Gay Patriot Header Image

Alt Left does violence & destruction; media silent

If you’re with the Alt Left Media, you’re outraged – outraged! – that anyone would compare the Alt Left to neo-Nazis. Because “One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.” (Mitt Romney, lying for them)

In the real world, it’s different. Recent example: Alt Left injures reporter, then blames the reporter.

Antifa protesters assaulted a reporter filming in Richmond, Va., on Sunday night, and later defiantly blamed him for the attack on their Facebook page.

The unnamed reporter at WTVR CBS 6 was filming the marchers, who were protesting a monument to Confederate general J.E.B. Stuart, when he was hit with a blunt object, WTVR reports. The protesters believed they could stop him from filming by “denying consent” even though they were in public, and video shows them blocking his iPhone camera before striking him in the back of the head…

An ambulance took the reporter to a hospital where he received four staples in his head…

According to the Antifa Seven Hills, the marchers were the real victims of the reporter who was “perpetuating rape culture” by ignoring their “denial of consent.”…

Antifa also argued that his presence as a white man was suspect…

“Due to the intensity and context of this time people are very scared of white men running full speed at them with iPhones as this is the exact behavior of a white supremacist [ed: or a responsible law enforcement officer]…,” Antifa Seven Hills wrote…

Antifa argued that the media does not have a right to report on them in ways they do not consent to.

Hey, Antifa: If you’re doing a public protest, by that action alone, you consent to be filmed. Too late to “deny consent”.

The media told us that, if Trump were President, reporters would be in danger! There it is…from the Left.

A quick search did not show this story covered on CNN, NYT, WaPo or any big-time outlet.

RELATED:

  • Missouri State Senator, Maria Chappelle-Nadal, calls for Trump’s assassination. To their credit, leading Missouri Democrats have called for her resignation. But she refuses.
  • A bust of President Lincoln is burned in Chicago. Locals say that locals did it, back on July 4. To his shame, a Chicago Democrat alderman now blames Trump via a fanciful tale of outside white extremists doing it.
  • Alt Left website, Vice, calls for the destruction of Mt. Rushmore.
  • Numerous Confederate monuments are attacked or destroyed.

    Remember, these monuments were put up to heal the vast wounds of the Civil War, making a statement that both sides were American and had fought well, with history worth remembering. To pull them down is to take a stand against national healing – and against America. Pat Buchanan is scathing about it:

    Two years ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called the giant statues of Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson on Richmond’s Monument Avenue “parts of our heritage.” After Charlottesville, New York-born-and-bred McAuliffe, entertaining higher ambitions, went full scalawag, demanding the statues be pulled down as “flashpoints for hatred, division and violence.”

    Who hates the statues, Terry? Who’s going to cause the violence? Answer: The Democratic left whom Terry must now appease.

Establishment GOP joins the Coup?

A cluster of news items could be pointing at this. First, from The New York Times on Aug 5, Vice President Pence has been busy with the power brokers:

…Mike Pence’s schedule is so full of political events that Republicans joke that he is acting more like a second-term vice president…

…multiple advisers to Mr. Pence have already intimated to party donors that he would plan to run if Mr. Trump [were out]…

Mr. Pence has been the pacesetter…creating an independent power base…promoting himself as the main conduit between the Republican donor class and the administration.

The vice president created his own political fund-raising committee, Great America Committee…The group, set up with help from Jack Oliver, a former fund-raiser for George W. Bush, has overshadowed Mr. Trump’s own primary outside political group, America First Action, even raising more in disclosed donations.

William Kristol, editor at large of The Weekly Standard, said he had begun informal conversations about creating a “Committee Not to Renominate the President.”…

The story frames it as a matter for 2020 and talks about Kasich and others. What I wanted to highlight here, is that:

  • Pence, whose participation in any coup is essential, is no shrinking violet.
  • Interventionists – people who want more wars – like Bushworld and Kristol, continue to work actively against Trump.

Next, today we have the news that Bannon is out. Supposedly, he resigned Aug. 7 and they delayed announcing his departure, due to too much other news (North Korea, Charlottesville). I don’t think that Bannon leaving is a yuge deal, but it may be a piece in a larger pattern.

Next, Newsweek says that Trump is 6 Senate votes away from being impeachable. The rumor mill states it in a sharper form: that the RNC (! not DNC) has been counting votes to do an impeachment.

We know how impeachment would work: They would invent some excuse. Trumprussia is nonsense but it won’t matter to them. Mueller could find a ham sandwich that Trumpworld purchased in Russia and call it money laundering. And so on. If they want to do it, they’ll think of a way.

As if on cue, we have Mitt Romney demanding an apology from Trump over Charlottesville.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, wrote on Facebook. “State forcefully and unequivocally that racists are 100% to blame for the murder and violence in Charlottesville.”

Mitt is wrong, both on the facts (how the violence was distributed) and on the Constitution (the First Amendment excludes one group having a Heckler’s Veto on another group’s right of assembly). But, whatever. The point here is, reading the tea leaves. Again, the rumor mill states it more sharply, that VP Pence may have contacted Romney and had a hand in Romney’s attack.

If a coup comes to be, the losers will, of course, be the American people. For better or worse, whether it’s good or bad, 65 million Americans wanted “America First” and “Make America Great Again”. And NO Americans, not even Hillary supporters, voted to see “politics as usual” with the GOP and Democrat establishments uniting against the election result.

Trump is supposed to be at his best when his back is against the wall, so he may have a comeback in him. But he will have to remind the Establishment of why Americans voted for him. In other words, Trump will probably have to reactivate his base – re-fight 2016 – go “full barbarian”.

Assuming that he doesn’t have an assassination or suspiciously-timed heart attack first. The GOP and Democrat Establishments may be feeling pressure to move quickly, because Julian Assange has committed to blowing Trumprussia out of the water.

Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Ruh-roh! (if you’re the Establishment or Deep State)

Republican Party Doing What it Does Best; Caving to Democrats and Alienating the Base.

B7gQ7sqCYAEUaWE.jpg large
Jeb Bush and Mittens Romney are meeting in Utah this week. These are two incredibly wealthy men, born into wealthy, powerful political dynasties, who have never once had to worry about how to pay a bill in their life. Between the two of them, they represent support for allowing illegal immigrants to take jobs from working Americans, federal control of local school curricula through Common Core, and massive Government regulation to stop ‘Global Warming.’

So, naturally, the party establishment has decided they are ideal to represent the concerns and priorities of the Republican base. Despite what the deranged left claims, every Republican presidential candidate since 1988 has been a Milquetoast Progressive-Moderate chosen by the Party Establishment. And they have lost the popular vote in 5 of those 6 elections. But, hey, they’ve got all the money and power, so there’s not a damn thing we can do about it.

BTW, the GOP elected to majorities in the House and Senate in November have already caved to the Obamacrats on abortion and Amnesty. And it’s still January.

Wait…Who underestimated ISIS?

Obama says US ‘underestimated’ rise of ISIS, admits ‘contradictory’ Syria policy:

President Obama acknowledged Sunday that U.S. intelligence officials “underestimated” the threat posed by the Islamic State and overestimated the Iraqi army’s capacity to defeat the militant group…

Let’s be clear: Officials who were chosen and supported by Obama. The administration of Barack Hussein Obama underestimated ISIS.

Or else, we can make this entry #39,422 in the files of “Obama pretends that he hasn’t been president all these years”. In the interview, Obama goes on to also blame Iraq’s PM al-Maliki for the problems; never himself.

One more thing. Does Obama still have the U.S. backing the world’s evil dictators? It seems so:

Obama also acknowledged that the U.S. is dealing with a conundrum in Syria, as the U.S.-led military campaign against the Islamic State is helping Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom the U.N. has accused of war crimes.

“I recognize the contradiction in a contradictory land and a contradictory circumstance,” Obama said…

Bush practically would have been impeached, for saying that. (And Bush wouldn’t have said it because Bush did what he could, to push U.S. policy in the direction of overthrowing the world’s evil dictators.)

One more thing. Has Obama made it a thing of the past, that the U.S. might strike its enemies pre-emptively (or perhaps unilaterally, as the Left calls it)? Not so much:

Obama called the threat from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and other terror groups a more “immediate concern that has to be dealt with…” “…in terms of immediate threats to the United States, ISIL, Khorasan Group — those folks could kill Americans,” he said…

Both groups have been targeted by U.S. airstrikes in recent days…

Barack Obama: Just what the Left always *accused* Bush of being. And of course, the media lets him get away with it.

