My Case for Mitt Romney
Alecia T. Williams

Anyone who has gone through a home purchase knows that the process to apply for and secure a home loan is surprisingly tedious and ridiculously complicated.

hardmoneyloansnortherncalifornia.com

The amount of paperwork, verification and signatures needed to secure a home loan is outrageous.

It can be quite intimidating.

By the last signature, a buyer certainly feels the weight of their purchase and the responsibility in assuming a debt that will take 30 years to repay.

Banks certainly take a risk, but aside from the interest they earn, the single biggest incentive for the bank is that the house is the collateral.  They know that people feel an obligation to pay their mortgages or they will lose their homes.

The collateral keeps the borrower accountable for the debt.

Just think for a second how different borrowing is for our political leaders in this country?

Politicians draft up legislation with unthinkable price tags—literally trillions and trillions of dollars for expensive, inefficient, unproven and mostly, broken programs.

Getty Images

How are they paying for it?  After tax payer revenue has dried up, borrowed money from China covers the rest.

This lovely borrowing system has been going on for decades.  Today, America’s debt  / deficit stands at a staggering $15.7 trillion and counting. (www.treasurydirect.gov).

According to the usdebtclock.org, the total debt per US citizen is $183, 378.  That puts the debt per US family to $692,810.

I don’t know about the average person, but the fact that our government leaders have passed this debt onto each of us seems totally unfair, completely uncalled for and quite frankly, immoral.

Who is holding these leaders accountable?

Furthermore, what is the collateral on their debt?

This cycle continues year after year.  Decade after decade. Trillions upon trillions.  No politician has been able to adequately address the amount of overspending by our government or effectively come up with a significant plan to eliminate it.

Where is the outrage?

When Candidate Obama ran in 2008, he hinted that he was different.  He portrayed himself as being unlike his predecessors.  He boasted that he could be trusted to be fiscally responsible.

He heavily criticized President George W. Bush.  Obama said, “The problem is the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 24 presidents. #43 added 4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back—$30,000 for every man, woman and child.  That’s irresponsible.  It’s unpatriotic.” (Fargo, ND 7/3/08)

As the Romney campaign has highlighted, Candidate Obama once promised to go through the budget, “line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making new ones we do need work better and cost less.” (Denver, CO 8/28/08)

Has he done any of it?

Absolutely not.  Instead, his record reflects that his claims of fiscal responsibility were nothing but empty rhetoric used in a stump speech to pander to voters.

In just 3 1/2 years, this president has spent way more than he was allotted.  He has increased our debt by $5 trillion.  He once called President Bush “unpatriotic” for the debt he created.  What does he have to say about his $5 trillion contribution?

Will Mitt Romney be any different?

There is one blaring reason why Mitt Romney will be different: He has been trained to be accountable.

Mitt Romney has made a career out of being accountable with other people’s money.  For years, he managed millions and millions of investors’ money.  These years gave him hands-on training to never spend more than he takes in.

Romney has been trained to use discretion.  Unlike President Obama, Romney never had access to an unlimited amount of borrowed money.  Instead, he had to learn how to budget and account for every dollar and every expense.  His career reflects an individual who knows how a budget works.  He has always had to spend within limits.

Why?

For 25+ years, Mitt Romney knew that if he wasn’t accountable and fiscally responsible, he would get fired.  This is how he has been trained.  This is how he made a living and he was exceptionally good at what he did.  This training led to tremendous growth under his watch.

This is what makes him different.

America deserves more.   It is time for a leader who not only knows what to say, but more importantly knows how to act.

We must remember that something is terribly wrong in this country when it is harder for a homeowner to secure a $200,000 loan on a home than it is for a politician to rack up trillions in debt.

It is time for some accountability—because the only collateral that voters have for this reckless debt is to remove the reckless politicians.

It is time to collect.

America needs Mitt.

Please read more about why I believe that Mitt Romney is the right leader, with the right experience, who has emerged at the right time.
My blog: yesmittromney.blogspot.com

My Case for Mitt Romney
Alecia T. Williams

President Obama and his campaign staff are painstakingly watching the polls…and it is only May.  This week’s shift from gay marriage to the economy is a perfect reflection of it.

Yesterday the New York Times reported, “Most Americans suspect that the president was motivated by politics, not policy when he declared his support for same sex marriage.”

They revealed the results of a NYT / CBS News poll showing most Americans suspect that the president was motivated by politics rather than policy when he declared his support for same sex marriage.  ”Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed said that they thought that Mr. Obama had made the announcement mostly for political reasons.”

This is undoubtedly concerning for the White House.  It shows that the president’s historic evolution to support gay marriage appeared “calculated rather than principled.”

Ouch.  It is never a good thing for a politician to appear insincere.

***

So how did the White House react to this poll?

They changed the conversation…again.   This time around they were forced to change the conversation to a topic that they have been desperately trying to avoid: the economy.

They did it with an attack on Mitt Romney’s business record.

The White House released a six-minute ad vilifying the role that Mitt Romney and Bain Capital played in GTS steel, a Kansas City, Missouri steel company.  Bain Capital invested in the plant in 1993, but by 2001, the mill filed for bankruptcy and shut down.

The closure resulted in 700 workers losing their jobs.

The ad depicts Mitt Romney and his partners as heartless, business tycoons who aggressively pursued wealth over compassion for the livelihood of those working at the plant.

Image from Bostonglobe.com

Interviews from disgruntled employees who described Mitt Romney as a “vampire,” make the ad somewhat effective.  But there is one detail that the Obama camp blatantly failed to mention: Mitt Romney was not even actively managing Bain Capital when the steel company filed for bankruptcy—he was working full-time as CEO to salvage the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic games.

Is it fair to blame him?

Another blaring truth?  In the 1990s, America’s steel industry as a whole was in real trouble—cheap imports were crushing the steel industry.  Two dozen steel companies filed for bankruptcy around the same time as this Kansas City plant.

Can Mitt Romney be blamed for the failure of the entire steel industry in America?

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post wrote a fascinating perspective today on this Obama ad.  He acknowledged that GTS steel was in trouble long before the Bain investment.  He referenced an article in the Kansas City Star in 2001 which showed that in 1970, the plant had 4,500 workers—but by 1983, that number had plummeted to 1,500 workers.

Why?

Poor market conditions, poor equipment, stiff competition, expensive labor costs and cheap imports had already forced layoffs years before Bain Capital showed up.

As Kessler mentioned, in the 1990′s, the steel industry in America was on the brink of collapse.

(Facts—they always offer the the most accurate perspective).

The Obama campaign chose their facts to use ”selective distortion” for their political gain.

Truth? The steel industry in America crumbled not from the evils of Bain Capital investments, but rather it crumbled from an unforeseen surge of cheap imports.

Reuters Image

GTS steel—like the other two dozen plants—didn’t stand a chance.

So how did the Romney camp react?

Well, unlike his response to attacks on Bain Capital during the South Carolina primary, this time around Romney welcomed the change of conversation.

This time, Romney is ready.

Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said today, “We welcome the Obama campaign’s attempt to pivot back to jobs and a discussion of their failed policies.  Mitt Romney helped create more jobs in his private sector experience and more jobs as Governor than President Obama has for the entire nation.”

Reuters Image / Rebecca Cook

As Romney campaign strategist Ed Gillespie pointed out, the ad is simply a reflection of this Administration’s complete lack of understanding of the free market and private enterprise.

Better yet, the ad allows Romney to remind voters of Obama’s dismal record of job creation.

We will undoubtedly hear a lot about Obama “saving the auto industry,”  but as Byron York of the Washington Examiner wrote, Obama doesn’t want anyone to remember that during his rescue of GM and Chrysler, 700+ dealerships were shut down and theNew York Times reported in 2010 that as a result of the closures, tens of thousands of jobs were lost.

Does President Obama really have a record to stand on as he attacks Mitt Romney?

The answer is no.

In the past two weeks, Obama has been desperately hopping from issue to issue with the hopes that something will stick.

It isn’t working.

Today’s polls show Romney leading Obama by 3 points.  If attacking Bain doesn’t work, the message will probably change again on Monday, but it goes without saying, the Obama camp should be worried.

Furthermore, it is only May and they are already using their “big gun” attacks against Romney.  Will voters be bored with the Bain attacks by November?

Credit: AP Photo/Julie Jacobson

The Obama camp is surely on notice.

Romney is focused.  Romney is not easily distracted.  Romney’s message is resonating.

Mitt Romney has found his feet.

Go Mitt!

Please read more about why I believe that Mitt Romney is the right leader, with the right experience, who has emerged at the right time.
My blog: yesmittromney.blogspot.com

My Case for Mitt Romney
Alecia T. Williams

Two days ago, President Obama set off a media frenzy with his revelation that he now supports gay marriage and believes all gay couples should have the right to marry.

Within hours, every media outlet was running stories praising his empathy, courage and ability to “evolve.”

Should his announcement really come as a surprise?

Of course not.  For as many conservative writers have pointed out, President Obama has long been a supporter of gay marriage—well, at least whenever it was politically advantageous to him.

His support of gay marriage is not what leaves me unsettled—rather, it is the timing of it.  Furthermore, the the media’s coverage of it has been almost too much to take.

It feels calculated.  It feels manipulative.  It feels contrived.

Is it any shock that all of this broke just days after Friday’s Labor Report which reflected a slowing of economic growth?  Is it any surprise that it came just days after many national polls showed the president sliding behind Mitt Romney?

Is all of this simply a desperate attempt to to change the conversation?  Has the president really “evolved” or is he just pandering to his base?

In 1996, he advocated gay marriage, but in 1998 during a re-election for state senate, he “evolved” and suddenly became “undecided.” By 2004, he was “A fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil union laws.  I am not a supporter of gay marriage.”

For three and half years, the president has been silent about his “struggle” with the gay marriage question.  He has done little to intervene and speak up in the many gay marriage amendment votes around the country.  Was his silence a reflection of his “struggle” or simply his “awareness” of voter sentiment?

But in a re-election year, sliding polls, a dismal economy and his health care legislation possibly being thrown out by the Supreme Court, this president was desperate to change the conversation.

Historically speaking, social issues have proven to be a great motivator for voters.  Was the timing right for an “announcement?”

Vice President Biden’s appearance on Meet the Press set the stage perfectly.

When Biden revealed that he was “absolutely comfortable with gay marriage,”  it was the perfect litmus test to measure the public’s response to such a high ranking official making such a bold announcement.  The public’s reaction was relatively subdued, so the media immediately began to swirl speculation and excitement about whether or not the president’s views had changed.

Then on ABC news, Obama makes his historic announcement.

And Bam.  The perfect storm for the perfect diversion.

He is now being praised for his courage.  Praised for his empathy.  Praised for evolving.

Then published against the backdrop of Obama’s “courageous evolution” fest by the media, the Washington Post broke a story yesterday that when Mitt was in high school, he participated in bullying a fellow classmate.

Although the witnesses don’t all appear credible, the Washington Post still ran the 11-page story.

Coincidental timing?

Mitt Romney has since come out and although does not remember the specifics of this incident, he openly apologized for any childish behavior or poor judgement that he may have had in high school.

It should be noted that this alleged incident took place in 1965.  Was Mitt Romney a bully?  More relevant question, is Mitt Romney a bully?

A few things are clear: first of all, this appears to be an isolated incident.  As far as I am aware, the media has not been able to produce any stories beyond 1965 where Mitt Romney bullied either his co-workers, his associates or business partners—but rest assured, the media is undoubtedly searching.

Secondly, if Mitt Romney was indeed a one-time “bully,” from his high school days until the present day, Mitt Romney has unarguably “evolved” into a remarkable person.  He is an commendable leader with praiseworthy accomplishments.  He is a man whose life is driven by his faith.  A man who is extremely charitable and a man who along with his wife, has raised 5 exemplary sons.  Mitt Romney has contributed in countless ways to the business environment in this country and furthermore, his vision has time and again, fixed countless broken systems.

If he did indeed occasionally use poor judgement in high school, he is not that person today.  His life now reflects an individual who has “evolved” into an charitable person with exemplary leadership skills in business and economics.

Does Romney’s “evolution” count?

According to the media, no way.

Their focus continues to be on Romney’s alleged childish behavior when he was a child.  No one wants to possibly acknowledge that in time, he too, could have experienced an “evolution” and become a more empathetic and compassionate individual.

Ironically, the media was more than willing to overlook President Obama’s questionable associations with radicals and also his spiritual devotion to a racist and hate-filled preacher just 5 years ago.  And today, the media is full of praise for his ability to “evolve” into an empathetic and courageous leader regarding gay marriage.

So, as far as I am concerned, the anatomy of evolution is only significant and noteworthy if it fits into a specific political agenda.

As I said before, it feels contrived.  It feels manipulative.  It feels calculated.

I kind of feel like I am stuck in the 1997 movie, “Wag the Dog.”

This president and the media might be trying to “Wag the Dog,” and make us focus on the president’s evolution to empathy, but it isn’t working with me.

I call it pandering.  I also call it a distraction.  The media used to call it “flip-flopping.”

I am not buying it.

Please read more about why I believe that Mitt Romney is the right leader, with the right experience, who has emerged at the right time.

My blog: yesmittromney.blogspot.com

Here’s Obama in his own words admitting to physically shoving a little girl named Coretta.

Yes, it was at this moment that the first shot in the War on Women was fired.

No doubt that after expending all that energy bullying an innocent little girl, young Obama readied himself for round two by eating a Golden Retriever.

More on this breaking story here.

If you’re wondering what the rules are regarding a candidate’s past; how far back we’re allowed to go in an attempt to define them — the answer is simple: the corrupt media will let us know.

My Case for Mitt Romney
Alecia T. Williams

Democratic strategist James Carville is mad.

James Carville is best known for the role he played as lead strategist for Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, but he is also known as an outspoken voice for the liberal cause.  His sometimes brazen and off-the-cuff commentary has frequently landed him in hot water with conservatives, but his unapologetic stance and opinions have also awarded him plenty of praise from the left.

Getty Images/Alex Wong

Yesterday, Carville challenged Democrats to declare war on Republicans.  He called for a greater sense of urgency for the control of the White House in November.  In a column on CNN.com, Carville said “Wake up Democrats, you could lose this election.”

He charged that too many Democrats are overly confident in the president’s ability to defeat Mitt Romney.  He highlighted that incumbents are losing elections all over the world.  He reminded them that election polls are tightening in every swing state.  He warned them that the lousy economy is a real threat to an Obama victory.  He essentially warned that there is an “earthquake” and Democrats better rally.

I hope no one was listening….

Biggest problem?  James Carville just might be right.

Democrats are disheartened and are becoming complacent. In four years, passion for their “Superstar / Messiah-like” candidate has greatly diminished.  College students who voted with overwhelming enthusiasm four years ago, are now facing graduation and half of them will be unable to find a job.  I doubt their enthusiasm will be as strong this time around.

The economy stinks.  The housing market is still crumbling.  To be blunt, “Hope & Change” didn’t happen.

(Notice the empty seats in the upper bowl).

As Peter Wehner from Commentary Magazine wrote today, President Obama is like an aging rock star who is pleading with his followers to re-live the “glory days”of his 2008 run.

Carville is right to fear that Democrats are becoming complacent.  They just might be.

But I would caution that complacency is also a great threat to the Conservative cause.

How?

Republicans seem to be under the assumption that a deep resentment of Obama’s policies, a weak economy and a growing complacency among liberals will be enough to defeat Obama.

I am here to say that these conservatives are totally wrong.

Conservatives are fools to think that our frustration for this president will create enough momentum for a November victory.  Many conservatives have been reluctant to embrace Mitt Romney.  Do they really believe that this resentment is strong enough to get them to the polls to vote for their second choice candidate, Mitt Romney?  Are they under the impression that their vote doesn’t matter and that someone else will show up and vote for Mitt?

Mitt Romney needs more than a hatred for President Obama to win.  He needs enthusiasm.  He needs us to feel a sense of urgency.  He needs us to rally.  Mitt Romney needs an awakening.

Ironically, Conservatives should heed Carville’s advice:  ”Democrats Conservatives realize that there is an earthquake. Wake up and rally or we could lose.”

I hope Carville’s invitation will awaken Conservatives rather than ignite Liberals to rally behind their dimished rock star candidate.

AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Obama isn’t working, but every conservative needs to rally to ensure that his extreme policies will end on November 6th.

Go Mitt.

Please read more about why I believe that Mitt Romney is the right leader, with the right experience, who has emerged at the right time.
My blog: yesmittromney.blogspot.com

My Case for Mitt Romney
Alecia T. Williams
Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Rick Santorum has endorsed Mitt Romney…at least I think that is what it should be called.
(I debated even mentioning it because his endorsement was pathetic).

Image from Reuters

It was reported today that shortly before midnight, Rick Santorum sent an email to his supporters expressing his endorsement for his one-time rival, Mitt Romney.

He said that he had waited to endorse Romney because he wanted to first sit down and meet face-to-face.  He wrote, “I felt that it was completely impossible for me to even consider an endorsement until after a meeting to discuss issues critical to those of us who often feel our voices are not heard by the establishment: social conservatives, tea party supporters, lower and middle income working families.”

Wow.  ”Completely impossible?”

Finally by paragraph 13 of his email, he wrote that after meeting with Romney, “We both agree that President Obama must be defeated.  The task will not be easy.  It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious.  Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win the most critical election of our lifetime.”

Um…Nice job Rick.

As I have always said, politics is much more of an art than a science.  Rick Santorum’s uninspiring and forgettable endorsement proves that he doesn’t get it.

He is no longer on the stage yet, he still wants it to be about him.

Santorum has somehow forgotten that he was never the first choice leader for the conservative cause.  During the primaries, Rick Santorum was the last “pair of shoes” that the “Anyone-but-Mitt” Republicans tried on.  He was not the first (Michelle Bachman), he was not the second (Herman Cain), he was not the third (Rick Perry) and he was not the fourth (Newt Gingrich).

Truth is, Rick Santorum was the last attempt for ultra conservatives to find an alternative to the “Mormon Governor from Massachusetts” and although Rick Santorum may have been the last, he certainly didn’t prove to be “last-the-best-of-all-the-game.”

Although his run was solid, it was still not enough.  He was not enough—Republicans still chose his rival.

There are two key principles that every candidate must master in the “art” of politics:

1) It can’t be personal…it’s politics.
2) If you can’t take the heat, then get out of the kitchen…(and then once you have left, suck it up and praise and encourage the cook left standing in the heat.  Because in politics, everything can change in a day and you never know when you’ll be back in the kitchen desperate for the support of those on the outside).

That is the art of politics.

Conservatives got it right when they chose Mitt.

Go Mitt.

Please read more about why I believe that Mitt Romney is the right leader, with the right experience, who has emerged at the right time.
My blog: yesmittromney.blogspot.com

My Case for Mitt Romney
Alecia T. Williams

On Saturday, President Obama officially launched his 2012 reelection campaign.

He tried to make the case for more time.  He tried to defend his policies.  He emphasized that his his vision is just getting started and that “this is a make or break moment for the middle class and that we can’t turn back now.”

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Despite the cheering crowd and the distinct number of new Obama 2012 t-shirts, the president has received some criticism for his “lukewarm” speech and the lack of specific details for his 2nd term agenda.

To make maters worse, many in the media have noted his inability to fill the 20,000 seat arena at Ohio State University.  The arena appeared to be around 2/3 full with approximately 14,000 in attendance.

This is significant because during his 2008 campaign, the president faced overflowing crowds and sold out arenas everywhere he went.  This smaller turnout would have been unheard of during his 2008 campaign.

One can’t help but ask, is the Obama enthusiasm waning?  Are these the winds of “change?”

One day after the dismal Labor Report showing a slowing trend in job creation during the month of April, President Obama tried desperately to ignite some enthusiasm around his campaign.

The most pointed moment of his speech came when he tried to reframe the question that Mitt Romney is now charging all Americans to ask themselves, “Am I better off now than I was four years ago?”  Obama said that the real question all Americans should be asking is, “Will we be better off years down the road?”

Only problem?  We’ve heard this already.

Four years ago, Barack Obama challenged Americans to ask themselves, “The real question is will this country be better off four years from now?”

(Click below to see the RNC ad showing President Obama posing this same question in 2008).

Sorry, but we have watched this president spend $5 trillion to make this country “better off than we were four years ago” and although this might be an “inconvenient truth,” we are not better off.

Romney campaign spokesperson Amanda Henneberg said, “Americans will hear a lot from President Obama in the coming months, but what they won’t hear from him is that fact that his policies have wreaked havoc on the middle class.  Americans know that they are not better off then they were four years ago.”

Over the weekend, news of the slowing economy and President Obama’s campaign launch dominated the Sunday news shows.

Senator Marco Rubio was interviewed on Fox News with Chris Wallace.  He had some sharp criticism of the president and why he faces an uphill battle in November.  He said that Obama’s greatest weakness is not simply a weak economy, but rather that voters will see that he has nothing new to offer them.

Rubio said, “When this president ran for office in 2008, he said he was going to be different, he said he was going to be a post-partisan uniter that brings everyone together and three and half years later the president, quite frankly, has become like everyone else in Washington D.C.”

Rubio went on to say, “I remember the speech in 2004 when he spoke at John Kerry’s nominating convention. And he said there wasn’t a red America or a blue America, there was a United States of America.  Whatever happened to that Barack Obama?  The president we have today is a typical Washington politician that’s prone to hyperbole and divisiveness and false outrage.”

I fully agree.

Four years later, Americans are yearning for substance and longing for concrete solutions.  Lofty and inspiring rhetoric may have worked in 2008 when this country was ripe for change, but after 3 1/2 years, we see that rhetoric does not promise solutions.  Rhetoric does not guarantee results.

In 2012, we are beginning to recognize that rhetoric is nothing more than an overused campaign slogan.

On Saturday, as President Obama tried to get us to look “Forward,” he was clearly hoping to mask the broken economy and replace it with reminders of his 2008 optimism and confidence.

But it came off as a desperate plea.

He just wants more time.  He wants us to be more patient—but at this point of time, we just might be too broken to grant it.

So as this president attempts to distract us from looking back at the lack of “hope” or see how things have actually “changed” for the worse, Mitt Romney is going to emphasize that four more years will not grant Obama the adequate know-how to actually fix things.

Image from pbs.org

Mitt Romney will remind us that millions have dropped out of the middle class and are now living below the poverty line.  Romney will remind us that an historically low level of Americans are actually working.  Romney will remind us that more Americans are dependent on food stamps than any other time in history.  Romney will remind us how much this president has tried with $5 trillion to make things right.

Romney simply needs to remind us that we believed Obama once already–and his efforts failed us.

Obama wants to remind voters how bad things were when he took office, Mitt Romney is simply going to remind voters how bad things have remained since he took it.

Mitt’s message appears to be resonating.

Today’s USA Today / Gallup Poll shows that Obama’s lead is down to 2 percentage points in 12 battleground states.

Even better news?  Politico.com reported today that according to a Politico/George Washington University’s poll, in a nationwide test, Mitt Romney “edges out President Obama 48 – 47 percent among likely voters and he has opened up a 10-point lead among independents.”

I think these are the winds of “change.”

Go Mitt!

Please read more about why I believe that Mitt Romney is the right leader, with the right experience, who has emerged at the right time.
My blog: yesmittromney.blogspot.com