The Reason Why Romney Picked Paul Ryan For VP

Robert Costa - As Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has risen in the vice-presidential sweepstakes, a few political observers have joked that the athletic 42-year-old congressman, with his jet-black hair and square jaw, looks like one of Romney’s five sons. But according to Romney confidants, Ryan’s appeal to the former Massachusetts governor is more professional than filial. 

“He is the kind of smart, young guy that Mitt likes and Mitt would have probably hired at Bain,” says Mike Murphy, a former Romney adviser. “He shares the intellectual talent and positive outlook of the guys who Mitt mentored for decades.”
Back when he was running Bain Capital, Romney was known for following a management method called the “Bain Way.” In their book, The Real Romney, Michael Kranish and Scott Helman describe it as “intensely analytical and data driven.” It required a “healthy ego,” the authors write, “to go into a business and tell an owner how to run his own firm better.”
It also required a specific type of talent. Bain Capital operated as a small shop, and Romney took care to hire ambitious and serious business-school graduates — fresh-thinking young men he could develop, not just seasoned Wall Street hands.
In the late 1970s, “I was asked to help recruit bright, recently graduated MBAs to join the firm,” Romney recalls in his book, No Apology. “We were a cutting-edge company, we paid high salaries, and we usually landed the cream of the crop.”
Edward Conard, a partner at Bain Capital from 1993 to 1997 and the author of Unintended Consequences, tells NRO that Romney’s effectiveness was sharpened by his relationships with the rising-star consultants he recruited, so he is not surprised to see Romney form a bond with the analytical Ryan. Romney may not have been an overly warm figure in the office, he says, but he was clearly drawn to uber-competent thinkers.  “I saw it firsthand,” Conard says. “Romney challenged us to challenge each other, and he was never afraid to ask tough questions, or answer them. He surrounded himself with the sharpest, most talented guys and ran the place like a consulting firm, where employees were expected to create value, to do their homework, and present proposals rooted in facts. In Ryan, you see that kind of politician; he’s not slinging bull.”
Inside Romney’s Boston headquarters, aspects of the Bain Way have seeped into the campaign effort. Spencer Zwick, a 32-year-old private-equity investor, who was dubbed Romney’s “sixth son” by Politico, runs Romney’s finance team. Bob White, a mid-fifties former Bain Capital partner, is one of Romney’s closest advisers, and a frequent presence at Romney’s side.
“Bob White is an important adviser, and he has known the governor since the early days at Bain,” says Ron Kaufman, a Romney strategist and former White House political director. “While they’re not the entire campaign, people like Spencer and Bob come out of the business world, know the governor very well, and have perspectives and skills that are valued.”

How Low Will President Obama Go on Next Campaign Ad?

Earlier this week, citizens took to Twitter to express their outrage at the deplorable Obama SuperPAC’s  ”Romney killed my wife” ad. They decided to come up with #OctoberObamaAds; if Team Obama is sinking so sewer-level low now, then what could it possibly come up with in October?
Now, with the apparent collusion between Team Obama and the SuperPAC exposed, it looks like more slime won’t even wait until October. So, what will be the #NextDemocratCampaignAd? Will it include a game-changing bombshell like Mitt Romney is actually the one who discovered The Black Eyed Peas? Oh, the horror!

President Obama And NDAA "Liberty Lost"

Additional research and investigation into the controversial National Defense Authorization Act found something very interesting is not apparently being reported by the U.S. media.  Readers will recall that controversy that surrounded the liberty-threatening NDAA legislation, passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate and signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama last New Year’s Eve.
That law essentially gave the government the right to arrest and detain, without due process, American citizens on significantly vague and broad charges ostensibly related to terrorism. The legislation opened a “Pandora’s box” of unpleasant possibilities that undermine our Constitutional rights and threaten our liberties unlike any other time in our national history.
Supporters of the NDAA, along with the media, were quick to point to a “signing statement” penned by Obama expressing his concern over the liberty restricting rights of the law, as if that somehow made the language of the new law suddenly conform to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obviously, it did no such thing, but people were apparently comforted by this eight-page cross-my-heart promise that Obama and his redesigned national security apparatus would never use it for “bad.” Obama said he was uncomfortable with the particular language of section 1021 (and related portions) that called for arrests and indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens under the broad brush of terrorism.
Despite what you’ve been told, it is obvious that Obama and his cohorts are not uncomfortable with those provisions, and are quietly fighting to make sure the controversial provisions remain.