UPDATE: Some Democrats agree that it was the Obama White House, more than the U.S. intelligence community, which underestimated ISIS.

Former Rear Admiral Joe Sestak, a two-term Democratic member of the House of Representatives…appeared to surprise his MSNBC interlocutor when he noted that the only people who got ISIS wrong work in the Obama administration.

“If you remember back in January and February, the head — the general, the Defense Intelligence Agency, actually testified before the House and Senate that in 2014, ISIS would take over large swaths of territory,” the Navy veteran asserted. “In fact, at the time he testified, they had already seized Ramadi and Fallujah — 35 miles from Baghdad.”

A decade ago, Fallujah was a crucial victory for the Marines (some of whom gave their lives) against an earlier version of ISIS. I guess Obama threw it back.

UPDATE: A report that Obama was warned about ISIS in 2012. As Ed Morrissey puts it:

…the US intelligence community told him of the danger at the same time Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney during the presidential debates…for wanting a residual force in Iraq to prevent exactly what Romney warned would happen.

Yet another ‘limousine socialist’

Left-wing NYC Mayor de Blasio has released his tax return. Guess what?

  • “$165,047 in total income” (probably includes his “$52,000 in rental income”)
  • “Mr. de Blasio’s effective tax rate was 8.3%.”
  • “reported $5,597 in gifts to charity, roughly 3%”

So de Blasio got a 6-figure income and gave basically 11% back to the society in which he lives.

I seem to remember lefties screeching with drama and contempt in 2012 when Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 14.1%, plus another whopping 29.7% to charity, for a total give-back to society of 44% of his income, or four times the rate of de Blasio.

How the wheel turns!

We’ve gone from liberals who’d make fun of former GOP standard-bearer Mitt Romney (on Russia), to…well…Russians openly mocking President Obama.

Now being remembered, a typical example of liberals who made fun of Romney:

Arianna Huffington
@ariannahuff

So I guess if Romney is elected we can get ready for a new cold war with Russia.
#justwhatweneed
8/31/12, 8:56AM

Romney got in his (well-justified) “I told you so” last weekend:

Why, across the world, are America’s hands so tied?

A large part of the answer is our leader’s terrible timing. In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options….

Meanwhile, Obama’s sanctions on a few individual Russians, and calls to try to make their stock market go down and stuff, have provoked their contempt:

“The US and EU sanctions against Russia are absurd and unreal,” State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee Deputy Chairman Alexander Romanovich told Itar-Tass…“This is an operetta, and we can only laugh…”

Ordinary Russians are none too impressed, either.

UPDATE: Russia and China drawing closer together. “The worse Russia’s relations are with the West, the closer Russia will want to be to China. If China supports you, no one can say you’re isolated.” It’s just like Obama, to not get that.

We Just Can’t Have Nice Things

Posted by V the K at 10:47 pm - March 9, 2014.
Filed under: Mitt Romney,Paul Ryan

Think of it as a picture of America’s last offramp before oblivion; the one we missed.

 

In calling for Romney to help out on “fiscal cliff” negotiations, is Dana Milbank acknowledging that Obama is not up to the task?

In a column which really must rank as one of the silliest on “fiscal cliff” negotiations, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank calls on Mitt Romney to delay his retirement so he can help Republicans reach a compromise.

Milbank, like many liberal columnists based in the nation’s capital, seems to think that the problem is really controlling the “Republican backbenchers.”  He fails to acknowledge that the president has failed to compromise himself, not having specified significant cuts to the federal budget he’d accept as part of a deal (you know that “balanced” approach which he talked about on the campaign trail).

If Republicans need to compromise on taxes, shouldn’t Democrats compromise on spending?

Milbank does at least recognize that fiscal cliff negotiations have reached an impasse.  In calling on Romney to come in and help resolve things, he seem to have acknowledged that Obama has failed to forge a workable compromise.

Jeb Bush gets what Mitt Romney missed
(about conservatism and “economic mobility”)

Readers of this blog know that I have long been a fan of Jeb Bush, having favored the accomplished former Florida Governor as my candidate for 2012 at least since November 2010.

And while it is still too early to start planning for 2016, when you google that good man’s name, look at what comes up:

Our reader Kyle alerted me to an article that shows that Jeb understands an aspect of modern American conservatism that Mitt Romney failed to articulate.  “Jeb Bush,” writes Mark Silva . . .

. . . the former Florida governor who based a political career on school reform, today called for a “restoration” of lost American values and economic mobility based on educational accountability.

With the gap between the impoverished and privileged in the U.S. widening, the solution lies in a regime of school and teacher evaluation, national standards and more “school choice” in alternatives such as charter schools, he said.

“We have these huge gaps in income,” Bush said at the start of a two-day Washington conference sponsored by his Foundation for Excellence in Education, “with people born into poverty who will stay in poverty.” He said: “This ideal of who we are as a nation — it’s going away, it’s leaving us,” adding: “There is one path that can change this course.”

Emphasis added.  Economic mobility, his belief that people born in poverty, reared in dependency, don’t have to stay in that condition and can rise about their circumstances.

It frustrated many Reagan-Kemp conservatives when, right after the Florida primary, Mitt Romney said because of the “safety net,” he wasn’t concerned about the very poor.

Reagan conservatives, however, have long been concerned about the poor because that safety net sometimes traps them in a cycle of dependency.   And we want to create the opportunities that will help them find the means to move up into a better economic situation. (more…)

Voters preferred Romney’s leadership qualities, Obama’s caring

This chart makes Tuesday’s loss even more bitter.

(Via David Steinberg.) No wonder Obama’s reelection just doesn’t feel right.

UPDATE:  Blogging at Ace, Baseball Crank offers:

Yes, the Oprahization of politics sucks but it’s a reality. Telling voters, “Hey idiots, you’re voting for the wrong reasons” is not going to carry the day.

As conservatives we deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. The challenge is to change this reality, not bitch about it.

He’s right.  Next Republican candidate has to show that he cares.  Sad thing that Mitt Romney spent his entire adult life showing that he cared about other people.  And apparently that didn’t get across to voters.

Remind me again, what specific things has Obama done to show that he cares?  Has he ever helped save boaters from drowning when their boat went under?  Spent time with a dying teen and helped him draft a will?  Brought Christmas gifts and offer to pay for college for two paralyzed young men?

Disturbing that Obama won by distorting and demonizing

Given the “economic headwinds the president faced,” Jay Cost writes today in the Weekly Standard, his campaign team . . .

. . .played to its base with a level of intensity rarely seen in the modern era. “The war on women” was a prime case in point. The idea was to maximize turnout for the president’s core groups by focusing on identity politics, encouraging them to come out and vote against a fictitious GOP bogeyman who would suppress their rights to vote, deport their friends and neighbors, deny them Medicare, ship their jobs overseas, raid their pensions, and eliminate their access to contraception. And it worked.

Emphasis added.  Indeed, as Guy Benson put it, Mitt Romney

. . . was defeated by a small, petty, and overwhelmingly negative opponent whose turnout machine swamped all else.  The unserious and unseemly drumbeat of birth control, Big Bird, binders, and Blame Bush worked.  The “Kill Romney” strategy laid the groundwork for this successful approach.  The president offered no meaningful or sweeping vision for a second term, but it didn’t matter.  What an awful precedent.

And the end of the campaign, when Mitt Romney seemed so confident and Obama so angry, I myself became increasingly confident that he would win.  He just looked like a winner.  I had thought Obama’s nastiness would backfire.  People don’t want a president who engages in such kind of petty attacks.

It looks like I was wrong.

That’s one of the things which makes our defeat this week so troubling. The challenger had the more upbeat message and lost.  The incumbent instead misrepresented his opponent’s record and attacked his background.

He won by demonizing.  And that is just not a pleasant thought.

The kind of genuine conservative candidate Republicans need

As careful readers of this blog know, I had wanted former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to enter the 2012 contest for the White House.  Perhaps the Democrats would have run against him as the scion of the Bush dynasty.

He had been, however, a successful reform-minded governor of a major state, has withstood a fierce partisan challenge in 2002 and successfully reached out to Hispanic voters.  Perhaps, Jeb had (at least politically) a lousy last name, but I feared, as Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel put it, in their election post-mortem, that Mitt Romney’s

. . . biography hurt him. During a cycle when voters remained angry at Wall Street, Romney bore the weight of a finance background. And because of his own history in Massachusetts, he could never effectively go after President Obama on Obamacare, the president’s biggest political weakness.

None of this was ever a secret, but the Republicans nominated Romney anyway. They had no choice. The alternatives were unacceptable.

Exactly.  The remaining alternatives all carried more baggage that Mitt did.  Democrats were able to define him as a out-of-touch plutocrat rather than a real reformer.  (And I do wonder if some Republicans stayed home because they didn’t think the man who signed Romneycare into law was committed to repealing Obamacare.)

Anyway, Carlson and Patel wrote a great piece–one that I highly recommend.  They help define what kind of candidates Republicans need to nominate if they are to win elections.

We need, as they put it, “genuine conservatives . . . with political skills, policy smarts and impressive resumes in order to get elected.”  Fortunately, it seems, the two freshman Republican Senators are cut from that cloth.

May we see more of their like in 2014.

Successful former Virginia Democratic Governor calls Romney “credible candidate . . .

. . . that many Virginians tell me they would feel fairly comfortable with in the Oval Office.

Democrats counted on using ad hominem attacks to make Romney seem too unworthy and too unsteady to be the country’s chief executive because of the rough nominating process. But that has not been 100 percent effective.

So said, former Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, “who backed Democrat Barack Obama for president in 2008, did not endorse Obama or Republican Mitt Romney in an opinion column released days before the election.

Wilder won the 1989 Virginia gubernatorial election by a hair’s breadth, defeating Republican moderate J. Marshall Coleman by fewer than 7,000 votes out of nearly 1.8 million cast.  He went on to impress Virginians (including yours truly, then a citizen of the commonwealth) by his fiscal discipline, holding the line on state spending.

Indeed, when he briefly ran for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he won the backing of many prominent Northern Virginia libertarians, including Cato’s Ed Crane.

(H/t Jim Hoft.)

Mittmentum extends even to New York?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:21 pm - November 4, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Mitt Romney

National polls remain tight, but do so polls in states that haven’t gone Republican since George H.W. Bush ran as Reagan’s heir in 1988.

One thing is clear though the excitement this time around is all on the Republican side — even in states extremely likely to go Democratic on Tuesday.  From Ulster County in up “in purple upstate New York“, Richard Brookhiser observes that whereas his valley “was sown with Obama signs” in 2008,

This year has brought a complete flip. Romney signs have sprouted like mushrooms, including a big one promising a Romney-Ryan victory celebration on election night. I have also seen two empty chairs, labeled Obama or Nobama. I have spotted only a couple Obama signs.

It’s not just that Romney voters are more enthusiastic in the Empire State, at least two newspapers in the state which endorsed Obama in 2008 are now casting their lot with the Republican.  Newsday began its endorsement of Romney by citing Obama’s failure:

Had Barack Obama done the job of president with the same passion and vision he displayed in seeking it, he would likely deserve another term. He did not.

Against this we must weigh Mitt Romney, an imperfect candidate but one who has a special track record too. From his creation of a vast personal fortune to his successful stewardship of the threatened Salt Lake City Olympics to his governing of Massachusetts, Romney’s life is a tale of success after success, many of them achieved in difficult circumstances.

The New York Daily News was equally brutal, noting how New Yorkers have suffered under Obama:

New Yorkers have fared no better. The state is alone among the 50 in suffering significantly rising unemployment over the last 12 months, with the rate now at 8.9%. The city’s pain index is 8.8%, and the five boroughs have been trading down in salaries. (more…)

Obama’s Committed to Policies of the Past; Romney to Real Reform

When Bush left office,” Tim Stanley writes in the Telegraph,

. . . unemployment was 7.8 per cent; today it is 7.9 per cent. Debt is up, food stamps are up, income is stagnant. Bush bailed out Wall Street and so did Obama – even Obama’s much vaunted “rescue” of the auto industrywas actually kick started by Bush. If Bush suffocated civil liberties with the Patriot Act, Obama blew them to Kingdom Come with that awful kill list.

In many ways, the policies and performances of Obama and Bush are rather similar. There are some differences. First, Obama accelerated big government trends that he inherited from W – debt as a percentage of GDP is way, way up.

(Via Sarah Hoyt @ Instapundit.) After citing the parties’ “cultural” differences, Stanley concludes that both W and Obama are New Dealers:  “If Bush was Roosevelt Lite, Obama was Roosevelt Max Strength.”  Only problem is “that the moment when the hardcore Roosevelt fans finally got the keys to the candy store was the exact moment when it had run out of candy.”

Simply put, all that government spending had depleted the Treasury.

And Obama never asked the American people to pay for all the “candy” he wants to shower upon them.  He filled up our shopping carts with items he, to borrow an expression, just “didn’t pay for.”  He only talked about raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, tax hikes which would barely put a dent in the deficit.  He didn’t ask other Americans to pay their fair share for programs designed to benefit them.

Although Obama promised four years ago to change politics as we know it, the only real change he has offered has been to accelerate the pace of government spending.  “The Romney/Paul [sic] ticket”, has, by contrast, Stanley offers, seemed to grasp “that America simply cannot continue the way it is going. (more…)

Retired generals and admirals overwhelmingly prefer Romney

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:48 pm - November 3, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Military,Mitt Romney

Over at Maggie’s Farm, Bruce Kesler provides a partial list of the nearly 500 retired senior military officers who are placing an ad Monday in the Washington Times indicating their support for Mitt Romney’s White House bid. And that is not the entire universe of military leaders backing Mitt. Kesler knows “two former top Admirals who wanted to sign but were not reached”.

Still, he reports that this is the “largest assemblage” ever of retired top military leaders organized to back a presidential candidate. By contrast, only 5 former generals and admirals are backing Obama.

That’s almost a 100 to 1 margin.

Active duty military also prefer the Republican. According to the Washington Free Beacon, “a Military Times survey revealed that active duty, National Guard, and military reserve members support Romney over Obama by a two to one margin.”

Romney’s confidence, Obama’s petulance

Having voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008, Ann Althouse often serves as a kind of a barometer of the well-educated, high information swing voters are leaning.  Yesterday, she blogged that she had come for Mitt Romney.

This morning, she weighed in on the contrast between Barack Obama asking us to vote for “revenge” and Mitt Romney asking us to vote for love of country, saying it

neatly embodies a reason why I believe Romney will win. He feels like optimism, and Obama — who once owned the word “hope” — seems petulant, divisive, and ungrateful.

Read the whole thing.  (It’s short.)

UPDATE:  Observing Romney’s rally in West Chester, Ohio, Byron York concludes that the Republican “sounds like a winner.

Building Mittmentum in Denver

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:15 pm - November 3, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Mitt Romney

Make sure to check below the jump as I’ll be updating with pictures as Clayton sends them.

Two hours before the Mitt Romney rally is supposed to begin in Denver, our reader Clayton who is sitting on the stage e-mails us this picture of the crowd:

Looks like the crowd is already bigger than each of Obama’s recent Ohio rallies. Many polls try to measure enthusiasm by asking respondents about the excitement.

The real gauge, however, is not in questions answered, but deeds performed. If people are willing to give up an afternoon — or a day — to attend a political rally then that shows real commitment and suggests they represent a groundswell for their candidate.

We certainly saw that for Obama in 2008; we seem to be seeing that for Mitt Romney this week.

(more…)

Real Change From Day One — Mitt’s Closing Argument

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 4:50 pm - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney gave a barnburner of a speech this morning in Wisconsin.  He goes off script a lot, I notice.  He even uses the a variation of a line that I’ve been tweeting all year long: “Americans are tired of being tired.”

We are Americans. We can do anything.

The only thing that stands between us and some of the best years we have known is lack of leadership. And that’s why we have elections.

This Tuesday is a moment to look into the future and imagine what we can do … to put the past four years behind us and start building a new future.

You saw the differences when President Obama and I were side-by-side in our debates. He says it has to be this way. I say it can’t stay this way. He’s offering excuses, I’ve got a plan. He’s hoping we’ll settle. I can’t wait for us to get started.

Americans don’t settle. We build, we aspire, we listen to that voice inside that says, “We can do better.” A better job; a better life for our kids; a bigger, better country.

That better life is out there, waiting for us. Our destiny is in your hands.

The full text of the speech is after the jump.

(more…)

Romney hopes “to represent all Americans, of every race, creed or sexual orientation”

Doing my mid-morning blog read and caught this in presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s speech this morning to the “annual NAACP convention in Houston”:

With 90 percent of African-Americans voting for Democrats, some of you may wonder why a Republican would bother to campaign in the African American community, and to address the NAACP. Of course, one reason is that I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed or sexual orientation, from the poorest to the richest and everyone in between.

Emphasis added.  Interesting that he chose to add in “sexual orientation.”  Good sign that he chose to include that expression.