplished all of this without raising taxes and without borrowing a single dollar.

But if Mr. Clinton wants to conjure images of Mitt Romney on steroids, that is fine with me.

I can't imagine what it would be like to watch Mitt Romney in DC on "steroids."  His record shows me that Mitt Romney on "steroids" would be the best thing that could possibly happen to our broken government.

***

Last night, President Obama also took jabs at Mitt Romney.  He boasted of his accomplishments and how he and Hillary have had to "clean house."  He said that he and Hillary have "spent the last 3 1/2 years cleaning up after the other folks' messes."

AP Photo

I realize that all politicians are guilty of this kind of rhetoric, but this statement really bothers me.  What exactly does he think he and Hillary have cleaned up?

Last time I checked,

• Our economy is still broken 
• Gasoline is nearly double the $2.19 from the Bush years
• Unemployment under Bush ranged from 4.3% but never exceeded 6.3%. Unemployment today is 8.2%
• We are still dependent on foreign oil
• The Bush Tax Cuts are still in effect
• GITMO is still a thriving military institution

The last year of Bush's presidency was dominated by an economic recession.  This president is conveniently forgetting to remind people that the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate for the last two years of Bush's presidency.

Is there a chance that he is "cleaning up" after the mess that he, then Senator Obama and then, Senator Hillary Clinton helped to create?

***

I am tired of the rhetoric and it is only April.  

I can only assume that Bill Clinton and President Obama are going to continue to distort Mitt Romney's record and do everything they can to portray him as an elite, out-of-touch rich guy, who can't possibly relate to the average voter.  

They have to do this because they don't want to run a campaign on the president's failed policies or dismal record.  

But to them I would say, no worries,  Mitt Romney certainly will.

AP PHOTO/CHARLES DHARAPAK

Go Mitt!!

Mediocre Economy...Should We Settle?

The Commerce Department released the first quarterly report on the gross domestic product (GDP)--the total output / value of good and services produced in the United States.  Unfortunately, the news is not great.  For the first quarter of 2012, the GDP fell to 2.2 percent.  It was 3 percent in the last quarter of 2011.

The quarterly GDP report is one of the most closely watched reports for economy and for good reason.  It most accurately reflects the economic mood of the country.

What does this mean?  How do these numbers affect my household?

The reality is, this is far from encouraging news.  It shows that the economic recovery in the U.S. is still fragile and very unstable and most would argue, still unpredictable.  Although the report shows a slight rise in consumer spending, most would say that it is hard to paint a pretty picture from this report.

Make no mistake about it, the White House is paying close attention by scrutinizing and analyzing every detail of this report.

I have no doubt that they are undoubtedly frustrated by these numbers, especially with the November election looming on the horizon. They are now trying to put on an optimistic face.

When asked about the report, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary said,  "We don't put too much weight on any individual report but rather what we examine are the longer-term trends and today's report indicates for the 111th consecutive month, we've enjoyed economic growth."

What?

They don't put "too much weight on any individual report?" Um...this is the Commerce Department with a report showing that the economy is now growing at a slower pace than it was 3 months ago.  This is not good news.

No matter what they do or say, or how much they try to focus on the "encouraging data," in the report reflecting slight improvements in personal consumption, home construction and auto markets, the truth remains, this stinks.

It will be hard to spin their way out of mediocre economic performance.

So what do these numbers really mean and how do these numbers really affect my household?

It reminds us that our president's policies have not worked.  Our president has tried his best to make it right and this is all we get?  This report just reminds us that this president just might be in over his head.

This report demonstrates once again that the American Dream is becoming less and less possible for any of us.  It reminds us that millions of Americans are still wondering how they are going to keep their heads above water, stay on their feet, pay their bills and keep their homes.

This report reminds us that the unemployment rate in this country remains at 8.2 percent.  Even worse, it reminds us that the unemployment rate for workers under the age of 25 remains at an unthinkable 16.4 percent.

It reminds us that the cost of attending college has risen 25 percent in the last four years and it reminds us that college graduates--at even the best universities--are having difficulty finding a job after graduation.

This report reminds us that businesses are still in a very fragile place.  Scott Hoyt, senior director of consumer economics at Moody's Analytics said, "Businesses are flush right now, but they are very scared.  They are hoarding their cash rather than distributing it in hiring, investment or giving it to shareholders."

This report reminds us that maybe the stimulus/ TARP money was nothing more than an artificial boost to the economy.  The stimulus money has all been spent.  The spike appears to have only been temporary.

Are these results worth the $4 trillion price tag? Did the stimulus stimulate?

Regardless of how hard the White House spins this, this report is discouraging.

***

I wish more than anything that politicians would see that these numbers affect more than the outcome of an election.  This is personal.  This is urgent.  We are desperate.  America is still broken.

This is one of the many reasons why I believe that Mitt Romney's specific economic leadership skills are exactly what we need for these very specific and fragile economic times.

Gerald Herbert / AP 

Time and again he has proven that he knows what to do in these kinds of situations.  And more importantly, time and again, Mitt Romney has demonstrated that his fine-tuned skills have been the lifeline for countless companies, organizations and even a nearly bankrupt state government.

Mitt knows how to get our economy moving again so that it will return to a healthy, thriving country where people find jobs, where opportunities are real, where an education is seen as a benefit and not simply a personal debt to overcome, where people can afford to buy homes and more importantly, afford to keep making the payments.

America's future is promising, but we need a leader to help us remember that America can be better and stronger than it is now.

We should not settle for mediocrity.  We should not celebrate poor performance.  We should not reward politicians who create failed policies.  We should not settle.  We deserve more.  Americans should demand better.

The time is now.  America needs Mitt.

Economic Recovery: One Step Closer to Getting it Right

Last night, Mitt Romney swept 5 primary contests with victories in Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and Pennsylvania.  Today's announcement that Gingrich is officially suspending his campaign has all but assured Romney an uncontested path to August's GOP convention.

A corner has been turned.

AP Photo/Jim Cole

Last night during Mitt Romney's remarkable speech, it became clear that something has changed in this candidate.  He is more confident, more on message and appears more prepared than ever for the November fight.  Something is different.  Something is better.  Mitt Romney is ready and he appears more presidential than ever.

It was a game changing speech and I would argue that it was his best speech yet.  The White House will undoubtedly be on the defensive.

***

Mitt Romney started by addressing those who have been hit hardest by these hard economic times.

He said, "For every single mom who feels heart broken when she has to explain to her kids that she needs to take a second job...for grandparents who can't afford the gas to visit their children...for the mom and dad who never thought they would be on food stamps...for the small-business owner desperately cutting back just to keep the doors open one more month -- to all of the thousands of good decent Americans I've met who want nothing more than a better chance, a fighting chance, to all of you, I have a simple message: Hold on a little longer.  A better America begins tonight."

Romney reminded us that we, as Americans can do better---that we should and can expect more---that economic stability is attainable---and that prosperity is possible.  We just need the right leader with the right experience to get us there.

President Obama has proven that he is not that leader.

Image from Washington Post

For 3+ years, President Obama has tried to make things better.  Policies have changed, legislative initiatives have been passed, and trillions of dollars have been added to our debt as trillions of dollars have been spent to artificially stimulate our broken economy.  One thing remains clear: it has not worked.

We must not forget that when President Obama took office, he had the rare luxury of a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.  President Obama had the perfect environment to make a huge impact.

Yet, despite all that he has tried, instability continues to stare each of us in the face.

Last night Mitt Romney said, 'The last few years have been the best that Barack Obama can do, but it's not the best that America can do.  What do we have to show after three and a half years of President Obama?"

Reuters Image

Every American needs to ask themselves these questions posed by Romney:

1. Is it easier to make ends meet?
2. Is is easier to sell your home or buy a new one?
3. Have you saved what you need for retirement?
4. Are you making more in your job?
5. Do you have a better chance at getting a better job?
6. Do you pay less at the pump?

Romney said,
"If the answer was "yes" to those questions, President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements...and rightly so.  But because he has failed, he will run a different campaign of diversions, distractions and distortions.  That kind of campaign may have worked at another place at a different time, but not here and not now.  It's still about the economy...and we're not stupid."

"People are hurting in America and we know that something is terribly wrong with the direction of this country."

***

Watching this Administration attempt to fix our broken economy has been like watching someone attempt to shove a square peg in a round hole.

With enough attempts, one can eventually get it to fit, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the attempts were justified or worth it.

No matter how noble, how expensive or how determined, this Administration's solutions have not worked.  Why should we trust that somehow more time will make it right?

How many people can afford the luxury of granting more time for him to get it right?  The urgency is real.  The risk is too great.  The repercussions are too severe.  Time has run out.

Last night, Mitt Romney promised Americans that he has the vision to make it right for our economy.  The best news?  His skills and experience show that he will.

Image from canstockphoto.com

Romney's approach to fix the economy and jump start job growth is based on years of experience and years of successes.  He won't be trying to jam a square peg in a round hole.  He'll be using proven methods with proven results.  There is a difference.

Contrasting Visions for America

Obama's Vision for America
Romney said, "This President is putting us on a path where our lives will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards, commissions and czars.  He's asking us to accept that Washington knows best--and can provide all.

"We've already seen where this path leads.  It erodes freedom.  It deadens the entrepreneurial spirit.  It hurts the very people it's supposed to help.  Those who promise to spread the wealth around only ever succeed in spreading poverty.  Other nations have tried chosen that path.  It leads to chronic high unemployment, crushing debt and stagnant wages."

Romney's Vision for America
He said, "I have a very different vision for America and of our future.  It is an America driven by freedom, where free people, pursuing happiness in their own unique ways, create free enterprises that employ more and more Americans.  Because there are so many enterprises that are succeeding, the competition for hard-working, educated and skilled employees in intense and so wages and salaries rise.

"I see an America with a growing middle class, with rising standards of living.  I see children even more successful that their parents--some successful even beyond their wildest dreams--and others congratulating them for their achievement, not attacking them for it."

***

I would argue that time is not what this Administration needs.  They need something much different.  They need years of experience in learning what it takes to fix broken systems to make them stronger.  They need years of learning how to create jobs and what it really takes for sustained economic growth.  They need years of analyzing and scrutinizing numbers.  The need years of learning how to adapt.  Quite frankly, they need years of being accountable with other people's money.

This is what Obama needs--more time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can't adequately offer it.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Mitt Romney addressed our economic fragility and articulated his plans for true and lasting economic recovery.  He invited Americans to join him in the path to brighter days and he ended his speech with a powerful reminder.  He said, "This time we'll get it right."

I believe him.

Go Mitt!

A Silver Spoon in the Mouth

"I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth."

This is what President Obama told supporters two days ago in Ohio.  It caused quite a stir given the indirect, yet blatant attack on Mitt Romney's wealth.

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

This reference to wealth and privilege is part of the continued narrative used by this Administration to portray Mitt Romney as a wealthy, out of touch, elitist who can't possibly relate to the average voter.

Is the President right?  Was Mitt Romney born with a silver spoon in his mouth?

And more importantly, does it matter?

***

Mitt Romney is the youngest of four children and was born in Detroit, Michigan in 1947.  His father, George Romney grew up in a humble home and never graduated from college.  He apprenticed as a carpenter and sold aluminum paint before he started a career, which set him on the path to eventually become the CEO of American Motors.  George Romney is credited for rescuing the company from the brink of bankruptcy.

AP Photo

In 1969, Romney Sr. was elected as the governor of Michigan and went on to fill three terms.   George was well-respected in business and politics and he later accepted a cabinet level position under President Nixon.

Mitt has always revered his father's example of hard work.  Upon graduating from college, he took his father's advice and went to law school--he was one of 15 students accepted to the JD MBA program at Harvard University.  He graduated cum laude from the law school and was awarded the prestigious Baker's scholar from the business school. (Click here to learn more about Mitt's life).

He worked for a few years as a consultant at Bain & Company, but in 1984, he left and co-founded Bain Capital--a venture capital firm.

Mitt Romney led the firm for 14 years and under his direction and leadership, companies such as Brookstone, Dominoes Pizza, Sports Authority, Clear Channel, AMC Entertainment, Toys R Us, and Stapes became household names.

Although not every investment was a success, under Mitt's direction, Bain Capital experienced remarkable growth and success.

In January 1991, the consulting firm where he first worked Bain & Company was on the brink of collapse.  Mitt was asked to return and be the CEO.  Within one year, he completely restructured the company and was able to return it to profitability.  He is credited for doing it without any layoffs.

He returned to Bain Capital, but left again in 1999 to serve as President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games.  Under his management, he rescued the games from near bankruptcy, a humiliating scandal, attracted new sponsors and put on one of the most successful games on record.

AP image/Douglas C. Pizac

After the Olympics, he returned to Boston and was elected Governor.  Under his direction and despite an overwhelming Democrat majority, he dramatically cut expensive programs, he combined inefficient government agencies and safeguarded the state from near bankruptcy.  He effectively closed a $3 billion dollar budget shortfall without raising taxes and without borrowing money.

***

Why do I mention this biography?  Why do I mention a few of his many accomplishments?

Because I think it is important to recognize that Mitt's successes are the result of extreme hard work and dedication.

Yes, Mitt was lucky to be born into a stable home with financial security, but he never allowed his father's successes to define him.

It should be mentioned that when George Romney died in 1985, Mitt donated his inheritance to Brigham Young University.  The endowment was used to establish the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management.

Image from ABC News.com

Silver spoon?

Mitt Romney was not a lazy, rich kid who was spoiled and expected to get everything handed to him.  His career and schooling reflect an extremely hard working individual with remarkable and note-worthy accomplishments.

Mitt Romney never saw himself as an entitled "heir" or "aristocrat"--behavior so perfectly mocked in the 1995 movie Tommy Boy.

***

Shouldn't these accomplishments be commended?  Isn't this what the American Dream is supposed to offer?

Why does the President only want to focus on the fact that Mitt Romney grew up in a stable, financially secure home?  Should Romney be faulted for something he didn't choose?

I would like to remind this President that if growing up "with a silver spoon in the mouth" is considered so negative and breeds distrust and resentment, what does it say about the life that he and Michelle are so lovingly providing for their two daughters?

By Manuel Balce Ceneta, AP

Is the life that he is giving Malia and Sasha actually hurting their chances for future success?  Should they be allowed to ever run for President?

Is he doing them a disservice?  Is he damaging their credibility?

The answer is of course not.  He and Michelle are doing everything they can to provide the best opportunities--the same way George Romney did for his family.

The trick is to encourage them to make something of themselves, so they won't be defined by their father's successes.

Something I believe Mitt Romney has already accomplished.

***

The President is once again, desperate for a diversion.  He has to attack Mitt Romney so that the discussions won't center around his lack of accomplishments during his presidency.  Nearly every one of his campaign promises has not been realized namely, that his presidency "would mark the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless."

Under his watch, millions of people have lost their jobs, their homes, their financial security and America's economic future remains incredibly uncertain.  Today the Wall Street Journal reported there are growing fears of deepening economic instability for the 3rd year in a row.

AFP/Getty Image

This President wants to detract attention away from Mitt Romney's resume--a resume, which over and over again reflects remarkable accomplishments, successes, unprecedented job growth, and an innate ability to fix broken systems from the brink of bankruptcy.

Impressive to say the least.

Mitt is a seasoned economic manager whose vision and direction seems to repeatedly lead to economic stability.

It is no irony that the Obama campaign has abandoned "Hope" as their campaign slogan.  Ironically, this time around, it is more fitting for his rival.

Go Mitt!

Is the Election "Likeability" vs. "Qualifications?"

Last week several polls continued to reflect a likeability gap between President Obama and Mitt Romney--a 26-point spread in some polls.

The left is seizing on the President's "empathetic / buddy image" and in contrast are relentlessly trying to portray Mitt Romney as a wealthy individual who is out-of-touch with struggling Americans.

The media is clearly helping.  How many times have we heard about "a couple of Cadillacs" compared to in-depth discussions of Obama's tax returns and his $790,000 income?

(Last time I checked, $790,000 dwarfs the income of everyone I know).

Does all of this matter and is it possible for Mitt to bridge the gap?  How will these sentiments actually impact the vote this fall?

I would argue that although "likeability" is an important influence in the way people vote, the November election is going to be driven by a yearning for economic stability.

Fortunately for Mitt, his experience in driving the economy and his record of job creation completely overshadows the President's dismal record of addressing these very issues.

I truly believe that Mitt Romney's experience will be the game changer of this election.

***

Fox News and CNN released polls last week which although supported the evidence of the likability gap, the polls also showed that Romney was viewed substantially stronger on the economy.  When asked, "which candidate do you think has the best experience to fix the economy?"  Mitt Romney won every time.

AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Americans are tired and we are yearning for improvement.  We are aching for economic stability.  We are longing for prosperity and we are desperate for something better.

So for now, it appears that the election is shaping up to be a choice between "likability" and "qualifications."

What will be the tipping point?

A few reasons why I believe that the White House should be nervous:

1) The Economy
Mitt Romney will continue to make the case that our economy is fragile and that three years of economic performance under this President has been disappointing and dismal at best.  The truth remains: recovery from the recession has not happened, millions of Americans are still out of work, millions of people are still losing their homes and job creation in this country remains unpredictable.

Image source: InlandPolitics.com

And it is not as if President Obama hasn't tried to fix it.

Obama's unprecedented $4 trillion stimulus didn't work.  It only demonstrated that spending borrowed money doesn't effectively stimulate the economy.

In contrast, Mitt Romney's 25 years of job creation will inevitably portray him as a seasoned-economic manager whose skill-set has time and again led to unprecedented economic growth and opportunity.


2) Immoral Deficits
For decades, we have watched our government borrow and spend unthinkable amounts of money.  Money which is burdening our citizens and forcing a risky dependency on foreign countries.  The debt today stands at $15 trillion (US Debt Clock).  Can it ever logistically be repaid?

Under this President we have watched our government place huge bets on very expensive and unproven programs.  The impact of his policies has been insignificant and weak.  As I argued here, the President asked us to place a $4 trillion bet with tax payer money.  We have nothing to show for it.

In contrast, Mitt Romney's approach to the economy is much different.  His resume unveils a seasoned manager who has years of being accountable with other people's money.  He is a disciplined leader who responsibly identifies "Wants vs. Needs."

His influence will be a refreshing and moral approach to our government's spending habits.

He did it as Governor of Massachusetts.  He eliminated wasteful programs, he combined inefficient government agencies and he successfully closed a $3 billion dollar budget shortfall.  He did it without raising a single tax.  He did it without borrowing a single dollar.

These are the kinds of results that are possible under the direction of a disciplined, economic manager who understands how the economy works.

Image from mittromney.com

One of my favorite Mitt Romney campaign slogans is, "We have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in."

I couldn't agree more and I believe that message will resonate with voters.


3) Empathy vs. Solutions
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that 49 percent of those questioned think that President Obama "better understands the economic problems people are facing in this country."

It would appear on the surface that President Obama has the upper hand on the "Empathy Factor."

psychicbutsane.com

So how does Mitt address it?  I would argue that he simply needs to ask one simple question, "Does caring about someone's problems grant that person the ability to know how to fix those problems?"

The answer is of course not.

While I believe that President Obama truly cares about our economic problems, his attempts to fix those problems have failed.

Under this president's watch, social welfare programs for the poor have nearly doubled.  Furthermore, more than 2.6 million Americans have dropped out of the middle class and are now living below the poverty line. (CNN poverty rate index report).

The truth remains: Empathy doesn't grant an ability to solve problems.

***

I firmly believe that this is why the White House should be nervous.  This is the message that will resonate with voters.

Perhaps this is why a CBS News/New York Times poll released Wednesday, found Mitt Romney in a dead heat with President Obama for the White House.

2012 is a pivotal election year.  The future of our economic prosperity and stability will hinge on its outcome.

Although President Obama may be a likable guy who is concerned about the poor, his efforts haven't been able to help us emerge from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Mitt Romney simply needs to remind Americans that we deserve better, that prosperity is attainable and that we should not be content with the state of this economic recovery.

America deserves more.

Americans will see that we can benefit from Romney's resume and I would argue that voters will see that it is time to let a professional to do the job.

Go Mitt!

Do Democrats Care More About Women's Health?

As I wrote here, the general election campaign has taken a vicious turn.  It has now entered the phase where each side is trying to stake claim on certain influential demographics.  The most recent battle is over the so-called war on women.

Image from sky dancing.com

Although both sides are guilty of this pandering, for weeks, I have been trying to make the case that Democrats have engaged in careful planning, strategy and outright manipulation for the loyalty of the female vote.

But everything changed last week with Hillary Rosen's disastrous attack on Ann Romney's role of being a stay-at-home mom who has apparently, "never worked a day in her life."

It proved the be an extremely effective rallying cry for conservative women to unite behind Mitt Romney.

(Thank you Ms. Rosen).

***

The manipulation and pandering to women started a few months ago on January 7th at the New Hampshire Republican debate.  Moderator George Stephanopoulos posed the bizarre question about whether the candidates thought that states could ban contraception.

It felt disjointed and odd to be asking the candidates to comment on such a non-political issue.

Well 13 days later, on January 20th, we found out that contraception IS indeed a relevant 2012 political issue and the controversy surrounding its availability rapidly became the most talked about political issue of this election cycle.

How?

The Health and Human services released a mandate (see HHS mandate) requiring all non-profit employers--including Catholic church-owned hospitals and charities--to provide and pay for insurance coverage to include all forms of birth control--including contraceptives, morning after pills and abortions.

It was extremely controversial for the Obama administration to impose mandates on non-profits especially when it opposes the doctrines of their faith.  Many still question whether it was even constitutional.  The backlash was relentless.  The White House adjusted the ruling.

The White House masterfully began to gradually shift attention away from an "imposition of religious freedoms" to questioning whether women should fear that Republicans will take away the availability of contraception.

Foolish comments by Rick Santorum and political commentator Rush Limbaugh played right into the game plan.

Boom.

One can't help but ask, did Mr. Stephanopoulos have a little insight from White House?

It would be hard to argue otherwise.

Over and over, Democratic Strategists like Donna Brazille and Debra Wasserman Shultz tried to make the case that Republicans are not concerned about equal pay, respect for women's lives, the workplace or a woman's access to health care.

Their message resonated.  In the court of public opinion, many women believed that Democrats were actually more concerned about Women's Health issues than Republicans.

Are they?  Are Democrats more concerned about Women's Health?

Let me start by saying that I would never argue that women's health issues are irrelevant to the political arena.  They aren't.  But this fight over contraception and women's health issues feels manipulative and orchestrated.

Republicans care just as much about Women's health as the Democrats.  To argue otherwise is foolish.

***

I stand by my claim that women are being targeted and blatantly used in a political war--an artificial war that is nicely blanketed under "a concern for women's health."

If this Administration were truly concerned about the "health of women," then the focus of the HHS ruling would not have been simply about contraception.  It would have required free heart screenings, cholesterol screenings and other preventative heart care measures to prevent heart disease--the number one killer of women.

Instead, this Administration is laser focused on contraception.  Why? Because contraception is a hot-button issue that gets people out protesting.

A manipulation of women's issues for political gain?

I would argue absolutely.  And I am still not falling for it.

Dismal Week for the President--Great Week for Romney

I think the President is glad that it's Friday--it has been a miserable week for the sitting president.

Economy

It started off with the disappointing news of the economic recovery.  Despite two consecutive months of job growth, the month of March only added 120,000 jobs.  To make matters worse, in the first week of April, 380,000 individuals filed for unemployment. According to the Washington Post, this is the highest number of filings since January. 

Promises and hopes of an economic recovery have been blurred--economic stability in America is far from a reality.

Tax Returns & Paying "Fair Share"

Today the White House released the Obama's 2011 tax returns.  As much as the Obamas would like to deny it, he and Michelle paid 20.5% on their $790,000 income.  Their effective tax rate is well below the 30 percent that Obama argues is the magic number which guarantees that the wealthiest Americans will pay their "fair share."

SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

No matter how the Administration spins it, Obama applied tax deductions which dropped his effective tax rate to 20%. (It is important to remember that this is just 6% points higher than Mitt Romney's highly criticized tax rate on his investment income).  

It will now be much harder for Obama to push for "The Buffet Rule."

Sorry Mr. President, it appears that you too, paid a much lower tax rate than your secretary.

War on Women

As I have mentioned before, over the past few months, the Democrats have strategically exploited "hot button" issues like contraception with the hopes of successfully staking claim on the female demographic. Their efforts have been successful and it appears that the majority of women have swarmed their allegiance back to President Obama.

The battle over the gender gap seemed to be working.  

It was easy to target Mitt Romney and highlight his apparent "women problem."

But things began to crumble when the 2011 annual report for the White House staff was released.  A blaring gap in gender pay was evident in the Presidential staff payroll.  According to the report, female employees were paid 18% less than their male counterparts.  (Click here to read full Free Beacon article).

Image from businessnewsdailycom

Hypocrisy at its finest.  

The President boasts of being an advocate for equal pay for women and non-discrimination in the workplace.  He champions himself on being a proponent for women's causes.  

Unfortunately, this report highlights that his actions speak louder than his words.

***

Furthermore, FoxNews opinion writer Gretchen K. Hamel wrote yesterday that among the 93 golf outings that this president has taken since taking office, only two of those outings included female guests. 

Champion for women? Not so sure. 

Things got worse when the Washington Post highlighted the fact that Mitt Romney has always surrounded himself with top female executives.  This was true during his years at Bain, the Olympics and during his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts.  (It should be mentioned that his Lt. Governor was a woman).  Ann Romney told the Washington Post, "When Mitt Romney was governor, he had more women on his cabinet than any other governor in the country."

Governor Romney and Lt. Governor Healey

Mitt Romney's woman problem?  More like a problem with the way the media chooses to portray his relationship with women. 

Lastly, the dismal week continued when Hillary Rosen--a trusted Obama advisor and DNC spokesperson told CNN that "Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life."

Boom. 

 It was a destructive bomb that insulted stay-at-home moms and provided a much-needed rallying cry for conservative women to unite.

Approval Ratings

The final blow came when latest polls show that President Obama's approval rating has dropped to its lowest point of the year.

It goes without saying that it was a bad week for the president.  

***

My hope is that the dust will settle and the issues will return to substance, but two things are clear: 1) November is a LONG ways away and 2) Voters are paying attention to every detail.

So, I don't mind if the Left continues to advocate a "War on Women," I just hope that instead of manufactured controversies over contraception, the focus will be on this president's failed economic policies and what that reality has meant to women all over this country.

Once the issues return to the economy, it will be difficult for this president to defend his dismal record and failed policies.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Mitt Romney's experience of resuscitating broken companies, making weak organizations stronger and restoring prosperity to the broken will begin to appear as a life-line that Americans will be desperate to grab.

Go Mitt!!

Are Moms an Irrelevant Voice?

A storm has erupted.   Last night, things took a nasty turn with a divisive and destructive political storm targeting women in America, namely, stay-at-home moms.

On CNN's Anderson360, a panel of individuals discussed the election and the apparent "problem" that Mitt Romney has with female voters.

Hilary Rosen, a prominent Democratic Strategist and public relations specialist for the Democratic National Committee voiced her opinion about Mitt Romney's inability to connect with women.

She said, "With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney's right that ultimately women care more about the economic-well being of their family and the like.  But he doesn't connect not hat issue either.  What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, "Well, you know, my wife tells me that women really care about economic issues."  Guess what?  his wife has never actually worked a day in her life."

Wow.

Ann Romney--wife of Mitt Romney, who was a stay-at-home mother to 5 sons, while battling breast cancer and the debilitating effects of Multiple Sclerosis--immediately responded with her first Tweet saying, "I made a choice to stay at home and raise five boys.  Believe me, it was hard work."

Thousands of women across this country have also voiced their concern and frustration for this blatant attack on the role and perspective of a mom.

I have been so troubled by Rosen's comments.  Was she boldly asserting that a stay-at-home mom is somehow an irrelevant voice in the economic issues facing our country?

Are moms an irrelevant voice?  Don't moms have the right to be concerned about the economic stability of this country even if their contribution isn't felt in the workforce?

This is troubling.  This is insulting.  This is condescending.  She is wrong.

***

The backlash to her mindless comments have exploded on nearly every media outlet.  Today, Rosen has appeared on multiple talk shows trying to "clarify" her remarks.  Ironically, her efforts have only made matters worse.

Getty Images

Late this afternoon, Rosen apologized to Ann Romney and despite it feeling a little forced, I would further argue that she also owes an apology to women all over this country who choose to stay home and raise a family.

I am a mother of four.  I firmly believe that there is honor in the role of motherhood.  Ms. Rosen should be ashamed for attacking those of us who choose to fulfill this role in our children's lives.  Our voice is not irrelevant.  She should apologize for demeaning our perspective.

***

The backlash has been immediate and the criticism loud.  The White House is now attempting to distance themselves from Rosen by arguing that she "does not work for the Obama campaign" and is not a paid staffer.  

One blaring truth remains, Rosen is unarguably a respected voice within the walls of the White House.  According to White House records, she has been a visitor 35 times.  This may seem inconsequential, but as the National Review reported today, Treasure Secretary Timothy Geitner--an Obama cabinet member has been a visitor just 40 times.

Therefore, I would argue that it is hard to imagine that Ms. Rosen's sentiments aren't well-respected at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

***

The White House wants this to go away, but I believe that there is a deeper and more troubling aspect to this entire controversy.

It appears that this Administration is blatantly attempting to divide America based on lines of gender, faith and economic brackets.  This White House is incessantly pitting one group against the other.

Why do Democrats insist on playing demographic and class warfare? 

Don't we all live in the same America?  Does one demographic really matter more than the other?

I am sick of the divisiveness and branding of classes and demographics.  If Ann Romney was able to stay at home with her kids, it was her right and choice, but it shouldn't brand her perspective as irrelevant.

Furthermore, if Mitt and Ann Romney were blessed with financial stability due to his hard work and successes, it should not brand them as having an irrelevant voice with an "un-American" perspective.

The Left's branding of the Romneys in this way is intolerable.

Americans are not simply demographics.

We are male, female, moms, dads, students, employees, unemployed, the wealthy, the middle class, the poor and the destitute.   We are each Americans.  Together we face these troubled economic times and an uncertain future--the reality is simply that we each bring a different perspective.

Blatant attempts to pander and divide us should be stopped.  It doesn't feel American.

So, to people like Hillary Rosen, DNC spokespeople, and quite frankly, members of the White House, please stop seeing me as a demographic.

I am woman.  I am a mom, but above all, my voice and perspective matter because I am an American. Period.

Obamacare vs. Romneycare

The general election battle has begun.  I fear that it is going to be fierce and that the negativity will be unlike anything that we have before witnessed in a presidential contest.  A lot is on the line in this election and both of these men know it.

Between Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney, we have two very different men with two very different visions for this country.  Each is extremely passionate about their cause and willing to fight bitterly to achieve it. 

It is going to get ugly.

AP Photo

I am confident that Americans will quickly begin to see the stark contrast between the leadership styles of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  They are two very different leaders, driven by very different principles.  

Their records speak volumes about the path they would like our country to be on.

To see the glaring differences of the principles that drive these men, one only needs to look at the approach they each took on health care reform. 

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

In March 2010, an unprecedented health care reform bill was signed into federal law.  On the day it passed, only 35% of Americans supported the measure.  It was a bitter fight to get it approved.  Rumors of bribes and backdoor deals were made to acquire the needed votes and on the day the 2,000 page bill was passed, it was 60-39 along strict party lines--not one Republican supported the federal government's overhaul of the health care system.  

Even though it passed, it remains wildly unpopular with the American public.

Today, we await the Supreme Court's decision on this health care reform bill.  The justices are trying to determine the constitutionality of the centerpiece to ObamaCare--the individual mandate, which makes it mandatory for every US citizen to purchase private health insurance.   

(It is almost ironic to think that this bill was created under the leadership of President Obama--a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School).

Health care reform is President Obama's signature legislation.  It was not bipartisan.  It is astronomically expensive.  It was not supported by the American people.  It raises taxes and it might not even be legal. 

***

During Mitt Romney's time as governor, he too, initiated a bold health care reform plan in Massachusetts. His rivals have tried to make the case that RomneyCare was the blue print used to create ObamaCare.

Was it?

Shortly after Romney became governor, he worked in a bipartisan fashion to find a solution to the state's health care problem.  For two years, he and his Democrat colleagues sought input from businesses, doctors, individuals in the health care sector and the insurance industry.  

A 70 page health care bill was drafted and it passed with only two dissenting votes.  Taxes were not raised to pay for the reform and over 60% of Massachusetts' residents supported the legislation; today, 67% still do.

***

Although Barack Obama and Mitt Romney each tackled the problem of Health Care reform, they went about it in two very different ways.  The results they each achieved are starkly different.

***

I stumbled on an interesting article this morning on the site AmericaNeedsMitt.com.  This is a site is supported by Mitt Romney volunteers who are passionately supporting his candidacy.

One post addressed these differences with the following comparison: (click here for full article)

• Obamacare was unilateral.  Romneycare was bipartisan.
• Obamacare = government insurance.  Romneycare = private insurance.
• Obamacare = Costs $2 trillion over 10 years.  Romneycare = Funded within the existing MA budget.
• Obamacare requires all businesses to issue an IRS Form 1099 whenever goods or services in excess of $600 are purchased.  Romneycare had no such provision.
• Obamacare cut Medicare Advantage by $150 billion, forcing dozens of Medicare Advantage coverage providers to cut back vision, dental and prescription benefits.  Romneycare did not.
• Obamacare required a 30% payment cut for Medicare reimbursements to doctors.  Romneycare did not.
• Obamacare cut  Medicare spending by $400 billion.  Romneycare did not.
• Obamacare tax penalty for employers = $2000 per employee.   Romneycare tax penalty for employers = $249 per employee. (a penalty which Gov. Romney opposed and vetoed, but his veto was overridden.)

Another post on this site provided careful and meticulous analysis on the two health care reform plans.  The site provided sources for the information used in the comparison.  Click here to see their fully annotated footnotes.

Image from AmericaNeedsMitt.com/blog

In the coming election, we have two very different men with two very different visions for our country.

We owe it to ourselves to carefully scrutinize their records that we may fully understand how their visions will impact our future.  

I am more convinced than ever that Mitt Romney is the leader we can trust to bring about fiscal accountability to the federal government, he will lead in a true bipartisan fashion and he will responsibly address the debt that is drowning our nation.

The agenda he has set for his presidency shows me that this is what he wants--his record as Governor shows that he can.

Now more than ever, America needs Mitt.




.