Mitt, Newt & Barack in the Balance & the $10,000 Bet
Before I launch into some debate & spin analysis, and more recent campaign flare-ups (it has become very obvious since my last post that there is no chance of a Romney-Newt ticket), in case of any short on time or attention spans, here is a brief Mitt vs Newt (& occasional Obama) comparison. I regret this blog format doesn’t accommodate a ledger or spreadsheet table for side-by-side comparison.
Leadership & Teamwork: Mitt has successfully led Bain Capital & various businesses to success, successful governor of Massachusetts working with a heavily Democrat legislature, successfully turned around a demoralized 2002 Olympics program, and honorably led as “pastor” (bishop and stake president) a congregation and group of congregations in his church. He’s had an exemplary 42-year marriage & family that love to spend time together. Newt led an initially successful conservative House & Contract w. America, but after his leadership was shown wanting, was ousted by his fellow Republicans – a highly unusual mutiny. More recently, his entire campaign staff quit on him. He has been married 3 times, cheating on his first 2 wives. I think I see a pattern, here. Obama gives community organizer style speeches, blames others, divides rather than unites, and tells Congress to get work done before they leave town, while he’s already left for more golf time.
Integrity: Mitt has consistently maintained the highest ethical standards in his business career and personal life, which were prerequisites to his position as bishop and stake president in his church, and being temple-worthy – very high standards, indeed. Newt was fined $300,000 while in the House for ethics violations. Obama continues his Chicago politics approach & crony capitalism/socialism, despite promises to clean house – he’s surrounded by tax cheats, former terrorists, people who can’t explain where $1.2 Billion went, etc.
Business Experience: Mitt is a lifelong businessman (except for brief stints as governor and Olympics head), and despite some inevitable company restructurings, as has been said, he is responsible for the creation of more net jobs than the entire Obama cabinet. He turned Massachusetts, many companies and the Olympics all from massive deficits to surpluses – just what this country needs. Newt has done some teaching & consulting and small businesses on the side of his lifetime career in politics and academia. Obama and his entire cabinet & advisor team have zero business experience – only academic. They have no knowledge of how to create jobs, insanely continuing to insist on Keynesian stimuli & tax & spend policies that have never worked. They are undermining and eroding the capitalistic, free-enterprise system on which this nation was built, and was always successful.
Values and Consistency. Mitt has consistently over his life held the same very high family, religious & fiscally conservative values. He has evolved in the right direction on abortion law, as did Reagan. He strongly believes in American exceptionalism. Newt has, along with his change of wives, changed his religion. Some have noted more changes of positions than Mitt has been accused of, for instance now criticizing Mitt for positions he’d earlier praised him on. He is an astute, slick and opportunistic politician, whose progressive views have increasingly surfaced. Obama is also an astute, slick opportunistic politician, whose values are anti-capitalist, anti-free-enterprise (socialistic), anti-American exceptionalism, and highly progressive.
The Private Romney – Some Favorable Press
To counter the flood of unfavorable Romney press in the mainstream media, here are some more balanced or favorable articles that are starting to appear – about his personal life & who he really is -- even from a couple of surprising sources (LA & NY Times). Showing his softer & more personable family side, his religious side, and his frugal side. My previous post testified of the latter, when my sister met her husband at Boston airport recently, and Mitt got off the same plane, having flown in the lower class section (her husband was 1st class). Much of this was available in the last election in Hewitt’s book, “A Mormon in the White House?”
“A Mitt Romney You Haven’t Seen Yet,” Parade, http://www.parade.com/news/2011/12/mitt-romney-family-man.html#.TtuMOL9w-hU.email
“Romney, an Active Man of Faith,” LA Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-faith-20111208,0,4579590.story
“Two Mitt Romneys: Wealthy Man, Thrifty Habits,” NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/us/politics/two-mitt-romneys-wealthy-man-thrifty-habits.html?_r=1
Temperatures Rising
The calm, avuncular, sage & above-the-fray, only-attack-Obama Newt image he so well portrayed in the earlier debates while the spotlight was off him, has begun to crack now that he’s being subjected to the same scrutiny as every other flavor of the month. It was beginning to show in the Dec. 10 ABC debate, but flared hotly today in an indirect exchange with Mitt. Mitt pressed the right button, saying that with the Fannie/Freddie debacle that led to the housing & investments collapses & current recession, Newt ought to give back the $1.2 million he took in consulting fees from Freddie MAC. Newt fired back that he’d consider it if Mitt gave back the millions of dollars and many jobs lost in failed businesses he was involved with in Bain Capital.
Charles Krauthammer & Brit Hume were unanimous in condemning Newt’s statement as anti-capitalist and exactly the line Ted Kennedy used against Mitt in the ’94 Mass. senate seat campaign, and the current Dems and Obama have been using against Romney. Newt himself is on video pointing out previously that Mitt was responsible for the net creation of many more jobs than the entire Obama cabinet -- he seems to be changing his tune, now. In capitalism, poor business models fail, and good succeed – the “creative destruction” Mitt discusses in his book, “No Apologies.” To artificially prop up the poor business models by government intervention is pouring money down the sink, increasing our debt, and fostering bad behavior.
Obama gave a speech in Kansas the other day, trying to claim the progressive mantle of Teddy Roosevelt. And said it will take more than 1 presidential term to turn around the economy, and likely even more than one president. Right he is – to clean up the mess he’s added to the problem he inherited.
Dec. 10 ABC Debate – the $10,000 Bet, etc.
I’ll begin with the post-debate spin and media headlines. Should have been expected from a liberal media-hosted event. The big takeaway for them was Mitt’s $10,000 bet offered to Perry as to who was right about what his book said about Romneycare vs Obamacare. I didn’t even record it in my 4 pages of debate notes. Their view was that it showed how out of touch Mitt is with the struggles of the common man, especially in this economy, and of course Perry picked up on that, too. Of course that fits right in with their liberal economic justice and Occupy Wall Street mentality, despising any with wealth (and all conservatives) as uncaring. The moderators played that view up, asking how each could relate with their backgrounds, and most grew up in modest circumstances, except Mitt, of course (not that any of them are particularly hurting now).
Mitt said if that’s your requirement, he’s not the man, but that his father taught him hard work & frugality (see the above article), and that having been a missionary and “pastor” in his church, he has worked with poor and struggling people, and understands many of the struggles of others. And in fact that’s a major motivation for his running, to help them by turning around the economy & jobs. He said the same things in his book. But all that’s missed by the liberal media, intentionally or ignorantly, with their agenda that coincides with Obama’s team’s strategy of attacking Romney, and finding the slightest crack in the door they can pry wider – even if only a rhetorical figure of speech to make a point of confidence (1 million is clearly absurd, and $10 shows little confidence – what is the right amount?). And they almost completely glossed over the substantive point that when the fact-checking was done, Mitt would have won that bet – he was right, and Perry wrong.
Of course the crowd that elected and still supports Obama is more concerned with style than substance, intentions rather than results. They said “Romney didn’t look as good [as before?]” – I couldn’t disagree more. He looked more energized and confident than ever, and everyone, rising to the challenge of Newt.
They can’t objectively see how blatantly biased and hypocritically absurd their portrayal of Mitt is when Obama shows no real leadership or concern (other than some lip service and class warfare rhetoric to his own benefit) in solving the economy, but rather leaves town for extended expensive vacations and golfing, telling Congress they shouldn’t leave town until they’ve solved things. Sort of “let them eat cake,” ala Marie Antoinette.
The ABC spinmeisters thought Mitt didn’t solidify his support, but Newt did. It looked pretty clear to me that Newt lost his earlier image in this debate – he was clearly rattled and under fire from all sides, and looked sheepish & uncomfortable being in that position. He did go on offense. He made stumbles defending his position saying the “Palestinians” are an invented people, and we need to be more open and honest about the Palestinians’ true agenda, etc. While Mitt acknowledged some agreement on Newt’s historical & current facts, he said we (esp. pres. candidates) ought not to be throwing “bombs” into an already difficult situation for Israel and its negotiations, that he believes in exercising sobriety and care. Santorum agreed w. Mitt. Newt does have a reputation as a hot-headed loose canon.
