Did Mitt Romney get his facts wrong on Reagan?

As I wrote in my previous blog posting about Mitt Romney; there is this little story about Romney getting his facts wrong about Ronald Reagan.

It comes via the Weekly Standard:

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Mitt Romney is recounting a Jim Baker anecdote in which President Reagan ordered Baker, as White House chief of staff, to hold no national security meetings over a hundred day period early in his first term so that President Reagan and his team could focus on the economy. If the Journal‘s reporting is accurate—and I don’t believe the Romney camp has challenged it—Romney should stop telling this false and foolish tale.
[….]

“Given the challenges a Romney administration will face – from a spiraling Syria to key decisions on the way forward in Afghanistan to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program and the threats from al Qaeda in Yemen and East Africa – it is unlikely Romney will have the luxury of ignoring foreign policy for his first 100 days….But the fact that Romney thinks it would be desirable to ignore the world for his first 100 days is troubling. Yes, the American people are focused on the economy – and understandably so. But Romney isn’t running for treasury secretary – he is running for Commander in Chief. And those responsibilities begin on Day 1 of his presidency.”
What’s more, I can’t believe the story is true. Or if Reagan did once say what Baker says he said, it was an expression of exasperation after one (presumably unsatisfactory) meeting that neither Reagan nor Baker followed through on. In fact, I’ll buy Jim Baker a very good dinner next time he’s in Washington if he or anyone else can find a 100-day stretch (or a ten-day stretch) of the Reagan presidency in which President Reagan was involved in no national security meetings. I encourage interested readers to research this eminently researchable topic, and e-mail us what you find at webeditor@weeklystandard.com. I was able to spend just a few minutes scrolling thought the Reagan Foundation’s helpful account of President Reagan’s daily schedule, and I see no week, let alone three months, in which President Reagan doesn’t seem to have held some sort of national security and foreign policy meetings. To say nothing of the fact that he ran for the presidency highlighting national security issues, and was a historic president in large part because of his national security accomplishments.
So, reminder to Mitt Romney: With respect to the presidency, national security isn’t a bug; it’s a feature.

To be quite honest, I do not believe this to be overly damaging to his campaign; like the previous story I reported, this just seems to be a matter of getting his message tightened up a bit. It might be that Romney was fed some inaccurate information. Although, I have to wonder if this piece by Bill Kristol is not some sort of underhanded Neoconservative attempt to kneecap Romney. It would make sense, Romney has not been exactly thundering hawk, when it comes to Iran. Maybe this is supposed to be a gentle reminder as to who controls the strings in the GOP. Of course, I have to watch it, or the Wilsonian Republican Blogosphere will start a crusade against me again. 😉

The U.K. Telegraph prints a bogus story on Mitt Romney

It seems that either The U.K. Telegraph is either getting some bad information or someone over there has an axe to grind with Romney.

The story via The Telegraph:

As the Republican presidential challenger accused Barack Obama of appeasing America’s enemies in his first foreign policy speech of the US general election campaign, advisers told The Daily Telegraph that he would abandon Mr Obama’s “Left-wing” coolness towards London.

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.
Mr Romney on Wednesday embarks on an overseas tour of Britain, Israel and Poland designed to quash claims by Mr Obama’s team that he is a “novice” in foreign affairs. It comes four years after Mr Obama’s own landmark foreign tour, which attracted thousands of supporters.
He lands in London early on Wednesday morning, in advance of meetings with David Cameron and other senior ministers on Thursday. He will also meet Ed Miliband and Tony Blair before attending two lucrative fundraisers and the opening ceremony of the Olympics.
[….]
“Obama is a Left-winger,” said another. “He doesn’t value the Nato alliance as much, he’s very comfortable with American decline and the traditional alliances don’t mean as much to him. He wouldn’t like singing ‘Land of Hope and Glory’.”
The two advisers said Mr Romney would seek to reinstate the Churchill bust displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush but returned to British diplomats by Mr Obama when he took office in 2009. One said Mr Romney viewed the move as “symbolically important” while the other said it was “just for starters”, adding: “He is naturally more Atlanticist”.
Mr Obama has appeared less interested in relations with London than Mr Bush. He repeatedly rebuffed Gordon Brown when the then-prime minister sought a meeting at the UN in 2009 and was criticised for responding to an elaborate gift with a set of DVDs that did not work in Britain.

The whole quote, if true, has all the trappings of dog-whistle racism. The problem is, according to Jeff over at “The Lid”, not a word of it is even remotely true:

There is one problem with the quote, it is a fraud!
Andrea Saul, Romney’s press secretary, disputed the comments and emphasized that they did not reflect the beliefs of the former Massachusetts governor.

It’s not true. If anyone said that, they weren’t reflecting the views of Governor Romney or anyone inside the campaign,” she told CBSNews.com in an email I emailed my contact within the campaign who backed up Ms Saul’s response.
The fact that Romney denied that anyone in his campaign made that comment doesn’t matter to the US press, neither does the fact that Mr Swaine hasn’t backed up his charge with proof.

Good work on the part of Jeff to put out the truth on this story. I really do not believe this one to be a effort to knock Romney on the part of the Telegraph; however, I do believe it to be a result of some bad sourcing or planting of a false story, by someone who might have an axe to grind with Mitt Romney. This happens quite a bit in Politics.

However, Mitt Romney does have a bit of another problem, which I am covering in my next blog posting.

Yes, Mr. President, I built this

(~~Full disclosure: I am not voting for Mitt Romney)~~ Update: When I originally wrote this, I was not going to vote for Mitt Romney; things changed, I am voting for him.

(H/T To HotAir.com)

With my own hands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr49t4-2b8

…and please, Mr. President; don’t tell me words don’t matter.

(Cross-posted to my business blog)

Living proof that liberals are classless human beings

Before we begin, a little music….:

For your reading pleasure:

DEAD ANDY BREITBART IS NOW ROMNEY’S TOP CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST
DougJ / Balloon Juice: Bad like Jesse James
BooMan / Booman Tribune: Welcome Back to Palinville — I think Steve M. is right.‘

Go read that stuff and come back here. I’ll wait.

Now, did you read that? Let me ask you this; what if we Conservatives mocked a dead liberal like that? Just a note: Andrew Breitbart did say some nasty things about Ted Kennedy, which is why I was not a huge fan of his. But, still, what if we Conservatives mocked a dead liberal blogger, or public figure who was liberal? We would be poo poo’ed from one end of spectrum to the other! Not only this, but if someone said something as nasty as what this “no more Mr. nice blog” said and it was about a liberal; the Non-Fox media would be all over it. However, because it is a liberal blogger, and a nasty son-of-a-bitch one at that, not a word is said about it.

My friends, this right here; along with a good deal of other issues, is why this skeptical left-of-center, American populist kind of a guy simply walked away from the Democrats in 2008 and has not looked back since. They have nothing anymore, nothing that this skeptical person wants to buy anymore. All they have is nastiness, like this; class warfare, and racial resentment. They have no solutions, they have nothing for the middle class and the working man. They are the party of the minority and the identity politics crowd; the part of hand outs and freeloaders.

It is truly a sad thing to behold, all the years of work done by great statesmen, like Roosevelt, Truman and many before them; is being squandered by people who simply hate this Country, its morals and its legacy. These are the ones who gave us LBJ and his disastrous “great society.” They are the ones who gave us Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and now this disastrous neo-leftist Barack Hussein Obama.

The Democratic Party, which President Ronald Reagan referred to as the “Honorable Party” has given way to the neo-leftist party. They proved that to me, when the Obama campaign basically used Chicago-style tactics of death threats and dirty pool against a fellow Democrat. This is why I left them; because the honor left that party long ago. Not only that, but the Democrats scheme to bring down our capitalist system though the passage of a clause of to a bill, which turned out to be a rather benign piece of legislation into a ticking time bomb.

Yes, that my friends, is the party that I made the horrible mistake of voting for until 2008, when I finally stopped making excuses for them and realized that party had finally become — and that is a cesspool of hate, racial resentment, class warfare, murder (of babies), God denial and more. I simply had enough and switched to the side that honors God, America and the individual. No, I do not mean the Republican Party — I mean the side of Conservatism.

It is a choice that I do not regret.

Update: Apparently one of the liberals objects to my linking to him. Two words: Tough rocks. He also seems to have a bit of reading comprehension problem; which is typical of the left. He also sent one of his sock puppets to argue with me. Sorry, I don’t argue with idiots, and ya’ll bunch of idiots. But, thanks just the same for the traffic. 😀

Video: Glenn Back On Tim Pawlenty being Mitt Romney’s VP Pick, “AAAAAAAAAAAAH!“

Say what you want, this video is very funny!

Your browser does not support iframes.

(via Washington Examiner)

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz needs to put on her Tzniut and shut the hell up

Honestly, this woman needs to put on her Tzniut and shut the hell up.

The Video:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Quote:

“You know, this is a campaign for president of the United States. Mitt Romney is running for president of the United States. He and his campaign leadership need to put their big boy and big girl pants on and defend his record,” DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said on MSNBC today.
“They don’t want to show us his record. They’re running the most secretive campaign for president of a major party in history,” she added.

This stupid woman has about as much credibility as President Barack Obama. Again, proving that the Democrats chose Identity Politics over experience.

I really hope that the Democrats enjoy losing in November, because that is right where they are headed.

More @ HotAir.com

Somehow, I doubt this to be true

Somehow, I doubt this to be true about Mitt Romney.

Via Washington Times:

Two of Mitt Romney’s top foreign policy advisers slammed the Obama administration this week for failing to address a mounting humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan, saying Mr. Obama’s mishandling of the region’s ongoing crisis offers a window into how a Romney White House would do things differently.
The administration’s soft posture toward Sudanese President Omar Bashir has paved the way for continued atrocities against civilians, the advisers said. They added that Mr. Obama’s habit of taking U.S. allies for granted also is on full display when it comes to South Sudan — which commemorated its first anniversary as an independent country this week.
“I think the South Sudanese feel they’ve been abandoned and the United States is working more as a neutral mediator than as an advocate on their behalf,” said Andrew Natsios, a special adviser to the Romney campaign who headed the U.S. Agency for International Development under President Bush in the early 2000s.
Were Mr. Romney president, added Richard Williamson, another of the campaign’s foreign policy advisers, he would “provide political leadership” in confronting Lt. Gen. Bashir, who continues to hold the Sudanese presidency despite having been indicted on war-crimes charges by the U.N.-backed International Criminal Court.

I really doubt this to be true. Because for one, there’s no oil there. For two, there’s no nation to protect. So, I doubt Romney would even remotely care about this at all.

Besides this, why is it that America has to be the World’s policeman? Why can’t the U.N. handle this? Why does America have to spend its money, blood and treasure; on a Country that most likely hates us anyhow?

That’s what I’d like to know.

Pretty Much, Yes

They are the new birthers

Which is why I will not waste a moment of excess bandwidth on them. Except to link to this good pairing of stupidity.

Round up of all the Bain stupidity here

Classless Liberal Blacks Boo Mitt Romney at NAACP Convention

The Video: (H/T to Buzzfeed)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv5j1fZ-37g

The Story via the Hill:

Mitt Romney told the NAACP on Wednesday that President Obama has made it worse for African-Americans “in almost every way.”
“If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, then a chronically bad economy would be equally bad for everyone,” Romney told the nation’s leading civil rights group at their national convention in Houston, Texas. “Instead, it’s worse for African-Americans in almost every way. The unemployment rate, the duration of unemployment, average income and median family wealth are all worse for the black community.”
While Obama carried the black vote in a landslide in 2008 and leads Romney 92 to 2 percent among black voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday, Romney hopes his economic pitch will resonate with a group that has been disproportionately affected by the economic downturn. He’s made a similar appeal to other voting blocs, such as Hispanics and women.

I seem to remember that during the state of the union address given by that a white man, named Joe Wilson dared to call Obama’s bluff during that address and roundly condemned by the press, democrats and even republicans. But yet, black liberals can boo a white man running for President and that’s okay.

It is just another example of the sick liberal poisoned society we live in. It is racist, and the NAACP should be condemned for fostering this sort of hateful mentality among their members.

Blogger Roundup Here

Video: Obama, who can he be?

(Via)