I was raised to believe that discrimination is wrong. I came of age well after the US Civil Rights Acts of 1964 outlawed racial segregation, sparking a number of new laws that barred discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. Thus I cannot imagine a world where discrimination would be acceptable. Having grown up alongside others who received this same training, I am utterly disappointed to discover that many Americans still think it’s okay to discriminate. We still pay women lower wages than men for the same work. We still engage in racial profiling. We still prohibit openly gay people from serving in the military. Finally, we still mistreat others solely on the basis of religion. A good example of the latter is the widespread discrimination against Mormons that has revealed itself as a result of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. What's wrong with the following statement, written by Jay Cost for Real Clear Politics?
“I would be highly surprised if Giuliani or Thompson tries to make [Mitt Romney’s] Mormon issue salient. If I were advising either one, I would suggest that he not try--any political victory he achieves from the issue might be quite pyrrhic. Such an attack leads itself right into a discussion of the role of religion in the lives of the candidates - and that, in turn, could make the once divorced Thompson (who seems to have lobbied for a pro-abortion outfit) and the twice divorced Giuliani (who is pro-choice) look worse than Romney” (bold italics added).
This statement, like its many cousins across the media networks, is not overtly discriminatory. It does not explicitly state that Mormonism is a suspicious religion. Nor does it suggest that nobody vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. However, what it does say ought to invoke shock and outrage. Intentional or not the author places Mormonism on similar footing with divorce and abortion—as if being Mormon is a flaw that compares to culpable marital failure or (gasp!) murder. Even though Mormonism is considered the lesser "offense," it is still mentioned as something that gives voters similar heartburn. He goes on to state:
“I think Romney may have caught a real break with Thompson and Giuliani as his two major opponents. If, per chance, Huckabee or Brownback had ascended to the top tier—they could possibly have exploited the Mormon angle without undue damage to their candidacies. But not Thompson and Giuliani. I do not think that either of them has the "standing" to get into the thick of a battle over personal religious beliefs.”
The ironic thing about Mr. Cost's statement is that he probably didn't realize it was discriminatory. Likewise, most non-Mormon readers would probably fail to find it discriminatory. And that's sad, because it only demonstrates how insensitive people can be in their treatment of Mormons. Can you imagine if someone were to make a similar statement about Jews, comparing Judaism with questionable behavior? "So and so was responsible for a nasty divorce. So and so is pro-abortion. So and so is a Jew." You can bet that few media outlets would dare publish something so outrageous. The politically correct police and Jewish support groups would be all over them, and rightfully so. For some reason Mormons don't enjoy the same support. Perhaps it's because they are a forgiving people who tend to turn the other cheek. Perhaps it's because they are a relatively new religion. Regardless of the reason, it's obvious that discrimination against Mormons is alive and well.
So where do we go from here? Mitt Romney's candidacy has clearly exposed that many Americans still have a big problem with religious discrimination. It is a problem that casts a dark shadow on America's professed values of equality, justice, and freedom of conscience. It is a problem that highlights the inability of many Americans to respect people with different or unfamiliar beliefs. Finally, it is a problem that won't go away until we start asking ourselves some hard questions. Will we choose to persist in religious bigotry, or will we choose to respect people solely on the basis of their being human? Will we continue to compare a person’s religious preferences with outright objectionable behavior, or will we rise up and see The Difference?
For the full text of Jay Cost's article click here.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Higher and higher...
Romney is really starting to squish the competition in Iowa:
Romney 36.2
Giuliani 13.1
Huckster 12.8
source UI Hawkeye Poll
Friday, October 26, 2007
"I think being pro-life is more than saying you'll appoint strict constructionist judges"
Recent MyWay article on Romney's latest...
"Those of us who represent that base will find that we can get that support and ultimately face up one-to-one with Mayor Giuliani," Romney said. "At that point he'll have a more challenging time because I do not believe the Republican Party is going to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House by acting like Hillary Clinton."
"I think being pro-life is more than saying you'll appoint strict constructionist judges," said Romney.
"I hope it comes down to me and Mayor Giuliani," said Romney.
All I can say is, "Bring it!"
Honestly, out of all the political candidates, who inherently wants to serve the country the most?
Two syllables...Romney
-David McEntire
"Those of us who represent that base will find that we can get that support and ultimately face up one-to-one with Mayor Giuliani," Romney said. "At that point he'll have a more challenging time because I do not believe the Republican Party is going to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House by acting like Hillary Clinton."
"I think being pro-life is more than saying you'll appoint strict constructionist judges," said Romney.
"I hope it comes down to me and Mayor Giuliani," said Romney.
All I can say is, "Bring it!"
Honestly, out of all the political candidates, who inherently wants to serve the country the most?
Two syllables...Romney
-David McEntire
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
My advice to Romney...skip the Mormon speech
Dear Governor Romney,
But I don't think that a speech like that would accomplish much. The bigots will still be bigots, the tolerant will still be tolerant, and the Mormons will still be Mormons.
And people don't really care anyway. Only 28% of Americans polled said that they wouldn't vote for a Mormon because of his religion. Compare that to the 50% of Americans who wouldn't vote for Hillary...because she's Hillary.
What's at risk is that you will look defensive, and almost apologetic for your faith. The speech could stir up more controversy than it puts aside.
The speech will put too much focus on your religion, and you won't have enough time to clear up the misconceptions and cover all the bases.
The questions that people should be considering are:
Do we want to put someone in the White House who will cut spending and balance the budget? Do we want someone who has turned around dozens of corporations and governments and made them profitable?
Do we want someone who GETS THINGS DONE?
And the questions we don't want people worrying about are:
Am I "ready" for a Mormon in the White House?
Sure he says that he won't take orders from Salt Lake City, but what if he secretly does?
What's the deal with Polygamy anyway?
The press would love the speech. They'd sell tons of newspapers and TV time would be through the roof.
Instead, Governor, you need to pick an issue and make it yours. Make the issue be about change...and make it something that America desperately needs. Your supporters should be able to say I am supporting Mitt Romney because______________. And it shouldn't be too complicated.
You have spent the past year telling us what your stance will be on the various issues. So most of us know that you will be a good Republican president. But you need an issue that will distinguish you from the rest of the pack. You need a mandate. Find that, and people won't care what religion you are.
Replace the long-awaited Mormon speech with a speech about what you will change once elected. Instead of simply laying aside fears, you give us something to be excited about! You have done a great job so far, just focus your message to one or two passions...and then the American people will follow.
Maybe at the end of the speech you can say: "the only orders I will be taking from Salt Lake City are the same orders I will take from the American people everywhere, to protect the homeland, to clean up Washington, and to grow the economy".
That's all us Salt Lakers want anyway.
Sincerely,
David Alvord
Skip the Mormon speech.
There are those who have been waiting for you to give a "Mormon speech". In this speech you are supposed to give a Kennedy-like speech to reassure the American people that you won't take orders from the Pope, or the Prophet in your case.But I don't think that a speech like that would accomplish much. The bigots will still be bigots, the tolerant will still be tolerant, and the Mormons will still be Mormons.
And people don't really care anyway. Only 28% of Americans polled said that they wouldn't vote for a Mormon because of his religion. Compare that to the 50% of Americans who wouldn't vote for Hillary...because she's Hillary.
What's at risk is that you will look defensive, and almost apologetic for your faith. The speech could stir up more controversy than it puts aside.
The speech will put too much focus on your religion, and you won't have enough time to clear up the misconceptions and cover all the bases.
The questions that people should be considering are:
Do we want to put someone in the White House who will cut spending and balance the budget? Do we want someone who has turned around dozens of corporations and governments and made them profitable?
Do we want someone who GETS THINGS DONE?
And the questions we don't want people worrying about are:
Am I "ready" for a Mormon in the White House?
Sure he says that he won't take orders from Salt Lake City, but what if he secretly does?
What's the deal with Polygamy anyway?
The press would love the speech. They'd sell tons of newspapers and TV time would be through the roof.
Instead, Governor, you need to pick an issue and make it yours. Make the issue be about change...and make it something that America desperately needs. Your supporters should be able to say I am supporting Mitt Romney because______________. And it shouldn't be too complicated.
You have spent the past year telling us what your stance will be on the various issues. So most of us know that you will be a good Republican president. But you need an issue that will distinguish you from the rest of the pack. You need a mandate. Find that, and people won't care what religion you are.
Replace the long-awaited Mormon speech with a speech about what you will change once elected. Instead of simply laying aside fears, you give us something to be excited about! You have done a great job so far, just focus your message to one or two passions...and then the American people will follow.
Maybe at the end of the speech you can say: "the only orders I will be taking from Salt Lake City are the same orders I will take from the American people everywhere, to protect the homeland, to clean up Washington, and to grow the economy".
That's all us Salt Lakers want anyway.
Sincerely,
David Alvord
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Scout-O-Rama Trade: J.D. for Family Values?
Recently, a Politico article described Guliani's recent speech at the Family Research Council summit meeting. Guliani's attempt of a self-effacing speech was apologetic for his flaws. We are all human, and we all have flaws. It is unrealistic to expect a flawless president. However, America can expect to elect the best "human" for the office of President.
The article describes Guliani after the speech:
"The former mayor, who left the stage grinning amid applause after his 40-minute speech, went for an authenticity contrast with Romney, substituting his law and order credentials for the family values emphasis of Romney, a long-married father of five."
If having a solid family and impervious values is up to trade for a couple of court wins, what will be next? Anyone want to trade Romney's sense of duty and patriotism for Guliani's ability to conduct legal research?
Didn't think so.
-David McEntire
The article describes Guliani after the speech:
"The former mayor, who left the stage grinning amid applause after his 40-minute speech, went for an authenticity contrast with Romney, substituting his law and order credentials for the family values emphasis of Romney, a long-married father of five."
If having a solid family and impervious values is up to trade for a couple of court wins, what will be next? Anyone want to trade Romney's sense of duty and patriotism for Guliani's ability to conduct legal research?
Didn't think so.
-David McEntire
Giuliani at the FRC...and some thought on abortion
by David Alvord
Giuliani showed little remorse for his liberal stances at the FRC conference.
He said that he was: “not always the best example of faith”
and then went on to say: “Isn’t it better that I tell you what I really believe instead of changing all my positions?”
No. I would rather you change your positions that are wrong. Instead of just being honest about the fact that you do not want to protect the unborn, I would rather you change your mind about that issue.
I would much rather you change all of your wrong positions than to openly and "honestly" promote evil. You see, change is not bad if you are changing from a bad policy to a good one!
What Giuliani was implying was that Romney is not saying what he "really believes" and that he is secretly pro-choice.
This, of course, is false!
Romney had always asserted that he was personally pro-life. Even when Romney was running for Governor, he maintained that he was personally pro-life. Check the record and you will find it's true. What Mitt promised was that he would not change the laws of Massachusetts in regards to abortion. And he did so because he knew that one would have a better chance of getting Texans to agree to communism than to take away the abortive "rights" from the people of Massachusetts. It just wasn't the will of the people to elect someone who would change the laws in regards to abortion. So Romney said, "OK, then what are some conservative goals that we actually could achieve for the State?"
What is most remarkable is to observe the conservative agenda that Romney pursued in spite of such a liberal climate. Is it not in our best interests to put the man into the white house who is so GOOD at dealing with the opposition?
Sorry Mayor, but your characterization of the Governor is false. It would be nice for you if Romney was a flipper, or worse, that he was hiding his true identity from the Republican party. The truth is that Romney is pro-life...and the only thing that may be secret is the fact that he has always been pro-life. He tells of his conversion story of when he realized he had to take a stand against abortion publicly...(and possibly lose his career in the process, I might add). Romney had always known that abortion was wrong, but at a pivotal moment, he realized just how wrong it was.
Let me ask one simple question: Is there any doubt that the Mayor, who is openly pro-choice would appoint pro-choice judges? I don't think that many people realize just how pro-choice Rudy is. He may lose the nomination over this...and yet Rudy is sticking to his guns. For a man to go against the will of the people, and then to go against the counsel of his church, and still swim upstream on this issue must make him ridiculously pro-choice.
I believe that Romney has always been pro-life...and that politically he has "come out of the closet". Just check his record as Governor and you will find that he had a pro-life agenda.
But for those who are still skeptical, let me ask just one last question: If it were down to these three (and there are many who believe it is...) who would be most likely to appoint conservative, pro-life judges? Is it Hillary Clinton? Is it Rudy Giuliani? or Is it Mitt Romney?
see story
Giuliani showed little remorse for his liberal stances at the FRC conference.
He said that he was: “not always the best example of faith”
and then went on to say: “Isn’t it better that I tell you what I really believe instead of changing all my positions?”
No. I would rather you change your positions that are wrong. Instead of just being honest about the fact that you do not want to protect the unborn, I would rather you change your mind about that issue.
I would much rather you change all of your wrong positions than to openly and "honestly" promote evil. You see, change is not bad if you are changing from a bad policy to a good one!
What Giuliani was implying was that Romney is not saying what he "really believes" and that he is secretly pro-choice.
This, of course, is false!
Romney had always asserted that he was personally pro-life. Even when Romney was running for Governor, he maintained that he was personally pro-life. Check the record and you will find it's true. What Mitt promised was that he would not change the laws of Massachusetts in regards to abortion. And he did so because he knew that one would have a better chance of getting Texans to agree to communism than to take away the abortive "rights" from the people of Massachusetts. It just wasn't the will of the people to elect someone who would change the laws in regards to abortion. So Romney said, "OK, then what are some conservative goals that we actually could achieve for the State?"
What is most remarkable is to observe the conservative agenda that Romney pursued in spite of such a liberal climate. Is it not in our best interests to put the man into the white house who is so GOOD at dealing with the opposition?
Sorry Mayor, but your characterization of the Governor is false. It would be nice for you if Romney was a flipper, or worse, that he was hiding his true identity from the Republican party. The truth is that Romney is pro-life...and the only thing that may be secret is the fact that he has always been pro-life. He tells of his conversion story of when he realized he had to take a stand against abortion publicly...(and possibly lose his career in the process, I might add). Romney had always known that abortion was wrong, but at a pivotal moment, he realized just how wrong it was.
Let me ask one simple question: Is there any doubt that the Mayor, who is openly pro-choice would appoint pro-choice judges? I don't think that many people realize just how pro-choice Rudy is. He may lose the nomination over this...and yet Rudy is sticking to his guns. For a man to go against the will of the people, and then to go against the counsel of his church, and still swim upstream on this issue must make him ridiculously pro-choice.
I believe that Romney has always been pro-life...and that politically he has "come out of the closet". Just check his record as Governor and you will find that he had a pro-life agenda.
But for those who are still skeptical, let me ask just one last question: If it were down to these three (and there are many who believe it is...) who would be most likely to appoint conservative, pro-life judges? Is it Hillary Clinton? Is it Rudy Giuliani? or Is it Mitt Romney?
see story
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Fox News Republican Orlando debate this Sunday, Oct. 21
ORLANDO. The Republicans will debate this Sunday on Fox News Channel 8pm ET. This event has been so poorly publicized that I thought we ought to get a post up. Go Mitt!
By the way, here are the remaining debates for the year (did you notice that Iowa's January 5th debate comes AFTER the primary - Jan. 3?):
October 21, 2007 - Orlando, Florida
October 25, 2007 - Sioux City, Iowa
November 6, 2007 - Cedar Falls, Iowa
November 28, 2007 - St. Petersburg, Florida
January 5, 2008 - Johnston, Iowa
January 10, 2008 - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
January 30, 2008 - Los Angeles, California
I think that based on these dates, December would be an ideal time for Romney to give his "Mormon speech" because there will be a vacuum of election coverage...and the press could be hungry for just such a story. Also, New Hampshire may move their primary into December. There are those who question whether Romney will give the speech at all. But if he does, I think he should do it in December, or just after his win in Iowa.
-David Alvord
By the way, here are the remaining debates for the year (did you notice that Iowa's January 5th debate comes AFTER the primary - Jan. 3?):
October 21, 2007 - Orlando, Florida
October 25, 2007 - Sioux City, Iowa
November 6, 2007 - Cedar Falls, Iowa
November 28, 2007 - St. Petersburg, Florida
January 5, 2008 - Johnston, Iowa
January 10, 2008 - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
January 30, 2008 - Los Angeles, California
I think that based on these dates, December would be an ideal time for Romney to give his "Mormon speech" because there will be a vacuum of election coverage...and the press could be hungry for just such a story. Also, New Hampshire may move their primary into December. There are those who question whether Romney will give the speech at all. But if he does, I think he should do it in December, or just after his win in Iowa.
-David Alvord
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
What? Bob Jones' dean endorsed Romney?
It's true.
A top official at Bob Jones University, the Evangelical Christian school with a history of anti-Mormon rhetoric, plans to throw his weight behind Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university’s college of arts and sciences, said he believes the former Massachusetts governor is the only Republican candidate who both stands a chance of winning the White House and will reliably implement the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives. (link to article)
Thank you Robert, perhaps your endorsement combined with other's will get Romney the nomination. And we Mitt Rockers believe that Romney can not only run against Hillary, but that he will defeat her!
A few months ago, I predicted that a potential Hillary presidency could unite America around Mitt. Is this the first sign of that prophesy's fulfillment? (see BORG QUEEN)
A top official at Bob Jones University, the Evangelical Christian school with a history of anti-Mormon rhetoric, plans to throw his weight behind Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university’s college of arts and sciences, said he believes the former Massachusetts governor is the only Republican candidate who both stands a chance of winning the White House and will reliably implement the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives. (link to article)
Thank you Robert, perhaps your endorsement combined with other's will get Romney the nomination. And we Mitt Rockers believe that Romney can not only run against Hillary, but that he will defeat her!
A few months ago, I predicted that a potential Hillary presidency could unite America around Mitt. Is this the first sign of that prophesy's fulfillment? (see BORG QUEEN)
Monday, October 15, 2007
Dobson ought to focus on the family
Pictured above are Mitt and Ann Romney at a recent campaign event in New Hampshire. The Romneys are one of the few candidate-couples who have actually lived a life of family values.
It would be natural for James Dobson, the highly influential leader from the Christian group "focus on the family", to endorse these pro-life, pro-family candidates, right?
Instead, Dobson has proposed that a third party be formed if Giuliani gets the nomination, and has made no mention of a Romney endorsement. Why? Because Romney is a Mormon?
Dobson ought to focus on the family and set aside his religious bigotry.
There is a chance, and I think that it is probable, that Dobson may lose his credibility by suggesting a third party instead of rallying around the Pro-life candidate who actually has a chance of beating Hillary...
So these are my suggestions for Dr. Dobson:
1)Focus on the fact that Romney will appoint conservative supreme court justices.
2)Focus on the fact that your third party candidate will only torpedo the Republican nominee.
3)Focus on the power of example that the Romneys would put on display for the American people, and the world for that matter.
4)Focus on the things you have in common with Romney. You both pray, you both read from the Old and New Testament and worship the same Savior.
5)Focus on the fact that any doctrinal differences you may have with Romney will be sorted out in the next world, but that good things can happen when people who share common values are united.
6)Focus on the family by endorsing Mitt Romney.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Mitt Rocked the Rally for Romney
The Mitt Rockers were proud to support Governor Romney at the Rally for Romney held in Salt Lake City Sept. 28, 2007. We had the support of David McEntire, David Alvord, Heidi Lebaron, and Allyse Sheppherd. Our team was able to raise thousands of dollars for the Romney campaign.
Mitt's speech was fantastic. He touched on many of the themes heard in his stump speech; strength for our economy, strength for our families, and strength of our military.
Also, he talked about a conversation he had with Neal A. Maxwell. During the conversation, Elder Maxwell asked Mitt if he thought that our country was about to encounter another "inflection point". What is an inflection point? Mitt asked. Elder Maxwell explained that an inflection point was a moment in history when the country changes its direction. In other words, an inflection point is a pivot point in policy and perspective. One example of an inflection point is when the US had its revolutionary war. For the first time in History the government was the servant of the people instead of the people the servant of the government.
Romney then went on to list several of the inflection points in History and made the remark that he believes that our country is at such a moment in regards to the war on terror and our fiscal responsibility. What remains to be seen is whether we will be able to rise to the occasion, or whether we will take a sharp left turn by electing Hillary Clinton.
Keep your ears open for Mitt to talk about these "inflection points"...as I have already heard this theme in other speeches.
Phenomenal speech
Romney's speech at the Defending the American Dream Summit, in Washington DC, was one of the best I've heard Romney deliver.
Or as one blogger put it: "it was freaking phenomenal"
I have to say that if Mitt keeps putting on performances of this calibre, with this level of detail, humor, and competence, then not only can we look forward to a Romney presidency, but also his reelection in 2012!
Watch the speech:
Here and then here.
Or as one blogger put it: "it was freaking phenomenal"
I have to say that if Mitt keeps putting on performances of this calibre, with this level of detail, humor, and competence, then not only can we look forward to a Romney presidency, but also his reelection in 2012!
Watch the speech:
Here and then here.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
$62 Million!
Last quarter, Romney raised 10M...then add to that another 8.5M of his own money and Mitt has claim to 18.5M for the third quarter!
We here at Mitt Rocks believe this to be a wonderful success for the governor. There have been three quarters in a row of solid fund-raising! For Fred Thompson to have only raised 8M during his first quarter...and then for Romney to continue his impressive fundraising haul can only be seen as a sign that Mitt should be taken seriously!
So, that gives Romney a Total of 62M for the year...right at the heals of Senator Clinton 63M.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_po/campaign_fundraising;_ylt=AuTZv_rRmeNBgCfEI_shBx2yFz4D
We here at Mitt Rocks believe this to be a wonderful success for the governor. There have been three quarters in a row of solid fund-raising! For Fred Thompson to have only raised 8M during his first quarter...and then for Romney to continue his impressive fundraising haul can only be seen as a sign that Mitt should be taken seriously!
So, that gives Romney a Total of 62M for the year...right at the heals of Senator Clinton 63M.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_po/campaign_fundraising;_ylt=AuTZv_rRmeNBgCfEI_shBx2yFz4D
The CEO President
The president of the United States wears many hats. He or she is a symbol of our country, a role model for our citizens, and an advocate for peace. But above all, the president of the United States is an administrator, a person who must ensure the country runs smoothly on a day-to-day basis. The US government is a large, complex organization with hundreds of thousands of employees, a vast number of departments and agencies, and multi-billion dollar budgets.
Of all the 2008 presidential candidates, which one can be most trusted to handle such high-level administrative responsibilities?
Is it a lawyer from Arkansas who spent her professional life working as an employee of law firms and riding the political coattails of her husband?
Is it a Hollywood actor who spent his time memorizing lines for TV shows and lobbying legislators as a hired gun?
Is it a junior Senator from Illinois who spent his short professional career in the courtoom and teaching school?
Is it a lawyer from New York who spent his career as a government employee and whose greatest administrative accomplishment was to fulfill his mayoral duties when disaster struck the city he served?
Finally, is it Mitt Romney, a Harvard Business School graduate who has advised the world's largest private corporations on how to efficiently manage their large budgets and complex operations?
Is it Mitt Romney, a man who founded highly regarded Bain Capital and led it to finance and manage some of the world's largest and most successful companies, including Staples, Brookstone, and Domino's Pizza?
Is it Mitt Romney, a man who as CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics successfully managed 20,000 volunteers and turned a multi-million budget deficit into a multi-million dollar profit?
Is it Mitt Romney, a man who as governor of Massachusetts inherited a 1.2 billion dollar deficit and in just three years tranformed it into a $700 million surplus?
The results speak for themselves. Mitt Romney is not only a man of solid character, intelligence, and polished presentation, but he is an outstanding administrator, a proven manager who has demonstrated his ability to successfully lead large, complex organizations. No other presidential candidate can boast such an impressive track record of administrative experience. No other candidate is so well equipped to handle the challenges of running the massive US government. Only Mitt Romney has the deep administrative experience this country needs to lead us out of the current quagmire and back to a position of economic and political stability.
Of all the 2008 presidential candidates, which one can be most trusted to handle such high-level administrative responsibilities?
Is it a lawyer from Arkansas who spent her professional life working as an employee of law firms and riding the political coattails of her husband?
Is it a Hollywood actor who spent his time memorizing lines for TV shows and lobbying legislators as a hired gun?
Is it a junior Senator from Illinois who spent his short professional career in the courtoom and teaching school?
Is it a lawyer from New York who spent his career as a government employee and whose greatest administrative accomplishment was to fulfill his mayoral duties when disaster struck the city he served?
Finally, is it Mitt Romney, a Harvard Business School graduate who has advised the world's largest private corporations on how to efficiently manage their large budgets and complex operations?
Is it Mitt Romney, a man who founded highly regarded Bain Capital and led it to finance and manage some of the world's largest and most successful companies, including Staples, Brookstone, and Domino's Pizza?
Is it Mitt Romney, a man who as CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics successfully managed 20,000 volunteers and turned a multi-million budget deficit into a multi-million dollar profit?
Is it Mitt Romney, a man who as governor of Massachusetts inherited a 1.2 billion dollar deficit and in just three years tranformed it into a $700 million surplus?
The results speak for themselves. Mitt Romney is not only a man of solid character, intelligence, and polished presentation, but he is an outstanding administrator, a proven manager who has demonstrated his ability to successfully lead large, complex organizations. No other presidential candidate can boast such an impressive track record of administrative experience. No other candidate is so well equipped to handle the challenges of running the massive US government. Only Mitt Romney has the deep administrative experience this country needs to lead us out of the current quagmire and back to a position of economic and political stability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
