An Old Bain Photo

Greed.  Wealth.  Power.

The Obama campaign is doing everything they can to portray Mitt Romney as a man driven by those principles.  I am sure that they were thrilled that they did not have to use their campaign dollars to resurface the 1984 image of Mitt Romney and his Bain partners with money coming out of their pockets.

Yesterday, the Boston Globe did it for them.

In 1984, Mitt Romney was a newly appointed president of start-up investment firm called Bain Capital.  He and the seven founding partners took drastic pay cuts, pooled their savings together and started a business.  Yesterday, a Washington Post article mentioned that Romney and his partners would not see a return on their investment for two years.

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

With the Obama campaign attacking private equity, Bain Capital has recently tried to defend its record.  The firm released a report to their investors showing that Bain Capital's investments have been successful 80% of the time and that only 5% of the firm's investments have ever ended in bankruptcies.

***

But let's talk about the photo.

I think it is important to remember that it was taken in 1984.  Mitt and his partners had just embarked on an adventure to start a little company called Bain Capital---its sole focus was to make money for investors.  Mitt and his partners were hungry for success.  Shocking I know, but yes, they were eager to make money and they wanted to be successful.

Was that a novel concept for its time?  Absolutely not.

Let's remember that in the early 1980's, Americans were a little obsessed with wealth.  The number one television show in America was Dallas---the story of a filthy rich oil family from Texas.  Furthermore, Knots Landing, Falcon Crest and Dynasty were the top ten most highly-viewed television programs.

I think it is safe to say that in 1984, Americans loved money.  Therefore, to me, the photo of Mitt---although in poor taste---is simply a reflection of the time period.

***

For the media and the Obama camp to argue that this one photo taken nearly 30 years ago is a reflection of Mitt's core values today is absurd.  Shame on the left for feeding this frenzy.

Can we imagine for one minute the outrage that would mount if The Boston Globe had instead blasted their front-page with images of a young Barrack Obama smoking a cigarette with the intent to insinuate that a 30-year old photo must mean that Obama is a free-loving leftover hippie who must therefore love the drug cartels down south?

Image from Time.com

The hypocrisy of the media to focus on this one photo of Mitt is ridiculous.  It is offensive and their efforts to affect the outcome of this election are no longer subtleties.

***

The upcoming election will mark a pivotal turning point in America.  America is either going to elect a president who believes in the power of its people or a president who believes in the power of its government.

America is either going to support measures for moral spending, prosperity and free enterprise or we will choose to support a growing dependency on state and federal programs and a government with a deepening reliance on borrowed foreign money to pay for it.

America's economy remains on very unstable ground.  European markets will inevitably impact our financial security.  The housing market still has room to fall and 23 million Americans are still out of work.  Like it or not, America's economy is teetering and many economists are questioning whether another recession is looming.

The question that each of us should be asking ourselves, is not what one leader was doing 30 years ago, but rather what skills has this leader acquired which will help us now.

President Obama has nearly completed one-term in office.  He has had four years to show us his skills.  For four years, he has had the opportunity to shine, to lead and to help.  Yes, he inherited a mess, but after all he has done--the stimulus bill, health care reform, Cash for Clunkers, Clean Energy Solutions, bailouts for Unions, $5 trillion dollars added to the deficit---has it been enough?

What if the unemployment numbers rise again?  What if Greece collapses?  What if Democrats lose the Senate?  What if Republicans retain control of the House?  Has our president told us what he will do in the next four years?  Does he have any new ideas?  Any other tricks up his sleeve?  Will raising taxes on the wealthy really stimulate our economy?

Obama has tried to fix our economy.  He has thrown every dart at the dart board and he has thrown billions of our tax payer dollars at programs that have done little to improve our economy.  As I have said before here, it has been like trying to watch someone push a square peg in a round hole.  

America is either going to keep trying to force a square peg in a round hole or we are going to put ourselves in the hands of leader who has had 25+ years of making weak things stronger---making the bankrupt profitable---and accomplishing all of it without borrowing obscene amounts of money.

This November we will have the opportunity to say, stop!  It isn't working!

It's time to get it right.

Mitt Romney is remarkable leader who has shown that it is possible to govern within the confines of a budget.  A leader who has shown that a balanced budget is possible and attainable without raising taxes.  He is also a leader whose record as governor shows that can work respectfully with leaders who do not share his ideology.

Does our president's record reflect the same?

No.  And news this week that our president boldly leapfrogged Congress to pass his immigration agenda in order to win some points with one demographic is troubling.  But breaking news this morning that our president has invoked executive privilege in order to protect his Attorney General from a Congressional inquiry is extremely concerning.

So, no, I do not need to be reminded of what Mitt Romney or Barack Obama were doing 30 years ago.  I just need to be shown how the skills that these men have acquired during that last 30 years will actually bring stability to my family and calm to a troubled nation.

Joe Burbank/ORLANDO SENTINEL

Without question, Mitt Romney's resume shows that he can.

Our president has had four years to create his legacy and sadly, after all this time, all he wants to do is criticize the legacy of someone else.

The Real Implications of a Little Speech in the Rose Garden

Over the weekend, the Sunday Political Talk shows were filled with lively debates offering plenty of juicy meat for the politically obsessed.  (It was also further reminder that it can be a little frustrating when a DVR can only record 2 programs at once).

Senior Political Advisor David Plouffe made the rounds yesterday attempting to make the case that President Obama--despite his blaring lack of economic accomplishments during his first term---has been a phenomenal president and that his leadership and foresight deserve another four years in office.

