Mitt Romney
Joe Scarborough: `I question the timing of the WaPo hit piece on Romney`
“It means nobody can run for president,” added Mark McKinnon.
Mitt Romney vs Obama`s Past ~ Clipping Hair vs. Infanticide (UPDATED: Anti-Bully, Bully ~ Selective Media Outrage)
A Must Read! From Gateway Pundit:
The Washington Post, a liberal rag that never investigated anything on the radical communist-mentored youth of Barack Obama, published a story today on Mitt Romney’s high school days. Apparently, Mitt picked on a kid once. It was a horrific crime. The Washington Post reported:
[…..]
The absolute horror! Ace of Spades offers analysis.
Meanwhile, In September 2008 abortion survivor Gianna Jessen joined Born Alive Truth in an illuminating ad that attacked Barack Obama for voting to snuff the life out of newborn survivors of abortion:
(See Gianna’s interview here) Barack Obama voted 4 times to support infanticide. Boy, that Mitt Romney sure is a horrible person, huh?
Gateway Pundit goes on to point out that In His Own Words… Obama Admits to Smoking Pot, Drinking Beer, Doing Drugs… And Bullying Fat Nerdy Black Girl in High School (Video):
Not only that, but it appears Obama shoved girls in school. While it is innocent playground antics, the point is that the Washington Post (who just “happened” to release this story to the day of Obama coming out for gay marriage — such a coincidence) doesn’t do the same investigation into Barry’s background! (NewsBusters asks, and rightly so, If “The WashPost Report a 5,000-Word Expose on Obama’s Cocaine Use In the Last Cycle?” They answer: Of Course Not!) Badger Pundit does a great job in piecing together the event — in Obama’s own words — and his “anti-bullying” appearance:
This is What Leadership Looks Like ~ Dem vs Repub
Charles Krauthammer Schools Nina Totenberg on Romney Not Denouncing Limbaugh
Contraception Question at Arizona Debate
Via The Blaze
BREAKING: World Net Daily`s Joseph Farah Already Leading the `Birther` Charge Against Marco Rubio ~ Misguided Interpretation of the Constitution
The Hill reports the following:
Conservative Joseph Farah on Tuesday evening predicted that “10 percent of the Republican vote” would fail to get behind Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as the hypothetical vice presidential nominee because they will believe the circumstances of his birth make him ineligible.
Farah has been one of the most prominent and persistent voices of the so-called “birther” movement, which argues that President Obama is not eligible to be president of the United States due to doubts about his birthplace and the citizenship of his parents.
Farah’s objection to Rubio might serve as a rallying cry to voters convinced that Obama’s presidency is illegal according to the rules set out in the Constitution.
“Rubio is not eligible,” Farah told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “He’ll lose 10 percent of the Republican vote because he is not a natural-born citizen. We’ve been through this with Obama now for four years.
Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. Farah’s argument against Rubio’s “natural born” status relies on a strict definition also used by Farah and others who raised doubts over Obama’s eligibility. The strict definition requires that both parents be legal citizens at the time of the birth.
Rubio’s parents became naturalized citizens in 1975, but were permanent legal residents of the United States when Rubio was born, according to Rubio’s office. Rubio’s official biography has already been scrutinized, due to questions over the date his parents arrived in the United States as Cuban exiles.
Farah’s website, World Net Daily, is now reporting on the potential controversy under the category “Certifigate.” The website first raised the question in May, but Farah raising the issue in a national television appearance could be a signal of things to come should Rubio appear on the Republican presidential ticket later this year.
And via The Daily Caller:
Host Sean Hannity said Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is more likely to share the ticket if Romney wins the GOP nomination. But Farah declared that Rubio would not be eligible.
HANNITY: I think that’s taken. It’s got to be Rubio. That’s my guess.
BOB BECKEL: If it’s not, somebody’s lost their mind.
FARAH: Rubio is not eligible.
HANNITY: Whoa, what do you mean, ‘Rubio’s not –
FARAH: He’ll lose 10 percent of the Republican vote because he is not a natural-born citizen. We’ve been through this with Obama now for four years.
HANNITY: I don’t believe that. I don’t think that’s going to work.
World Net Daily took the mantel of birtherism from the Democratic attacks against Obama, now they will lead the way against Marco Rubio:
MIAMI, Fla. – Some national news media are declaring that U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is a natural-born citizen and thus eligible for the presidency or vice presidency, even though Rubio’s constitutional eligibility remains unclear and the popular Florida Republican has himself downplayed any interest in running on a White House ticket.
In a Daily Caller piece today titled “Coming soon: Rubio ‘birthers,’” journalist Matt Lewis warns, “There is already a movement afoot (led by some on the fringe) to disqualify him from serving as president (which would presumably disqualify him from serving as vice president). That’s right – some are arguing that Rubio is not eligible because he is not a ‘natural-born citizen.’”
Lewis explains the logic by citing a May 22 WND report examining the issue, which noted, “While the Constitution does not define ‘natural-born citizen,’ there is strong evidence that the Founding Fathers understood it to mean someone born of two American citizens.”
Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller thinks those questioning Marco Rubio’s natural-born citizenship are racists or misguided adherents to the Constitution.
That report examined both Rubio and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, both of whose parents were legal U.S. residents but not legal U.S. citizens when the future politicians were born.
“Who knows how big this thing will get?” asks Lewis. “Maybe it’s just a small fringe movement – but it is a ‘thing.’ The good news here, of course, is that the rise of Rubio birthers proves that birthers are not merely partisan hypocrites who solely attack Democrats like Obama. They are, instead, either consistent racists – or consistently misguided adherents to the Constitution. But hey – at least they aren’t partisan hacks.”
Michael Medved took a call from a birther who used the same line of thinking that Joseph Farah applies to the constitution, Medved uses the callers own source to explain why Obama (and now Marco Rubio) are eligible:
Joe Scarborough Brings to the Forefront Medias Incompetence in Comparing Negative Ads Between Obama and Republicans
Via NewsBusters:
Al `not so sharp` Sharpton Showing His Lack of Knowledge on MSNBC (Plus: Congressman John Campbell)
Forbes explains the gig
…[Romney’s] low rate is due to the fact that almost all of his income was in the form of dividends and capital gains, which are currently taxed at only 15%. (As he pointed out in the last debate, he would have paid almost nothing under his opponent Newt Gingrich’s proposal to not tax investment income at all.) He then used large charitable contributions and other deductions to further reduce his taxable income.
While this doesn’t apply much to those of us with earned income (which is taxed at higher ordinary income tax rates plus the FICA tax), there are lessons for how we can similarly minimize our taxes on our investments. Specifically, we can take advantage of the differences in how various investments are taxed. Qualified dividends and long-term capital gains are taxed at a maximum 15% rate while cash and bond interest are taxed at ordinary income tax rates, which can be as high as 35%. By keeping as many of our tax-inefficient investments like bonds and cash in retirement accounts as possible, we can pay more of our investment taxes at the 15% capital gains and dividend rate and less at the higher ordinary income tax rate.
Let’s take an example. Imagine you have a total investment portfolio of $500k and you want to have $300k of that in stocks and $200k in bonds and cash. Let’s say that you have a pre-tax 401(k) with $300k. To minimize your taxes, you would have the entire $200k of bonds and cash in the 401(k) plus an additional $100k of the money in the stocks. The remaining $200k in taxable investments would all be in stock so that most of your taxable investment income would be at the 15% rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.
There’s another advantage of having stocks and stock funds outside of retirement plans. In this case, you can actually make the volatility of the stock market work for you. That’s because when we have an investment that loses value (and who didn’t have at least one over these last few years) we can sell it at the end of the year and write the loss off of our taxes. These capital gain losses can offset gains we have that year or even better, up to $3k of regular income tax if we don’t have any capital gains. You can carry losses over $3k to future years.
Sen. John Campbell explains the issue with how the press twists Romney’s tax return info to suit their needs:
History vs. Romney ~ Taking Drudge Report to Task
Take note I have posted smears from the Gingrich side that are also just as untrue. This from Gateway Pundit:
It should be clear by now that the elites in the Republican Party will do and say anything to destroy Newt Gingrich or anyone else who challenges the Romney machine. Drudge, Coulter, Britt Hume, the folks at National Review, Jen Rubin etc. are just a few of the prominent conservatives trying to not only persuade you that Romney is some sort of conservative, but that Newt Gingrich, Reagan’s Young Lieutenant, is some kind of squish.
Legal Insurrection today sets the record straight on the Gingrich record. Professor Jacobson dug up this video from 1995 where Nancy Reagan tells a conservative audience that,
You’ll have to decide for yourself how much of the latest Romney smear campaign you’re going to believe but as Jeffrey Lord writes, “Quite to the contrary of the Romney message, Newt Gingrich was in fact one of Reagan’s Young Lieutenants.“
The linked article of Jeffrey Lord in the Gateway post ends like this:
… This utterly dumb line of attack for Romney is as bad if not worse than Gingrich’s flirtation with attacking Bain Capital. It raises exactly all the questions of Romney’s vulnerabilities. Why, for example, did Romney deliberately play the wimp when it comes to defending Ronald Reagan in Massachusetts? At precisely the time in the fall of 1994, it should be noted, when Newt Gingrich was leading Chapter 2 in the Reagan Revolution? Is Romney really trying to draw attention to the fact that while Gingrich and hundreds of Republicans were on the verge of a historic landslide retaking the House by attaching themselves to the Reagan legacy… Romney ran from Reagan… and got clobbered?
If even those simple political basics can’t be learned, which in Romney’s case now include not just the broader inability to defend either Reagan or free markets but the quite specific inability to use the general principle of free markets and capitalism to defend himself over the inevitable “Mr. 1%” accusations — this should be a red flag for conservatives.
Who knows why Romney gets tongue tied? Or, as our friends at the Wall Street Journal note, “befuddled.”
This guy is not so befuddled:
Legal Insurrection has been the leader on dealing with this topic of bashing Newt with false ideas, and is even bringing the fight (and rightfully so) between “cousins” to the DrudgeReport with history and facts, LI has this:
…For several days Drudge has been running almost around-the-clock negative banners against Newt, hyping negatives and burying news which contradicts the Romney campaign narrative that Newt was anti-Reagan.
Against the anti-Newt crusade stands a wealth of counter-viewpoints of people who were in a position to know and who share very differenct recollections of Newt and Reagan, via Josh Painter in the comments:
Reagan Nat’l Security Advisor Bud McFarlane: http://bit.ly/zd9eAF
Reagan Economist Art Laffer: http://bit.ly/xEDETi
Reagan WH political director Jeffrey Lord: http://bit.ly/zw2ZMb
Reagan Policy Analyst Peter Ferrara http://bit.ly/zq1QxI
Reagan media consultant Richard Quinn: http://on.msnbc.com/y2sPM2
Reagan’s Speechwriting Dir. Bently Elliott: http://thedc.com/xOkDvA
Reagan’s older son Michael Reagan: http://bit.ly/yYVy7L
Reagan’s beloved wife Nancy: http://bit.ly/zrWvAw
I’ll add to that Peter Robinson, former Reagan speechwriter, who wrote the historic Berlin Wall address in which President Reagan urged Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!”:
Newt shared the frustrations of many conservatives, including, from time to time, me, that the President permitted the bureaucracy to prove persistently feckless, undermining his program–as you’ll recall if you’re of a certain age, conservatives were always insisting that the President’s staff should “let Reagan be Reagan.” If Newt mouthed off, giving vent to these frustrations, so be it. He was in Congress. That was, in a sense, his job. And at one time or another, every conservative of any standing felt exasperated or worried–and urged the President not to go soft either on Communism or on our own bureaucracy. Newt’s comments here place him in the company of William F. Buckley, Jr.–WFB vented his frustrations more artfully, but he vented them–and I’d have thought that for our friends at NR that would be quite good enough.
Drudge has 30 million visits a day on his side. We have history on our side. Make it known.
Obama Part of the 1% (In Income and In Charity Giving)
From Gateway Pundit:
Obama charitable contributions
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.
The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.
Romney charitable contributions
Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14%
