My Case for Mitt Romney
Alecia T. Williams

Former President Bill Clinton appeared at a rare fundraiser with President Obama in Virginia.  It was one of three scheduled powerhouse fundraisers targeting the wealthiest Democratic donors. Tickets started at $1,000 and eighty people paid $20,000 each to have dinner with the two party elites.

(Wait…What?  Do the Occupiers know that Democrats are part of the 1%??)

Clinton wasted no time to endorse the sitting president–(I guess enough time has passed since the 2008 heated campaign when Bill Clinton openly criticized Obama’s candidacy.   The two sides have now joined forces which only tells me that Hillary wants the 2016 ticket.  The Clintons are no fools.  They know she’ll need the support of this president).

Last night, Clinton tried to make the case that Obama “deserves” our support.  He said, “Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected president of the United States.”  He argued that Obama has “clear objectives” and is “meeting them.”

First of all, what exactly is President Clinton talking about? ”Deserves?”

Deserves implies accomplishments and credibility.  I cannot imagine how anyone could look at the last 3 1/2 years and say that any one politician–especially this president–”deserves” anything.  Here are a few reasons why:

• Our government is more inept than any time in recent memory.
• Congress is so bitterly divided along party lines that it is virtually impossible for them to find compromises—much of the divisive tone has come directly from this president.
• Our national debt has skyrocketed.  The US is more dependent on Chinese money than any other time in history. Our national debt is at an unthinkable $15 trillion.
• For the first time ever, under this president’s watch, the US experienced a credit rating downgrade.
• The constitutionality of President Obama’s signature legislation, Obamacare is being reviewed by the Supreme Court.  Many believe that the entire bill will be tossed out.
• Unemployment remains above the 8% bar that President Obama set for himself.
• The Housing Market continues to crumble.
• The economy remains fragile and unpredictable.

Michael Norris, Amarillo Globe-News/AP Photo

“Deserves?”

Excuse me Mr. Clinton, I can assure you that there is nothing to celebrate.  It has been a dismal first term for this sitting president and to portray it any other way is misleading and quite frankly, manipulating those who are not paying attention.

The only people who “deserve” anything are the American people, who “deserve” an apology from our government for taking our tax money and spending it on failed policies and broken programs.

President Clinton also made reference to Mitt Romney.  Although he never mentioned him by name, he said Romney ”basically wants to do what they did before, on steroids, which will get you the same consequences you got before…on steroids.”

This is a surprisingly juvenile statement from someone as smart as Bill Clinton.

I have no doubt that Mitt Romney’s policies will be no one but Mitt Romney’s policies.  That is what a leader coming to DC as an outsider can offer.  As Romney has said before, he is coming to Washington “without old scores to settle or decades of cloakroom deals to defend.”

STEVE MARCUS

When Governor Mitt Romney showed up to the Massachusetts state house, he faced a state government with a $3 billion budget deficit.  He fixed the broken system, effectively cut taxes 19 times, balanced the budget all four years of his term, cast over 800 vetoes and cut countless inefficient government programs.

The day Romney left office, he had eliminated the $3 billion deficit and left the state with a $2 billion rainy day fund.  He accomplished all of this without raising taxes and without borrowing a single dollar.

But if Mr. Clinton wants to conjure images of Mitt Romney on steroids, that is fine with me.

I can’t imagine what it would be like to watch Mitt Romney in DC on “steroids.”  His record shows me that Mitt Romney on “steroids” would be the best thing that could possibly happen to our broken government.

Last night, President Obama also took jabs at Mitt Romney.  He boasted of his accomplishments and how he and Hillary have had to “clean house.”  He said that he and Hillary have “spent the last 3 1/2 years cleaning up after the other folks’ messes.”

AP Photo

I realize that all politicians are guilty of this kind of rhetoric, but this statement really bothers me.  What exactly does he think he and Hillary have cleaned up?

Last time I checked,

• Our economy is still broken
• Gasoline is nearly double the $2.19 from the Bush years
• Unemployment under Bush ranged from 4.3% but never exceeded 6.3%. Unemployment today is 8.2%
• We are still dependent on foreign oil
• The Bush Tax Cuts are still in effect
• GITMO is still a thriving military institution

AP PHOTO/CHARLES DHARAPAK

My Case for Mitt Romney
Alecia T. Williams

Last week several polls continued to reflect a likability gap between President Obama and Mitt Romney–a 26-point spread in some polls.

The left is seizing on the President’s “empathetic / buddy image” and in contrast are relentlessly trying to portray Mitt Romney as a wealthy individual who is out-of-touch with struggling Americans.

The media is clearly helping.  How many times have we heard about “a couple of Cadillacs” compared to in-depth discussions of Obama’s tax returns and his $790,000 income?

(Last time I checked, $790,000 dwarfs the income of everyone I know).

Does all of this matter and is it possible for Mitt to bridge the gap?  How will these sentiments actually impact the vote this fall?

I would argue that although “likability” is an important influence in the way people vote, the November election is going to be driven by a yearning for economic stability.

Fortunately for Mitt, his experience in driving the economy and his record of job creation completely overshadows the President’s dismal record of addressing these very issues.

I truly believe that Mitt Romney’s experience will be the game changer of this election.

Fox News and CNN released polls last week which although supported the evidence of the likability gap, the polls also showed that Romney was viewed substantially stronger on the economy.  When asked, “which candidate do you think has the best experience to fix the economy?”  Mitt Romney won every time.

AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Americans are tired and we are yearning for improvement.  We are aching for economic stability.  We are longing for prosperity and we are desperate for something better.

So for now, it appears that the election is shaping up to be a choice between “likability” and “qualifications.”

What will be the tipping point?

A few reasons why I believe that the White House should be nervous:

1) The Economy
Mitt Romney will continue to make the case that our economy is fragile and that three years of economic performance under this President has been disappointing and dismal at best.  The truth remains: recovery from the recession has not happened, millions of Americans are still out of work, millions of people are still losing their homes and job creation in this country remains unpredictable.

Image source: InlandPolitics.com

And it is not as if President Obama hasn’t tried to fix it.

Obama’s unprecedented $4 trillion stimulus didn’t work.  It only demonstrated that spending borrowed money doesn’t effectively stimulate the economy.

In contrast, Mitt Romney’s 25 years of job creation will inevitably portray him as a seasoned-economic manager whose skill-set has time and again led to unprecedented economic growth and opportunity.

2) Immoral Deficits
For decades, we have watched our government borrow and spend unthinkable amounts of money.  Money which is burdening our citizens and forcing a risky dependency on foreign countries.  The debt today stands at $15 trillion (US Debt Clock).  Can it ever logistically be repaid?

Under this President we have watched our government place huge bets on very expensive and unproven programs.  The impact of his policies has been insignificant and weak.  As I argued here, the President asked us to place a $4 trillion bet with tax payer money.  We have nothing to show for it.

In contrast, Mitt Romney’s approach to the economy is much different.  His resume unveils a seasoned manager who has years of being accountable with other people’s money.  He is a disciplined leader who responsibly identifies “Wants vs. Needs.”

His influence will be a refreshing and moral approach to our government’s spending habits.

He did it as Governor of Massachusetts.  He eliminated wasteful programs, he combined inefficient government agencies and he successfully closed a $3 billion dollar budget shortfall.  He did it without raising a single tax.  He did it without borrowing a single dollar.

These are the kinds of results that are possible under the direction of a disciplined, economic manager who understands how the economy works.

Image from mittromney.com

One of my favorite Mitt Romney campaign slogans is, “We have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in.”

I couldn’t agree more and I believe that message will resonate with voters.

3) Empathy vs. Solutions
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that 49 percent of those questioned think that President Obama “better understands the economic problems people are facing in this country.”

It would appear on the surface that President Obama has the upper hand on the “Empathy Factor.”

psychicbutsane.com

So how does Mitt address it?  I would argue that he simply needs to ask one simple question, “Does caring about someone’s problems grant that person the ability to know how to fix those problems?”

The answer is of course not.

While I believe that President Obama truly cares about our economic problems, his attempts to fix those problems have failed.

Under this president’s watch, social welfare programs for the poor have nearly doubled.  Furthermore, more than 2.6 million Americans have dropped out of the middle class and are now living below the poverty line. (CNN poverty rate index report).

The truth remains: Empathy doesn’t grant an ability or skills to solve problems.

I firmly believe that this is why the White House should be nervous.  This is the message that will resonate with voters.

Perhaps this is why a CBS News/New York Times poll released Wednesday, found Mitt Romney in a dead heat with President Obama for the White House.

2012 is a pivotal election year.  The future of our economic prosperity and stability will hinge on its outcome.

Although President Obama may be a likable guy who is concerned about the poor, his efforts haven’t been able to help us emerge from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Mitt Romney simply needs to remind Americans that we deserve more, that prosperity is attainable and that we should not be content with the state of this economic recovery.

America deserves better.

Americans will see that we will benefit from Romney’s resume and I would argue that voters will see that it is time to let a professional to do the job.

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

Obama’s method of winning an argument is and always has been to make his opponent look ridiculous via ridicule and mockery.  Demonizing your opponent, lie about his record and intention, as he did with Paul Ryan this past week, is really the only path one has when the lack real answers, experience and substance.  Not this time folks.

“The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed.”  Romney went on to say “it is alarming, it is troubling and the agreement that the President put in place to withdraw out nuclear weapons is one which I find already.”

This appears to be the news of the day, and just as well.  Aside from the Trayvon Martin news, this and Santorum’s angry rant at a New York times reporter seem to be getting all the attention.  This is something that should ABSOLUTELY terrify the American people about putting Obama in office another 4 years.  For the American people to see that Obama is willing to make backroom/closed door secret deals with the Russians, regarding our National Security and the security of our allies, should be enough seal his fate right?  Well, I guess we shall see.

Update:  Mitt Romney assailed President Obama today calling his remaks “alarming” and “revealing”:

“Now when the president of the United States is speaking with the leader of Russia saying he can be more flexible after the election, that is an alarming and troubling development,” Mr. Romney said. “This is no time for our president to be pulling his punches with the American people, and not telling us what he’s intending to do with regards to our missile defense system, with regards to our military might and with regards to our commitment to Israel and with regard to our absolute conviction that Iran must have a nuclear weapon.”

Though Mr. Romney referred to his “absolute conviction that Iran must have a nuclear weapon,” an aide quickly clarified that he had simply misspoken and was referring to his belief that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.

The United States maintains that it needs a European-based missile defense system to protect itself from Iranian missiles, but Russian officials are alarmed about the plans, and Mr. Putin campaigned on the issue.

“I will make it very clear that the relationship we have around the world is one where America will be strong, that America’s strength and commitment to our friends and allies will be unshakable and unwavering,” Mr. Romney concluded.

Well after Romney won the Illinois primary last night, it looks like Barack Obama’s greatest fear has become a reality!

Romney to Obama: Fire ‘gas hike trio’

Religious freedom, or freedom of conscience, is critical to the health of a diverse society.

This is Part 3 in a series of articles on religious freedom. For the series introduction, see “An Introduction to Religious Freedom.”

Over the past two years, general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have delivered major addresses on many aspects of religious freedom — what it means, what it does, the threats it faces and why it is so vital for free people everywhere. Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles said, “There is a battle over the meaning of [religious] freedom. The contest is of eternal importance.” And Elder Quentin L. Cook, also an Apostle, challenged university graduates to “work with people of other faiths” to protect and “be an advocate for religious freedom and morality.”

Alongside these endorsements of religious freedom from Latter-day Saints are the significant efforts of other religious leaders and citizens. So why this attention to religious freedom? Why do we as citizens of the United States need it?