There was only one topic that I was anxious to hear covered in the Sunday discussions.  Namely, President Obama's unprecedented move last Friday to circumvent Congress with the announcement that the White House will no longer enforce the deportation of young illegal immigrants.

The President said, "Effectively immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift deportation" for young immigrants who came here as children, but have since led law-abiding lives.  He went on to say that although it is not a step towards citizenship, "It is the right thing to do."

How can it be that our president makes a little speech in the Rose Garden on a Friday afternoon which will dramatically alter immigration policies in this country---it completely ignores federal laws that are already in place---is done without congressional participation and the media has narrowly focused on the fact that one conservative reporter rudely interrupted the president during the announcement?

The focus has been on the "heckling" in the Rose Garden and the concern over an "unusual, new and growing incivility" in the political arena.  Some have even questioned if racism was the motivator.

Really?  That is the controversy?   I guess that Sam Donaldson's interruption of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s was simply "good reporting."

Donovan Slack/Politico

In one little speech, reporters were not even allowed to ask questions and the president unabashedly declared a disregard of his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and yet, no one wants to discuss the real implications of it.

Give me a break.

I get it that this announcement scored the president some major political points with a crucial demographic.  I get it that politically, the president has now padded his empathy factor.  I get it that his announcement will probably help him in his desperate fight to keep his job.  More importantly, I get it that his announcement has effectively changed the conversation.

But those discussions were not what I wanted to hear covered on the Sunday shows.  I could care less about the implications that this announcement will have on the presidents campaign, rather, I wanted to hear the brightest political minds in the country defend the president's blatant disregard for the balance of power that was established by our founders over 230 years ago.

***

On ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," pundits on the left praised the president's immigration decision as "a brilliant step that exposes the intolerance of the Republican Party" and that "the president did the right thing" and that it was a "great political move."

George Will was the only commentator who looked beyond the politics of it and the short-term impact the announcement will have on Obama's reelection efforts.  Will said that he disagreed with the president's announcement because he "supports the Constitution and the separation of powers...and I think these aims should be done legislatively."

Stephanopoulos was quick to remind viewers that Obama has tried to address immigration issues, but his hands have been tied because Congress refuses to pass the Dream Act.

Will's immediate comeback was brilliant.  He said, "Well, that's too bad.  Our system is designed to be difficult to move, you try and try again.  You don't just say, well, the Constitution is fine, I gave it a try, then we'll do something else."

I completely agree.  The balance of power of our government is exactly what makes our democracy so unique.  The checks and balance it creates restricts an overreach by any one branch.  The Legislative Branch (House and Senate) create the laws--The Executive Branch (The President) enforces the laws which are passed by Congress and The Judicial Branch defends and interprets those laws.

A perfect balance of power envisioned by our founders who had just escaped the tyranny of an overreaching monarchy in England.  This balance of power is the brilliance of the U.S. Constitution and the reason why thousands of soldiers have died to defend and protect it.

In one little political speech, our president shows that he could care less about it.

***

The president's announcement last Friday should be alarming to every single American---alarming not because of the short-term impact it will have on immigration policies in America, but because in one little speech, our president showed that he is no longer bound by the restrictions of this balance of power in our Constitution.

In one little speech, our president declared that his interpretation of "what is the right thing to do" is more important than our legislators---individuals we elected to write laws based on their interpretation of "what is the right thing to do."

In one little speech, our president declared that his power is greater than another.

John Yoo, writer for National Review, Yoo raises an interesting question in his article "Executive Overreach."  He wrote, "Imagine the precedent this claim would create.  President Romney would lower tax rates simply by saying that he will not use enforcement resources to prosecute anyone who refuses to pay capital-gains tax.  He could repeal Obamacare simply by refusing to fine or prosecute anyone who violates it."

Yoo went on to write, "So here we have a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress's policy choices."

This is a dangerous precedent.  It should give every American pause to consider the notion that our president could make one little speech and have the ability to circumvent all checks and balances.

This is not okay.

Our president is frustrated with the lack of cooperation from his opponents in the House, but it does not mean that the president can leapfrog them and do his own thing.

***

The president has never adopted the best known political secret to effective leadership:  "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Instead, 3 1/2 years into his presidency, he continues to surround himself only with those who agree with him and are still drinking the "Hope & Change Kool-aid."

In contrast, Obama has done everything he can to discredit and belittle his opponents.   Is he really surprised that no one on the right wants to help him now that he is desperate for their cooperation?

Bigger question, is President Obama even capable of leading in a bipartisan fashion?

I am sure that Obama's campaign hates the fact that Mitt Romney's record shows that he is someone who does.

As Governor, Mitt Romney never had to cheat his way, by leapfrogging the Democratically controlled legislature to get his agenda passed.

He faced resistance.  He respected his opponents and then he showed everyone how to work in a bipartisan fashion.  He led in a unique way.  He knows how to be a bipartisan leader.  That is the real difference between our sitting president and this candidate.

America deserves better.  Our bitterly divided legislators in Washington DC could benefit from his leadership.  America needs Mitt.

Go Mitt.

Will the president take responsibility for anything that has happened under his watch?

It has been a rough couple of weeks for the president.  Weakening economy, rising unemployment, a humiliating loss for his party in Wisconsin and last week's now infamous declaration that "the private sector is doing fine."  President Obama is backed into a corner.

The president is in desperate need of a reboot to his campaign.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Yesterday's speech in Ohio was supposed to be the catalyst to move his campaign out of the corner and launch him "forward."  His campaign advisors hyped up the speech and repeatedly suggested that it was going to be a "major" address full of bold ideas and a crisper theme for his vision.

Ummm...things did not go as planned.

By minute 54, his words were falling on deaf and increasingly hostile ears.  His campaign advisors' hearts must have stopped to read tweets made by their most ardent and vocal supporters in the press.  As Poltico wrote, when MSNBC's Mike O'Brien begs the president to stop talking, the speech is clearly not having its intended effect.

Mike O'Brien's tweet:  "In terms of politics, this speech could have ended 20 minutes ago.  Drive your message, take your ball and go home."

Even worse, while on air, MSNBC's Jonathan Alter, a vocal supporter of the president, brazenly said, "It was one of the worst speeches I have ever heard Barack Obama make."

Gut punch.

Today's headlines from all major news sources are full of grim criticism of the president's empty rhetoric.  The speech was a flop.  Period.

But wait, isn't Obama the great orator?  The brilliant campaigner?  Well, apparently not when he has to run a campaign on his own record.

His 54-minute speech was simply another castigation of President Bush's policies and it offered very little vision for his second term.  Many sarcastically questioned whether or not he actually recycled a speech from his 2008 campaign.

Does the president narrowly think American people are only interested in hearing whom is to blame for this mess?  He is wrong.  Americans are not looking for a "guilty" verdict.  Contrary to the president's repetitive campaign message, George Bush is not on trial.  He is not even on the ballot.

The president has lost focus and he seems to have forgotten that Americans are not looking for someone to blame, but rather, we are desperately yearning for solutions.  Solutions for an anxious nation whose financial problems keep us awake at night.  Solutions to help the millions of unemployed regain stability for their families.  Solutions that will help our neighbors stay in their homes.  Americans want solutions.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the president's silence on solutions is simply a reflection of the fact that he doesn't have any to offer.

***

Yes, the president inherited a weak economy, but he ran on the promise that he could fix it.  We believed him.  We gave him our vote and trusted him with our hope.  He has not delivered.

Instead, the incessant blame continues.  What the president fails to mention?  Obama inherited a mess, but he also inherited a democratically controlled House and Senate.  He was given the perfect environment to fix the "mess" the way he wanted.  From day one, Obama literally faced zero resistance to his vision.

What did he do with it?  For two years, he and his party were laser focused on the wrong things.  Health care reform and the passage of an astronomically expensive stimulus bill that he assured us would bring unemployment under 8%.

What do we have to show for his vision?  A debt of nearly $5 trillion, unemployment still over 8% for the 40th month in a row, a stimulus bill that did not stimulate, dozens of bankrupted companies that taxpayer money funded for Obama's largest campaign donors and now we await a ruling from the Supreme Court to determine whether or not his signature health care reform bill was even constitutional.

Is this Administration prepared to accept responsibility for anything that has happened under Obama's watch?

Were there any miscalculations?  Why won't his Administration admit that the 2009 stimulus bill did not do what they thought it would?  Has our president considered that adjustments need to be made?  He loves to criticize the missteps of others, but has he learned from his mistakes?

The answer is obviously no and yesterday's speech was obvious proof of it.  The president is hell bent on blaming his predecessor and incessantly complains about how difficult it is to work with Republicans.

Has someone told him that there are NO assurances that the Democrats will regain control of the House or even maintain control of the Senate?  What if this hostile and divided environment remains in his second term?  Will he know how to lead?

His record shows that he is incapable of it.

Image from the blaze.com

Blaming everyone but yourself simply shows a stubborn leader who will inevitably lose the confidence and support of those around him.  True leaders take responsibility for failures and make alterations to find lasting solutions.

John F. Kennedy once said, "Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer.  Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past, but let us accept our own responsibility for the future."

A quality that Obama has been unable to achieve.

***

In the coming weeks, as our president finger points, perhaps someone should remind him of his once inspiring words.  As a presidential candidate, in 2008, Obama said, "It's time to fundamentally change the way we do business in Washington.  To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative.  That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent."

Too bad that his record shows that those words must have come from a speech writer and not from his heart.  It is clear that that message didn't reflect his core convictions.

I have very little confidence that things would be different in an Obama 2nd term.

Why?  Rather than learn from the criticism of yesterday's disastrous speech, this morning the White House simply changed the conversation and announced a major policy change regarding immigration.  According to the AP, the White House will no longer deport illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children and have since led law-abiding lives.

This is extremely controversial.  As The Blaze reported, "This waiver is the latest move by the president to make changes to immigration policy without congressional action."

Yesterday's White House message: Blame.  Today's White House message: Pivot. Distract.

It feels calculated.  It feels insincere.  And it is undoubtedly politically motivated.

They are trying to show leadership.  I am not buying it.

So, although it has been a rough couple of weeks for the president, it has been an even rougher couple of years for us.

It is time for a change.

Emmanuel Dunand, AFP/Getty Images

Go Mitt.

Fallout from the White House "Leaks"

The fallout from the two New York Times articles citing the Obama Administration's recent handling of classified foreign policy procedures continues to swell---and rightly so.

 White House Photo by Pete Souza

In the first NYT article, specific and minute details emerge revealing the president's direct involvement with a secret "kill list" and how every Tuesday, he personally evaluates "baseball card-like" biographies of known terrorists and then selects who will become the next target of US drone attacks.  As the article stated, "It is the president who has reserved himself to the final moral calculation" of when and if someone should be killed.

The second NYT article reveals the explicit involvement of the US in cyber attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities.  Specific details about tense meetings and discussions surrounding the continued development of President Bush's program to develop a cyber weapon or "worm" named "Stuxnet" and how it has been planted to compromise Iran's nuclear capabilities.  The article cites that there were known hiccups with the code and how the US's involvement was nearly compromised.  The article continues, "it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code."

(Well, it is pretty safe to assume that Iran is no longer "unaware").

The articles are gripping and fascinating accounts of closed-door meetings and procedures that were put in place to ensure our national security.  The information is credible quoting interviews with "three dozen current and former advisors" as they describe the role of our president in the war on terror.

These NYT reporters clearly had access to extremely sensitive material and even greater access to the people who knew about it.

The articles unfold like a nail biting movie and ultimately portray our president as a forward-thinking leader, heroically defending our national security.

AP Photo

Controversy is now swirling around why these reporters were privy to this information and whether or not the White House actually encouraged the "leaks" for political advantage.  There is also growing concern over the fact that not only was the NYT privy to the details, but they actually chose to publish it.

Should those in the media be held accountable for divulging national secrets?

Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham have both voiced disgust and fury over the stories.  McCain went as far to say, "They (The White House) are intentionally leaking information to enhance President Obama's image as a tough guy for the elections."

Even more surprising?  Many Democrat senators and members of Congress are equally alarmed.  Senator Diane Feinstein (D), chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence fears that these leaks could "endanger American lives and undermine America's national security."

AP Photo

The White House is denying any involvement.  President Obama has said, "The notion that my White House would purposefully release classified information is offensive."

But does he have any credibility to deny it?

Direct quotes from multiple people who were "present" for the meetings make its difficult to believe that Administration officials were "unaware" that one of the largest and most credible newspaper publications in the world was documenting specific details of private White House meetings.

But let's assume for one minute that the president did not know.  Is it concerning to anyone that he never set parameters for his closest advisors on what they should divulge to the press?  Is he in charge?

Furthermore, should the president be concerned that he can't trust those closest to him to use good judgment on critical affairs?

Brendan Smialowski / AFP/Getty Image

If he really did not know, why isn't he outraged that his closest advisors have stabbed him in the back?  He only seems to be irritated that McCain wants to hold someone accountable for it.

I for one, am not buying it.  The amount of specific details in these articles makes it difficult to believe that these reporters were "leaked" the information.  These reporters had frequent access to high ranking officials.  Period.

I guess the only reason we can be confident that the president himself was never interviewed is that none of the quotes start with the words, "Let me be clear."

Two special prosecutors have now been assigned to look into the leaks.

***

Why is all of this a big deal?

Two huge reasons:

1) Our National Security is at Risk.
The NYT and these unnamed White House officials have brazenly divulged to the world and more specifically to Iran, the tactics we are willing to use in the War on Terror.  By exposing the specifics of our operations, it makes it much more difficult to remain stealth and covert.  How can we successfully keep the enemy guessing if we tell them exactly how we are going to sneak up on them?

MSNBC image

Also, it should horrify every American that according to the NYT report, the head of Iran's Passive Defense Organization, Brig. Gen. Gholamreza Jalali upon learning of the US's involvement in the cyber attacks has declared that the Iranian military is "prepared to fight our enemies" in "cyberspace and Internet warfare."

Do we have any reason to doubt that they will?

2) President Obama's Failure to Keep a Promise
Obama ran on the premise that President Bush's War on Terror was a black mark on America's relations with Arab Nations.  He frequently voiced disgust in Bush's handling of the war and on multiple occasions vowed to integrate stronger American values with fair trials for terror suspects.

But these articles show that Obama has not only embraced Bush's policies and tactics, but he clearly sees the War on Terror as a noble and worthy cause.  A fascinating article from foreignpolicy.com showed, over the last three years, this Administration has carried out over 239 covert drone strikes---more than five times the 44 approved by President Bush.

Furthermore, Obama's personal selection of targets for his "kill list" show that he no longer thinks that Miranda rights and fair trials are the way to handle terrorists.  Apparently he doesn't even want to follow Bush's lead and send them to Guantanamo.  He is perfectly fine to authorize a kill and with one strike, eradicate their existence from the world.

Problem?  He ran on the premise that he was different.  He voiced frequent disdain for Guantanamo Base and vowed to shut it down---he hasn't.  Obama ran on the promise that he would heal relations and restore dignity to America's international relations.  He pledged that America would not participate in policing the world.

These "leaks" simply show that his policies and "Obama Doctrine" are contrary to his campaign rhetoric.

***

Aside from the seriousness of America's National Security breeches and broken campaign promises, there is some blaring irony to all of this.  Although the president may not want to admit it, Obama is doing his part to make sure that history will be kind to his despised predecessor, President George W.Bush.  

Obama's strategies honor Bush's legacy and authenticate that President Bush was indeed a leader for the world in the War on Terror.

If the investigation reveals that these White House "leaks" were for political gain, who would have guessed that the fallout would also be a validation of the Bush Doctrine?

Gaffe or a Revelation of Core Beliefs?

I think it is fair to say that the president has a case of the Mondays.  After two weeks of gut punches and one major self-inflicted wound last Friday, the president is clearly off balance.  He is on the defensive and for an incumbent facing a tough reelection, that is not a good place to be.

Today's early headlines probably aren't helping his headache.

Image from foreign policy.com

"The private sector is doing fine" remark is dominating the news.  It is not going away.  And it must make the president a little sick to know that his rival is reveling in every second of it.

The president is learning a painful lesson:  As a politician, it is disheartening when your opponent finds an effective campaign weapon to discredit you---it is beyond devastating when you hand the weapons to your opponent with words straight from your own mouth.

***

It has been a rough couple of weeks for the president.  It all began when he unveiled his campaign focus: Attacks on Mitt Romney's business record and his desire to discredit Romney's private equity credentials as legitimate experience for the oval office.  Last month, Obama pledged that Mitt Romney's business record "is what this campaign is going to be about."

His strategy began to crumble however, when the resistance came from his most trusted allies.  Newark's Mayor and rising star for the Democrats Cory Booker poked the president in the eye when he sat on Meet the Press and said that the president's attacks on private equity made him sick.  When he said, "If you look at the record of Bain Capital, they have done a lot to support business, grow business.  This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides...Enough is enough.  Stop attacking private equity..."

WILLIAM B. PLOWMAN / NBC

Then last week, former President Bill Clinton undermined the president when he said in reference to private equity industry, "I don't think we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work; this is good work."  Clinton went on to say, "A man (Romney) who's been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold for the presidency."

If "this is what this campaign is going to be about," it certainly loses credibility when it it makes even your closest friends sick.

Things progressively got worse with the following events:

• May's dismal Labor Department report showing that the economy is slowing and unemployment rates are actually rising.  
• Scott Walker's ability to hold off a recall election in Wisconsin despite a huge Democrat grass root campaign and endorsements from top Democrat officials.  
• Despite Obama's open opposition to extending the Bush Tax Cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year, former President Bill Clinton discredited Obama when he said that he was actually in favor of extending them.
• Mitt Romney beat Obama in fundraising dollars by $17 million.   
• Polls show the two leaders tied in every swing state.

But last Friday, the president did more damage to his campaign than all of these events combined.  How?  He played right into the narrative that Mitt Romney wants to create that Obama doesn't understand the economy.  He believes that Obama can't help our economy because he doesn't understand private sector and remains too focused on the government solving our economic problems.

Early last Friday, President Obama called for a spontaneous press conference. I am sure he was hoping to redirect focus away from the events of the past two weeks and instead, use the media to show leadership and command of our economic crisis.  

Things didn't exactly go as planned.  In just a few simple words, he exposed a window to his core beliefs:  Obama is a liberal politician who wants a bigger government.

In the press conference, Obama chastised Congress for failing to pass legislation which would help public sector jobs and then defended that stance because, "the private sector is doing fine."  

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Pundits have been quick to brush off the president's remarks as nothing more than a "gaffe" and have been quite willing to defend him by saying, "What the president meant to say..." or "The point the president was trying to make was that the private sector is performing far better than the public sector."(Washington Post).

The Republican National Committee however, immediately pounced and released this powerful ad saying, "How can President Obama fix our economy, if he doesn't understand what's broken."

Today, Mitt Romney released this powerful campaign ad.  Citing that in the month of May, 300,000 more people joined the long-term unemployed.

I have a feeling if we were to ask those 300,000 people, they would not tell us that the private sector is "just fine."  It isn't.  The private sector is growing at an extremely slow pace of 3%.  Sorry Mr. President, this isn't "just fine."

***

The president tried to repair the damage and several hours later he said, "It is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine.  The economy needs to be strengthened.  I believe that there are a lot of Americans who are hurting right now.  The question then is, what are we going to do about it?"

What he failed to say?  How he plans to be the one to do it.

Truth is he has spent $4 trillion dollars trying and his efforts have not worked.  His stimulus bill didn't stimulate the economy.  His efforts to create jobs have provided only a temporary and artificial boost to jobs.  It didn't last.  Even his efforts to strengthen public sector jobs have all failed.

How are we supposed to believe that a second term would be different?

Obama no longer has the luxury of his party's control of the House and Senate.  The past two years have shown that Obama is nearly incapable of bipartisanship.  Furthermore, his incessant finger pointing at Republicans has burned the bridges for future cooperation.  Somehow the president has failed to accept that it is very difficult to get someone to rally behind you when you have blamed them for every one of your own missteps.

Why would things be any different in a second term?

***

President Obama's statement on Friday was not a gaffe.  I don't believe for one second that it didn't accurately reflect his core beliefs.  His only "mistake" was that he revealed it in a room full of reporters just a few days after declining jobs numbers.

My advice for the president and his team?  Embrace your convictions.  Quit acting like Obama is someone he is not.   He has become a politician who is no longer fighting for his convictions.  He is out of sync with himself and it is obvious that he is not campaigning on his core beliefs.  This may come as a shock, but no one is surprised that this president advocates a bigger, stronger government.

Former President Lyndon B. Johnson (Note: this will probably be the only time I ever quote Mr. Johnson), he once said something very powerful about the importance conviction.  He said, "What convinces is conviction.  Believe in the argument you are advancing.  If you don't, you're as good as dead."

I firmly believe that the more this president exposes his convictions and core ideology, the less in line it will be with the average American.

The more the president exposes his core beliefs, the more Mitt Romney's message of prosperity, stability, moral spending and job creation will resonate.  The more the president reveals himself--the more it helps Mitt Romney.

So, I would invite the president to continue to make statements that the private sector is doing "just fine."  Believe me, Mitt Romney and his allies are doing everything they can to place him back in it.   Come January 2013, Obama can let us know firsthand just how "fine" it is.

Go Mitt.

Danger of Leading without Listening

Four years ago, Barack Obama emerged on the national stage as a fresh voice of courage and hope.  His message was unique.  His speeches were inspiring.  He reminded us that we could be better.  His confidence gave us reason to think that he was different.

His message resonated and his historic election catapulted him to stratospheric approval ratings.  He was a rock star and Americans eagerly anticipated the change he promised.

Three and half years have passed since that historic election.  The confetti is gone, the crowds have dispersed and the enthusiasm is clearly gone.

Today, disappointment seems to be the only lasting emotion.

Disappointment because under Obama's leadership, little has changed for the better.  America is deeper in debt than the day he took office.  We are still completely dependent on foreign money and oil.  Millions are still without work.  Abandoned and foreclosed homes line our streets and America is more divided than at any point in our country's history.  Our leaders have failed us.  Our president has failed to live up to his own expectations and sadly, Americans have witnessed what can happen when someone attempts to lead without listening.

Not listening and refusal to compromise has been a constant theme in Obama's presidency---and it may very well cost him a second term.

***

This pattern emerged in his first month in office.  After his inauguration, Obama began to push a series of bold initiatives and programs that he assured us would help stimulate our crumbling economy.  Out of nowhere it seemed that solutions and programs were being hastily pushed through Congress---stimulus packages, the "Cash for Clunkers" program, clean energy initiatives and more.

With Democrat control of the House and the Senate, the president faced little resistance.  As no surprise, not all Republicans were not on board.  They began to voice deep concern and reservation about the cost of the stimulus programs and the legitimacy of the president's claims.

During the initial meeting with GOP leaders, President Obama responded to their concerns in a way that would later prove to be a perfect indicator for how he would lead.  Obama simply and bluntly retorted, "I won."

No compromises were made.  Suggestions were rejected.  Opposition ignored.  Obama failed to listen.

Since that day, very little compromise has taken place in Washington.  Concessions on crucial pieces of legislation are nonexistent and balanced negotiations have all failed.

Americans have been pleading for a more civil tone.

Yet, President Obama has failed to help our leaders find common ground.  He has done little to inspire them to be better.  He has failed to remind them that the Constitution starts with the line, "We the people", not "We the leaders of our party."  Instead, he has pushed his agenda and incessantly blamed his predecessor for everything that has failed.  Even failures of his own policies are conveniently blamed on President George Bush.

Over and over, the president has pointed fingers and blatantly ignored those who oppose his agenda.  Over and over, the president has failed to listen.

***

We saw this happen as he pushed for health care reform.  He surrounded himself with trusted allies and advisors and everyone else was unabashedly ignored and excluded from contributing to the draft.  Frequent closed door meetings were held and they always took place without the presence of any Republican leaders.

As details of the health care bill emerged, Americans began to voice resistance for the reform.  The bill was wildly unpopular.  Even members of the president's own party were reluctant to embrace it.   Support for the legislation was simply not there.  The president however, plowed through and refused to listen.  Bribes were made and back room deals were offered in trade for votes to approve the bill.

In March 2010, President Obama signed the historic health care reform bill.  It was signed into federal law without one Republican vote.  It passed along strict party lines and on the day it passed, only 35% of Americans supported the measure.

To this day, it has failed to generate the support of the general public.

No compromises were made.  Suggestions rejected.  Opposition ignored.  The president did not listen.

***

President Obama has failed to listen.  For three and half years, we have watched him push an agenda, which many times felt was being shoved down our throats.  We have watched him spend trillions of borrowed money.

Are we better off for it?

Obama now stands 154 days from his reelection.  In the past few weeks, he has been hit with a series of bad news.  The economy is still weak.  Last week's job numbers show that we are far from recovery.  Millions of Americans are without jobs and too many of our neighbors continue to lose their homes.

The Associated Press ran a fascinating article today called, "Few Options Left for Obama on Economy."  The article highlighted the fact the stimulus accounted for at least 1 million jobs and today, those jobs have nearly all disappeared.

The president's stimulus didn't stimulate and ironically, there were plenty of leaders and economists who tried to warn him that it wouldn't---he just didn't listen to them.

So now he stands begging us to give him more time.  Pleading with us to be forgiving of the slow pace of recovery.  Ironically, he is now begging us to listen to him.

The problem?  When a leader attempts to lead without listening, eventually there is no one left hear the plea.

This is already happening.  Mitt Romney is tied with the president.  His favorability ratings are surging, he has closed the gender gap and he is attracting independents.  His message of fiscal sobriety is resonating and more and more people are impressed with his bipartisan record as governor.

People are taking notice that Romney's resume shows an individual who knows how to listen.

Voters are intrigued.  Perhaps this is why Romney is tied with Obama in nearly every swing state and in the month of May, he beat Obama by $17 million in fundraising dollars.  An EPIC/MRA poll out today shows that Mitt Romney edges out the president 46-45% in the state of Michigan.

There is no question that the White House is on notice and they must be concerned that Obama's rockstar status has diminished.  To make matters worse, he is losing to a "weak," "out-of-touch," and "damaged" candidate.

Ouch.

***

The brilliance of a democracy is that it is designed to hold our leaders accountable for their actions.  One vote gives voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless.  On election day, even the quiet have a voice.

Soon enough, this president will see that in a democracy, the danger of not listening is that people will simply replace them with someone who will.

Go Mitt.

A Scott Walker Win and Why it Matters

Last night, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin prevailed in the historic recall election.  Polls closed at 9:00 PM ET and within minutes, the media started feeding a frenzy reporting that exit polls indicated that the race was "too close to call." Within an hour, however, the polling numbers indicated that Walker had indeed won and by a much larger margin of victory than was assumed.  He won by 7% points.

AP Photo/Morry Gash

Those in the media have been quick to point out however, that although Walker won the election, the exit polls did reflect some "good news" for President Obama.  Those who participated in the exit polls were asked to choose between Obama and Romney.  The exit polling data showed if the election were held today, Obama would carry Wisconsin by a 52-43% margin.

Phew.

I am glad to hear that the White House can exhale.  They should really take comfort in those numbers. Because as last night's final election results indicated, those exit polls are very reliable.

***

Today, the spin of this election is in full swing.  Despite big name endorsements from Bill Clinton and DNC chairwoman, Debbie Wassermann Schulz and also, despite a massive grassroots effort by Unions and Democrats to oust Walker, the tone of the left is much different today.  The left is now arguing that this recall election was just a little "local" election that won't really impact the November race.

Haraz N. Ghanbari/AP

I guess that is why it is now easy for them to justify the blatant absence of Obama's participation in the race.   Oh wait, I stand corrected, he did tweet his "support" late Monday night.

Although the left would like us to believe that this election was inconsequential to national politics, make no mistake about it, the White House cared about this outcome.  Despite the brave face today, there has to be a growing concern.

***

In 2010, candidate Scott Walker ran on a message of fiscal reform and accountability.   Once in office, Walker kept his campaign promise and immediately began to address a $3.6 billion budget shortfall.  He proposed a bill limiting the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care.  Furthermore, Walker wanted to limit the pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation.

Ironically, Walker's message was that of "fairness."  He wanted public sector union employees to pay the same fair rates comparable to those outside the unions.

Walker wanted state employees to make a greater contribution to their pensions and said that without fiscal changes to the budget, thousands of state workers risked being laid off.  He argued that the changes would save the state of Wisconsin $180 million a year.

Democrats and big union bosses cried foul.  They protested, marched and even some legislators purposely left the state in order to block a vote on the bill.

Image from nymag.com

Their efforts came up short.  Walker and the voice of his supporters rang louder than the chants and protests of Big Unions.  

In just over a year, Walker's reforms helped private businesses create thousands of jobs.  His fiscal restraints turned a $3.6 billion budget deficit turn into a surplus.  He did all of it without increasing the role of government and he accomplished it without raising taxes.  Furthermore, he prevailed over big unions.

Scott Walker pushed for a smaller, less involved government.  He pushed for fiscal discipline and responsibility.  He wanted to diminish the power that unions have in dictating how his state's budget is allocated.  His efforts were beyond successful.

Yesterday's vote shows the value in fiscal reform and accountability.  Yesterday's vote also shows that big unions voices are not as powerful and influential as once thought.

***

Why does the White House care?  Two reasons.

1) President Obama is pro-government.  He thinks the role of the government should be bigger not smaller.  His limitless spending spree of the past 3 1/2 years reflects a politician who believes that government spending is the answer to our economic fragility.  He hasn't insisted that his party members limit their spending to the confines of a budget and that simply reflects someone with little regard for our astronomical debt.

Obama with Bob King, President of United Auto Workers (Getty Image/Chip Somodevilla) 

2) It is also no secret that this president is pro-union.  His policies have always been loyal to the union vote.  For example, his efforts to bailout the auto industry primarily benefited the United Auto Workers Union.  Since taking office, Obama has had countless meetings with union leaders to discuss the country's economic recovery and how it will impact the standing of various unions in their respective communities.

Hector Sealey, Safety Director, Construction Corporation, and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (Carolyn Kaster/AP)

As a result, the unions have been fiercely loyal to Obama.  Their support and financial backing helped  him win the White House in 2008.  One can't help but ask if their admiration and loyalty will be as strong this time around.  The president's absence in this Wisconsin fight shows that his fear of a loss was greater than his desire to help his friends win a desperate fight for their cause.

Did Obama's silence sour his relations with unions?

As I have said before, it is becoming increasingly clear that this president is more concerned about saving his own job than he is in saving ours.

This recall election mattered.

I am not about to say that Wisconsin is now a red-leaning state---the last time Wisconsin voted for a Republican President was in 1984.  I hardly see that changing this time around, but why this election mattered is that the fight for a smaller, more accountable and fiscally responsible government prevailed.

Image from Washingtonpost.com

This is the heart of Mitt Romney's message.  It goes without saying that the White House is hoping that support of that message won't trickle beyond the borders of the badger state.

I think they are fooling themselves to ignore that it already has.

Go Mitt.

All Eyes on Wisconsin

Tomorrow marks a pivotal day in Wisconsin politics---the recall election of the sitting governor.  Scott Walker, the Republican governor, who after his 2010 win, pushed for fiscal reform for his state's budget and ended the collective bargaining rights for public employees.  (Wisconsin is one of the few states where public employees are unionized).

Jeffrey Phelps/AP Photo

Labor unions and Democrats immediately cried foul and successfully collected the needed one million signatures to initiate a recall.  They have aggressively tried to make the case that Walker abused his power and that his efforts to remove collective bargaining rights would have a devastating impact on Wisconsin's economy.

Both conservatives and liberals have seen the importance of this recall election.  Millions and millions of dollars have been poured into the state--$63.5 million.  Big name endorsements on both sides have tried to influence the vote including former President Bill Clinton and Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schulz.

Labor unions and high profile liberals have argued that with Walker in power, the sky is falling.

Their efforts have yet to convince the masses.  Walker is currently leading his rival, Milwaukee Mayor, Tom Barrett and by many accounts, Walker has the clear advantage tomorrow.

Things began to really crumble last week when the Associated Press reported that Wisconsin's economy is actually doing pretty well.  The AP verified that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics confirmed that 23,608 jobs were added in Wisconsin in 2011.

I guess the sky isn't falling when collective bargaining rights have been stripped.

***

The outcome of this election will have national repercussions.  It goes without saying that White House will be closely watching the outcome of this recall election.

Why?

Because it just might be a referendum on the president himself.

Barry Burden, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison told ABC News that it is a referendum on the president's policies because, "It is a statement about what role we think the public sector ought to play."

Burden went on to say, "There are fundamental differences between the two parties here and they mimic the debate in Washington. Republicans want to reduce the size of government and they view the public sector as a hindrance to job growth, while Democrats want to use the public sector to spur job growth, promote fairness and serve as a safety net.  We can't do both.  Wisconsin is a swing state and it represents a lot of the diversity we find in the country in general, so for that reason, I think the recall here is a symbol of a larger argument going on."

The presidential election is shaping up to be a deadlock between President Obama and Mitt Romney.  The race is becoming increasingly bitter and most polling analysts have the race being decided between just a handful of states.

Obama's road to 270 electoral votes is tight and although there are number of scenarios where Obama could reach that magic number, every single scenario includes a Wisconsin win for the president.

A loss tomorrow for the Democrats, undoubtedly puts Wisconsin in play for Mitt Romney.

A loss for the Democrats will be a reflection that 1) Big Labor's influence is waning, 2) Big name Democrat endorsements are not as influential as once thought and 3) Voters can now see that fiscal sobriety has its advantages.

Today, those on the left are trying to spin their way out of this embarrassing loss by complaining that they were simply outspent 7 to 1.  Outspent?  This is what they think it came down to?  That is insulting to the voters in Wisconsin.

It is petty and sophomoric to ignore that this recall election was a true battle of ideology.  Big government vs. fiscal constraint.   To cry foul over political advertising dollars spent is insinuating that the outcome is simply a reflection of which side was able to "trick" voters the best.  This is insulting.

The voters in Wisconsin aren't stupid.

***

Tomorrow's outcome is pivotal.  While Democrats are now trying to act like they didn't really care about this recall election, Conservatives are going to see that in spite of high-profile Democratic endorsements and loud Big Union protests, conservative principles and ideology prevailed.

A Walker win tomorrow in Wisconsin is without question, a huge boost for Mitt Romney---and the president knows it.

So as Mitt Romney and the president anxiously await tomorrow's returns, they know that it just might be a predictor of what's to come...and things are starting to appear shiny red.

Go Mitt.

Is This What Recovery Feels Like?

The Labor Department reported today that 69,000 jobs were added to the US work force during the month of May.  The problem with that number?  It is less than half the number that economists had predicted--less than half.

The Wall Street Journal cited that economists surveyed by Dow Jones had forecast a gain of 155,000.  But US businesses added only 69,000---the fewest in one year.

As a result, the unemployment rate in America has now inched up to 8.2%.  To make matters worse? The Labor Department made adjustments to the April jobs report.  The revisions showed that 49,000 fewer jobs were actually created in April than was originally reported.  This means that the unemployment rate actually rose last month to 8.2%.

It has been three years since the recession ended, is this what recovery feels like?

***

This is obviously concerning news for the president.  As I have mentioned before, since Franklin D. Roosevelt, no sitting president has won a second term when unemployment rates were above 8%.

How is the president reacting to these numbers?  Alan Krueger, chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, released a statement, "It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report."

Krueger attempted to paint a pretty picture out of what is becoming an increasingly bleak reality.  He went on to say, "The economy is growing, but it is not growing fast enough."

The White House's reaction is sort of like watching someone get smacked in the face and then with tears streaming down their face, they attempt to smile and say, "That didn't hurt."

Shawn Thew / European Pressphoto Agency

The Obama team is going to do everything they can to remind voters that these numbers are not his fault and that it is simply a result of the mess that he inherited.  Problem with that argument?  Yes, Obama inherited a huge financial mess, but we hired him to fix it.  He ran on the promise that he could and we believed him.

I can't help but ask, if Obama were running this time around for the presidency, would he be as forgiving of the sitting president as he is now asking us to be of him?  If roles were somehow reversed, would Obama be commending these results?  Would he be saying, "This feels like progress.  We are moving 'forward.'"  Would he be saying, "It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report."

One thing is certain, a candidate Obama would never be saying, "Let's give this guy a little more time."

The fact is, the president is doing his best.  He has done his best to get unemployment down.  He has done his best to artificially stimulate the economy.  He has done his best to "unify" our country.

This is what his best provides.

Image from inc.com

Should we be satisfied with 8.2% unemployment?  Should we be satisfied that he spent $5 trillion to stimulate our economy and this is what we get for it?

According to the president, this is what recovery is supposed to feel like.  I think we deserve better.

Americans must continue to ask ourselves, can we really afford to find out how this president will somehow make things better in the next four years?

As the November election grows increasingly closer, the president and his team are campaigning for more time and asking us to have confidence in the president's job performance.  But with reports like today's Labor Report, showing a volatile and fragile economy in America, I think it might be time to say, "Sorry Mr. President, we are no longer buying into the notion that your job security is somehow more important than ours."

This is not just about the president's job security.  This is not just about politics or election.  It is about our livelihood.  Our stability.  Our future.  Our lives.

We deserve more.  Mitt Romney has the resume that shows he knows how to make weak things stronger.  And his resume shows that he knows how to do it in a fiscally responsible way.  He understands what is needed to make businesses thrive.  He understands how to help a company so that it can hire more people.  He spent 25+ years perfecting how to do it.

In short, I have no doubt that Mitt Romney will show us what a recovery should really feel like.

Go Mitt.