Ann Romney, the "comeback kid" politically

How Ann Romney learned to stop worrying and love politics

[...] The 63-year-old mother of five and grandmother to 18 has emerged as an important humanizing force for Romney on the campaign trail. While the presumptive Republican nominee can come across as stiff and awkward on the stump, Ann charms the crowd with personal stories, casting her husband in a softer light. At a rally in Michigan on Friday she choked up while expressing gratitude that so many supporters in her home state had shown up. "Mitt and I grew up here, we fell in love here, and this is a special place for us," she said.

Despite her ongoing struggle with multiple sclerosis, which she was diagnosed with in 1998, Ann has attended hundreds of campaign events and often comes across as having more energy on the stump than her husband. She was at her husband's side at virtually every rally during the long primary—working the rope line alongside her spouse and often delivering a mini stump speech of her own.

In one instance, she tells the story of being a stay-at-home mom in charge of five "very naughty" sons when her husband, then a consultant with Bain Capital, was traveling. "He would call home, and he'd hear a very exasperated wife at the end of the phone," Ann said during a rally in South Carolina in January. "And he'd remind me to hang in there. It would be okay, that actually my job was more important than his job. And the cool thing was he meant it."

"You couldn't pay me to do this again"

Ann now seems so skilled and smooth in interviews it's hard to believe that she is actually something of a comeback kid, politically speaking.

During her husband's unsuccessful bid for a Massachusetts Senate seat, the Boston Globe blasted her in a scorched-earth profile that portrayed her as a chatty, over-privileged woman living a life so perfect it bordered on creepy. The two lines from the interview that most haunted the campaign: Ann's insistence that she and her Ken-doll-looking husband had never once had a fight during their marriage; and her statement that the couple was "struggling" when Mitt was getting his graduate degrees at Harvard. The two were supporting themselves by selling off American Motors stock given to Mitt by his wealthy father—something that didn't exactly resonate with voters working two jobs to survive. ("Mitt was still in school and we had no income except the stock we were chipping away at. We were living on the edge, not entertaining. No, I did not work. Mitt thought it was important for me to stay home with the children, and I was delighted," she said at the time.)

In an article titled "Daughter of Privilege Knows Little of Real World," the Boston Herald ripped off the most unflattering of the Globe's quotes. The experience left Ann incredibly angry, she later admitted. When a reporter asked her after her husband's defeat whether she would ever help him launch another race, she retorted: "Never. You couldn't pay me to do this again."

Writer Ron Scott, a Mormon who wrote MITT ROMNEY: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politicsand who lived in the same stake—sort of the Mormon version of a diocese—as the Romneys, said he remembers "gasping" when he first read the Globe profile, instantly recognizing it as a disaster. But now, Scott thinks the incident just shows how fully Romney trusted his wife—for good or for bad. Despite her political inexperience, her husband was willing to let Ann do an hour-long one-on-one interview without media training or a PR team to hold her hand. And Ann was happy to take that risk, confident she could come out on top.

Perhaps that assurance was misplaced at the time, but it seems fitting now.

"She looks...like she's enjoying the campaign," Scott said. "I think if you were to contrast between now and '94, I don't think she really enjoyed that campaign or the 2008 one, but this time around I think she really looks like she's come alive." [...]

   

Obama's illegal campaign contributions

Shocking, just shocking. The MSM is giving him a total pass on this. By Pamela Geller at the American Thinker:

Obama's Foreign Donors: The media averts its eyes

I have been researching, documenting and studying thousands upon thousands of Obama's campaign donations for the past month. Egregious abuse was immediately evident and I published the results of my ongoing investigation. Each subsequent post built a more damning case against Obama's illegal contribution activity.

The media took little notice of what I was substantiating. I went so far as to upload the documents so that anyone could do their own research. I asked readers to download the documents and a number of folks pitched in.

Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story? Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all that and so much more. The "Palestinian" brothers were proud and vocal of their "love" for Obama. Their vocal support on behalf of "Palestinians" spoke volumes to Obama's campaign.

And yet still no media.

But Obama pricked up his ears. He smelled trouble and while no media asked, he answered anyway. Sen. Obama's campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money. Having gone through all of Obama's refunds redesignations etc, no refund was made to Osama, Hossam, or Edwan Monir in the Rafah refugee camp. And still no media. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) There are many other irregularities as well, but the media only focuses on McCain's finances, on things that are not even illegal. Read the whole thing for more details and embedded links.

Pamela Geller is Editor and Publisher of the blog Atlas Shrugs. She intends to keep digging the dirt on this story. I will be watching with great interest.
     

Barack Obama; the larger, complete picture

From Thomas Sowell: A Living Lie

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.

[...]

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

[...]

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

[...]

It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) This describes so well what I was trying to explain about the wealthly San Francisco Democrats Obama was addressing: they purport to be for the working class, but they actually despise them. It was hard to pick excerpts from this, Thomas packed in so many relevant points, about Obama's senate record and much more. It's well worth reading the whole article.


John Fund at the WSJ also looks at Obama's flaws, and some of the reasons that they are only being examined now:

Obama's Flaws Multiply

Barack Obama's San Francisco-Democrat comment last week – about how alienated working-class voters "cling to guns or religion" – is already famous. But the fact that his aides tell reporters he is privately bewildered that anybody took offense is even more remarkable.

[...]

Mr. Obama has prospered in Democratic primaries. But as John Harris and Jim VandeHei note in Politico.com, that's in part because these primaries have "been an exercise in self-censorship" about Mr. Obama's weaknesses. It is "indisputably true," they write, that "Obama is on the brink of the Democratic nomination without having had to confront head-on the evidence about his general election challenges."

There are many. His statements that he wants to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, combined with his lack of foreign policy experience, could hurt him. And his aides are hard pressed to come up with any deviations in a voting record the nonpartisan National Journal calls the most liberal of any U.S. Senator.

As a state legislator he was even more off-center. In 1996, he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Senate approved 85-14 and President Clinton signed into law. He twice voted "present" on a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1999, he was the only state senator to oppose a law that prohibited early prison release for sex offenders.

Mr. Obama also backed a total ban on handguns, a move his campaign now says was the result of a rogue aide filling out a questionnaire. But Mr. Obama's own handwritten notes were found on the questionnaire, calling into question the campaign's version of what happened.

Everyone knows Mrs. Clinton's electoral vulnerabilities – GOP consultant Mike Murphy jokes that "half of the country thinks she rides a broom." But Mr. Obama has shown weakness with key Democratic constituencies. He's had to fend off concerns about his Middle East policies with Jewish voters; he's also won only a third of Hispanic primary voters.

Then there is trade, where his insincerity is at least as clumsy as Mrs. Clinton's. During the San Francisco episode, Mr. Obama had a throwaway line about how working-class voters fixate on "anti-trade sentiment" in order to vent their frustrations. But isn't it Barack Obama who has been spending months stirring up "anti-trade sentiment?" He has threatened to yank the U.S. out of the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Canada and Mexico renegotiate it. Last week, he denounced the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

According to Canadian diplomats, top Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee admitted to them that they could dismiss his man's anti-Nafta rhetoric. All of this makes Democrats wonder if Mr. Obama is ready for prime time.

But they have themselves to blame for letting him get this far largely unexamined. While Republicans tend to nominate their best-known candidate from previous nomination battles (Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and now John McCain), Democrats often fall in love during a first date. They are then surprised when all the relatives don't think he's splendid. [...]

That's almost laughable, except that the Democrats have take "emotional thinking" so far that Obama is practically already nominated, without even being thoroughly vetted and examined. I'm not sure which is more disturbing: the fact that he made it this far without being questioned and examined, or the fact that none of this seems to matter in the polls, as there seems to be a large mass of emotional thinkers who are going to follow their "feelings" and vote for him no matter what.

Also, I'm sure many of the Democrats running the party these days knew all these things, and didn't care. The Party has gone so far left, and they believe the American Public is so stupid, that they could ignore the inconvenient truths about him, and sell Obama "emotionally" as a Rockstar/Messiah/American Idol. Facts don't matter anymore, IF you can distract enough people from looking at them.


Neal Boortz has some more info on Obama's finances:

OBAMA'S DONATIONS

Interesting facts ... for anyone who thinks it matters.
     

Democrat Clowns Grab Spotlight, Fight Dirty

While the Obama - Clinton sideshow continues, dominating the Media Spotlight, the Democrats fight dirty by using every ploy available to them to try to tar John McCain with allegations of illegal campaign finance activity:

Democrats Sue FEC over McCain Finances

The irony is, they are suing the FEC for being non-functional. The FEC is non-functional because it has only two commissioners, not the needed four. There are only two because the Democrats have been blocking White House nominees for the commission since December 2005. They've even blocked a Democrat nominee. They are basically suing over a problem they have created and continue to perpetuate.

John McCain is being accused of exceeding spending caps, when he hasn't received a dime of public money. He filed an application, then withdrew it. The Democrats maintain that's a crime, while simultaneously making it impossible for the FEC to investigate. They cause the problem, then posture themselves as fighting for the solution. Typical Democrat BS posturing.

Meanwhile, Obama accepts funds from a sleazy lobbyist group, even as he claims he does not accept money form lobbyists:

Obama Took Money From Abramoff Firm? The Hell You Say!

That's a real story, more interesting than the Democrat's manufactured self-created drama with the FEC. We have more than enough of these Democrat clowns in the Congress and Senate, let's not put one in the White House too. John McCain would be a much better, serious choice.
     

Back to reality... where to from here?

The Editors of National Review Online have published an editorial, I'm going to repeat the whole thing here, because it's short:

The Comeback . . . Adult

Mitt Romney is a smart and talented man who has run a vigorous campaign based mostly on conservative issues. He vows to keep fighting all the way to the convention. But he took third place in several Southern states on Super Tuesday, a dismal showing for someone attempting to rally conservatives. He has our support. But it is now up to him to identify a plausible path to the nomination.

Sen. John McCain’s amazing comeback is a testament to the power of perseverance, conviction, and luck. It has been good to see his strength on Iraq rewarded. For the Republican nomination to be worth his having, however, he needs to consolidate his support on the Right — ideally, before the fall.

Doing that will require ignoring some of the spin coming from his allies on immigration. They say that McCain’s victories prove that opposition to amnesty is a losing issue. Actually, the anti-amnesty candidates — including Mike Huckabee, who has been running as a deportationist — have gotten majorities in most states. Even in Florida, where strong Hispanic support gave McCain a decisive win, the anti-amnesty candidates got nearly half the vote. McCain’s success proves that Republican politicians can survive supporting amnesty if they have compensating strengths. It does not prove that the issue helped him. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in the upcoming issue of National Review, conservatives cannot reasonably ask McCain to abandon his convictions on immigration. But they can ask him to say that he will defer any action on amnesty, or guest workers, until a few years after enforcement has been put into effect.

Immigration reform is the policy issue that gives conservatives the most concern about McCain. But they worry as much about his priorities as his policies, so he will not be able to win their support merely by listing all of the topics on which he agrees with them. Aside from his opposition to pork-barrel spending, there is no domestic conservative cause that McCain has taken up. We believe that a President McCain would prefer to appoint conservative judges, for example. But would he fight for them or cut a deal with Pat Leahy? That is the fear that underlies the complaints about McCain’s membership in the Gang of 14.

He has not always taken the lead even on national-security issues. Republicans in Washington want to extend and reform an intelligence-collection law, but Democrats are balking, threatening an interruption in operations. McCain’s voice would be helpful here, if he chose to use it.

McCain can win over most conservatives, but their support is not his by right. They will rally to him if he demonstrates that he believes that a broad range of conservative policies are among the things that are, to quote the title of one of his books, worth the fighting for.

The calm voice of the editors of NRO, helping us keep our eye on ball and focused on where it is in the bigger picture. Thank You NRO.


From Jim Geraghty at NRO's The Campaign Spot:
Hugh: Put Humpty Dumpty Together Before St. Paul

[...] Hugh is a party man, and a conservative, and a guy who keeps his eye on the long term. (Like him, I never buy into arguments that you win later by losing now.) [...]

Whatever our disappointments presently, let's keep our eye on the long term. That means using with whatever we have now, and making it work.


I think it's safe now to say the Reagan Coalition is dead. If you MUST have a post-mortem, try this one:
Religion and the death rattle of the GOP?

[...] So the South thinks it voted for a real conservative by voting for the Huckster? As I've said many times before, scratch a southern Republican, and you'll find a big-government Dixiecrat which is what Huckabee is. The Goldwater/Reagan conversion of Dixiecrats to Republican was skin deep.

What has amazed me is the depth of anti-Mormonism in evangelicals (not all - I know many who are practical and sensible when it comes to politics.) I find this completely illogical given that all religion is personal and subjective but then I'm not a domineering, authoritarian, dogmatic control freak as some religionists seem to be.

As for California: this is the first time that they have had a say in the primaries. In the 25 years that I lived there, it was all over by the time we voted in May and many people didn't even bother to vote. So far it looks like McCain is ahead with 44% (still not the magical 51%) but we won't know till tomorrow for sure. If I were Mitt, I'd concede now and not spend another dime of my own money on ungrateful and self-centered Republicans.

I've said before I'll settle for McCain. He could win against the Clintons but maybe not against the feel-good Obamania sweeping the country. Maybe the blundits are right and Americans are sick of Republicans and their endless pontificating and moralizing. [...]

The Reagan Coalition may have worked in it's time, but that was then, this is now. Now we have to form a new Coalition if we can. That coalition will consist of the willing. I'm willing, are you?
     

The Romney Surge is Beginning...

At least I think so. Romney is gaining support, and isn't giving up:

Romney Expects to Fight on Past Tuesday

Despite John McCain's building political momentum, Mitt Romney said Saturday he does not expect the Republican presidential nomination to be settled during the coming week and he is planning to continue campaigning beyond Super Tuesday.

The former Massachusetts governor said the number of states up for grabs, his prospects of succeeding in some of the 20-plus GOP contests that day, as well as a growing concern within the Republican Party about conferring the nomination on McCain give him reason to fight on.

[...]

During a news conference late in Minneapolis, Romney celebrated a caucus victory Saturday in Maine, noting that it came despite McCain's backing by the two U.S. senators in Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

"This is a people's victory," Romney said. "It is, in my view, also an indication that conservative change is something that the American people want to see. I think you're going to see a growing movement across this country to get behind my candidacy and to propel this candidacy forward. I think it's a harbinger of what you're going to see on Tuesday."

[...]

Romney also said his campaign has seen an uptick in donations - $345,000 in one day last week versus a typical daily take of $50,000 - as the race has crystallized into a two-man contest between him and McCain.

Two other candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, have lagged in national public opinion surveys and the GOP delegate count.

"I think one of the dynamics that changed is that conservative Republican and mainstream Republicans, all over the country, in the last 48 hours or so, have concentrated on the prospect of Senator McCain being our nominee and are saying, 'That's not the direction we want to go,'" Romney said. [...]

Good! If Super Tuesday doesn't decide it, he will keep going and may yet make it to the White House, as splintered parts of the Republican party now unite to rally around him.

Win Mitt Win!!!

Related Link: Good News For The Romney Camp?