The need flows from the immense diversity of our nation and society. From its very beginning, the United States has been home to a wide range of religious beliefs. Without a confining state-sponsored church (thus breaking a 1,500-year European tradition) and with a steady and assorted stream of immigrants, religious pluralism has been a signal feature in America. Americans in the new and growing nation found a range of religious choices unheard of in their past experience — they could choose their own faith group, select a congregation (or start their own) and find a minister. They could also choose not to adhere to religion at all. This vast array of religious choices demonstrated an invigorating freedom of conscience and a flourishing religious freedom. Americans didn’t simply tolerate other religious beliefs, but eventually embraced full-fledged religious liberty, realizing that the “only way to get it for themselves was to grant it to all others.” [1]

Yet there has been no royal road to religious freedom in the United States. Baptists, Jews, Catholics and other faiths — which at some time have been new, unpopular and minority religions — have felt the sting of religious persecution and societal prejudice. But the possibility of a society where diverse faiths and beliefs can coexist is rooted in the high principles of freedom of conscience and the enabling protections for religion in the First Amendment. They are the architectural framework that ensures the physical, social and legal space for individuals and groups to live out their different beliefs in meaningful ways, both privately and publicly. A statement of principles signed by scholars and statesmen emphasizes these principles: “The Religious Liberty clauses are both a protection of individual liberty and a provision for ordering the relationship of religion and public life. They allow us to live with our deepest differences.” [2]

But freedom of religion and conscience require more than simply living and coexisting with our differences. These preeminent freedoms also create rejuvenating obligations. All recipients of religious freedom — every group and individual who is free to live according to the dictates of conscience — must in turn protect that same freedom for all others, especially the most vulnerable, whether religious or not. That is the obligation. And it is rejuvenating because it “enable[s] diversity to be a source of national strength.” [3]

These principles are splendidly articulated in The Williamsburg Charter. Drafted as a national “reaffirmation of the First Amendment,” signatories included leaders of government (including two former presidents of the United States), business, education and faith groups and many other interests. Elder Dallin H. Oaks signed the document on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The charter emphasizes the vital nature and moral importance of the obligations associated with religious freedom, including the incisive observation that a “society is only as just and free as it is respectful of [freedom of religion and conscience] for its smallest minorities and least popular communities.”

Recent studies quantify the societal benefits of religious freedom. [4] These findings report, for example, that:

• Religious freedom promotes stability in a pluralistic society, but when limited, it correlates to increased violence and conflict.
• Wherever religious freedom is high, there is more economic prosperity, better health, lower income inequality and prolonged democracy.
• Religious freedom directly correlates with the protection afforded other civil and human rights; if some agency can control the yearnings of faith and conviction, then that agency could, in James Madison’s words, “sweep away all our fundamental rights,” such as freedom of speech, press and assembly.

These are some of the consequences of religious freedom that contribute to a just and free society where tensions are negotiated and people live peacefully with their deepest differences. This is the essence of democracy.

[1] See Robert Booth Fowler, Allen D. Hertzke, Laura R. Olsen, Kevin R. Den Dulk, Religion and Politics in America, Faith, Culture and Strategic Choices, p. 6.

[2] The Williamsburg Charter, Summary of Principles, 1988.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See, for example, Brian J. Grim and Roger Finke, The Price of Freedom Denied, and Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom study, __________________

LDS Newsroom

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 42% {39%} [44%] (42%) {42%} [42%] (44%) {43%} [42%] (42%) {43%} [43%] (42%) {44%} [40%] (43%) {46%} [42%] {45%} [42%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 42% {45%} [41%] (43%) {45%} [40%] (38%) {42%} [41%] (44%) {42%} [41%] (44%) {41%} [43%] (39%) {38%} [43%] {40%} [44%] (44%)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted January 3-4, 2012.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted December 27-28, 2011 are in Results from the poll conductedDecember 20-21, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 14-15, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 8-9, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 30 – December 1, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 21-22, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted November 9-10, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 1-2, 2011are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 24-25, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted October 16-17, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 8-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conductedSeptember 28-29, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted September 18-19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 10-11, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 25-26, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the polls conducted August 17-22, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the polls conducted between July 14-15, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 6-9, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 3-4, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 24, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Romney holds a slight 45% to 41% lead over Obama among men. Among women, the president edges Romney 43% to 40%. Obama draws his strongest support from voters under the age of 40, while Romney leads among older voters.

Among voters not affiliated with either political party, Obama is ahead of Romney 39% to 33%. But 28% of these voters either favor some other candidate or are undecided.

Eighty percent (80%) of Tea Party members support Romney, but the president holds a 51% to 33% lead among voters who say they are not part of that movement. Obama captures 57% support from union members but is edged by Romney 44% to 40% among those who are not unionized.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal