Romney Revolution

Comment

Comment by Evelio Perez 1 day ago

With minutes ticking away before Obamacare is on the table for a final vote, will Obama heed any call [3] to come up for air long enough to see how much and how many loathe this particular piece of disastrous legislation?

Because of President Obama’s frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.

Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America’s families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There’s a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.

No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn’t a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don’t need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no “public option.” With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn’t necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals’ dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

The cost issue

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year’s forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million. The watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concluded that our program’s cost is “relatively modest” and “well within initial projections.”

And if subsidies and coverages are reined in, as I’ve suggested, the Massachusetts program could actually break even. One thing is certain: The president must insist on a program that doesn’t add to our spending burden. We simply cannot afford another trillion-dollar mistake.

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured [5] are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy. But overall, health care inflation has continued its relentless rise. Here is where the federal government can do something we could not: Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.

At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem. Patients don’t care what treatments cost once they pass the deductible. And providers are paid more when they do more; they are paid for quantity, not quality. We will tame runaway costs only when we change incentives. We might do what some countries have done: Require patients to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions. And providers could be paid an annual fixed fee for the primary care of an individual and a separate fixed fee for the treatment of a specific condition. These approaches have far more promise than the usual bromides of electronic medical records, transparency and pay-for-performance, helpful though they will be.

Try a business-like analysis

I spent most of my career in the private sector. When well-managed businesses considered a major change of some kind, they engaged in extensive analysis, brought in outside experts, exhaustively evaluated every alternative, built consensus among those who would be affected and then moved ahead. Health care is many times bigger than all the companies in the Dow Jones combined. And the president is rushing changes that dwarf what any business I know has faced.

Republicans are not the party of “no” when it comes to health care reform. This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his state’s citizens. Other Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sens. Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others, have proposed their own plans. Republicans will join with the Democrats if the president abandons his government insurance plan, if he endeavors to craft a plan that does not burden the nation with greater debt, if he broadens his scope to reduce health costs for all Americans, and if he is willing to devote the rigorous effort, requisite time and bipartisan process that health care reform deserves.

Comment by Evelio Perez on December 13, 2009 at 3:07pm

name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comment by Evelio Perez on December 6, 2009 at 12:52pm

Faith in America Revisited –By Nate Gunderson


Remembering Romney’s Speech Two Years After
As a Romney supporter and blogger I have very seldom written about faith and religion, whether in the general sense or as it applies to Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate. I’ve always known Romney’s religion to be a stigma to some. I’m sure it is even a boon to others, especially those who share his faith. Today, in remembrance of the 2nd anniversary of Romney’s speech “Faith in America”, I’m going to take a rare moment to share my thoughts on subject.

Full disclosure: I am a life-long member of the LDS (Mormon) church. Now let’s proceed.

I consider myself a strong social conservative. My social views aren’t limited to just abortion and same-sex marriage, but I also place strong emphasis on the morality of a politician or a candidate. How a leader comports him or herself in office and in their private life has a huge effect on our lives, whether they like it or not. Political leaders, sports heroes, and pop culture icons all set the trend as to what is acceptable behavior in our society. My religious belief that the family is of vital importance and is the basic building block of society causes me to decry behavioral impropriety, particularly marital infidelity, amongst those in the spotlight because of its lasting affect on many, many people. Behavior that becomes commonplace among celebrities is all too easily emulated by fans and constituents.

Back in the year 2000, when I was 9 years younger and more naive than I am now, I recall watching the GOP primary debates and being delighted with George W. Bush and some of the religious rhetoric he employed. It was refreshing to hear such talk, especially in the wake of a Clinton presidency and the scandals that had ensued. At the time I thought mostly of the character of the candidate and much less of what they actual knowledge and experience was. In retrospect, and being a little wiser now, I realize that probably wasn’t the best approach to choosing a candidate. Don’t get me wrong, I admire Bush greatly still, but there were many things that he could have done better, especially in terms of the economy. Even so, he was the best candidate available at the time.

In mid 2006, I began to look for a potential candidate to support for the 2008 GOP nomination. I knew I didn’t like McCain, mostly because of bad memories of the 2000 campaign. And I wasn’t keen on Giuliani either because of his highly publicized affairs. I recall thinking about rumors I had heard that Mitt Romney might run for president. Even though I’m from Utah, I knew absolutely nothing about him besides that fact that he was highly involved in the Olympics. In fact, I was away serving an LDS mission when the Olympics scandals happened, so I knew nothing about them.

My first thoughts upon hearing that Romney might run for president were, “Great, he’s probably going to embarrass us (Mormons) on the national stage, and just give people more reason to publicly ridicule us.” A couple weeks later, after reading everything I could about him, it didn’t matter to me anymore whether he was Mormon or not, or whether he would “embarrass” us on the national stage. I knew that he was qualified, and had the business and economic resume I wanted to see in a candidate, and that he had a fabulous record of turning large entities around, whether it be a business, a state, or the Olympics. And I could feel confident that he would not get involved the extracurricular antics Clinton tangled with while in office. Basically, I felt he was qualified AND would be a good roll model, and this was/is very important to me.

Of course there were obstacles to Romney’s path to the presidency. A USA Today poll in February of 2007 showed that of Republicans a full 30% would not support as qualified Mormon candidate. An additional 12% would do so with some hesitancy. Those combined make 42% at least that had a problem with Romney’s faith. I would consider that a substantial obstacle. I recall being somewhat dispirited from that bit of news, but was sure that once people got to know Romney better, and they certainly would, we might see those percentages fall. Fortunately many came to find that they could support a Mormon, especially one as qualified as Romney. Unfortunately, I believe it required from Romney a lot of money and campaigning to slowly break those shackles. That process won’t be nearly as staggering next time around in 2012. It certainly won’t be a cake-walk either.

My own experience as an LDS missionary in Southern Jersey taught me that folks can have wild misconceptions of what a Mormon really is. Then there were others that were well informed of our beliefs and remained strongly opposed to them. In both cases I was often the first Mormon they had ever talked to and they were surprised to find that I was a normal person, as opposed to being a socially degenerative schmoe stuck in the 1800’s. I share my experience because it coincides with a study on religious tolerance that was also revisited this last week in a USA Today column:

The study was an online survey experiment with a nationally representative sample of 3,000 respondents. We provided randomly selected respondents with different statements about Romney and then asked whether they would vote for him.

Some were given a boilerplate biography that did not mention religion; others were told that he has been a local leader in his church; others were told he has been a leader in the Mormon church. Still others were told, “Some people say Mormons are not Christians.” By comparing reactions to these various statements, we could see how each one affected a person’s willingness to vote for Romney, and also how different kinds of people responded to the statements.

The claim that Mormons are not Christians was particularly potent. […] the results of our study — conducted not long after Romney’s [Faith in America] speech — suggest that his religion was a liability. When respondents were told about the claim that Mormons are not Christians, nearly one-third said they were less likely to vote for him.

Interestingly, the claim that Mormons are not Christians had virtually no effect on those people who reported a close personal relationship with a Mormon.
…
People who objectively know a lot about Mormons — that is, those who scored 100% on a short quiz on facts about Mormonism — were much less likely to be bothered by the claim that Mormons are not Christians. In contrast, respondents who claimed they knew a lot about Mormons, but who actually did not, were bothered most of all by claims about Mormonism.

Bottom line: those who were well acquainted with Mormons, whether personally or informatively, were not affected by the debate of whether Mormons were Christians or not. Yes, ignorance is the greatest inhibitor of tolerance. The study shows that this is unfortunately true for other less-known religions as well. This really ought not to be, but misinformation will always abound, and until the public becomes generally educated on these minority religions we’ll continue to see similar results.

I believe these findings to also be consistent with the results from the GOP primary elections. There is and undeniable pattern that Romney is well-liked western states, but he is not so well received in parts of the south. Nevada is a state that has an LDS population of about 10%. It’s not a large percentage but it’s enough that most people are at least acquainted with Mormons. I’ve often heard people say that Romney only won Nevada because of the large number of Mormons in Nevada (I wouldn’t call 10% a dominant slice of the pie). But the fact remains that if every vote from a Mormon were discounted from the tally, Romney still won the state handedly. The point again: in situations where people were familiar with Mormons, they were much less hesitant to vote for one.

One can see why Romney ultimately decided to give his speech on faith in December of 2007, a speech that he hoped he would never have to give. I believe the decision to give the speech was driven by the fact that Huckabee had emerged on the national stage and portrayed himself as the “Christian Leader”, coupled with the fact that the once strong Romney state of Iowa was slipping away from him.

So what was the purpose of the speech? Merely for people to get acquainted with him on a large scale. Perhaps many wanted Romney to explain certain tenets of his faith to assuage their concerns. Romney wisely did not fall into that trap. In matters regarding doctrine he reffered people to the LDS Church itself, which is the proper manner to handle this situation because as a political leader it is not his duty to educate people on all the points of his beliefs. Perhaps also the buzz around the speech would draw folks to see it and realize “Hey, that Mitt is not a crazy Mormon like I thought him to be.” Many people got to hear from his own mouth that he was a Christian in the sense that he believed that Jesus is the savior of all mankind. But that wasn’t even the main point. The main point to get across was that Americans by and large want a person of faith to lead the country, and that he fit in those parameters. Was it effective? I think so. But it obviously didn’t yield the desired results of turning Iowa back in his favor.

I have embedded Romney’s full speech below so you can revisit it. I recall vividly watching this speech live on TV. I rarely get emotional, especially in the realm of politics, but this speech hit home with me. Regardless of Romney’s future, I believe this speech will hold it’s place in history as one of the most regarded speeches of the 2008 campaign cycle, and will be held by many as an inflection point their lives.

Part 1

Part 2

Here is a permanent link to the videos and transcript.

So did Romney lose the ’08 GOP primary because of religious intolerance? Who knows? It think there are valid arguments for both cases. I DO know that no one likes a sore loser and Romney has lead well by his example. Never has he tried to claim that he was discriminated against because of his religion. He lost because in the end he didn’t get the most votes, and it all happened fair and square. I think his supporters would be wise to follow suit. I recommend removing the word “bigotry” from your vocabulary. Even if you do see true cases of religious bias against Romney I would ask you to consider your reaction. By yelling “bigot” at every corner you do much more harm to your cause than good. Be an adult and just let it go.

For those interested in following the topic of religion and how it pertains to political office (especially in regards to Romney) I recommend reading the Article 6 blog run jointly by a Mormon and an Evangelical Christian.

by Nate Gunderson @ 11:17 am. Filed under Art & Culture, Mitt Romney, Video, religion

Comment by Evelio Perez on December 4, 2009 at 6:02am

Mr. President, here's how to lift our economy

Today's White House jobs summit comes too late for millions of Americans who through no fault of their own have lost their jobs, their homes, their savings and, in many cases, the self-esteem and self-respect that come from work. Like other presidents before him, Barack Obama inherited a recession. But unlike them, he has made it worse, not better.
His failure to stem the unemployment tide should not have been a surprise. With no experience whatsoever in the world of employment and business formation, he had no compass to guide his path. Instead, he turned over much of his economic recovery agenda to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, themselves nearly as inexperienced in the private sector as he. Congress gave him and them everything they asked for, including a history-making three-quarters of a trillion dollar stimulus.

But it did little to stimulate the real economy – where jobs are created. Studies, initiatives and programs that liberal think tanks had long pined for were given life even as the private economy was on life support. The president's team assured us that their massive stimulus would hold unemployment below 8%. So with unemployment now at 10.2%, it is clear that their stimulus was a miscalculated failure.

In an attempt to disguise the truth, the administration has touted inflated figures of jobs "created."But every month, in good times and bad, jobs are created and jobs are lost. What matters is the net difference between the two numbers. Focusing solely on jobs created while ignoring the far greater numbers of jobs lost is Harry Houdini economics.

Growing government, as was done with the stimulus, inevitably depresses the private sector and job creation. Shrinking government and reducing government jobs is healthier for the economy, but this option was never seriously considered. That's no wonder: As White House guest logs for the first half of the year reveal, the most frequent visitor to the executive mansion was Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union, which represents government workers.

My 10-point plan

The president's economists insist that technically, the recession is over. But double-digit unemployment was neither prevented nor has it ended. To get people back to work as rapidly as possible and to restore America's economic vitality, the nation must change course. Here's the advice I would give:

•Repair the stimulus. Freeze the funds that haven't yet been spent and redirect them to immediate, private sector job-creation priorities.

•Create tax incentives that promote business expansion and hiring. For example, install a robust investment tax credit, permit businesses to expense capital purchases made in 2010, and reduce payroll taxes. These will reignite construction, technology and a wide array of capital goods industries, and lead to expanded employment.

•Prove to the global investors that finance America's debt that we are serious about reining in spending and becoming fiscally prudent by adopting limits on non-military discretionary spending and reforming our unsustainable, unfunded entitlements. These are key to strengthening the dollar, reducing the threat of rampant inflation and holding down interest rates.

•Close down any talk of carbon cap-and-trade. It will burden consumers and employers with billions in new costs. Instead, greatly expand our commitment to natural gas and nuclear, boosting jobs now and reducing the export of energy jobs and dollars later.

•Tell the unions that job-stifling "card check" legislation is off the table. Laying new burdens on small business will kill entrepreneurship and job creation.

•Don't allow a massive tax increase to go into effect in 2011 with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. The specter of more tax-fueled government spending and the reduction of capital available for small business will hinder investment and business expansion.

•New spending should be strictly limited to items that are critically needed and that we would have acquired in the future, such as new military equipment to support our troops abroad and essential infrastructure at home.

•Install dynamic regulations for the financial sector – rules that are up to date, efficient and not excessively burdensome. But do not so tie up the financial sector with red tape that we lose a vital component of our economic system.

•Open the doors to trade. Give important friends like Colombia favored trade status rather than bow to protectionist demands. Now is the time for aggressive pursuit of opportunities for new markets for American goods, not insular retrenchment.

•Stop frightening the private sector by continuing to hold GM stock, by imposing tighter and tighter controls on compensation, and by pursuing a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Government encroachment on free enterprise is depressing investment and job creation.

The 10% unemployment crisis hangs like an albatross around President Obama's neck. Eventually, as with every recession and recovery, the economy will improve and jobs will be created, but those who were unnecessarily unemployed due to the president's faulty economic program will not forget. In order to most rapidly re-employ all Americans and to speed a strong recovery, the president must change course. If he does not, Republicans will bring a change of their own to Washington in the 2010 elections.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, was a Republican presidential candidate last year.

Comment by Evelio Perez on December 2, 2009 at 11:47pm

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Comment by Evelio Perez on November 29, 2009 at 2:45pm

January 8, 2007

Dear Fellow Republican,

I’m writing to ask for your support of Governor Mitt Romney for President. Over the next 10 years, America will face unprecedented challenges. We must elect a President in 2008 who is up to the task, and I need you to encourage Mitt to run.

The threat of terrorism will continue to grow. America’s energy needs will increase, and so will our dependence on foreign oil. The number of retirees will increase dramatically, and without major reforms, the future of Social Security and Medicare will be in peril. Without strong leadership, illegal immigration will continue to cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. America’s education system and global competitiveness will continue to decline without major changes. I believe Governor Romney will provide the leadership America needs to meet this new generation of challenges.

America’s success and strength emanate from the private sector: traditional faith-based values, families, churches, volunteerism and free enterprise. We must elect a President who understands the strength of America. Governor Romney has spent most of his life outside of government. He has been a successful businessman and national leader. As governor, he has taken Massachusetts from large debts to surpluses while holding the line on taxes. He has been married to his wife Ann for 37 years; they have 5 boys and 10 grandchildren. Their lives reflect the best of America’s traditions and values.

Governor Romney has helped to start and manage national and international companies. He understands the global economy, capital formation and the need to make America more competitive. When the nation needed him to save the failing and bankrupt 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, Mitt Romney volunteered to take over the leadership of an event which was headed towards a national embarrassment. He served for over two years with no salary and even contributed Senator Jim DeMint $1 million of his own money to make sure the Olympics went forward. His leadership resulted in one of the most successful Olympics in history. Mitt Romney made America proud.

As Governor he faced down a $3 billion deficit and balanced the budget. He passed innovative health care reforms and education scholarships based on achievement. He fought an activist state court that imposed same-sex marriage on the people of his state and he championed the Federal Marriage Amendment. Once again, he did not take a salary for his public service as Governor.

We need a President who will welcome new ideas and yet knows when to take charge – someone who will call on America’s strengths and provide leadership for the new generation of challenges we face. I believe Governor Romney will be the kind of President who will inspire Americans to reach higher because he shares our goals:

American Security

Governor Romney has innovative ideas about how to adapt our military, Special Forces, intelligence services, and defense technologies to protect America from future terrorist attacks. He believes in peace through strength. He also supports the right of law-abiding individuals to protect themselves in their homes; he will be a strong defender of the second amendment and will protect our right to “bear arms.”

I support Governor Romney because he believes we need to achieve operational control of America’s borders, issue fraud-proof worker identification cards, and implement an enforceable legal immigration system. He does not believe that people who come to the U.S. illegally are entitled to a special right to citizenship.

American Competitiveness

We must guarantee that America is the best place in the world to invest capital and operate a business. I support Governor Romney because he will make America’s education and workforce development system the best in the world. He understands that by streamlining our tax code and legal and regulatory systems, America will become the best place in the world to do business.

American Independence

America should not be dependent on unreliable countries for our energy needs. I support Governor Romney because he believes we need to make America independent of foreign sources of oil. We must protect our freedom by taking our resources out of the hands of hostile regimes and using them instead to build our economy at home. Through conservation and the development of alternative fuels, America can be independent of oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other unreliable suppliers.

American Values

Governor Romney has exemplified the moral leadership that must be the hallmark of an American President. He knows that traditional values begin with doing the right thing; saying what you mean and meaning what you say; and keeping your promises. He strongly believes that America must keep its promises to seniors before we make new promises that we can’t afford. Governor Romney has the vision and the courage to reform Social Security and Medicare for the next generation while guaranteeing promised benefits to today’s seniors. He knows that doing the right thing means that every American must have access to quality healthcare. He passed such a plan as Governor and would support other innovative state and federal solutions, rejecting an unworkable “one-size-fits-all” approach. I support Governor Romney because he believes all Americans should have a health plan that they can afford, own and keep.

Governor Romney is strongly pro-life. He will be a great asset to the cause of life because he has done something that we must convince many other Americans to do; he has changed his mind. After reviewing new scientific data, he is absolutely convinced that human life begins at conception. He will work to protect the lives of mothers and babies. He will also support promising adult stem cell research while maintaining the ban on federal funding of research that involves the killing of human embryos.

Governor Romney is opposed to same-sex marriages and civil unions. He supports a Federal Marriage Amendment that protects traditional marriage. He believes in the equal rights of every American, but does not believe activist judges should be making the law in these areas. He also rejects government promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.

Governor Romney believes that American values should include the end of wasteful government spending and the elimination of the huge debts that our children should not be forced to pay. He also believes that preserving our environment is an important American value and a tangible legacy for future generations.

I believe that Governor Romney can restore America’s leadership at home and around the world. Too often, career politicians who have spent their lives in government, turn first to government solutions. And too often, well-intentioned government solutions have only made our problems worse. As a leader who has spent most of his life in the private sector, Governor Romney will call on America’s strength and character to solve problems and secure our future.

I Need Your Help! Governor Romney has organized an exploratory committee to promote his vision and goals for America and to gauge support for his potential candidacy. I believe that he is exactly the leader America needs to secure our future. Americans are tired of the same old ideas that keep coming out of Washington. They are hungry for a leader who will draw on America’s strength. I would like Governor Romney to know that key Republicans like you want him to run for President. If you agree with me, please use the enclosed replycard to let me know. I will personally hand deliver all of these cards to Governor Romney.

Sincerely, Jim DeMint

Comment by Evelio Perez on November 28, 2009 at 2:12am

Poll : Romney does best against Obama, Huckabee - worst.
2012 Presidential Race

Mitt Romney (R) - 44%
Barack Obama (D) - 44%
Some other candidate - 6%
Not sure - 5%

Mike Huckabee (R) - 41%
Barack Obama (D) - 45%
Some other candidate - 6%
Not sure - 8%

Sarah Palin (R) - 43%
Barack Obama (D) - 46%
Some other candidate - 9%
Not sure - 3%

- Via Rasmussen Reports

According to the poll numbers released today (shown above), Mike Huckabee is the weakest of three potential Republican candidates against Barack Obama, while Sarah Palin is the middle of the road, and Mitt Romney is in a dead tie with Obama as of now. Huckabee received just 41% support, while Palin achieved 43% support, and Romney was able to clinch 44% support.



Read more: http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/11/poll-romney-does-best-against-obama.html#ixzz0Y8U9ejAr


Read more: http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/11/poll-romney-does-best-against-obama.html#ixzz0Y8U9ejAr

Comment by Evelio Perez on November 19, 2009 at 4:16pm

Navigate: POLITICOIdeasThe cost of on-the-job trainingMain Content
Opinion Contributor
The cost of on-the-job training
Tags:Mitt Romney, Ideas Listen Print Comment Email Subscribe By MITT ROMNEY | 11/19/09 5:04 AM EST Text Size- + reset

General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. and NATO military chief in Afghanistan, waits for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arrive.
Photo: Reuters
Digg/Buzz It UpDigg this Story! Buzz it up! Add to LinkedIn POLITICO 44
During the presidential campaign, many Americans thought that Barack Obama’s lack of leadership experience would not prevent him from being an effective president. His eloquence, his insistence that, yes, he could solve any problem and his image, so artfully crafted by his advertising team, led by David Axelrod, convinced many that hope could trump demonstrated ability. It has not. Nowhere is the evidence more apparent than in his mismanagement of the conflict in Afghanistan.


In March, not long after taking office, President Obama explained his convictions regarding the conflict. He charged that “the terrorists who planned and supported the Sept. 11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” Further, “if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” And he concluded: “To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban’s gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.” What followed this bold and definitive goal was the classic failing of people without real leadership experience: the inability to do what is necessary to achieve one’s objective.


The president refused to focus on what was most important. He took on so many tasks that he underinvested in the most critical ones. The restructuring of the entire health care system and his cap-and-trade proposal eclipsed the economy and the war. Investor Warren Buffett, the “sage of Omaha,” counseled him against such a foolhardy agenda, but Buffett’s wisdom was no match for the heady prospect of all-encompassing change.


So it was that in the first 100 days after his appointment in June of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Obama met with the general only once. After the press took note of it, the president squeezed in a mere 25 minutes for McChrystal when he was in Copenhagen to pitch Chicago’s Olympics bid. In the annals of American history, it is certain that no wartime president has ever spent less time with his generals than Obama has.


A full year after being elected, Obama still does not have a strategy for Afghanistan. His apologists explain that rather than rush a decision, it is better to get it right. But at some point, deliberation, if it goes on too long, becomes indecision. It is fair to ask, What has he been doing for the past 12 months that took precedence over his responsibility for our soldiers?


The answer is that he made 30 or more campaign trips for the Democratic Party and its candidates, including five events for defeated New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine alone. He repeatedly traveled around the country to keynote campaign-style town hall meetings that were carefully choreographed by his communications advisers. He appears to want to do what he knows best: campaign, rather than engage in what he was elected to do — lead and govern.


While he was busy campaigning in the U.S., the president ignored the election in Afghanistan and took wholly inadequate measures to ensure a valid outcome, even as he must have known that a legitimate government was essential to our success. Because Obama left so critical a matter to chance, we are left with a fraudulently elected regime, which is accused of rampant corruption. Thus, the prospects for our success have been greatly diminished.


With the McChrystal report in his hands since August, the president has finally been spending more time in the situation room. Surely his deliberations have not been speeded by the presence of Axelrod, the president’s campaign adman. Polls, politics and perspectives on what the TV networks may think have no place at the national security table. Communications staff should be informed of security decisions after they are made, not invited to be a party to them.


During my career in business and government, and in running the Olympics, I made many instructive mistakes and learned the lessons that come with experience. Obama is making those mistakes in his first real leadership position, and because that position is president of the United States, the consequences of his mistakes are sobering. The lives of our soldiers, the war against violent jihadism and the future of millions of Afghans are in the balance.


Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was a 2008 Republican presidential candidate.

Comment by Evelio Perez on November 5, 2009 at 12:41am

Comment by Evelio Perez on October 19, 2009 at 7:55pm

Press room
RELEASE: Governor Romney's address to AIPAC 2009
San Diego, Calif -- Governor Mitt Romney today delivered a speech to the AIPAC National Summit on America's relationship with Israel and its other allies. Following are excerpts from the speech:


On America’s recent drift from Israel:

"In pursuit of a peace process, the United States today has exerted substantial pressure on Israel while putting almost no pressure on the Palestinians and the Arab world.

Consider how little we ask of the Arab world. Why is it that only Egypt and Jordan have peace agreements with Israel? What about Saudi Arabia? The Saudi government will not even sit in the same room as the Israelis, let alone normalize relations or work towards a realistic peace agreement. In 2007, at the height of the Olmert-Abbas peace track, the Saudis were demanding that more U.S. companies comply with their boycott of Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to a lasting and realistic peace. As you know well, in 2005, for example, Israel handed over the Gaza strip to the Palestinians. This generous, unilateral act was met in return with rockets fired into Israel, with a coup by Hamas in Gaza, and with two wars – one on the Lebanese border and another in Gaza.

Inexplicably, the United States now places the burden on Israel to make still more unilateral concessions.”

On the United Nations:

“I will happily agree that the UN has done some good in its history. But I will also insist that it has also done terrible damage to the causes it claims to uphold. And on no issue has it been more irresponsible and morally reckless than when considering the fate of Israel.

Time and time again, the UN has become a forum for invective against the Jewish state. We saw it in 1975, when the UN passed an anti-Semitic resolution that condemned Israel as racist. And we have seen it in just the last few weeks, when the UN gave a platform to a Holocaust-denier who has pledged over and over again that he will wipe out Israel. It was a grotesque moment and another stain on the reputation of the United Nations. And congratulations to Prime Minister Netanyahu for having the moral courage to say what needed to be said to those members of the United Nations who stayed to listen to Mahmoud Achmadinejad—”Have you no shame!”


On our relationship with global allies:

“When we treat any ally in a desultory manner – and especially if we act in a way that causes them to question our reliability, our resolve, our commitment and staying power – then they as well as our other allies, all of whom are watching very closely, will turn to others for their security.
When Poland and the Czech Republic are humiliated by us, they lose confidence in America’s support for them, and they may decide that they must incline more toward Russia.
If our friends in Latin America like Colombia become convinced that we are turning our back on them, they may feel compelled to become more accommodative to Hugo Chavez.
If Japan believes the United States is weakening its commitment in the Pacific, it may distance itself from America and draw closer to China.
When defenders of democracy and the rule of constitution and law in Honduras find that we have sided with their pro-Chavez illegal opposition, freedom fighters across the world, re-calculate their chances for success.
And if Arab nations believe that we will accommodate Iran’s ambition to dominate the Middle East with nuclear weapons, they will move closer to that very nation.
Whenever or wherever America steps away from one of its friends and allies, or shrinks in the face of belligerent tyrants, those who are allied with us may understandably or inevitably step closer to our foes. The advance of human rights and the defense of liberty demand that America stands firm with its allies—all of them.”

On Iran:

“At this late stage I would simply say that it is long past time for America to recognize the nature of the regime we are dealing with. The Iranian regime is unalloyed evil, run by people who are at once ruthless and fanatical. Stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It will not. And agreements, unenforceable and unverifiable, will have no greater impact here than they did in North Korea. Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence. President Eisenhower said it well: “the care of freedom is not long entrusted to the weak and timid.”

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last