#Romney offers points of contrast to #Gingrich. #GOP #TCOT

While I rather enjoy both candidates, both are critical thinkers and that’s why they both take nuanced positions on issues. However, I think Romney makes a strong, brief argument below about why he is different and why I am going to vote for him.

Amplify’d from www.businessweek.com

Gingrich, 68, expressed confidence about his chances of winning the nomination in an ABC News interview yesterday.

“I’m going to be the nominee,” he said. “It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee.”

Romney, 64, said today that “self-aggrandizing statements about polls are not going to win elections.”

Appearing on Fox News, he noted that in the Republican race “there’ve been a lot of people who’ve been real high in the polls that are not high in the polls anymore.”

Romney also pressed his case against Gingrich, a former U.S. House speaker who has earned millions of dollars since leaving Congress, as a Washington insider.

“This is not a matter that America needs better lobbyists or better deal-makers, better insiders. I think America needs a leader,” Romney said, offering himself as that candidate. Read more at www.businessweek.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1j96b

GOP voters conveniently overlook #Gingrich ‘s qualities

I am not sure how GOP voters can believe that a long-time legislator who has been on many sides of many issues, has had his hands in special interests for many years, has no executive experience, will be a fresh alternative to Obama.

Romney could easily accuse Gingrich of shifting in his convictions too.

Amplify’d from www.wallstreetjournal.com

Perhaps just as troubling for the Romney camp, the group was unfazed by recent revelations that Mr. Gingrich earned more than $1 million advising mortgage giant Freddie Mac, which many conservatives blame for over-inflating the housing bubble. And only one person raised concerns about his support for a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. His multiple marriages and his own history of changing positions were both more troubling to this group of suburban and ex-urban Republican voters. Read more at www.wallstreetjournal.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1j95j

Dear Media: Romney’s “sustained support” is not “winning by default” #Romney #GOP #tcot

Let’s look at the numbers then shall we? Romney maintains leading status most of the time. If that’s the case, why does the media characterize his lead in the race for the nomination as “winning by default?”

These two paragraphs from the same article highlight the contradiction. The first says Romney is winning by default, the second says he has sustained support. Great writing guys, you have successfully taken two positions in the same article in order to diminish Romney’s candidacy…spin, spin, spin.

If Romney is a “favorite” then how is he winning by “default?”

Amplify’d from www.latimes.com

Yet the rapidly accelerating contest remains about where it was a month and a half ago, when the steeplechase of six debates in six weeks began: with Romney the front-runner by default, leading not because of his overwhelming appeal but because a plurality of Republicans don’t seem to like anyone else a whole lot better.

A striking fact of the Republican race has been the former governor’s unbudging stand in opinion surveys, which — through thick or thin — place him as the favorite of a quarter to a third of GOP voters. Other candidates rise or fall; Romney’s support never wavers. Read more at www.latimes.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1f5rq

Ukraine shows that political trials are rarely fair or just

If you can prosecute anyone for anything, you can kill democracy. I hope the U.S. doesn’t ever slide too far this direction. Unbelievable.

My heart goes out to Ukraine.

Amplify’d from www.nytimes.com

“This is an authoritarian regime,” she said. “Against the background of European rhetoric, Yanukovich is taking Ukraine farther from Europe by launching such political trials.” As bailiffs led her from the courtroom, Ms. Tymoshenko turned in the doorway to wave goodbye, a small figure in a white coat and a helmet of blond braids.

Prosecutors say Ms. Tymoshenko harmed Ukraine’s interests when, as prime minister, she carried out negotiations with Russia in 2009 over the price of natural gas. Tuesday’s ruling excludes her from politics for 10 years, and levies a fine of about $190 million.

But international legal experts say that she seems to have been performing a routine administrative function for which she might conceivably be disciplined, if the government was displeased with her performance, but not charged with a crime. Read more at www.nytimes.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1effb

#Obama jobs bill not even supported by Democrats

This is a major blow to the jobs bill. This bill doesn’t have even partisan support, much less bipartisan support.

The story says 60 votes were needed to overcome “procedural hurdles,” but that’s a nice/funny way to avoid the statement: “it didn’t get the votes–nuff said.”

Amplify’d from www.nytimes.com

The legislation, announced with fanfare by the president at a joint session of Congress last month, fell 10 votes short of the 60 needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

The vote in favor of advancing the bill on Tuesday was 50 to 49. Two moderate Democrats facing difficult re-election campaigns, Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana, joined a solid phalanx of Republicans in opposition. In addition, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, switched from yes to no so that he could move to reconsider the vote in the future. Read more at www.nytimes.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1efer

#Romney not wrong about TARP. #Alaska supported it too.

I was working as an entry-level staffer for Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)when this vote was cast. The sentiment in the Senate was that we had little time to avert a credit disaster, that even municipal bonds would have frozen if they didn’t pass TARP. TARP was supported almost universally by both parties at the time. We will never know if TARP saved us or not, but the bonds didn’t freeze. Also, TARP was not the same as the other big bailouts, most of it has been paid back.

Romney’s stance is sensible and intelligent. Conservatives should discriminate between “bailouts” and TARP.

Supporting TARP is not the same as supporting all bailouts. Ask anybody on Capitol Hill.

Amplify’d from www.latimes.com

“We could have had a complete meltdown,” Romney said. “Action had to be taken. Was it perfect? No. Was it well implemented? Not particularly.” He restated, in particular, his opposition to the bailouts of the auto industry. Read more at www.latimes.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1efcn

Dude is straight up crazy. Ahmadinejad needs to study his history.

If a tyrant calls you tyrannical…

Amplify’d from www.cbsnews.com

Ahmadinejad espouses 9/11 truther theory

Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for its history of slavery, causing two world wars, using a nuclear bomb against “defenseless people,” and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations.

He said that the U.S. used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the wars were in fact motivated by imperialism and a thirst for oil.

“By using their imperialistic media network which is under the influence of colonialism they threaten anyone who questions the Holocaust and the September 11 event with sanctions and military actions,” Ahmadinejad said in his General Assembly speech. Read more at www.cbsnews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1dbag

#Romney gives main points against #Obama on Hannity. #GOP #tcot #xcot #RAD4ROMNEY

Romney’s latest appearance on Hannity was like his entire campaign encapsulated into a few minutes and several talking points. It was nice to read an article that wasn’t just one or two quotes surrounded by superfluous 3rd-party interpretation (that’s my nod to Reuters and the AP).

Of all the articles I have read about Romney, 98 to be precise, this transcript actually had the most substance per paragraph and gave me a much better idea of what Romney is actually going to talk about tonight (at the debate) and in the future of his campaign.

This is a good article to read to get informed about Romney’s stance, even if you aren’t partial to Hannity or uber conservative news hosts–I’m not.

Amplify’d from www.foxnews.com

HANNITY: I’m doing well. All right. Well, “kill Romney.” What happened to that hope, change and civil discourse thing?

ROMNEY: I guess those things have gone out the window. And you have to understand why of course. Because if the president were required to run on his record, he wouldn’t stand much of a chance. His record of course is awful, you’ve got 25 million people that are out of work or stopped looking for work or in jobs well beneath their skills. You got a home values going down. S&P just reduce our credit worthiness. First time in American history that’s ever happened. The American people know that the president’s policies domestically have failed. And as a result of those failures, the people of America simply could not consider re-electing Barack Obama as president. And so, he is resorting to destroying the candidate who is going to run against him. I hope I’m that candidate. And it’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality of a president that’s flailing and trying to find some way to hold on to his job.

And I think you bring home to people day in and day out. This was the president who said, if we allowed him to borrow $787 billion for a stimulus that he would hold unemployment below eight percent. It hasn’t been below eight percent since. The record of failure is so stark, you hammer him with that day in and day out. I think the American people are going to look beyond the personal attacks that are coming from his campaign, and by the way, Sean, I’m expecting it’s going to get real ugly. My guess is, you’re going to see all sorts of things, drudged up and made up and puffed up. And the American people are going to look beyond it and say, you know, what? We want to know who can get jobs again in this country and keep America strong.

Obamacare, you name any employer in this country who thinks that Obamacare has made them decide to add more people? No way. Than stacking the national labor relations board with labor stooges. That doesn’t make it more likely for people to hire individuals into their businesses. Dodd-Frank, the financial regulatory reform, 2,000 pages of new legislation related to financial services. Banks pulled back their lending in part because of Dodd-Frank.

Look, we have gone from government at all levels, the federal, state and local level from being roughly 27 percent of our economy, that was during the Kennedy years, to today, 37 percent of our economy. And the Democrats say, just let us tax you some more, let us take some more of your economy. Look, we are inches away from no longer having a free economy. And I say, look, I’m just not willing to keep government growing.

And so, I’m insistent that we cap the amount of government spending as a percentage of the total economy and we balance our budget. Those are principles that for me are critical. And I’m going to fight for those things. And if I’m president of the United States and particularly, if we have Republicans in both Houses and a majority in both Houses, you are going to see us finally draw a line on the growth of government. We cannot go on with government borrowing more and more and eating more and more into the future of America’s economic vitality. I simply, I’m not going to allow that.

HANNITY: Is that — I’m sorry, Governor, I thought you were finish. Is that your prescription now? Because look, every single year, this is all about baseline budgeting, we are go to increase spending eight percent a year, throughout this entire decade, I mean, a minimum, we’re going to accumulate another $8 trillion in debt on top of the 16.7 we now have on the books for. So, the question is, at some point, for example, Connie Mack has a plan, the Penny plan, free spending at 2011 levels, cut one percent every year for six years, then two years of 18 percent sending of GDP historical average. And we balance the budget in eight years. Would you support something that radical? Or what would you support, “Cut, Cap and Balance”? Where do you go if you get the presidency? Read more at www.foxnews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1ambp

Irony abounds as #Obama is critisized for allowing actual “compromise”. Maybe Dems never really wanted compromise at all… #gop

Apparently compromise is only a grand principle if you are asking someone else to concede to your own interests.

I am glad that Obama actually decided to walk the talk. He called for compromise from the “unyielding” Republicans, but when he actually met them in the middle his own party turned on him–showing that they obviously never supported the principle in the first place.

Dissatisfied with the terms? That IS compromise–conceding a point or a principle to get things done. We are seeing a very hypocritical liberal wing attacking their own champion, someone who I actually believe has done the right thing this time. No other plan from Democrats would even have a chance of passing the House.

Amplify’d from www.washingtonpost.com

Did the president surrender, or did he do the best he could?

Why didn’t he demand Republicans raise the debt limit, the way Congress has routinely for previous presidents, and stand by that when Republicans inevitably refused? Why didn’t he spend more time criticizing Republicans for their values and priorities rather than trying to find accommodations with them? Why didn’t he play up the possibility of the 14th Amendment, if only to increase his leverage? Imagine if the president had, from the very beginning, laid out a few key principles and stuck to them: No tying the debt ceiling to deficit reduction; no attacks on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; no deficit reduction without higher taxes on the rich. Read more at www.washingtonpost.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1a49k

#Romney’s climate remarks show a deep understanding of legislation #gop #tcot

This article was frustrating because it never acknowledged that Romney corrected Politico’s quote because it didn’t reflect his exact position regarding the EPA’s application of the law.

The EPA is calling coal a “pollutant,” which Romney disputes while acknowledging global warming. No inconsistency there, just an understanding of the law under which the EPA is regulating coal.

According to the law, a pollutant is considered unhealthy. Carbon Dioxide is not unhealthy. That is Romney’s stance.

Amplify’d from www.theatlanticwire.com

The offending quote: “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants, of greenhouse gases, that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing.”

Romney’s campaign said that rather than “of,” the candidate had said “and.”

So the full quote reads like this: “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing.”

His quote about carbon doesn’t exactly reverse this position: he was very specific in saying carbon is not a direct threat to people’s bodies in the sense that breathing it won’t kill you. But scientists have clearly identified it as a massive indirect threat in that it causes climate change, which threatens millions of people around the globe with effects ranging from drought to rising seas.

Keeping that in mind, it’s unclear what the campaign’s “of” and “and” distinction accomplishes–aside from calling attention to Romney’s primary-hampering global warming stance. Read more at www.theatlanticwire.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a18ptj