Mitt is always prepared and detailed on his enumerated plans to create jobs. He called the payroll tax cut Obama wants to continue a band-aid, and Bachman called it a gimmick. Santorum agreed, saying don’t defund social security.
When Mitt pointed out his business career vs. Newt’s political career, Newt came back saying the only reason Mitt wasn’t a career politician is his loss to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Mitt jumped right on that – he’d been a businessman long before that, and valued the subsequent experience. I believe I’d heard he’d never really expected to beat Kennedy (quite a long shot), but wanted to air some opposing views. Ron Paul accused Newt of gross hypocrisy & changing on many positions.
Bachman called Newt the poster boy of crony capitalism, and that he’d been for individual mandates for 20 years. She claimed to be the proven constitutional conservative, and didn’t think “Newt-Mitt” fit the conservative bill. Mitt countered that he’s definitely not a clone of Newt. He again explained how Romneycare affected only 8% of Massachusetts – those without health insurance, and wasn’t a government-run program, and didn’t cut Medicaid (unlike Obamacare). And that Newt was for a federal mandate, whereas Mitt’s always been against it. I think this was about where Perry took issue based on Mitt’s book, and the $10,000 bet.
The moderator said Mitt had made family values an issue in Iowa, implying an indirect attack against Newt, and Mitt said it was a response to Obama’s PAC which said he had no core values.
Mitt was against any form of amnesty as it creates a magnet for illegal immigration. Secure the border, register the 11 million illegals and give them a transition period to go home and get in line with those who’ve been waiting to come legally, and with skills we need.
When asked what each admired about their opponents, Romney said the principles of leadership each exercises – singling out Ron Paul & his well-organized devotees he sees everywhere w. signs.
With few weeks until the first few primary states, including holidays during which not much attention or thought may be given to the candidates, it’s unclear how much of Newt’s current, I believe inflated, polls will change in the first few states, giving him an initial boost. But I believe time will continue to erode Newt, as the electorate awakens. So it may be a protracted battle – unless someone makes a major blunder (or more like today).
Leadership & Teamwork: Mitt has successfully led Bain Capital & various businesses to success, successful governor of Massachusetts working with a heavily Democrat legislature, successfully turned around a demoralized 2002 Olympics program, and honorably led as “pastor” (bishop and stake president) a congregation and group of congregations in his church. He’s had an exemplary 42-year marriage & family that love to spend time together. Newt led an initially successful conservative House & Contract w. America, but after his leadership was shown wanting, was ousted by his fellow Republicans – a highly unusual mutiny. More recently, his entire campaign staff quit on him. He has been married 3 times, cheating on his first 2 wives. I think I see a pattern, here. Obama gives community organizer style speeches, blames others, divides rather than unites, and tells Congress to get work done before they leave town, while he’s already left for more golf time.
Integrity: Mitt has consistently maintained the highest ethical standards in his business career and personal life, which were prerequisites to his position as bishop and stake president in his church, and being temple-worthy – very high standards, indeed. Newt was fined $300,000 while in the House for ethics violations. Obama continues his Chicago politics approach & crony capitalism/socialism, despite promises to clean house – he’s surrounded by tax cheats, former terrorists, people who can’t explain where $1.2 Billion went, etc.
Business Experience: Mitt is a lifelong businessman (except for brief stints as governor and Olympics head), and despite some inevitable company restructurings, as has been said, he is responsible for the creation of more net jobs than the entire Obama cabinet. He turned Massachusetts, many companies and the Olympics all from massive deficits to surpluses – just what this country needs. Newt has done some teaching & consulting and small businesses on the side of his lifetime career in politics and academia. Obama and his entire cabinet & advisor team have zero business experience – only academic. They have no knowledge of how to create jobs, insanely continuing to insist on Keynesian stimuli & tax & spend policies that have never worked. They are undermining and eroding the capitalistic, free-enterprise system on which this nation was built, and was always successful.
Values and Consistency. Mitt has consistently over his life held the same very high family, religious & fiscally conservative values. He has evolved in the right direction on abortion law, as did Reagan. He strongly believes in American exceptionalism. Newt has, along with his change of wives, changed his religion. Some have noted more changes of positions than Mitt has been accused of, for instance now criticizing Mitt for positions he’d earlier praised him on. He is an astute, slick and opportunistic politician, whose progressive views have increasingly surfaced. Obama is also an astute, slick opportunistic politician, whose values are anti-capitalist, anti-free-enterprise (socialistic), anti-American exceptionalism, and highly progressive.
The Private Romney – Some Favorable Press
To counter the flood of unfavorable Romney press in the mainstream media, here are some more balanced or favorable articles that are starting to appear – about his personal life & who he really is -- even from a couple of surprising sources (LA & NY Times). Showing his softer & more personable family side, his religious side, and his frugal side. My previous post testified of the latter, when my sister met her husband at Boston airport recently, and Mitt got off the same plane, having flown in the lower class section (her husband was 1st class). Much of this was available in the last election in Hewitt’s book, “A Mormon in the White House?”
“A Mitt Romney You Haven’t Seen Yet,” Parade, http://www.parade.com/news/2011/12/mitt-romney-family-man.html#.TtuMOL9w-hU.email
“Romney, an Active Man of Faith,” LA Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-faith-20111208,0,4579590.story
“Two Mitt Romneys: Wealthy Man, Thrifty Habits,” NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/us/politics/two-mitt-romneys-wealthy-man-thrifty-habits.html?_r=1
Temperatures Rising
The calm, avuncular, sage & above-the-fray, only-attack-Obama Newt image he so well portrayed in the earlier debates while the spotlight was off him, has begun to crack now that he’s being subjected to the same scrutiny as every other flavor of the month. It was beginning to show in the Dec. 10 ABC debate, but flared hotly today in an indirect exchange with Mitt. Mitt pressed the right button, saying that with the Fannie/Freddie debacle that led to the housing & investments collapses & current recession, Newt ought to give back the $1.2 million he took in consulting fees from Freddie MAC. Newt fired back that he’d consider it if Mitt gave back the millions of dollars and many jobs lost in failed businesses he was involved with in Bain Capital.
Charles Krauthammer & Brit Hume were unanimous in condemning Newt’s statement as anti-capitalist and exactly the line Ted Kennedy used against Mitt in the ’94 Mass. senate seat campaign, and the current Dems and Obama have been using against Romney. Newt himself is on video pointing out previously that Mitt was responsible for the net creation of many more jobs than the entire Obama cabinet -- he seems to be changing his tune, now. In capitalism, poor business models fail, and good succeed – the “creative destruction” Mitt discusses in his book, “No Apologies.” To artificially prop up the poor business models by government intervention is pouring money down the sink, increasing our debt, and fostering bad behavior.
Obama gave a speech in Kansas the other day, trying to claim the progressive mantle of Teddy Roosevelt. And said it will take more than 1 presidential term to turn around the economy, and likely even more than one president. Right he is – to clean up the mess he’s added to the problem he inherited.
Dec. 10 ABC Debate – the $10,000 Bet, etc.
I’ll begin with the post-debate spin and media headlines. Should have been expected from a liberal media-hosted event. The big takeaway for them was Mitt’s $10,000 bet offered to Perry as to who was right about what his book said about Romneycare vs Obamacare. I didn’t even record it in my 4 pages of debate notes. Their view was that it showed how out of touch Mitt is with the struggles of the common man, especially in this economy, and of course Perry picked up on that, too. Of course that fits right in with their liberal economic justice and Occupy Wall Street mentality, despising any with wealth (and all conservatives) as uncaring. The moderators played that view up, asking how each could relate with their backgrounds, and most grew up in modest circumstances, except Mitt, of course (not that any of them are particularly hurting now).
Mitt said if that’s your requirement, he’s not the man, but that his father taught him hard work & frugality (see the above article), and that having been a missionary and “pastor” in his church, he has worked with poor and struggling people, and understands many of the struggles of others. And in fact that’s a major motivation for his running, to help them by turning around the economy & jobs. He said the same things in his book. But all that’s missed by the liberal media, intentionally or ignorantly, with their agenda that coincides with Obama’s team’s strategy of attacking Romney, and finding the slightest crack in the door they can pry wider – even if only a rhetorical figure of speech to make a point of confidence (1 million is clearly absurd, and $10 shows little confidence – what is the right amount?). And they almost completely glossed over the substantive point that when the fact-checking was done, Mitt would have won that bet – he was right, and Perry wrong.
Of course the crowd that elected and still supports Obama is more concerned with style than substance, intentions rather than results. They said “Romney didn’t look as good [as before?]” – I couldn’t disagree more. He looked more energized and confident than ever, and everyone, rising to the challenge of Newt.
They can’t objectively see how blatantly biased and hypocritically absurd their portrayal of Mitt is when Obama shows no real leadership or concern (other than some lip service and class warfare rhetoric to his own benefit) in solving the economy, but rather leaves town for extended expensive vacations and golfing, telling Congress they shouldn’t leave town until they’ve solved things. Sort of “let them eat cake,” ala Marie Antoinette.
The ABC spinmeisters thought Mitt didn’t solidify his support, but Newt did. It looked pretty clear to me that Newt lost his earlier image in this debate – he was clearly rattled and under fire from all sides, and looked sheepish & uncomfortable being in that position. He did go on offense. He made stumbles defending his position saying the “Palestinians” are an invented people, and we need to be more open and honest about the Palestinians’ true agenda, etc. While Mitt acknowledged some agreement on Newt’s historical & current facts, he said we (esp. pres. candidates) ought not to be throwing “bombs” into an already difficult situation for Israel and its negotiations, that he believes in exercising sobriety and care. Santorum agreed w. Mitt. Newt does have a reputation as a hot-headed loose canon.
Mitt is always prepared and detailed on his enumerated plans to create jobs. He called the payroll tax cut Obama wants to continue a band-aid, and Bachman called it a gimmick. Santorum agreed, saying don’t defund social security.
When Mitt pointed out his business career vs. Newt’s political career, Newt came back saying the only reason Mitt wasn’t a career politician is his loss to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Mitt jumped right on that – he’d been a businessman long before that, and valued the subsequent experience. I believe I’d heard he’d never really expected to beat Kennedy (quite a long shot), but wanted to air some opposing views. Ron Paul accused Newt of gross hypocrisy & changing on many positions.
Bachman called Newt the poster boy of crony capitalism, and that he’d been for individual mandates for 20 years. She claimed to be the proven constitutional conservative, and didn’t think “Newt-Mitt” fit the conservative bill. Mitt countered that he’s definitely not a clone of Newt. He again explained how Romneycare affected only 8% of Massachusetts – those without health insurance, and wasn’t a government-run program, and didn’t cut Medicaid (unlike Obamacare). And that Newt was for a federal mandate, whereas Mitt’s always been against it. I think this was about where Perry took issue based on Mitt’s book, and the $10,000 bet.
The moderator said Mitt had made family values an issue in Iowa, implying an indirect attack against Newt, and Mitt said it was a response to Obama’s PAC which said he had no core values.
Mitt was against any form of amnesty as it creates a magnet for illegal immigration. Secure the border, register the 11 million illegals and give them a transition period to go home and get in line with those who’ve been waiting to come legally, and with skills we need.
When asked what each admired about their opponents, Romney said the principles of leadership each exercises – singling out Ron Paul & his well-organized devotees he sees everywhere w. signs.
With few weeks until the first few primary states, including holidays during which not much attention or thought may be given to the candidates, it’s unclear how much of Newt’s current, I believe inflated, polls will change in the first few states, giving him an initial boost. But I believe time will continue to erode Newt, as the electorate awakens. So it may be a protracted battle – unless someone makes a major blunder (or more like today).
Comments
Post a Comment