I know that a lot of folks are getting nervous about how Romney is doing. If you just listen to the National Mainstream Media, it can drive you nuts, into despair, or hopelessness... We're doing fine... Mitt is going to win this, but we all have to do our part... enjoy the summary below of what's happening...
RASMUSSEN REPORTS:
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (Romney 47%; Obama 45%)
USA TODAY OP-ED:
Romney: I'll deliver recovery, not dependency
THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Sept. 18: Obama’s Bounce Erodes in Two Tracking Polls
ASSOCIATED PRESS:
Analysis: Romney Sharpens Differences With Obama
BOSTON HERALD:
Mitt’s right: Handouts do win votes
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER:
Long-term, Romney's GM plan would have been better
THE WASHINGTON POST:
At N.H. town hall, Paul Ryan urged to ‘take the gloves off’
HUMAN EVENTS:
In Ohio, Rubio links debt, taxes and the economy
RASMUSSEN REPORTS: POLL: (Romney 47%; Obama 45%)
Rasmussen Reports
September 18, 2012
The
Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows
Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while
President Obama earns 45% of
the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and three
percent (3%) are undecided. See daily tracking history.
When
“leaners” are included, the race is tied with both Obama and Romney at
48%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading
candidates but lean towards
one of them when asked a follow-up question.
Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).
Kristen
Soltis of The Winston Group and Emily Tisch Sussman from the Young
Democrats of America joined Scott Rasmussen on What America Thinks to
discuss the generation gap
in American politics. Rich Benjamin of Demos and Kyle Harrington of
Harrington Capital discussed the auto bailouts.
Republicans
are up one in the Generic Congressional Ballot. In the Virginia Senate
race, Democrat Tim Kaine has a two-point edge.
In the North Carolina governor’s race, Republican Pat McCrory has a double-digit lead.
The Swing State Daily Tracking Survey shows the race remains close in the battlegrounds.
A
president’s job approval rating is one of the best indicators for
assessing his chances of reelection. Typically, the president’s job
approval rating on Election Day will
be close to the share of the vote he receives. Currently, 49% of voters
say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance.
Fifty percent (50%) at least somewhat disapprove (see trends).
In
Virginia and Ohio, Obama leads by a point. In Florida, the president is
up two. Romney has edged back into the lead in Missouri and is up six
in North Carolina. See
the latest Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections.
In the
Ohio Senate race, Democratic incumbent Sherrod Brown has the advantage
over Republican challenger Josh Mandel. Democrat Bill Nelson has the
lead in the Florida Senate
race. See the Rasmussen Reports Senate Balance of Power projections.
Platinum Members can see demographic breakdowns and additional information from the tracking poll on a daily basis.
Voters
are fairly evenly divided as to which candidate they trust more to
handle events in the Middle East: 48% say Obama, 45% Romney.
Unaffiliated voters have a slight preference
for Romney. By an overwhelming 72% to 15% margin, voters believe it is
more important to guarantee freedom of speech rather than making sure
nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures. Half (51%) think
it’s likely the government of Libya was involved
in the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other
Americans.
As of this morning, only seven percent (7%) of voters rate national security issues as the most important in Election 2012.
Most
voters continue to favor repeal of the president’s health care law. In
his weekly newspaper column, Scott Rasmussen notes that “the health care
debate is a great example
of why Americans hate politics.” He adds that "building consensus on
health care reform requires taking good ideas from both Democrats and
Republicans. As far as voters are concerned, good ideas are the ones
that give individuals more control over their own
health care decisions.”
If you’d like Scott to speak to your organization, meeting or conference, please contact Premiere Speakers.
Four
years ago this week, the collapse in consumer confidence began following
the closing of Lehman Brothers. On September 15, 2008, 43% rated their
own finances as good
or excellent. By the time Obama won the election, only 38% thought
their finances were in good shape. As the Wall Street meltdown
continued, only 35% rated their finances that well on the day the
president was inaugurated. By the summer of 2011, the number
of Americans rating their finances as good or excellent fell as low as
27%.
Today,
33% are that upbeat. That’s down two since Obama took office and down
10 from the peak just before Lehman Brothers collapsed. Those numbers
help explain why the race
for the White House remains so close. Americans aren’t feeling better
off than they were four years ago, but they’re not feeling much worse
off either. That’s not great for the incumbent, but it’s not terrible.
It’s
worth remembering that at this time four years ago, John McCain’s
convention bounce ended abruptly. Then Obama moved ahead for good in
what turned out to be a very stable
race. During the final 40 days of the campaign, Obama’s support stayed
between 50% and 52% every day in the Rasmussen Reports daily
Presidential Tracking Poll. Only once during that entire time did his
lead fall below four points, and it occasionally expanded
to eight.
Rasmussen
Reports is a media company whose work is followed by millions on a wide
variety of platforms. In addition to the new TV show, we regularly
release our work at RasmussenReports.com,
through a daily email newsletter, a nationally syndicated radio news
service, an online video service and a weekly newspaper column
distributed by Creators Syndicate.
To get a
sense of longer-term Job Approval trends for the president, Rasmussen
Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.
Intensity
of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently,
28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way Obama is
performing as president. Forty-three
percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval
Index rating of -15 (see trends).
During
midterm elections, intensity of support can have a tremendous impact on
turnout. That was demonstrated in 2010 when Republicans and unaffiliated
voters turned out
in large numbers to express opposition to the Obama administration’s
policies. However, in presidential election years, there is a smaller
impact on turnout.
Rasmussen
Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling
techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own
operator-assisted technology (see
methodology). Pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton
have cited our "unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy."
During Election 2008, Rasmussen Reports projected that Barack Obama
would defeat John McCain by a 52% to 46% margin.
Obama was 53% to 46%. In 2004, Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to
project the vote totals for both candidates within half a percentage
point. Learn more about the Rasmussen Reports track record over the
years.
Daily
tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely
voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To
reach those who have abandoned
traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online
survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a
demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full
sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 3 percentage points
with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a
full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for
Platinum Members.
USA TODAY: Romney: I'll deliver recovery, not dependency
USA Today
Mitt Romney
September 18, 2012 10:30 PM
Since
our founding, America has promoted personal responsibility, the dignity
of work and the value of education. Those values made our nation the
hope of the earth and our
economy the envy of the world.
Efforts
that promote hard work and personal responsibility over government
dependency make America strong. When the economy is growing and
Americans are working, everyone
involved has a shared sense of achievement, not to mention the basic
sense of pride that comes with the paycheck they earn.
However,
over the past four years, those kinds of opportunities have been in
short supply. We're experiencing the worst recovery since the Great
Depression. Unemployment
has been above 8% for 43 straight months; 47 million Americans are on
food stamps. Nearly one in six Americans now live in poverty.
Under
President Obama, we have a stagnant economy that fosters government
dependency. My policies will create a growing economy that fosters
upward mobility.
Government
has a role to play here. Right now, our nation's citizens do need help
from government. But it is a very different kind of help than what
President Obama wants
to provide.
My
experience has taught me that government works best when it creates the
space for individuals and families to pursue success and achieve great
things. Economic freedom
is the only force that has consistently succeeded in creating sustained
prosperity and lifting people out of poverty. It is why our economy
rose to rival those of the world's leading powers -- and has long since
surpassed them all.
The dreamers and the entrepreneurs, not government, built this economy, and they can once again make it strong.
My
course for the American economy will encourage private investment and
personal freedom. Instead of creating a web of dependency, I will pursue
policies that grow our economy
and lift Americans out of poverty.
My
five-point plan will deliver the economic recovery we've all been
waiting for and the jobs millions of Americans still need. This can be
more than our hope; it can be
our future. And it can start this November with your vote.
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Sept. 18: Obama’s Bounce Erodes in Two Tracking Polls
ASSOCIATED PRESS: Analysis: Romney Sharpens Differences With Obama
Charles Babington
Associated Press
September 18, 2012 6:38 PM
WASHINGTON
(AP) -- Republican Mitt Romney, in describing nearly half of Americans
as being docile dependents of the state, and saying it's a "foreign
concept" for government
to redistribute income, is outlining a philosophy that's not only
sharply at odds with President Barack Obama's views. It's also difficult
to square with the facts of how Social Security, Medicare, the tax code
and scores of other institutions work.
Romney's
claim that 47 percent of Americans won't take "personal
responsibility," which he linked to their failure to owe federal income
taxes, instantly crystalized his
philosophical differences with Obama when the remarks came to light
Monday.
Romney,
trying to control the message amid widespread criticism, went further
on Tuesday. He told Fox News that it's "an entirely foreign concept" for
government to "take
from some to give to the others."
The
remarks echoed complaints often raised by conservative groups, including
tea party activists, who denounce "redistribution of wealth."
But the
remarks overlook basic facts, such as how the costly and popular Social
Security and Medicare programs shift billions of dollars from younger
people - who pay payroll
taxes - to older people, who receive the benefits.
Similarly,
the nation's progressive income tax system requires wealthy people to
pay proportionately more, shifting some of their wealth to poorer people
in the form of government
services and welfare.
Federal
excise taxes, along with sales taxes imposed by many states, work in
the other direction, regressively. Because they are levied without
regard to the payer's income,
they take a disproportionately larger bite from poor people.
In the
Fox interview, Romney took a calculated risk that most voters resent, or
can be coaxed to resent, the government's redistributive role, even if
millions benefit from
it, and it's central to the entire federal system.
Some conservative activists, originally tepid about Romney, cheered his much-debate remarks about the "47 percent."
"The
Mitt UNPLUGGED and UNPROGRAMMED by staff & `experts' won in biz
& can win the presidency," said talk show Laura Ingraham via
Twitter.
Romney's remarks sharpened his philosophical differences with Obama as the campaign enters its last 50 days.
Obama
talks much more than Romney does about society's responsibility to help
the needy. His it-takes-a-village approach depicts government as a force
for good - not only
for the downtrodden, but also for entrepreneurs who rely on public
schools, roads, police and firefighters to build their businesses.
"We
have some obligations to each other," Obama told CBS's David Letterman
on Tuesday. There's "nothing wrong with giving each other a hand."
Romney
often portrays government as an over-regulating, over-taxing nuisance
that hampers hard-charging "job creators." In the secretly recorded
remarks to Florida donors
in May, Romney described nearly half of all Americans as people "who
believe they are victims, who believe the government has a
responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to
health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
He was
referring to the roughly 46 percent of Americans who pay no federal
income tax, although many of them pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, and
state, local and excise taxes.
"So our
message of lower taxes doesn't connect," Romney said at the May
fundraiser. "And so my job is not to worry about those people," he said.
"I'll never convince them
they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Democrats,
and some Republicans, noted that these Americans include millions of
elderly people, military personnel and working-class parents.
They
also include a handful of very wealthy people. The IRS reported that,
thanks to complex tax breaks, six of the 400 highest-earning families in
2009 owed no federal income
taxes.
The week's events seem to be widening the philosophical gap between Obama and Romney.
In
truth, both visions of America - as a society that cares for its elderly
and downtrodden, and a society fueled by hard-working, self-reliant
people trying to get ahead
- have deep roots in the nation's history.
But recent events have made the two visions appear more at odds than they truly are.
The
Great Recession of 2007-2009 contributed to big spikes in food stamp
use, now about 48 million. The median U.S. household lost nearly 39
percent of its wealth from 2007
to 2010.
At
roughly the same time, the tea party movement accelerated the Republican
Party's shift toward a more solidly anti-tax posture. Refusal to raise
taxes - even on the wealthiest
Americans, and even in the name of slowing the federal debt's dramatic
growth - has become a priority for many Republicans, especially in the
House.
Democrats, meanwhile, note that federal taxes, as a share of the total economy, are at their lowest level in 60 years.
Some
conservatives say the number of Americans receiving government benefits,
and not paying income taxes, is alarming. Nearly half of all Americans
receive some form of
direct federal benefit.
More
than a quarter of Americans are on Medicaid, 16 percent receive Social
Security, 15 percent are on Medicare, and nearly 16 percent receive food
stamps.
"When
the number of people riding in the wagon outnumber the people pulling
the wagon, how do you ever reform?" said Dan Mitchell, an economist for
the libertarian-leaning
Cato Institute.
Neera
Tanden, head of the Democratic-oriented Center for American Progress,
called that "a complete misunderstanding" of society. Americans, she
said, "are the most religious,
most hard-working people in the world. ... We are a nation of
strivers."
The
United States trails other industrialized countries, she said, "in the
support that government provides to people. We are among the stingiest
in the world."
In
1998, when he was an Illinois state senator, Obama told a college
audience: "The trick is figuring out how we structure government systems
that pool resources and hence
facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in
redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody
has a shot."
Obama and Romney are giving American voters one of the most clear-cut philosophical choices in recent presidential history.
BOSTON HERALD: Mitt’s right: Handouts do win votes
Howie Carr
September 19, 2012 12:17 AM
Mitt Romney’s only mistake was lumping together all of the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes.
A lot
of them are elderly, and many of them are voting for Mitt. And there are
some people who work, but just don’t make a lot of money, or who would
be working if they weren’t
legitimately disabled.
But the
indisputable fact is, a huge percentage of Obama’s voters are basically
wards of the state. There are millions of them, and they have no
intention of voting for anyone
who might want them to ever go out and work for a living — “no matter
what.”
As
Romney said in Boca Raton last May: “I’ll never convince them they
should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
He’s
right. Remember the women in Detroit who were lining up for “Obama
bucks” right after the inauguration in 2009. A radio reporter asked them
where they thought the money
was coming from, and one of them guessed it was from Obama’s “stash. I
don’t know. But he givin’ it to us. We love him!”
Who do you suppose those women will be voting for Nov. 6?
Undoubtedly
the same candidate as the woman in Orlando who was videotaped at a 2008
rally for Democrats saying that once Obama got in, “I won’t have to
worry about putting
gas in my car, I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage.”
This is
nothing new. There’s a classic book that’s taught, or used to be
taught, in college political science classes. “Democracy in America” —
it was written more than 150
years ago by a Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville. He had the same take
as Mitt on what has become the American welfare state:
“A
democracy ... can only exist until the voters discover that they can
vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on,
the majority always votes
for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury
with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal
policy.”
Can someone say QE3, the Fed’s third round of so-called quantitative easing?
Anyone
who doesn’t think the welfare-industrial complex is trying to increase
dependency isn’t paying attention. Last weekend in Arlington, someone
handed me a letter from
the superintendent of a school system north of Boston that’s trying to
get more kids onto the town’s free lunch program.
“In an
effort to increase participation in the program,” the superintendent
wrote in boldface, “any family that completes a free/reduced lunch
application by September 21,
2012, will be entered into a drawing on Monday, October 5 for a chance
to win one of two iPads.”
Get on welfare, get a free iPad. It may not be PC to say it, but Mitt Romney is on to something here.
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Long-term, Romney's GM plan would have been better
Philadelphia Inquirer
Michael Busler
September 19, 2012 3:01 AM
Vice
President Biden has proudly proclaimed that "Bin Laden is dead and
General Motors is alive." That may be true for now, but GM's life
remains in plenty of danger.
GM was
on the verge of bankruptcy in 2009. President Obama noted that if GM
went out of business, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. GM
employs about 200,000 people.
And since companies that supply parts to GM would also either close or
dramatically reduce production, the ripple effect would cause another
few hundred thousand jobs to be lost.
So
Obama committed about $80 billion of taxpayers' money to save GM.
Although much has been repaid, the final price tag for taxpayers will be
about $25 billion. But if it
keeps GM in business, the president has said, it was a worthwhile
investment for taxpayers.
Was it?
Republican
candidate Mitt Romney says he would have allowed GM to file for
bankruptcy protection without any taxpayer assistance. He has been
ridiculed for this position,
and indeed it is likely to result in Obama's winning the key
battleground states of Ohio and Michigan. But the reality is that
Romney's position was more likely to result in long-term health for GM
and the saving of more jobs here in the United States.
GM was a
bankrupt firm because its cash flow was not sufficient to cover
expenses. The reasons for this were that (1) the great recession reduced
demand for cars, so GM sold
far fewer; and (2) expenses were far too high, primarily because GM's
labor costs were about $80 per hour, while other auto companies had
labor costs of about $40 per hour.
As a
condition for the funding that the president provided, GM had to reduce
labor costs to the $60-per-hour range and protect the retirement
packages of its employees. It
did this through a prenegotiated bankruptcy filing approved by Obama
and eventually the bankruptcy court. While this temporarily saved GM, it
probably won't work in the long term.
The
reason will be that GM's labor costs are still too high, and the company
makes cars that consumers do not really want. We see today that, even
with an occasionally good
rate of monthly sales, the long-term prospects remain dim, as the
company's market share has dropped from a high of 48 percent to less
than 18 percent today. Within the next year or so, GM will likely face
another crisis that could threaten its existence.
Ironically,
had Obama not intervened, GM would have a greater chance of future
success. Romney, an experienced businessman who has successfully dealt
with situations like
GM's in the past, had a better plan. By allowing GM to seek bankruptcy
protection free of taxpayer intervention, he would have forced the
company to reorganize in a manner that would increase its chances of
future success, in contrast to Obama's approach,
which limited their options.
Romney's
plan would have had the labor contracts renegotiated and approved
solely by the bankruptcy court based on economic rather than political
considerations. The GM that
emerged from bankruptcy would have raised capital in the private
sector, where stockholders (owners) would have insisted that GM use its
resources to build cars that consumers want, rather than cars the
government wants and that few people actually purchased.
The Chevy Volt, for instance, is an electric car approved for
production and subsidized by the Obama administration. Unfortunately,
consumers aren't buying it, and production has been halted.
While
Obama's actions appear to have saved GM, the reality is that he simply
kicked the real bankruptcy down the road. The jobs that Obama claims to
have saved are mostly
overseas, as about 140,000 of the 200,000 GM employees work outside of
the United States. And it is likely that the taxpayers will lose about
$25 billion from this failed bailout.
Romney
would have saved the taxpayers $25 billion by allowing GM to go through
the same bankruptcy that any other firm faces when it is mismanaged and
the economy is weak.
The result would have been a leaner GM, with more reasonable labor
costs and a line of products that consumers actually want to buy. And
there would be a brighter future.
CNBC NEWS: Romney Is Right—US Must Get Tough With China: Morici
CNBC News
Peter Morici
September 17, 2012 10:00 AM
Governor Romney is right. The United States must get tough with China to restore growth and good paying jobs.
The
idea behind free trade appears compelling. Let each nation specialize in
what it does best to raise productivity and incomes. But Americans
don’t share in those benefits,
because President Obama lets China and others cheat on the rules, with
only token opposition at the World Trade Organization. (Read More: U.S.
to File WTO Case Against China Over Cars)
Through
the WTO, industrialized nations have greatly reduced tariffs and
limited domestic policies that discriminate against imports or
artificially boost exports. However,
to optimize trade and create good jobs for all, every nation must play
by the same rules, and exchange rates—which translate prices for U.S.
goods into yuan [CNY=X 6.317 0.0025 (+0.04%) ], euro [EUR=X
1.3144 0.0017 (+0.13% ] and the like—must be
free to adjust to reflect differences in national production costs.
(Read More: Brusca: The ‘Truth’ and Consequences of China’s Data)
Exchange
rates are established in markets, where exporters, importers and
investors buy and sell currencies needed to conduct international
commerce. Unfortunately, China
and other Asian governments blatantly manipulate those markets. Lacking
a credible American response, this has ruinous consequences for growth
and American workers.
Also,
Beijing imposes high tariffs—for example, about 25 percent on autos—
subsidizes exports, requires state agencies and enterprises to buy
Chinese products, and refuses
to adequately protect U.S. patents and copyrights.
These
promote Chinese manufacturing in industries where high productivity and
superior product designs would make American goods more competitive. It
compels companies like
GM [GM 23.89 -0.25 (-1.04% ] and Apple [AAPL 698.10 6.82
(+0.99%)] to locate facilities in China and give away know-how to
Chinese partners in Beijing mandated joint-ventures. Ultimately, U.S.
companies heavily invested in China become apologists
for Chinese policies, and work to block meaningful U.S. actions in
defense of American workers.
The
United States annually exports $2.2 trillion in goods and services, and
these finance a like amount of imports. This raises U.S. gross domestic
product by about $220
billion, because workers are about 10 percent more productive in export
industries, such as software, than in import-competing industries, such
as apparel. (Read More: China, Japan Can't Afford to Let Crisis Worsen:
Pros)
Unfortunately,
U.S. imports exceed exports by nearly $600 billion, and workers
released from making those products go into non-trade-competing
industries, such as retailing,
where productivity is at least 50 percent lower.
If they
can’t find work, this slashes GDP by at least $300 billion,
overwhelming the gains from trade, and forces workers to accept lower
wages. In actual fact, that appears
to be what is happening.
Currency
manipulation creates as much as a huge subsidy on Chinese exports.
Other Asian countries are impelled to follow similar policies, lest
their exports become uncompetitive
with Chinese products. (Read More: Chinese Billionaires Lost a Third of
Wealth in Past Year, Study Shows)
Huge
trade imbalances between Asia and the West, perpetuated by currency
manipulation and protectionism reduce demand for the goods and services
produced in the United States
and Europe.
To keep
the U.S. economy going, Americans must both borrow from foreigners and
spend too much, as they did through 2008, or their government must amass
huge budget deficits
by borrowing from abroad, as it is now.
In the
bargain, the United States sends manufacturing jobs to Asia that would
be competitive in the United States, but for rigged exchange rates and
other mercantilism.
The
trade deficit directly slices $600 billion off GDP, and nearly $1
trillion through the multiplier effects usually associated with a
permanent boost in spending or a tax
cut.
Americans lose 10 million jobs and wages sink, and that’s what is destroying the middle class.
Campaigning
in 2008, Barack Obama promised to deal with Chinese currency
manipulation and protectionism, but he has failed beyond token
complaints to the WTO.
It will
be impossible for the United States to create the 14 million jobs
needed to bring unemployment down to pre-recession levels without taking
on China.
For that Americans need another president—one with the courage to stand up to China.
RELEASE: ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT RELEASES TELEVISION AD, “WAR ON COAL”
Boston, MA –
Today, Romney for
President released a new television advertisement titled “War On Coal.”
President Obama is ruining the coal industry and it’s affecting real
people across
the country. We have 250 years of coal. Why wouldn’t we use it?
AD FACTS: Script For “War On Coal”:
MAN:
“Obama’s ruining the coal industry.”
MAN:
“Policies that the current administration’s got is attacking my livelihood.”
MAN: “They’re wanting to close these mines down. I got little ones
at home—a wife that’s needing me.”
MITT ROMNEY: “We have 250 years of coal. Why wouldn’t we use it?”
MITT ROMNEY: “Utility bills are up.”
MITT ROMNEY: “People wonder how they’re going to have a brighter future,
if they can’t see how they can make it to the end of the next month.”
MITT ROMNEY: “I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message.”
THE WASHINGTON POST: At N.H. town hall, Paul Ryan urged to ‘take the gloves off’
The Washington Post
Felicia Sonmez
September 18, 2012 2:48 PM
DOVER, N.H. — Jack Kimball has a message for the Romney-Ryan campaign: “I think it’s time to take the gloves off.”
Kimball
is the tea party-backed former New Hampshire Republican Party chairman
who resigned last year amid pressure from members of his party. He made
an unexpected appearance
Tuesday morning in the crowd at Paul Ryan’s second solo town hall
meeting.
At a
moment when the Romney-Ryan campaign is weathering a tough several weeks
due to a series of unforced errors — including Romney’s statement
criticizing Obama in the wake
of last week’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in the Middle East
and the release on Monday of a video showing Romney appearing to write
off the “47 percent” of Americans who pay zero income tax — Kimball’s
advice might seem counter-intuitive.
But if
the New Hampshire crowd’s standing ovation for Kimball’s suggestion was
anything to go by, take the gloves off — and continue to make remarks
that rally the GOP base
— is precisely what supporters want the Romney-Ryan ticket to do.
“The
country is thirsting for this, believe me,” Kimball, a businessman who
chairs the Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC, told the cheering crowd
at McConnell Community
Center. “All of the people in here are thirsting for this in the Live
Free or Die State, and all the prior military men and active duty folks
are thirsting for this.”
He
added: “You’ve got six or seven weeks. We know you can do it. We know we
have it in us, and we have to have the two of you in office, there’s no
ifs, ands or buts about
it.”
Several
attendees at Tuesday’s town hall meeting expressed agreement with
Romney’s “47 percent” remark. Others said they had no opinion on the
statement. But none expressed
the kind of criticism of the remark that has been prevalent in national
media coverage in the nearly 24 hours since the Romney fundraiser video
became public.
That
would suggest that for all the backlash among pundits for the campaign’s
recent missteps, Romney’s statements on the Middle East demonstrations
and those who pay no
income tax could help him energize members of the GOP base.
Might Romney and Ryan, then, take Kimball’s advice and double down on the heated rhetoric?
There
have been signs that they already are. Romney last week followed up his
criticism of the Obama administration’s response to the attacks in Libya
and Egypt with an even
more critical statement the next day.
And at
Tuesday’s town hall, Ryan appeared to tread carefully between appealing
to the many tea party supporters in the crowd and not carrying his
criticism of Obama out of
bounds.
One
woman in the crowd introduced herself as a registered Independent who
“wasn’t too sure about the Romney ticket” but decided to back Romney and
Ryan because “I decided
that I want Obama out.” She cited the Supreme Court’s ruling on the
national health-care law and told Ryan, “I was again shocked and
disillusioned, thinking, ‘Are we going to turn into a socialistic
country?’ I’m terrified. I really am.”
Ryan nodded as the woman spoke, then responded: “I understand exactly what you’re saying.”
He went
on to reprise a line about Obama that he and Romney have often used on
the trail, imploring the audience to “imagine what he will do just in
implementing the rest
of Obamacare if he never has to ever face a voter ever again and he
gets reelected.”
“It just puts a chill down the spine,” Ryan said.
Another
man in the crowd stood up and prefaced his question by asking, “What’s
wrong with the Obama economy? It is, I would say, everything.”
“He’s devastating our economy and this nation, and I think he’s doing it intentionally,” the man said.
Ryan
again stood and nodded as the man finished his question, which was about
zoning issues; then he gave a response that centered on the “desire of
the administration to
more federalize those things like zoning and building codes that are
more left to local government.”
Several
times in his remarks — more than he typically has done at recent events
on the trail — Ryan referred to the notion of government dependency,
the concept on which
Romney was expounding when he made his ill-fated fundraiser remarks.
He told
the crowd that he and Romney are concerned about “more and more people
becoming net dependent upon the government than upon themselves, because
by promoting more
dependency, by not having jobs and economic growth, people miss their
potential.”
“We
should not be measuring the progress of our social programs, of programs
like food stamps, based upon how many people receive them,” he said to
cheers. “We should be
measuring the progress of our social programs by how many people we
transition off of them into lives of self-sufficiency and jobs and
upward mobility. ... So our goal, our mission is to address the root
causes of poverty instead of simply treating the symptoms
of poverty.”
There
were also two other noteworthy aspects of Tuesday’s town hall. It
featured a giant debt clock such as the one on display at last month’s
GOP national convention. And
the town hall marked the second Ryan event in recent days at which a
biographical video of Romney was played. The widely-hailed video was
played at the Tampa convention but was shown too early to make it into
the networks’ prime-time coverage — a point that
some GOP donors have griped about in the weeks since the convention.
Whether
or not Ryan’s town hall remarks were a subtle pivot to appeal to the
GOP base remains an open question, as is the potential impact of
doubling down on Romney’s recent
remarks. (Polls have shown this week that Romney’s criticism of Obama
in the wake of last week’s attacks, for instance, was unpopular among
the broader American public.)
But
some of those present on Tuesday said that — contrary to what pundits
and others have said — they believe more tough rhetoric from Romney is
exactly what his campaign
needs right now.
“I’m
afraid he needs to be a little bit more aggressive,” Janet Leary, a
67-year-old retired registered nurse and lifelong Republican from
Kingston, N.H., said of Romney.
“Obama’s coming on strong now.”
Leary
noted that two of her relatives are out of work and struggling to find
jobs. “He really needs to push the point that we’re not better off,” she
said of Romney.
Kimball,
for his part, said in an interview after the event that Romney’s
remarks on last week’s attacks abroad are the type of message that the
campaign needs to focus on
making.
“A good
example and a tangible example would be Mitt Romney’s commentary after
the murders at the embassy,” Kimball said when asked how, in particular,
Romney and Ryan should
“take the gloves off.”
“His
commentary was right on, as far as I was concerned. He got heavily
criticized by the press on that. I watched that whole thing. ... Any of
the things that clearly are
things that they disagree with with the administration, to come out
forcefully and let everybody know – not only to be against them, but
what they would do differently,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment