New Romney Ad Outlines the Cost of the Recent Jobs Numbers

 Bookmark and Share  In the wake of the latest report on jobs numbers to come out of the Obama Administration,  Mitt Romney’s campaign has issued a new campaign ad (see ad in video below this post) called “The Facts Are Clear”.  That report recently indicated that the unemployment rate is now at its lowest level since the President took office.  However, for reasons explained exceptionally well here, many find those numbers to say the least, misleading, but this ad does not directly challenge those numbers.  Instead, it questions the high cost which supposedly produced those improving but still dismal numbers.

The ad is another simple but succinct 30 second spot which drives home the point that facts still prove President Obama’s policies are not working.

With an interesting twist, the ad focusses on President Obama’s spending policies, specifically his deficit busting stimulus programs which the President often claims has led to the creation and saving of jobs.  The ad suggests that even if the most recent jobs report is accurate, the President’s spending policies that he would have you believe are the reason for the drop in unemployment has added almost as much debt as all forty-three previous Presidents combined.

The ad states;

“President Obama says he’s creating jobs. But he’s really creating debt. The facts are clear. Obama’s four deficits are the four largest in U.S. history.

He’s adding almost as much debt as all forty-three previous presidents combined. And over thirty cents of every dollar Obama spends is borrowed. Much of it from countries like China.

He’s not just wasting money.

He’s borrowing it, and then wasting it.

We can’t afford four more years.”

While this commerical is not directly connected to the controversial new jobs report, it does help to put those numbers in the right perspective for voters and it does so by raising 2 key points;

  • After 4 long years is an arguable but undeniably miniscule 0.3% drop in unemployment actually worth all the deficit spending behind the President’s  job creation policies that went into achieving that deceptively good number?  The ad argues that even if the unemployment numbers are accurate, all the money spent and debt accumulated simply makes those results too little, too late.

Point two;

  • To make matters worse than most American know them to be, not only has President Obama’s tax, spend, and strangle the economy with regulation policies not been creating, if any jobs,  they have ultimately sold future generations of Americans to China by borrowing money from the Chinese that keeps us in debt to them.

The ad is perfect.  Like many of Romney’s other more recent ads, it is not an example of a stunning, creative marketing scheme.  it is not an ingenious masterful Ronald Reagan “Morning In America” ad.  However; the ad will be extremely with targeted airings and the money to repeat it enough times to sink in to the mind of the independent voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia… the swing voters in the battleground states that Romney needs to win the election.

Most Americans won’t see this ad.  Most Americans live in states which are predictably going to give their electoral votes to either Romney or President Obama.  But you can rest assured that the Americans who will be seeing this and similar Romney ads are the ones that Romney needs to see it.  And if they are repeated enough times in the same households, the narrative behind the points in this ad, which is that we can’t afford four more years of Barack Obama, will settle in to the subconscious of the critical undecided, swing voters in those households… even if they do not consciously realize that is settling in.


Bookmark and Share

Obama Helps One Chinese Activist While a Billion Still Suffer

Bookmark and Share  The Obama administration had a hand  in assisting the blind Chinese lawyer- Chen Guangchen escape from the ‘motherland’ – China.  For Obama and crew the decision to help the self educated lawyer was a delicate one. After all, Mr Chen was under house arrest for the ‘crime’ of exposing the fact that communist officials in China actively sterilize people and force women to undergo late-term abortions. The problem for Obama was that if the US were to help, then the US would be taking a stand against China’s brutal regime.

The background is that Chen was under house arrest for ‘crimes against the state’- a euphamism for ‘telling the truth in China. While unconstitutional, the practice of  house arrest is quite common in China. The communist party, however, does not like to air their dirty laundry, as it were.

For the communists, a man like Chen was problematic, and needed to be stifled. But then again he was problematic for the US as well. How could the US leaders help such a person? How could Obama actually take a stand against the leaders of China?  Would it have been possible for Obama to do something as simple as say, “Hey Mr. communist leader, don’t you think you should slow down the abuse of your people?”

But of course Obama cannot or will not do this.

The reason is that in China the human offenses typically spring from members of the ruling communist party.  Calling into question such a thing as the sanctity of freedom and life is akin to an attack on the ruling class in the PRC.  Highlighting such abuses would cause the communists to ‘lose face’.

Another problem is Washington’s hypocritical stance on human rights abuses and China. Washington can castigate the Chinese and call for change, but in reality this is all bluster. For instance, how would Obama feel about decrying China’s abuses after his  cheerful meetings with Hu Jintao- aka the ‘Butcher’. Yes, Mr. Hu, China’s President and leader of the communist party obtained the moniker ‘the butcher’, for his  reign of terror on Tibet. Here is a quote from the book –Bowing to Beijing: How Barack Obama is Hastening America’s Decline and Ushering A Century of Chinese Domination-Decker and Triplett II

“Hu Jintao, the current general secretary of the Communist Party…the president of the People’s Republic, has a lot of Tibetan blood on his hands. In March 1989, Hu declared martial law and ordered PLA troops to fire on a crowd of peaceful protesters led by shaved-headed, Saffron-robed monks. As many as 700 innocents were killed for marching in what would be considered a normal assembly…in Washington, D.C. “

Would Washington lose credibility by decrying China’s deplorable abuse of its citizens while at the same time currying favor with a man known for ordering the death of innocent monks?

Perhaps I am selling Mr Obama short, for when confronted with a person such as Mr Hu, Obama knew that any discourse on helping mankind would fall on deaf ears.

Or maybe it is  poor statesmanship to call out the failings of a country in front of its leader, I am sure that Germany in the late 30’s would not have stood for such a thing.  But I digress….

The truth is that Obama and company would like to laud the fact that it was they who freed this one man from the terrors he had faced. And sure enough, that action was admirable. But my question is if that was enough.

It was recently reported that communist officials in China forced women in late term pregnancies to abort their unborn children. And this is only the tip of the icebergy. China regularly enslaves the mentally handicapped and forces them to work in brick kilns, while shackeled to machinery. The communists are known to harvest organs from live prisoners and religious practitioners. Aside from this, members of the commuinst party have been active in the buying and selling of stolen babies. But what should we expect from a country whose two Nobel Peace Prize winners, are either in exile or in a Chinese prison?

The question I have for Mr Obama and the  rest of us is – Was it enough to help that one man when there are still over one billion left behind?

Bookmark and Share

Obama Rust Belt Tour Based on a Lie

Obama is getting ready to board his Canadian made campaign bus and tour the rust belt states touting his message of economic recovery, and Romney’s record of outsourcing jobs at Bain.  There’s only one major glaring problem with this tour’s premise:

Bain has asserted and left-leaning factcheck.org has confirmed that Bain Capital did not outsource jobs under Mitt Romney’s leadership.  Obama’s bus tour is based on a lie.

Meanwhile, Obama is the President who took Chrysler from its US bondholders and sold it cheap to Italy.  Obama is the President who has limited US oil drilling while giving billions of tax payer dollars to Brazil so they can drill there.  Then, in what one Yahoo! business commentator called a result of Obama’s incompetence, Brazil didn’t even sell the oil they extracted to us.  They sold it to China instead.  So while Obama is falsely accusing Romney of outsourcing jobs, Obama is stopping US energy jobs and instead financing Brazil’s energy sales to China.  Way to go, Mr. President.

Obama is basing his campaign thus far on two propositions: his base will vote for him no matter how openly dishonest he is, and independents will not educate themselves about his lies.  If these two factors hold up, the left’s ambivalence and the center’s ignorance will help Obama win in 2012.

Ron Paul finally gets airtime in the debates

Saturday night, Paul got caught.  Santorum flushed him out, but Perry nailed it.  Ron Paul was mid-attack against Santorum for adding earmarks when the subject of Paul’s own earmarks came up.  Paul then gleefully announced that sure he added earmarks, but he never voted yes on any of the appropriation bills.  Dr. Paul, that is a smoke screen.  You put everything you wanted in bills that you knew would pass anyway, and then voted against those bills to pad your record?  Sorry, not impressed.

Things got even worse when Paul attacked Gingrich again, apparently for not being eligible for the draft.  Paul referred to deferments insinuating that Gingrich received deferments in Vietnam, and Gingrich had to set the record straight that his father was in Vietnam and Newt himself was not eligible for the draft.

While continuing unfair attacks on fellow candidates, Paul once again defended his newsletter by saying he never wrote the ones he signed or read the ones he edited.  Paul did repeat a common liberal racist claim that illegal drugs  and wars adversely affect African Americans and perpetuated the stereotype that blacks are inherently poor.  His solution seemed to be to end wars and make drugs legal, but using the racism angle is a dishonest argument.

Paul made a gaffe when he talked about the US picking up Iranian seamen, which Santorum picked up on pointing out that if Paul was in charge our men wouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Paul’s answers on economics amount to vague elitism.  Something many of us on the TEA Party side have been hungry for in Paul’s rhetoric is the what and how of what he wants to do with the economy.  Yeah we get it.  Paul is a constitutionalist.  He is the doctor of democracy and champion of freedom.  But what does that mean?  Paul’s answer, liquidate debt and cut spending.    I suppose we could all just go read his website to see what exactly he wants to cut, but I’m not convinced Paul even wrote whats on his website.  I’m sure if something objectionable was found on there, Paul would have plausible deniability.

Fortunately, Paul did basically rule out a third party run.

 

Jon Huntsman – Manchurian Candidate to Washington President?

Former Ambassador to China and Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has been rarely talked about when it comes to contenders for the Republican Party Presidential nomination. Huntsman is often referred to as the other the moderate candidate, Huntsman’s disadvantage is because he has served his country abroad in a number of high-level government positions under both Republican and Democratic presidents. It also stems from the belief that his policies although conservative, are not as right leaning as those of most of his rivals.

While other candidates attack each other and news networks finding it fantastic for viewing figures, it is likely that most of the current field will be too badly damaged after the primary process to seriously challenge President Obama in the national election campaign. Huntsman has adopted a very shrewd approach highlighting other candidate’s weaknesses, but remaining focussed on policy and his own consistency up to this stage.

Mitt Romney is often referred to as the moderate candidate with Huntsman the other moderate candidate. Like Romney, Huntsman is a Mormon and some narrow minded people have tried to raise the religious issue in the race. My answer is simple, people didn’t want a Catholic in the White House not so long ago, and JFK managed to inspire a young nation and set in motion the ambition for NASA to get a man on the moon, not bad for a Catholic I say but moreover, what could a Mormon achieve? Should religion be a factor in this race, no, the only thing that should matter is someone’s ability to do the job and deliver. Huntsman has ample ability and like Bill Clinton, has a record of proven ability as governor, but also recognises the need for strong and effective diplomacy, to meet the world challenges facing us all.

So what is my case for Huntsman being able to mount a serious late surge and cause an upset? It is simple, he has policies which although may not be the extreme conservative stances most GOP supporters would wish for. Huntsman would appeal to both GOP supporters and independents in a general election and his appeal will only increase more, once his face recognition improves.

Huntsman as former governor of Utah possesses an excellent executive record built on cutting taxes, reducing waste and growing Utah’s economy. Utah weathered the economic storm and grew jobs while the rest of the country saw substantial job loss. He also has extensive foreign policy experience and is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and able to speak Taiwanese Hokkein. Huntsman also has executive job creative experience working for his family’s business expanding its operation globally.

Huntsman has been blunt in saying America currently faces an economic deficit and a trust deficit. He promises to create a manufacturing renaissance and encourage “Made in America” jobs. He promises to focus on reducing joblessness across America.

Huntsman also advocates raising the retirement age in order to reduce the government’s Social Security and Medicare obligations, change the formula by which cost-of-living adjustments are determined and reduce benefits for high-income individuals.

Huntsman wants to repeal President Barack Obama’s “unconstitutional and unaffordable” health care law. In terms of broad reforms, he wants to streamline the Food and Drug Administration’s approval process to make it less expensive for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to develop health care products.

On foreign policy, Huntsman calls for a withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan and says it “has evolved into an ill-advised counter-insurgency campaign which continues to carry heavy costs in terms of blood and treasure.” Huntsman supports the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq, but he opposes the planned withdrawal of all troops by December. “President Obama’s decision … to not leave a small, focused presence in Iraq is a mistake and the product of his administration’s failures.”

On the Iran issue Huntsman has been more measured but nonetheless firm saying he does not want Iran to get Nuclear weapon capability and is supportive of continuing efforts to make sanctions work. Huntsman has alluded to the real case scenario that if sanctions didn’t work then military action in conjunction with Israel would be the only option in the end: “My sense is that their ultimate aspiration is to become a nuclear power, in which case sanctions probably aren’t going to get you there. And that means likely, we’re going to have to have a conversation with Israel at some point.”

So why is Huntsman struggling in the polls, it is simple, face recognition. Most American’s outside of the state of Utah probably haven’t heard much about him, or even know what he looks like because of his overseas’s postings. Huntsman has based his efforts in New Hampshire for the early primaries making somewhere approaching on 120 stops throughout the state however; he still only gets 11 percent in the state polls.

What Huntsman needs to do is a better job at selling himself throughout the state and in the media. Three of his daughters have mounted an effective social media campaign which has probably done more for raising his profile then any marketing or communications consultant has up to this point.

Huntsman is currently struggling because he is the least known candidate domestically. If Huntsman can manage to find a way to sell himself more effectively and deliver a surprise result in New Hampshire, I believe he could be the one candidate who could take such momentum all the way across the finish line.

If I were a democratic strategist, Huntsman is the one candidate President Obama does not want to face in a General election. Bill Clinton defied expectations as a relatively unknown Arkansas governor to become one of the best modern American presidents in my opinion. I believe Huntsman is not as controversial as some of the other GOP candidates. He has the proven track record, is strong on policy and will not flip flop for the sake of gaining votes like Romney. The democrats would of had to vet him before appointing him to the most high profile Ambassadorial role that United States has China. Therefore, there cannot be too many, if any at all, hidden secrets to cause potential damage to him or his campaign.

Huntsman I believe would appeal republican, democratic and independent voters in an election and win their votes. Team Obama would not be able to run the negative campaign they want to run should Huntsman be the GOP nominee. Huntsman has an excellent record but more importantly, it would cripple their whole anticipated 2012 strategy and bring attention to President Obama’s economic and domestic record. The president can’t win on his record that is fact.

My tip, don’t bet against Huntsman going from the Manchurian Candidate, to Washington President.

 

 

 

And that’s time

In a short hour and a half, made up of minute responses and thirty second followups, the GOP candidates once again took the stage to answer questions from semi-respectful moderators.  In a debate most looked forward to by Ron Paul fans, Paul received very little time. We have seen pretty much all there is to be seen about candidate style, and many of these questions were repeats.  So here are the winners and losers:

The Good

Mitt Romney won this debate.  His answers were calming, yet clear and determined.  He portrayed the very stature Americans are looking for in a Commander in Chief, and he highlighted American Exceptionalism.  This area is a strong suit for Mitt, and one that does not involve any sort of past flip flops or policy changes.  His answers should give him a bump among social conservatives who are inspired by terms like American Exceptionalism.

Newt at one point had to school the moderators on war versus criminal law.  In some ways this debate seemed frustrating for Newt, but that is an aspect of him his followers often like to see.  Newt brings the fight to the moderators and to the left and usually wins.  Many of his answers were right on, but others were somewhat vague.  One thing that Newt will lose points for is how loosely he called for covert operations in countries like Iran and Syria.  This is something Newt has brought up as a policy in debates and speeches in the past, but is something better left unsaid.

Jon Huntsman did well in the debate.  The question on a tradewar with China is a favorite of most media moderators because it gives them a chance to toss Huntsman an easy softball.    Foreign policy hits many of Huntsman’s strong points without touching many of the issues that conservatives hate him for.  It won’t matter though, Huntsman is done.

The Bad

Santorum did pretty well.  He has the unfortunate bad luck of being a candidate on the back end of two long wars and sharing a policy that sounds eerily like Bush’s.  On the other hand, Santorum seemed to be saying that we need to keep funding Pakistan and being their friend because they have a Nuke.  True or not, Santorum is not going to win American hearts saying implying that we must borrow from China to pay off Pakistan to be our friend.

I have a feeling that media moderators purposefully cut Paul’s debate time short on debates like this to get his supporters riled up.  Get ready, we are going to hear about that for the next week or so.  Paul didn’t do bad for most of the debate, but some of his stances are really not correct.  The idea that the United States must capture a citizen who has declared war on the United States and bring them in to face civilian court, or that non-uniformed terrorists have any sort of rights under US law is wrong and violates precedent.  Gingrich and Perry were absolutely right on those counts.  Paul’s supporters were being their typical selves in the debate as well, to the point where the mods had to admonish them to be respectful.  They are another liability of Paul’s with the overall GOP.

Herman Cain reminded me a lot of Rick Perry in recent debates.  Without 9-9-9 to fall back on, Cain was slow in responses, vague, and seemed as though he would happily defer to a future self, surrounded by knowledgeable generals and advisers.  That’s great, but that is not leadership.  In that respect, Huntsman showed up Cain, and even Gingrich, when he said if a nuke was loose in Pakistan he would secure it.  Cain really did not give a performance that screamed “I am a leader”.  Instead, each response sounded like “How can I answer this without ruining my campaign”.

The Ugly

Michele Bachmann continues to be unimpressive and unmemorable.  She scored some points rebutting Ron Paul, but seemed to spend most of the night trying to get the moderators to let her respond to other candidates.  She also seemed to get less time.  However, I will give her a great deal of credit for her answers on ways to trim military spending without hurting the military.

Rick Perry still doesn’t debate well.  And once again he found himself as the butt of several jokes, made both by the moderators, himself, and Senator Graham.  Perry’s idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aide is a great idea, but the only reason it’s his is because he got to say it first.  Gingrich and Romeny both articulated it better when Perry was done.

But allow me a Newt Gingrich moment to say this.  The real loser was Barack Obama.  The candidates made it clear, once again, that every single one of them would run foreign policy better than Obama.  Several drove home the point that Obama had a range of good choices and bad choices and made all the bad ones and none of the good ones.  The only ambivalent candidate who actually seemed to end up on Obama’s side for some things was Ron Paul.  This is one of the aspects of Newt Gingrich’s leadership because he has focused these debates on defeating Barack Obama, and when Newt sets the tone the other candidates usually follow.

Trunkline 2012: Thursday’s News from the Race for the White House – 10/13/11

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: