Does Benghazi Matter? 3 Reasons Why it Does

The most highly talked about moment in Tuesday's debate isn't the fact that Obama had a strong performance---it isn't that the president "won" the debate---and much to Obama's dismay, the focus isn't "binders full of women."

Like it or not, the focus continues to be the Benghazi attacks.

Image from ABC News

During the debate, Mitt Romney said, "It took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

The president then interrupted and said, "Get the transcript." (Who was he talking to?)  Then out of nowhere, the debate moderator Candy Crowley, interjected and declared that the president did indeed call it an "act of terror."

Wait...When the president said, "Get the transcript," did he actually cue the moderator?  Had the president actually prepared her in advance with materials to help him at just the right moment?

Is that even allowed?  Isn't that a conflict of interest?

Well, I want to know if Mitt Romney was granted the same courtesy.  Because I am sure Romney would have appreciated Crowley's "fact checking skills" when the president flatly denied that his administration has cut the number of permits and licenses for oil drilling on federal lands and waters. Obama said Romney was lying.  Fact checkers and analysts have confirmed that Romney was right.

{It is worth noting, that following the debate, Crowley admitted that "Romney was largely right on Libya."}

Image from Wall Street Journal

But thanks to the debate, Obama finally offered some clarity:  He wants the American people to know that on September 12th, he officially, although somewhat ambiguously, called the embassy attack an "act of terror."

Well, I would argue that there are three reasons why Obama made a huge mistake in "clarifying an act of terror:"

***

#1 Did the President Prioritize Fundraising over National Security?

1) If the president firmly believed that the attacks were an "act of terror," how did he justify hours after the attack, to leave the confines of closed door meetings with his National Security Advisers and Intelligence Staff at the White House to parade himself around at fundraisers and campaign events? 

Obama in Las Vegas on September 12th (Image from Flickr)

Hadn't terrorists just committed a despicable act of war on America's interests abroad?  Wasn't an Ambassador dead?  For the first time in 30 years, an American ambassador had been murdered in an attack on our embassy and hours later, the president is off talking to supporters in Las Vegas about looking "Forward?"

That doesn't exactly look like leadership.  And it certainly doesn't show the terrorists that we have a president who is serious about terrorism.

#2 Who Fed the President False Information? Why Did he Believe Them?

If the president was convinced on September 12th that it was terrorism, then at what point did he change his conviction?  Who told him that it was a spontaneous attack in response to a YouTube video and why did he trust them enough to believe it?  Who had the president's ear?  And how did they convince him so quickly to change his description of the attacks to repeatedly say that it was simply a spontaneous protest in response to an obscure 20 minute video? 

Image from UPI.com

Whoever fed the president and Secretary Hillary Clinton this false information should be fired.  This information tarnished their reputation and their judgement.  My heavens, days after the attack, our president and the Secretary of State stood before the caskets of the four dead Americans and in front of their families, they simply condemned the video.  

Even worse?  Obama and Clinton spent millions of dollars on a commercial aired in Pakistan where they actually apologized for any offense that the video had caused---yet not one condemnation of terrorism.  

For two weeks, White House spokesmen, Obama and Clinton repeated claims about the video.  President Obama appeared on The View, David Letterman and he even spoke before the United Nations, but never once clarified that our embassy had been attacked by terrorists.  Rather, we simply heard that there was an investigation and that the video clip had sparked the violence.    

We now know that this not true. 

#3 Why Are Only Women Taking the Heat?   Did Obama throw Women Under the Bus?

Five days after the Benghazi attacks, the White House sent the current UN Ambassador, Susan Rice to appear on five different Sunday talk shows.  On each of these shows, Rice adamantly and consistently insisted, "Our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, a spontaneous protest prompted by the YouTube video." 

The Washington Post reported that Rice says that "days before her TV appearances, she relied on updates from Security Officials and also on a set of talking points prepared by the administration."  She says that there was no attempt on her part to "pick and choose" possible explanations.  

Either she is lying or someone deliberately used her to downplay suspicions of terrorism.  Why?  Either way, Rice's reputation and her credibility is ruined and someone in this administration is letting it happen.

Secretary Hillary Clinton is also at the center of this controversy.  She now takes "full responsibility for what happened on September 11th."  Full responsibility for what?

Is Hillary confirming that she was the one who ignored Ambassador Steven's repeated requests to beef up security in Benghazi?  Was she responsible for the phony talking points provided for Susan Rice?  Was she the one who had the president's ear and convinced him to waver on his September 12th "act of terror" declaration? 

Was she the one who failed to inform the President and Joe Biden that this was truly terrorism and that there were security breeches?  Because according to the last two debates, apparently neither of them were "aware" of any security issues at this embassy.

If all of this is true, will the president be forced to fire Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton?  If it isn't true, then why is President Obama allowing these two women to take the blame?

Either way, his administration seems perfectly willing to throw these women under the bus.

***

The president and his administration have handled the Benghazi tragedy with sloppiness and careless ambiguity.   An ambassador is dead.  American interests have been attacked by terrorists.  American security has been breached.  And yet, all we see from this administration is that a strange cover-up is unraveling.

To defend the president on many things is fine with me, but to defend his handling of the Benghazi attack is indefensible.

The press may not want to hold him accountable for it, but in 19 days, we can.  We should.  We will.

Go Mitt.

Women for Mitt? A Simple Call for Action

Are you a woman who Stands with Mitt?

This is a personal invitation to take part in a small, yet powerful Facebook movement.

This Thursday, tomorrow, women across this country want to vocalize their support for Mitt Romney and show President Obama that although he may speak for some, he doesn’t speak for us. 

In three short sentences, update your Facebook status with, “I am a woman.  I live in (city, state).  And then one sentence about why you support Mitt Romney.  Sample:

“I am a woman.  I live in Denver, Colorado.  I stand with Mitt. (Or I stand with Mitt because...)

Then challenge your friends to do the same.  

Please forward this message to every woman you know who wants to reclaim her voice in this election.  Invite her to post the same Facebook status update tomorrow.  

Let’s reclaim our voice in this election.  Let's Stand with Mitt!

We can make a difference! 

The Election: A Job Interview or Personality Contest?

CNN contributor David Frum is doing what more of his colleagues should be doing--holding the president accountable for his record.

In this CNN article today, Frum poses 10 questions that President Obama needs to answer. Everything from the results of the Obama recovery---the fragile and volatile U.S. relations in the Middle East---the stagnant unemployment levels---the stimulus bill that failed to stimulate---and the lack of bipartisanship in Washington.

Direct questions.  Needed Answers.  Accountability.

My favorite question: "You inherited the worst economic crash since the 1930's.  The economy hit bottom in the summer of 2009 and a recovery began.  Congratulations. Yet this recovery has been the slowest and weakest since World War II.  Nobody blames you for the collapse, but why shouldn't Americans blame you for the meager record since the recovery began three years ago?"

Thank you Mr. Frum. Now it would be nice if someone would actually make the president answer these questions--without a teller prompter and without a campaign advisor at his side.

Will they?

I hope. Because the answers to these questions will help Americans determine if this president deserves a second chance.  But sadly, the press seem more focused on helping us identify who we'd rather have a beer with than who is more capable of leading America out of this fiscal crisis.

Image from ABCnews.com

The press remains anxious and committed to hold Mitt Romney accountable for every statement he has ever said---every dollar he has ever made---and every blunder in his campaign.  Yet the president is asking for a second chance to accomplish what he failed to get done in four years.  Why doesn't anyone think it is relevant to find out why he couldn't get the job done in his first term and why a second term would be any different?

Accountability matters.

The truth remains, Mitt Romney may have had a rough couple of weeks, but Americans have had an  even rougher couple of years and this president's efforts to help us have failed miserably.

I think we deserve better. I am standing with Mitt because he is a leader whose resume reflects that he knows how to keep his promises and that he knows how to do what he says.

I believe we should treat this election as a job interview rather than just a personality contest.  Because my family can't afford to find out what happens if Obama gets it wrong...again.

Can yours?

Go Mitt.

Will Anyone Hold the President Accountable? We Can. We Should. And We Will.

The media wants the election to be over.  As shocking as it is, the media is done vetting this president.

In the past few weeks, their endorsement of Obama's second term has become blatantly obvious.  Any conservative would describe this shift in their coverage of the election.

We feel it.  We see it.  And quite frankly, we are disgusted by it.

Image from reddogreport.com

The press anxiously waits to pounce on Mitt Romney's mistakes, while the president's mistakes (and there have been plenty) have been largely overlooked and quickly forgiven.  Yesterday, the president's UN speech alone and his indefensible comment, "The future does not belong to those who slander Islam," should have provided any news editorial page with enough material to last for weeks.

But what dominates the opinion pages today?  Continued focus on Mitt Romney's 47% comment.

The liberal drum beats are getting louder.  Members of the media want to reward this president for another "brilliant" campaign rather than hold him accountable for the failure of the job the American people hired him to do.

Conservatives are now brazenly labeled as weak and extreme.   Is it any wonder that poll numbers are shoved in our faces as often as possible?  They want us to lose confidence.  They want us to be discouraged.

Is it working?  Amidst all the noise, can conservatism prevail?  Is the election over?

Absolutely not.

First of all, how many times during the primaries did the press declare Mitt Romney's campaign as dead?  Believe me.  Dozens of times.  I was watching it all like a hawk.

But amidst all the noise, one powerful thing remains in our hands: Our Vote.  We must never forget that while the media does not want to hold the president accountable for his dismal record, we can.  We should.  We will.

Unemployment remains above 8% for an unthinkable 43rd month.  The president spent hundreds of billions with the assurance that it would drop the unemployment rate to 6%.  He was wrong.

The press does not want to hold him accountable for this failure, but we can.  We should.  We will.

Image from thegrio.com

The president continues to declare himself an "Advocate of the middle class" and "Big Brother to the Poor."  Yet, under his watch, millions and millions of Americans have dropped out of the middle class and are now living in poverty.  Under his watch, 1 in 6 Americans now lives in poverty.  Obama is an "Advocate for the middle class?"  Please.  Those are empty, feel good words that have nothing to do with his record.

The press may not want to hold the president accountable for this hypocrisy, but we can.  We should.  We will.

***

We must not forget that in 1980, before the debates, Ronald Reagan was trailing in the polls. Reagan went on to beat incumbent President Jimmy Carter by 10 points.

We must also not forget that in June, the press had written off the election in Wisconsin to unseat Governor Scott Walker.  Up until election day, the press showed that polls were tight and that Walker's chance of winning was minimal.  The press was wrong.  Walker won 54 to 45---it was not even close.

The key this election is to be a different kind of voter.  In order to win, we must become advocates.  Mitt Romney needs more than just our votes.  He needs our voices.  He needs our presence.

What are you doing to become that presence?  Click here to find out what you can do.

Image from mittromney.com

The president thinks he speaks for you.  The press is sure they speak for you.  Do they?

Too much is at stake.  Namely, the implementation of an extremely expensive and controversial health care law, Obamacare---a growing world crisis with Islamic extremists---a mounting economic crisis worldwide---a crumbling U.S. economy---a broken housing market---and a drastically weakened US dollar.

The press wants us to put Obama in charge of something he already failed to accomplish?  No thanks.

President Obama already vowed to help us once.  He couldn't.  He didn't.  He is now asking for more time to get it right.  Can your family afford to find out if he is wrong...again?

Go Mitt.

Is foreign policy really Obama's strength? Or is it running a brilliant campaign?

Our embassies across the world are under attack.  For the first time in 30 years, a U.S. Ambassador has been killed.  (The last U.S. Ambassador to be killed was in 1979).  American flags are being burned.  Embassies are closing.  Anti-American sentiment is raging across the globe.

Is Obama's foreign diplomacy working?  Is foreign policy really his strength?

Image from dailymail.co.uk

The White House Administration is adamant that we need to be patient before drawing any conclusions about the nature of the attacks.  They continue to say that the unrest around the world and specifically the attacks in Libya were simply the "result of an anti-Islam video."

The White House has repeatedly condemned the video and apologized for its content.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the film is "disgusting and reprehensible" and a "cynical attempt to offend people for their religious beliefs."

Last Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "There was no actionable intelligence that could in any way have been acted upon to prevent these attacks."  Carney went on to say, "We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack."

Things are starting to get a little sticky.

Today CNN reported that months before the attack, Ambassador Chris Stevens had voiced his concerns for his safety and that he knew that he was on an al Qaeda hit list.

CNN also reported that "three days before the deadly attack, a local security official met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.  James Mabrouk, a member of the brigade told CNN that the "security situation wasn't good.  The situation is frightening, it scares us."

That was three days before the attack.

So let me get this straight, for months our ambassador feared for his life, a security guard warns about the lack of security and yet the "protesters"/attackers were still able to carry out their objectives?

Was anything done to beef up security?  To protect American interests?  To protect American lives?

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said, "As we did with all of our missions overseas, in advance of September 11, as we do every year, we did evaluate the threat stream and determined that the security at Benghazi was appropriate for what we knew."

It is disheartening then to learn that as the New York Times reported, the "protests" began at 10 PM with rocket-propelled grenades and by 10:15 the attackers had gained entrance to the main building."

The New York Times report continued, "Reports are that American and European officials said that while many details about the attack remain unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well-trained and heavily armed, it appears they had some level of advanced planning."

Hmm.

The White House would like us to believe that a few angry people who heard something about a little, obscure YouTube video, just randomly appeared with rocket-propelled grenades and were able to break down our "adequate" security and take over an embassy in a matter of minutes?  And just by coincidence, it happened on the anniversary of 9/11?

Please.

Should it surprise anyone that the Washington Post reported today, that a senior U.S. intelligence official is now telling lawmakers that "The U.S. ambassador and three other Americans killed last week in Libya died in the course of a terrorist attack."

Ouch.  What was the White House's response?

Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counter Terrorism Center simply corroborated the Administration's stance and said, "initial conclusions do not point to a planned assault.  Instead, the facts indicate that this was an opportunistic attack."

Image from dailymail.co.uk

Why not tell it like it is?  Is there really harm in calling it terrorism?

Based on the White House's response, yes.

I guess it makes sense.  All of this unrest and foreign policy breakdown reflect poorly on the president.

Will they still be able to say Obama's strength is foreign policy?  Can they still brand him the "healer" of extreme Muslim relations if it is obvious that these extremist still hate us.  Can they still avoid Bush's term, "War on Terror,"if it is obvious that this war is still raging?

Will it be harder to sell Obama's campaign theme that "America is safer now that Osama is dead" if our embassies are being easily overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists, American flags have been replaced by al Qaeda flags, our buildings are burning and an Ambassador has been brutally murdered?

This doesn't feel safer to me.  This doesn't feel like progress.

Image from nbcnews.com

In all fairness, maybe the White House did not know these specifics.  Maybe they didn't have all the details, but for an administration that is keenly aware of every single thing that rival Mitt Romney has ever said and everything he has ever done, it is a little hard to believe that they were somehow unaware of this global crisis.

What is our president doing today?  He continues to annihilate Mitt Romney for a secretly taped video where Romney is heard discussing the 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes and why they would never vote for Mitt Romney.

I am of the belief that a president should not be rewarded for a "brilliant" campaign, but rather be rewarded for the job he has done as president.

America deserves better than what this president has offered.

Go Mitt.

A Different Kind of Election Requires a Different Kind of Voter

According to the press, the election is pretty much over.  The Democrats apparently pulled off a "brilliant" convention, Obama got a slight bounce from it and now they are ready to drop the confetti and pull out the Greek columns.

They almost seem bored to have to still talk about Mitt Romney.

Image from pennlive.com

The media's love affair with our president is baffling.  Isn't their role to inform and hold our leaders accountable for their actions?  Accountability? Anyone? Anyone?  

We are less than 2 months from a pivotal election and our president's record remains a disaster.  The media's reaction?  The press is more obsessed with holding Mitt Romney accountable for his "lackluster" campaign than they seem willing to hold the president accountable for 4 years of failures.

Totally irresponsible.

What is his record again?

• This president is credited with the slowest recovery on record.  
• During his presidency, millions of people continue to drop out of the middle class and are now living in poverty.   
• This president failed to keep his promise to reduce the deficit in half in his first term.  He didn't--he doubled it. 
• The president has lead without listening.  (It is important to remember that when the stimulus bill was devised, it did not include one single proposal from the GOP House leadership.  Not one).
• This president leads with a complete lack of bipartisanship.  (His unprecedented overhaul of our health care system passed without one Republican vote).
• This president has demonstrated a blatant willingness to bypass Congress with Executive Orders in order to push his agenda--namely changes to immigration laws.  
• The president pushed an unprecedented $800 billion dollar stimulus bill and it failed to stimulate our economy.  (It is known that Obama's highest campaign donors and worker's unions benefitted tremendously from the stimulus money--our tax dollars).
• Unemployment remains over 8% for an unthinkable 43 months straight.

These are the highlights of Obama's first term.  This record is a disaster.

Obama is now asking for a second term without any specifics as to why it would be any different than the disaster of his first and all the press wants to discuss is Mitt Romney's campaign mistakes?

Where is the demand for accountability?  Where is the outrage?  Where is the disgust?

The headlines?  The press continues to mock Conservatives for being "angry" and ridicules Conservatives for becoming "demoralized."

It is a joke.

***

As I have mentioned before, we must never forget that on Obama's third day in office, he met with Congressional leaders to discuss the details of his stimulus bill.  Republican leaders were concerned about the cost of the stimulus bill, the burden on tax payers and skepticism that it would even create jobs.

Obama's response?  He looked right at Eric Cantor, the House Majority leader and brazenly said, "Elections have consequences.  I won."

The president was right about one thing, elections do have consequences.  And the consequences of this election will be even greater than any other in our lifetime.

This election matters.  This election has consequences. And since this election is different, it will a different kind of supporter.

I am convinced that a "Mitt Romney Victory" requires more than just a vote.

Image from reddogreport.com

The media would like to silence our outrage and continue to portray us as extreme and out-of-touch and "dangerous" because we want to restore fiscal discipline to Washington.  The press wants us to be demoralized.

We shouldn't stand for it.  So what do we do about it?

We need to become more vocal.  Our presence needs to be stronger.  We need to strengthen the grassroots efforts in our communities.  We need bumper stickers on our cars.  And we need to respectfully remind our neighbors as often as possible that our president has failed us.  He was wrong about being able to help us and we can't risk waiting to find out if he is wrong---again.

(Click here for ways to become this type of presence in your community).

image from cnn.com

The press refuses to hold our president accountable---but Mitt Romney will.  The press wants to silence and mock our positions---we shouldn't stand for it.  We need to show that our love of country is stronger and more powerful than the press's love affair with our president.

This election will require more of each of us---will we give it?

I think it is time to ask ourselves, what am I really doing to reclaim my voice in this election?

Ann Romney Exceeds Expectations & Nails It

The first day of the convention is over.  The delegates made their choice and Mitt Romney sealed the nomination.

The evening was full of boisterous speeches from Republican party elites who tried to make the case that our president has failed us, but Mitt Romney will succeed.

Perhaps the most highly anticipated speech of the night was from Mitt Romney's wife, Ann.  Expectations were high.   She was given the task to humanize her husband and let people see a side of their lives, which has been branded by many as out-of-touch.

As Ann Romney took the stage, she looked radiant.  Her striking red dress caught our attention, but her calm and reassuring demeanor captured our interest and respect.

She spoke from the heart.  She eloquently described her life with the boy she fell in love with at the age of 15.  She talked about the humble beginning to their marriage in a basement apartment with a desk made from a door propped on saw horses and their fold-down ironing board used as a kitchen table.

She described what it was like to be a young mom and the loneliness she felt as she supported her husband in his years of school and then stood by his side as he and a couple of friends worked tireless hours to launch their new business---a business which would later prove to be one of the most successful private equity firms in the world.

She described her struggle with the debilitating disease Multiple Sclerosis and her battle with Breast Cancer.  She said, "I read somewhere that Mitt and I have a 'storybook marriage.'  Well, in the storybooks I read, there were never long, long, rainy winter afternoons in a house with five boys screaming at once.  And those storybooks never seemed to have a chapter called MS or Breast Cancer.

"A storybook marriage?  No, not at all.  What Mitt and I have is a real marriage."

Image from thenewyorker.com

Knowing that the Obama camp has ruthlessly tried to portray Mitt Romney's success at Bain Capital as a weakness, she addressed it head-on.  She said, "The jobs that grew from risks they took have become college educations, first homes.  That success has helped fund scholarships, pensions, and retirement funds.  This is the genius of America: dreams fulfilled help others launch new dreams."

She proudly highlighted Mitt's successful career and reminded Americans that to attack it is a foolish attempt to distract.  She said, "Let's be honest, if the last four years had been more successful, do we really think that there would be this attack on Mitt Romney's success?  Of course not."

In a subtle knock on the president, with his incessant blaming of his George Bush and his failed attempts fix things, she said, "We're too smart to know that there aren't easy answers, but we are not dumb enough to accept that there aren't better answers."

Wow.

Image from Foxnews.com

One of the most poignant moments of her speech came when she subtly addressed their wealth and financial status.  She said, "Mitt doesn't like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege and not a political talking point.  We are not different than the millions of Americans who quietly help their neighbors, their churches and their communities.  They don't do it so that others will think more of them.  They do it because there is no greater joy.  'Give and it shall be given unto you.'"

It was a powerful moment.

As she finished up her well-received speech, she encouraged America to get to know her husband and said that we can have full confidence that he will lead our country out of this stagnant economic recovery.  Looking straight into the camera, she firmly said, "I can stand here tonight as a wife, a mother, a grandmother and an American and I make you this solemn commitment: This man will not fail."

Ann Romney exceeded expectations.  She connected.  She delivered.  She nailed it.

Image from Bostonglobe.com

Her words cast a light on the character of these two people, the lives that they lead, the exemplary children they have raised and the influence for good they are having on the people around them.  She was seen as a respectable, likable and caring woman who has experienced trials and struggles which few can imagine, but she has endured it all with dignity and grace.

Perhaps the most important imagery to emerge from her speech? Mitt Romney has been at her side through it all.

Her speech had an impact. The media is in a spinning frenzy today because much to their dismay, the real Mitt Romney is beginning to emerge and I am confident that Americans are going to love what they see.

Go Mitt.

What Negative Campaign?

I once read that spreading a bad rumor can be compared to taking a bag full of feathers and purposefully dumping the contents on a windy day.

Regardless of how hard one tries, it is virtually impossible to re-collect every feather.

The president and his team must be very familiar with this feather comparison.  Only problem?  Their most recent campaign tactics have demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to dump false rumors, knowing full-well that it will be impossible to clean up the mess they made.

***

Yesterday, President Obama held an impromptu news conference in the White House briefing room.  As of late, Obama has taken some heat for his lack of availability to the press corps---it has been 8 weeks since his last question and answering.  Then when he and Michelle recently granted an interview with the celebrity outlets like People Magazine and Entertainment Tonight, it peeved even his greatest admirers in the press.

He took a few questions and was asked to comment on the negativity of his campaign, the accusations that have been made against Romney and the Obama Super PAC ad, which carelessly alludes that Mitt Romney was somehow responsible for the death of a former steel worker's wife.

Image from Whitehouse.gov

The president tried to calm concerns and explained that he is not a running a negative campaign and that the press can rest assured that he is taking the high road.

In reference to the Super PAC ad which has been denounced by countless independent fact checkers as painting a completely inaccurate historical account of the actual events, the president said,  "I don't think that Governor Romney is somehow responsible for the death of that woman.  But keep in mind, this is an ad that I didn't approve, didn't produce and as far as I can tell, has barely run."

That's it?

The only thing he wants us to "keep in mind" is that he didn't produce it?

How about denounce it?  How about demand that an organization fighting for your cause stop this kind of smear and deception?  After all, I have no doubt that Bill Burton, the senior strategist at the Super PAC would take the president's call.  Burton served as deputy press secretary at the White House and played a key role in Obama's election when he served as the national press secretary for the 2008 campaign.

The president also commented on the allegations that Mitt Romney's character is in question.  He said, "Nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon."

Nobody?

Nobody except your deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter who made the baseless charge in a high-profile interview in July that Mitt Romney "could be guilty of a felony."

***

The president might be trying to demonstrate that he is faithfully doing his part to clear up these rumors, but he knows full-well that his efforts are futile.  Mitt Romney's character has been unfairly compromised and his campaign is reveling in every minute of it.  After all, don't these "feathers" provide the perfect distraction from his dismal record?

Feathers in the wind---and the president's campaign distributed every single one.

Sorry Mr. President, it is a little hard to believe that you are taking the high road when your boots are covered in mud.

Mitt Romney's Tax Returns

Tax returns.  Tax returns?  Tax returns!

The media and the Obama campaign have become slightly obsessed with trivial matters.  There is so much talk and baseless speculation about whether or not Mitt Romney is possibly a tax evader (a felony by the way) and is someone who also kills people.

Earlier today, the Obama team tried to make a deal with Romney.  They said, "You release five years of tax returns and in return, we won't ask for any years beyond that."  (Wow.  Impressive.  They sure know how to drive a hard bargain!)

Image from tax software.com

Um...Mitt Romney said no.

I think it is important to realize that yes, Mitt Romney is taking a risk by not releasing his returns, but in all honesty, he loses either way.

Not releasing his returns causes speculation to swirl about his net worth and possible offshore investments---all of which are perfectly legal.  But, is Romney going to lose independents over this kind of speculation?  I doubt it.

Releasing more returns than is legally required is much riskier---and let me be clear, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I question if he has something to hide, because I don't believe for one second that Mitt Romney's character is in question.

Can we imagine how ruthless the Obama team would be on every investment, partnership and profit in his portfolio?  Incessant requests for verification and further explanation would be demanded.  It would never end.

Is Mitt Romney afraid of this kind of scrutiny?  I doubt it, but when his opponent---The President of the United States---has demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to run a no-holds-bar campaign, it should come as no surprise that Romney is a little apprehensive.

Image from politico.com

This was demonstrated this week, when Obama refused to denounce the abhorrent Obama Super PAC ad, which alludes that Mitt Romney was personally responsible for the closure of a steel plant, which led to the loss of health insurance for an employee, which resulted in the tragic death of a wife to cancer.

Despite countless reputable news organizations pointing out that 1) The plant closed two years after Romney left Bain.  2)  The wife died six years after the plant's closure.  3) She had her own health insurance through her own employer, which she later lost as a result of her own job termination.

The historical truth paints a much different picture of the actual events.  So, did the present try to clear up the distortion?  No.  He didn't even apologize that an organization--fighting on his behalf would participate in this kind of slimy and distorted political tactic.

This only tells me that the president is perfectly willing to distort the truth if it is politically advantageous to him.

Therefore, I have no doubt that they would scrutinize every investment, profit and partnership and do their best to convince voters that Mitt made a contract with the devil himself.

I am sure Romney has asked himself, "What if Obama were to be successful?"

Does he risk losing independents if Obama successfully distorts his character?  You bet.

***

The urgency of Mitt Romney's tax return issue is pointless and it is a distraction from the issues that actually matter.  Furthermore, one can't help but question whether or not the president has pure intentions.

Can we imagine how different the dialogue would be if the press were equally as focused on holding Obama accountable for his dismal record as they are on holding Mitt Romney accountable for his financial success?

Image from politico.com

The press may not feel an obligation to hold the president accountable for unemployment rate still over 8% despite everything the president has tried, but Mitt Romney will.

The press may be willing to overlook the fact that in the past 3 years, 2.6 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and are now living below the poverty line, but Mitt Romney won't.

The press might be willing to ignore that the president was responsible for an $800 billion stimulus bill that didn't stimulate our economy, but Mitt Romney won't forget.

The press might be willing to forget that the president pushed the passage of his health care reform bill with back room deals and rumors of bribes even though only 35% of Americans supported the bill, but Mitt Romney won't.

Tax returns are a distraction.

Image from Bostonglobe.com

For this reason, I will continue to support the candidate who is also running on the "Hope" of a better economic future, but I like the candidate whose resume shows me that he can actually achieve it.

Go Mitt.

Mitt's Worst Week? Please.

After reading the headlines from nearly every major news publication over the past couple of days, I think it is safe to say that the press wants to help Mitt Romney take down his campaign signs and billboards.

For some reason, the press wants us to think the race is over.

Image from ABC News

Today's headlines all but rejoice at the latest Quinnipiac University/CBS/New York Times poll showing Obama leading in three swing states.  CNN and the Washington Post can hardly contain themselves from pulling their fingers off their celebratory confetti launchers.

Please.

Writer Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post even awarded Mitt Romney as the recipient of having the worst week in the beltway.  Mr. Cillizza would like us to believe that Mitt Romney had the worst week?

I think it is pretty clear that Cillizza wanted Mitt Romney to have the worst week.  After all, it was the same week that the president received some scathing news from the Commerce Department which undeniably reflected that Obama's astronomically expensive economic recovery efforts have not worked.  1.5 GDP after his 3 1/2 best efforts and Mr. Cillizza wants us to focus on how England got their feelings hurt when Mitt Romney answered a question about Britain's highly self-criticized preparedness for their own games?

I'll admit that Mitt Romney's comments about England's preparedness were not exactly appropriate, but shame on the US press for their coverage of this very inconsequential story.

Image from dailyecho.com

Romney may have offended the British press, but the president's best 3 1/2 year efforts have not worked to stabilize our economy.  What matters more?  My neighbors who are struggling to find employment and who are desperate to keep their home could care less if the British press got their feelings hurt.

It goes without saying, the press wants to focus on how Mitt had a bad week, but it might be time for them to actually highlight the fact that Americans have had an even harder couple of years

Obama's policies have not worked.  America's economic recovery has not happened---Obama ran on the promise that he was the man to fix it.  We believed him and even when his party had majority control of the House and Senate, unemployment remains over 8% and the GDP is now slowing to record lows and furthermore, we are trillions and trillions of dollars deeper in debt than the day he took office.

Will the press please talk about what would be different in Obama's second term and focus on issues that are truly consequential?

***

In the meantime, I am going to support the candidate with a proven track record.  An individual who time and again over the course of his sterling 25+ year career, like Obama "inherited" massive messes to clean up, but unlike our president, in nearly every situation, Romney successfully completed the job he was hired to do.

Regardless of what the press chooses to report, the same cannot be said of our president.

Image from mittromney.com

Sorry members of the press, this presidential race is far from over.  In fact, it is just getting started.

Go Mitt.