A legal challenge goes unreported

It appears that the fight against tyranny and oppression creates some interesting alliances on both sides. On January 13, 2012, a group of plaintiffs that include socialist and anarchist Noam Chomsky, political activist Daniel Ellsberg, the U.S. Day of Rage, and others filed a suit in the United States District Court, in and for the Southern District of New York, challenging the Constitutionality of the controversial sections of the NDAA. They asked the court for “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief with respect to one section, (indeed one page) of that voluminous legislation: Section 1021” (of the NDAA). The case was heard by Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest.
The defendants of this case were names as Barack Obama (individually and as a representative of the United States), Leon Panetta, John McCain, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor.
Despite any sentiments that might be evoked by the identity, social and political views of the plaintiffs, even the most conservative among us would be hard pressed to argue with the merits of their lawsuit. The NDAA shreds the Constitution, and these plaintiffs took legal action to stop it. Those are simply the unbiased facts of the matter, all which apparently are of little interest to the Obama-pandering corporate media. But wait, it gets better.
After an expedited discovery process, an evidentiary hearing was held on March 30, 2012. The federal judge in this matter and all of the plaintiffs showed up in person at that hearing except one, who provided testimony by sworn declaration pursuant to previous authority granted by the court. No one from the government offered any testimony, provided any documentation, or made the slightest noise at the hearing.
I’ll spare any further writings about the legal minutia of the process, except to say that the government attempted to argue, in post-hearing memoranda, that section 1021 of the NDAA is an extension of the Authorization for use of Military Force (AUMF).

Federal Court ruling: NDAA Section 1021 plaintiff’s motion GRANTED

On May 16, 2012, federal court Judge Katherine Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion for relief in a 68-page ruling, meaning a win for the plaintiffs and a legal set-back for the U.S. government. She writes that “preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with caution,” and refreshingly adds that “it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.”

Blackout: Obama, U.S. Government is appealing

Recall that Obama stated his opposition to Section 1021 of the NDAA in his signing statement, or the very portion of the legislation that was at issue in this legal suit. Why, then, has Obama, through his legal department, filed an appeal with this federal court to overturn the ruling?
It would seem that by enjoining Section 1021 of the NDAA, a U.S. citizens rights to due process would be protected, which again addresses the exact issue to which Obama dedicated eight-(8) pages of a “signing statement.” Based on the government’s actions, it would appear that Obama and his appointees have no reservations about section 1021 of the NDAA, and that the signing statement is, as former President Richard Nixon might have said, “inoperative.”
Equally disconcerting is that the U.S. media appears to be unwilling to report on this “inoperative” statement or the apparent bi-polar actions of this “administration.” The American people deserve better from our leaders as well as our media. Shame on both.

President Obama Not Calling The Plays In White House

J.D. Longstreet - There is something very telling about an incumbent president asking an “impeached” president to go to bat for him.  It’s sort of like someone in court for, oh, jay walking, having a car thief testify as to the character of the accused in court. It’s wildly weird!
Those of us who correctly sized up Obama as a dyed-in-the-wool, set -in-concrete, NARCISSIST—even before his election, and THEN having our suspicions ratified by Obama himself, well, we’re scratching our heads and asking amongst ourselves—WHO, exactly, IS running Obama?
Here’s the thing (as they say):  Left to his own devices a man of Obama’s character would NEVER, I mean—NEVER—have someone else come to his rescue in public, especially in public!  NEVER!
Yet, with a clatter of hooves, a cloud of dust, and a hearty “Hi-Yo-Democratic Party,” comes the white-haired man of shame, er, I mean, man of fame, he of the “I did not have sex with that woman,” of the spotted dress, of sex in the Oval Office, of licentiousness personified—none other than William Jefferson (Blythe III) Clinton, AKA “ole Bill”—comes riding to Obama’s rescue in full view of the cameras of national and international television.
What’s wrong with this picture?  Just about everything.  Unfortunately—it will probably work!
Our man of international mystery—Barack Hussein Obama, AKA Barry Soetoro—now President of the United States, must be absolutely furious.
So why is Barry, I mean, Barack, going along with this humiliating slap in the face?
I’m convinced Obama has no say in the matter. He has to do it. It is being forced upon him.
What?  How the heck do you force the most powerful man on the planet to suffer this sort of humiliating indignity before the eyes of the world?
The answer is easy.
Barry’s not calling the plays.  That Soetoro, guy, you know, the one we know as Obama, ain’t in charge. He’s a front man, a puppet, a marionette.  Someone, or some thing, is pulling his strings—and—to keep his rather cushy job he must sit down, shut up,  and let the grownups take care of his reelection.
Gotta tell ya, folks,  a tale of a guy who comes out of nowhere, leaving a trail of diversions for anyone seeking to nail down his previous life, and winds up as President of the United States, well, if you published it as a book it would, of necessity, be published as a novel, a fictional tale of intrigue, of international skulduggery, an immense flimflam— a con job.
But—HEY!  It WORKED!  And you can’t argue with success—or—can you?
Actually, you CAN argue that the emperor has no clothes, but as we have seen, hardly anyone pays attention, or admits to paying attention, because if they did, then they’d have to admit that they had been suckered—played for fools—and lost. NOBODY wants to admit THAT.  So, their own egos get in the way of exposing the truth and everybody plays along with the game while watching everybody else from the corner of their eyes.
This thing with Clinton and Obama is worrisome on a number of levels.  Unless there has been some sort of epiphany, Clinton is not an admirer of Obama.  It was clear during the 2008 campaign that Obama was not overly fond of the Clintons, either. 
Yeah.  It makes you feel like you need a shower, doesn’t it?
Some feel it is “panic” move by the democrats because they know from their own internal polling that Obama is in trouble against Romney this November.  I don’t buy that—I mean the “panic” part.  The democrats are far to cool and conniving to be in any fear—at least at this point.  That may come later, but not yet.
No, I think the “big guns,” the people pulling the strings, are making a move to prop up their puppet, Obama, because it became clear that leaving him to his own devices in THIS campaign would be disastrous.  Obama is so full of himself that he apparently felt safe in allowing his Marxist ideology to shine through—prematurely.  (Remember the “You didn’t build that” slip-up?) That could not be allowed.  So out from stage left comes the “go-to” guy, Bill Clinton.
And the teleprompters have been rushed back into service to make darn sure that Obama makes no more of his Marxist declarations like—you guessed it— “You didn’t build that!”
The really “creative” nonsensical declarations will be assigned to the Vice-President—as if he needed orders to do what he does the moment his lips begin to move.
With his Central Casting used car salesman appearance and presentation, Biden is seen as a joke by everyone except the Democratic Party’s “true believers,” anyway.  But somebody has to shovel the manure and Joe does wonderfully at that job, for which, he seems uniquely equipped.
As the campaign moves along it is becoming painfully clear that Obama is NOT his own man but is answering to the pressure on his strings from the person, or persons, behind the curtain.

Romney Considering Gov. Christie For Vice Pressident

ALLAHPUNDIT - Bill Kristol’s been a Christie booster for ages so it’s tempting to dismiss this as wishful thinking, but I don’t know. Makes more sense now than it did three months ago.

Speaking of Christie: As of Friday, when we wrote the editorial [recommending Ryan or Rubio for VP], we’d been led to believe Christie wasn’t in serious consideration. We now have reason to think he may be. So to be clear: We’d certainly include him with Ryan and Rubio as potential gold medal finalists. As to choosing among the three of them? A photo finish. But choosing a VP candidate who will help Romney run a big, forward looking campaign—that is not a close call.

We’re three months out from election day and Romney’s favorables are still upside down. In Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll, Obama’s suddenly ahead for just the second time in two months. The last wispy chances of an economic recovery before election day evaporated long ago, yet according to Nate Silver’s statistical model of the electoral college, Obama would crack 300 EVs (barely) if the election were held today. If you believe Major Garrett, even Romney’s own advisors are worried that he’s been “too rich for too long” to put some undecideds at ease. And because political news today moves faster than it did 30 years ago, there’s no telling if the convention and the debates will shift votes as dramatically as they did for Reagan against Carter.
If, in other words, the campaign’s decided that it needs some oomph, who better than Christie to provide it? Arguably only Rubio would jolt the race more, but Rubio’s lack of experience would be a bigger problem for the ticket than Christie’s would for the simple, silly, superficial reason that Rubio looks so much younger than his age. People will look at him and be amazed that he’s 35, a bad reaction when you’re presenting him as the man you want one heartbeat away. Christie’s older and looks the part of a seasoned pol even though he’s only held major political office as long as Rubio has, so he’s easier (though necessarily easy) to sell in that role. Beyond that, Christie’s better suited to the campaign demands of the VP role than Rubio is: Romney needs an attack dog and that’s not really who Rubio is. He’s more of an uplift guy a la Obama 2004 than a streetfighter, whereas Christie’s the preeminent streetfighter in the GOP right now. And like Rubio and Paul Ryan and precious few others, Christie can deliver big-picture fiscal conservatism on the stump like few other politicians in America can.
The argument against picking him has always been that (a) he’ll overshadow Romney and (b) he’s enough of a loose cannon that he’ll say something damaging on the stump. As to the latter point, Christie’s been stumping for Romney for months without any miscues; in fact, he’s trusted enough that Romney chose him, among the Republican all-stars who were with him, to give the closing remarks at the big GOP confab in Colorado a few days ago. He’s not a dummy. He can rein himself in with the stakes this high. As to the former point, the more the election looks like it’s slipping away from Romney, the more I’d bet he’s willing to make peace with the idea of a larger-than-life VP if that guy can help him win. And Christie probably can help: Just four days ago, an FDU poll of the deep blue state of New Jersey found CC with a 55 percent approval rating there, including 65 percent approval among independents. Some conservatives would argue that that’s because Christie, apart from fiscal issues, is basically a centrist, but I doubt Romney cares about that either. If tea partiers are willing to line up behind the guy who signed off on RomneyCare in the interest of bouncing The One, adding a guy to the ticket who believes in global warming isn’t going to deter them. The question at this point is, simply, would Christie increase Romney’s chances of winning more than any of the other shortlisters? There’s an argument to be made that, yeah, he would. Risky, but potentially high reward.